1
00:00:00,311 --> 00:00:03,311
Thank you.

2
00:00:30,311 --> 00:00:32,311
Thank you.

3
00:01:00,311 --> 00:01:03,311
Thank you.

4
00:01:33,251 --> 00:01:33,931
Hello,

5
00:01:36,291 --> 00:01:39,851
Here we all are, and we have a special guest this week.

6
00:01:42,231 --> 00:01:48,131
think I will just say a couple sentences and then we'll just

7
00:01:48,131 --> 00:01:49,893
go for it,

8
00:01:52,713 --> 00:01:55,773
I've known about Syscoin for a very long time.

9
00:01:56,013 --> 00:02:00,753
since in 2014, designed my prediction market thing, Truthcoin, peer -to -peer oracle,

10
00:02:01,853 --> 00:02:06,093
which is supposed to a Bitcoin prediction market, but thanks to the slow arrival of

11
00:02:06,593 --> 00:02:09,453
chance. It's still yet to materialize even

12
00:02:09,474 --> 00:02:11,554
though the work is there.

13
00:02:11,974 --> 00:02:15,494
could go to BitcoinHybeline.com if you were curious about that particular topic.

14
00:02:16,994 --> 00:02:21,834
But the point is, I wrote this Truthcoin paper in January 2014 or something.

15
00:02:22,914 --> 00:02:28,254
And there were only a few people who were smart enough to immediately pick up on how

16
00:02:28,254 --> 00:02:28,934
great it was,

17
00:02:29,055 --> 00:02:34,935
since two of them ended up joining Ethereum or even as very early Ethereum people and

18
00:02:34,935 --> 00:02:40,575
they took the project to Ethereum basically where it became sort of auger in Gnosis

19
00:02:40,575 --> 00:02:46,555
and even it became the answer to people who would ask Vitalik, what is Ethereum

20
00:02:46,555 --> 00:02:48,636
for? And he would say, oh, he said nothing

21
00:02:48,736 --> 00:02:49,496
for a while.

22
00:02:49,676 --> 00:02:52,916
then after my paper, he said, oh, prediction markets.

23
00:02:53,896 --> 00:02:56,456
So it kind of created an awful lot indirectly.

24
00:02:57,016 --> 00:02:58,896
And it created the modern market maker.

25
00:02:59,356 --> 00:03:03,556
But the point of this story is that one of the four was Bitcoin, two the four ended up

26
00:03:03,556 --> 00:03:08,196
being Ethereum. were a bunch of, one was, there's actually five, suppose,

27
00:03:08,217 --> 00:03:13,677
actually quite a few, one was this guy, Zach, who did his own interesting project, I

28
00:03:13,677 --> 00:03:15,677
think I think called the MOVO or something.

29
00:03:15,937 --> 00:03:18,057
But one of them was this Syscoin guy.

30
00:03:20,397 --> 00:03:23,597
And I don't remember too many of the details.

31
00:03:24,977 --> 00:03:26,037
was Sebastian, yeah.

32
00:03:27,457 --> 00:03:27,799
And

33
00:03:27,839 --> 00:03:29,279
he was really into it.

34
00:03:29,379 --> 00:03:32,139
then I was like, kind of like, well, that's neat.

35
00:03:32,459 --> 00:03:34,839
I told him to reach out to you that time.

36
00:03:35,299 --> 00:03:39,339
Because I really liked the proof of work versus proof of stake piece you did.

37
00:03:39,479 --> 00:03:43,659
I actually referred a lot of people to that, just because it wastes a lot of time

38
00:03:43,659 --> 00:03:46,799
explaining and just like, just go to Paul's blog here and just read that.

39
00:03:47,079 --> 00:03:47,379
And if

40
00:03:47,380 --> 00:03:50,460
you have a rebuttal, let's talk about it after.

41
00:03:51,820 --> 00:03:57,600
Nice, nice. yeah, so I had this opinion of Syscoin in 2014 that was

42
00:03:57,600 --> 00:04:00,440
like, oh, these guys must be on top of something.

43
00:04:00,840 --> 00:04:05,960
But it has the same problem with all altcoins, which is since it's gone from being a

44
00:04:05,960 --> 00:04:06,940
really big problem to a

45
00:04:06,961 --> 00:04:08,301
much smaller one over time.

46
00:04:09,181 --> 00:04:12,041
But the big problem is always just like live by the fork, die by the fork.

47
00:04:13,041 --> 00:04:17,661
We want to get everyone in the world on one coin, and so it's not helpful to have

48
00:04:17,661 --> 00:04:19,281
people keep launching their own coin.

49
00:04:21,041 --> 00:04:24,401
But now I guess it doesn't make much of a difference because Bitcoin is moving very

50
00:04:24,401 --> 00:04:26,542
slowly on the whole sidechains project,

51
00:04:26,962 --> 00:04:29,062
which is part of the whole point of this space.

52
00:04:30,642 --> 00:04:36,402
But I think there's never been a better time to be an altcoin than now, I

53
00:04:36,402 --> 00:04:40,082
think, actually, over time people have gotten...

54
00:04:40,082 --> 00:04:45,422
I mean, you can look at the Bitcoin word dropout and the crypto word rise up.

55
00:04:45,522 --> 00:04:46,102
Almost no

56
00:04:46,124 --> 00:04:50,964
one like on a television show or something uses the word Bitcoin anymore they just say

57
00:04:50,964 --> 00:04:56,644
crypto and people love USDT people love Ethereum has more transaction

58
00:04:56,644 --> 00:05:02,184
fees than Bitcoin and Tron USDT has more more actual

59
00:05:02,184 --> 00:05:05,705
payments than the other so

60
00:05:05,725 --> 00:05:11,585
But anyway, love to, I thought maybe I researched this

61
00:05:11,585 --> 00:05:14,725
before doing the space, but then also I didn't have time.

62
00:05:15,285 --> 00:05:19,285
But also I thought it's probably better if I just don't research it and we just, we

63
00:05:19,285 --> 00:05:24,785
just have a fun conversation about, because probably most of the people who

64
00:05:24,785 --> 00:05:25,286
attend

65
00:05:25,626 --> 00:05:31,526
this weekly space have absolutely no idea at all what Syscoin is in the slightest, so

66
00:05:31,526 --> 00:05:33,716
maybe we should just go from there.

67
00:05:37,766 --> 00:05:38,206
Yeah, for sure.

68
00:05:38,666 --> 00:05:42,746
Bradley, want give a sort of a broad thousand -foot view, I guess?

69
00:05:43,846 --> 00:05:44,867
Yeah, sure. Sorry about

70
00:05:44,927 --> 00:05:46,327
earlier. I had to restart X.

71
00:05:46,527 --> 00:05:47,247
I couldn't hear anything.

72
00:05:47,687 --> 00:05:48,447
But hey, everybody.

73
00:05:49,467 --> 00:05:51,087
I'm Bradley with Syscoin Foundation.

74
00:05:51,667 --> 00:05:52,167
Jack's here too.

75
00:05:52,307 --> 00:05:53,827
He's the president of Syscoin Foundation.

76
00:05:54,587 --> 00:05:58,747
Yeah, I can offer a pretty quick thousand foot view.

77
00:05:59,947 --> 00:06:02,767
Syscoin is merge mine with Bitcoin.

78
00:06:03,327 --> 00:06:04,187
We're chain ID

79
00:06:04,449 --> 00:06:08,609
16. We've been merged mine with Bitcoin, I think, since 2016.

80
00:06:09,109 --> 00:06:10,649
Mainnet since 2014.

81
00:06:10,849 --> 00:06:12,829
We've been around the block, so to speak.

82
00:06:13,009 --> 00:06:16,729
We've been in this space for a while and still innovating.

83
00:06:17,049 --> 00:06:22,869
our approach and what we have today with

84
00:06:22,869 --> 00:06:23,789
Syscoin is

85
00:06:24,030 --> 00:06:29,830
a modular full -stack blockchain that has its

86
00:06:29,830 --> 00:06:32,550
main base as a UTXO chain.

87
00:06:33,390 --> 00:06:37,630
Right now we have something like about 20 % of Bitcoin's hashrate supporting us.

88
00:06:38,350 --> 00:06:43,611
We also have an EVM running alongside it, so it's sort of a dual -chain LayerOne,

89
00:06:43,611 --> 00:06:49,491
have a functioning LayerTwo in the form of an optimistic

90
00:06:49,491 --> 00:06:54,851
roll -up, what's currently an optimistic roll -up called Rolex that is mainnet.

91
00:06:56,351 --> 00:07:02,131
And our view basically is we want to keep that provenance of value that Bitcoin's

92
00:07:02,131 --> 00:07:03,192
proof -of -work provides

93
00:07:05,872 --> 00:07:08,212
We've always been proponents of proof of work.

94
00:07:09,892 --> 00:07:14,832
And we feel that the best way to tap into that is through merge mining.

95
00:07:16,812 --> 00:07:21,032
we don't throw proof of stake out with the bathwater, so to speak.

96
00:07:21,212 --> 00:07:22,772
We feel at the bottom of the stack is

97
00:07:22,773 --> 00:07:30,033
have

98
00:07:30,033 --> 00:07:33,313
some

99
00:07:33,313 --> 00:07:37,253
additional security information.

100
00:07:37,253 --> 00:07:39,313
by people like Luke Dash Jr.

101
00:07:40,673 --> 00:07:41,893
regard to merge mining.

102
00:07:42,735 --> 00:07:45,935
we have some additional security in place.

103
00:07:47,695 --> 00:07:53,395
in order to 51 % attack Syscoin, basically you would not only

104
00:07:53,395 --> 00:07:59,315
need control at least that percentage of the miners supporting Syscoin, but you would

105
00:07:59,315 --> 00:08:01,795
also need to have a super

106
00:08:01,936 --> 00:08:07,436
majority of masternodes that are serving multi -core chain locks that provide

107
00:08:07,436 --> 00:08:08,716
finality on top.

108
00:08:09,156 --> 00:08:15,096
the cool thing about that is we can achieve finality in a way where if for

109
00:08:15,096 --> 00:08:20,676
some reason it can't be achieved, like it will resolve back down to

110
00:08:20,676 --> 00:08:21,517
Nakamoto consensus

111
00:08:21,757 --> 00:08:23,317
and it's not a breaking event.

112
00:08:23,557 --> 00:08:28,477
but at any rate, yeah, we're, to sum it up, we're a modular full stack

113
00:08:28,477 --> 00:08:29,737
ecosystem

114
00:08:31,177 --> 00:08:33,057
with Syscoin as player.

115
00:08:33,537 --> 00:08:39,197
Before you go a little bit further, Paul calls more deeper, I think

116
00:08:39,197 --> 00:08:41,098
for his sake,

117
00:08:41,778 --> 00:08:47,458
you qualify because as soon as you start to say validators, alarms

118
00:08:47,458 --> 00:08:48,698
probably go off in his head.

119
00:08:49,018 --> 00:08:54,938
I think you validate the fact that we don't relegate back down to proof

120
00:08:54,938 --> 00:08:58,818
of stake. And that's a really interesting statement that you can have validators not go

121
00:08:58,818 --> 00:08:59,898
down to proof of stake.

122
00:08:59,898 --> 00:09:00,680
It's

123
00:09:00,820 --> 00:09:05,580
It's because we choose not to enforce this finality.

124
00:09:05,900 --> 00:09:11,620
We choose to have it as an option so that under the optimistic

125
00:09:11,620 --> 00:09:13,820
scenario finality is achieved.

126
00:09:14,020 --> 00:09:17,020
Under the pessimistic scenario, you fall back to longest chain rule.

127
00:09:18,020 --> 00:09:20,261
how we do that is there

128
00:09:20,481 --> 00:09:25,801
are some nuances in chain locking, and we can show you some nice article around that in

129
00:09:25,801 --> 00:09:29,301
a marketing piece we did recently on the method to the madness.

130
00:09:29,541 --> 00:09:34,741
If you Google that, we can show you that it will fall back to longest chain rule

131
00:09:34,741 --> 00:09:39,161
without the risk of falling back to a purely proof of stake model.

132
00:09:39,161 --> 00:09:39,842
and specifically

133
00:09:39,922 --> 00:09:44,482
you're probably thinking about if you have proof of stake and proof of work together

134
00:09:44,482 --> 00:09:50,122
you have the option of those super majority validators to grind the difficulty down to

135
00:09:50,122 --> 00:09:55,442
control the chain and that specific problem is what is the trade -off you get when you

136
00:09:55,442 --> 00:09:59,342
when you introduce some validators you have difficulty grinding and

137
00:09:59,423 --> 00:10:02,363
that is something we've solved for as well.

138
00:10:03,443 --> 00:10:03,843
So, just thing.

139
00:10:04,823 --> 00:10:10,703
you know, Robin Linus, who's inventor of BitVM, he vaguely likes, I don't know to what

140
00:10:10,703 --> 00:10:16,023
extent yours is similar, but he vaguely likes the, there a lot of people like the idea

141
00:10:16,023 --> 00:10:18,983
of proof of work base and then other

142
00:10:19,005 --> 00:10:23,625
stuff on top to improve the finality and they push back against

143
00:10:26,905 --> 00:10:32,265
unrefined merge mining and so there has been a lot of

144
00:10:32,265 --> 00:10:37,505
commentary about that and a lot of people like different things so for example

145
00:10:37,505 --> 00:10:38,586
who's

146
00:10:38,586 --> 00:10:40,306
Who's that guy, Sonny Ray or whatever?

147
00:10:41,086 --> 00:10:46,306
A lot of people have liked the whole, and then they say that that's, I actually kind of

148
00:10:46,306 --> 00:10:52,106
find it a little weird and sort of annoying, but it's not a big deal.

149
00:10:52,166 --> 00:10:56,166
But then they say, we made proof of stake work by putting it on top of proof of work.

150
00:10:56,266 --> 00:10:57,446
I was like, no, not really.

151
00:10:57,546 --> 00:10:59,126
mean, the proof of work is the thing that works.

152
00:10:59,266 --> 00:11:00,266
then there's like a refinement.

153
00:11:00,666 --> 00:11:01,786
But I think that that's smart.

154
00:11:01,926 --> 00:11:05,746
mean, merge mining sort of just similar like that, where it's like the L1 coins that

155
00:11:05,746 --> 00:11:07,526
were mined Let's prove it work.

156
00:11:07,726 --> 00:11:08,566
used to like change.

157
00:11:11,446 --> 00:11:14,386
can we make it make sense for anyone in the audience?

158
00:11:14,586 --> 00:11:15,086
which is that?

159
00:11:15,806 --> 00:11:21,746
I mean, it's cool that this merge mining thing has been around for a while, and on top

160
00:11:21,746 --> 00:11:25,586
of that, you bolt something to make it to have to give the...

161
00:11:26,246 --> 00:11:29,666
this... mean, I guess the probably the smart thing to ask would be is like, what

162
00:11:29,666 --> 00:11:32,186
problem is this coin supposed to solve?

163
00:11:32,366 --> 00:11:33,855
And I don't know if the answer

164
00:11:34,015 --> 00:11:38,355
is add more flexibility plus EVM, number one.

165
00:11:38,715 --> 00:11:44,095
then number two is like increase the reliability of merge mined

166
00:11:44,095 --> 00:11:45,775
blocks on BTC.

167
00:11:49,395 --> 00:11:53,125
the reason why we introduce finality, It's

168
00:11:53,125 --> 00:11:55,905
It's not we're trying to create fast blocks and all that dumb stuff.

169
00:11:56,965 --> 00:11:58,405
It's for a specific reason.

170
00:11:58,645 --> 00:12:02,605
that's when you get into, as you know, you guys are probably modular, modular

171
00:12:02,605 --> 00:12:07,705
blockchain enthusiasts, separate the execution off from the base layer, moving the CPU

172
00:12:07,705 --> 00:12:08,485
and memory off.

173
00:12:08,645 --> 00:12:09,505
That's how we scale.

174
00:12:10,825 --> 00:12:12,394
are actually pretty

175
00:12:12,614 --> 00:12:17,374
big proponents of the genesis of Bitcoin as well.

176
00:12:18,034 --> 00:12:23,874
So we actually enforce, we enforce merge mining, which means you can't solo mine

177
00:12:23,874 --> 00:12:29,554
Sys, you have to merge mine, meaning you're mining Bitcoin to mine Sys, there's no

178
00:12:29,554 --> 00:12:31,574
other way. The drivechain does that as

179
00:12:31,663 --> 00:12:33,243
well, just say bye.

180
00:12:33,243 --> 00:12:38,163
it's basically an extension that way, like you can't go in by itself, so it's not

181
00:12:38,163 --> 00:12:40,263
parasitic on the tokenomics side.

182
00:12:41,463 --> 00:12:46,943
But the reason why we introduced Finality was specifically under the modular blockchain

183
00:12:46,943 --> 00:12:50,883
design the data availability component, because at that point

184
00:12:50,933 --> 00:12:55,853
you've introduced the data availability system where you can start to after finality

185
00:12:55,853 --> 00:12:59,293
plus some time you could remove that data because it's not hashed on the chain.

186
00:12:59,713 --> 00:13:03,353
But that data availability is critical to scale up the modular stack.

187
00:13:03,673 --> 00:13:09,413
know the the recursive layers if you will if it's BIP300 then the chains

188
00:13:09,413 --> 00:13:10,202
within the chains.

189
00:13:10,522 --> 00:13:14,362
once you have the data availability constraints, you have to have the LayerOne serving

190
00:13:14,362 --> 00:13:18,222
that as sort of your court system and the finality is needed there.

191
00:13:18,262 --> 00:13:18,662
Otherwise,

192
00:13:20,062 --> 00:13:24,302
there's asymptotic cost that happened on the data itself and we try to remove that.

193
00:13:24,382 --> 00:13:29,362
That's specifically what EIP4844 of Ethereum or ProtoDank sharding of Ethereum was

194
00:13:29,362 --> 00:13:29,472
trying

195
00:13:29,552 --> 00:13:35,212
to solve with their DA solution except they fell back into sharding and

196
00:13:35,212 --> 00:13:39,452
because they're using proof of stake anyways it made sense to distribute the trust

197
00:13:39,452 --> 00:13:41,492
across all the other nodes.

198
00:13:42,292 --> 00:13:48,172
some censorship concerns there you know with sharding you know as

199
00:13:48,172 --> 00:13:48,732
an artifact

200
00:13:49,021 --> 00:13:54,361
of the architecture itself, know, if 50 % of the nodes are unavailable,

201
00:13:54,921 --> 00:13:58,601
then you have data unavailability, essentially.

202
00:13:59,261 --> 00:14:05,241
we managed to come up with an approach to DA that sort of keeps the Bitcoin

203
00:14:05,241 --> 00:14:07,981
assumption of one honest node is all that's needed.

204
00:14:09,711 --> 00:14:13,591
we have that, we call it proof of data availability, and it's functioning on our

205
00:14:13,591 --> 00:14:19,151
LayerOne. One thing that's worth pointing out about our ecosystem

206
00:14:19,151 --> 00:14:23,451
is that Sys is the native coin, not BTC.

207
00:14:23,451 --> 00:14:23,991
right?

208
00:14:25,871 --> 00:14:27,111
feel philosophically

209
00:14:27,280 --> 00:14:32,660
that Bitcoin's economics really are not ideal for utility.

210
00:14:33,940 --> 00:14:38,760
And I think the market itself sort of expresses that whenever you look at projects sort

211
00:14:38,760 --> 00:14:44,620
of like, like RSK, for example, it hasn't really been utilized

212
00:14:44,620 --> 00:14:46,460
much. And of course, there's a contingent of

213
00:14:46,549 --> 00:14:54,509
is

214
00:14:54,509 --> 00:14:59,609
a lot simpler

215
00:14:59,609 --> 00:15:05,269
than Ethereum. Bitcoiners that basically are in the closet with their

216
00:15:05,269 --> 00:15:05,709
Ethereum

217
00:15:05,819 --> 00:15:10,239
wallet, right? why aren't they using RSK?

218
00:15:10,759 --> 00:15:14,239
would think you would think it would have a lot more usage and I think what it really

219
00:15:14,239 --> 00:15:20,239
boils down to is people don't want to spend their Bitcoin on

220
00:15:20,239 --> 00:15:20,959
gas.

221
00:15:23,719 --> 00:15:24,699
Maybe, I don't know,

222
00:15:25,148 --> 00:15:26,268
a little all over the place here.

223
00:15:26,428 --> 00:15:27,228
So the problem

224
00:15:28,448 --> 00:15:31,868
that Drivechain is supposed to solve is that we're not supposed to need a new coin.

225
00:15:33,988 --> 00:15:38,368
If we don't, we don't need one, you can always bolt one on.

226
00:15:39,188 --> 00:15:44,308
so SysCoin is a different coin and you have

227
00:15:44,358 --> 00:15:50,198
a coin not only because it's L2 and you need some kind of battery to store value and

228
00:15:50,198 --> 00:15:50,898
move it around,

229
00:15:52,138 --> 00:15:56,378
but you also just need something to...

230
00:15:56,378 --> 00:16:00,718
you also say that you will change the economics of the coin, like the supply schedule

231
00:16:00,718 --> 00:16:03,018
and the... what do you mean by that specifically?

232
00:16:03,018 --> 00:16:03,198
I

233
00:16:05,087 --> 00:16:10,307
Yeah, so our SIS is based on EIP 1559,

234
00:16:11,547 --> 00:16:15,627
so it's essentially So the supply will shrink even if the fees are high.

235
00:16:16,167 --> 00:16:21,547
Correct, and there's a burning component there and there's no maximum cap.

236
00:16:21,747 --> 00:16:22,897
It's really, really

237
00:16:23,377 --> 00:16:29,357
for utility. there's also the validators we

238
00:16:29,357 --> 00:16:34,537
added to 1559 by the rent paid to the miners and validators

239
00:16:34,537 --> 00:16:40,057
is still paid, and the validator rent will not go under some value, so it doesn't

240
00:16:40,057 --> 00:16:40,797
deflate to zero.

241
00:16:41,557 --> 00:16:42,166
The rent paid

242
00:16:42,306 --> 00:16:46,606
to the masternodes will deflate only up to a certain point, so there's that static

243
00:16:46,606 --> 00:16:52,246
cost. if the revenue on the EVM chain is

244
00:16:52,246 --> 00:16:57,306
higher than all the fees plus the static burn deflated

245
00:16:58,146 --> 00:17:01,435
maximally, then it does become deflationary during

246
00:17:01,455 --> 00:17:06,735
that event but the fee market also would be susceptible to high costs at that point

247
00:17:06,735 --> 00:17:12,475
people are moving off of the base layer for their transactionality because it'll be too

248
00:17:12,475 --> 00:17:17,795
costly. The other cool effect of going this route and being merge mined

249
00:17:17,795 --> 00:17:20,705
is that we can sort of perpetually

250
00:17:20,705 --> 00:17:24,545
miners support Syscoin

251
00:17:24,545 --> 00:17:30,325
with Sys. Even in the

252
00:17:30,325 --> 00:17:35,845
future, havings continue on and the block rewards

253
00:17:35,845 --> 00:17:39,885
diminish towards nothingness, maybe even

254
00:17:39,974 --> 00:17:43,894
potentially fees aren't sufficient at some point in the future.

255
00:17:44,394 --> 00:17:45,214
They're getting something.

256
00:17:45,494 --> 00:17:46,094
They're getting CIS.

257
00:17:46,554 --> 00:17:51,954
that CIS is incentivizing them to potentially, I mean, at the level of the architecture

258
00:17:51,954 --> 00:17:57,454
itself, it's there, The idea that Bitcoin miners would have

259
00:17:57,454 --> 00:17:59,094
something incentivizing them to

260
00:17:59,244 --> 00:18:03,324
continue working Bitcoin and to keep the network decentralized.

261
00:18:08,284 --> 00:18:13,704
mean, I think actually that decision of ETH to change it around, ultrasound money is

262
00:18:13,704 --> 00:18:14,324
kind of smart.

263
00:18:14,484 --> 00:18:16,024
it's part of their plan.

264
00:18:16,284 --> 00:18:18,504
Ethereum's plan to destroy

265
00:18:18,513 --> 00:18:20,633
BTC and replace it and take it over.

266
00:18:20,853 --> 00:18:26,153
It's just quietly, without really making too big of a deal about it, change the

267
00:18:26,153 --> 00:18:31,673
economics of ETH so that the supply tends to shrink, whereas BTC is going to to grow

268
00:18:31,673 --> 00:18:33,293
from 19 million to 21 million.

269
00:18:33,653 --> 00:18:36,393
But I think they're very aggressive on that shrinking as well.

270
00:18:36,393 --> 00:18:37,693
It's really, really aggressive

271
00:18:37,783 --> 00:18:42,543
to a point where even right now we had events where supply was actually decreasing.

272
00:18:43,023 --> 00:18:46,343
the hardness of coins is also affected now because of proof of stake.

273
00:18:47,063 --> 00:18:48,883
That's the two problems we see.

274
00:18:49,483 --> 00:18:55,303
Yeah, ETH should never have done full proof of stake one, but maybe they know, maybe

275
00:18:55,303 --> 00:18:57,043
they have, you know, information I don't have

276
00:18:57,072 --> 00:18:59,052
or whatever, the...

277
00:19:01,412 --> 00:19:04,372
Well, I think they're just trying to do something different, but I think let's get

278
00:19:04,372 --> 00:19:09,592
into... I don't remember the last time I saw Syscoin

279
00:19:09,592 --> 00:19:11,692
on CoinMarketCap.

280
00:19:13,152 --> 00:19:16,212
I don't remember what the ranking is,

281
00:19:16,981 --> 00:19:18,501
it must be...

282
00:19:18,501 --> 00:19:21,381
Like 320 or something like that.

283
00:19:21,841 --> 00:19:25,181
320. So that's kind of low.

284
00:19:26,701 --> 00:19:30,461
And yet you have a shrinking supply, you have all these features,

285
00:19:32,521 --> 00:19:35,591
and do you have some kind of story

286
00:19:35,851 --> 00:19:38,711
for why you think that is or do you think it doesn't matter?

287
00:19:39,531 --> 00:19:41,931
I know. There's definitely reasons there.

288
00:19:42,111 --> 00:19:44,731
It's taken eight years to develop our infrastructure.

289
00:19:45,031 --> 00:19:50,991
We're not thinking of ourselves as let's deflate to zero and

290
00:19:50,991 --> 00:19:52,891
holders of Sys will benefit.

291
00:19:52,891 --> 00:19:54,691
It's more when

292
00:19:54,860 --> 00:20:00,000
AGI within 18 months is coming and there's billions of agents onboarding into crypto

293
00:20:00,000 --> 00:20:05,140
because they're not using fiat There needs to be a place that will help scale up which

294
00:20:05,140 --> 00:20:11,000
doesn't affect the asymptotic costs of the validators of full nodes and

295
00:20:11,000 --> 00:20:16,920
That rent that they pay in SysGas needs to be economically abundant and available and

296
00:20:16,920 --> 00:20:22,180
not super costly when people are trying to onboard into it.

297
00:20:22,300 --> 00:20:27,580
we've taken that time to figure out what the tokenomics and the security mechanism

298
00:20:27,580 --> 00:20:30,320
should be and how we all should relate to each other.

299
00:20:37,540 --> 00:20:41,400
We have a of different ways to do this.

300
00:20:41,520 --> 00:20:45,240
So there was no activity on the Sys chain because that's by design.

301
00:20:45,760 --> 00:20:51,660
At the same time though, Jag, we have a pretty substantial community

302
00:20:52,099 --> 00:20:59,139
and it's continued to grow. We're very active. We're constantly developing. Now we have Rolex

303
00:20:59,139 --> 00:21:05,779
that's got, you know, a fairly rapidly growing ecosystem. I mean, we've had to kind of bootstrap

304
00:21:05,779 --> 00:21:11,220
it, but we've got a dedicated BD team. We're doing a lot, okay? We're doing a lot, and we're

305
00:21:11,220 --> 00:21:18,660
accomplishing a lot compared to even projects that have, like, a big war chest that are higher

306
00:21:18,660 --> 00:21:24,980
market cap. So it is interesting, you know, the fact that we are at where we are in the market,

307
00:21:26,099 --> 00:21:33,779
and, you know, there's probably some other reasons for that, and I don't know that it has

308
00:21:33,779 --> 00:21:39,699
anything as much to do with our project itself. It might be a symptom of the market. I don't know.

309
00:21:40,180 --> 00:21:48,260
We never did this crazy VC background where the market makers and VCs would pump us to distribute

310
00:21:48,260 --> 00:21:55,220
the bags. We're very organic. Our community is mostly Bitcoin OGs, some of the Eth OGs, and

311
00:21:56,259 --> 00:22:00,899
the people that really believe in change rather than trying to look at, like, if you just visit

312
00:22:00,899 --> 00:22:08,820
Discord, the price talk is always about how will Syscoin help the world rather than, you know,

313
00:22:08,820 --> 00:22:14,499
when can I sell and when's voluntary? Well, that's the smartest thing that Ricardo Spogne,

314
00:22:14,499 --> 00:22:21,860
Fluffy Pony, leader, cultural leader of Monero for a time. The smartest thing he ever did was

315
00:22:21,860 --> 00:22:26,580
they banned all discussion of the price, which I think was key, and instead focused on their

316
00:22:26,580 --> 00:22:34,979
problem, which was private cryptocurrency transactions. Yeah, man. I remember back in

317
00:22:34,979 --> 00:22:38,899
the day when, I think it might have been him, but I remember watching a Monero guy

318
00:22:39,940 --> 00:22:45,059
speaking, and he basically told people, I don't, you know, I don't give a shit about

319
00:22:45,059 --> 00:22:48,499
the price of Monero. Don't talk to me about that. We're here to develop it.

320
00:22:48,499 --> 00:22:54,259
And yeah, that led to a whole, you know, hellstorm of comments and drama back then.

321
00:22:54,660 --> 00:23:00,740
Okay, I'm sorry. My phone did something weird. Yes, yeah, that's very important. And of course,

322
00:23:00,740 --> 00:23:06,339
see, Monero is not very high either. It's, let's see, I think it's like in the 20s or so,

323
00:23:08,180 --> 00:23:13,619
but it is beating many coins that did do the VC route. VC route, you know, it does help,

324
00:23:14,740 --> 00:23:21,300
probably, I would assume the coin, you know, the price of Monero. I don't know if it's

325
00:23:21,619 --> 00:23:26,899
probably, I would assume the coin, but I think it's huge long run costs,

326
00:23:26,899 --> 00:23:31,539
but I guess we would say, I mean, like Solana is like the biggest VC coin in my head

327
00:23:32,979 --> 00:23:38,419
that I would say, and it's number seven now. So, I mean, you know, it's like, we can't base

328
00:23:38,419 --> 00:23:43,380
everything off of the rankings because it's very circular, you know, circular reasoning,

329
00:23:43,380 --> 00:23:49,220
you know, you're low until you're, but yeah, I just think it's, it's worth paying attention,

330
00:23:49,220 --> 00:23:55,860
especially because it's all open source. So everyone can just copy any idea.

331
00:23:58,419 --> 00:24:04,900
And that means that even if you have a great idea or even the best actual shipped code,

332
00:24:04,900 --> 00:24:09,139
it doesn't necessarily mean anything, which is why I just kind of hang out in

333
00:24:10,979 --> 00:24:15,620
BTC world, even though it's, you know, it's not going super great in the BTC world,

334
00:24:15,620 --> 00:24:17,780
but it is number one. Right.

335
00:24:22,099 --> 00:24:25,780
Okay. Yes. Yeah, that's true about open source. I mean, that's certainly true,

336
00:24:25,780 --> 00:24:33,060
but there is another component as well. And that is the network that's the networks that's running

337
00:24:33,060 --> 00:24:37,860
the blockchain. You know, you can't replicate, you can't just replicate that. I mean, maybe,

338
00:24:37,860 --> 00:24:43,300
maybe arguably merge mining is kind of an exception to that rule, but, you know, you can't

339
00:24:43,300 --> 00:24:50,020
fork CIS coins code and basically have our community and our network of masternodes. So

340
00:24:50,020 --> 00:24:58,020
there's that. Yeah, I know I would say it's, yeah, it's a little, there's a bit of a little

341
00:24:58,020 --> 00:25:01,699
bit of marketing brainwash that's happening, but there's been cycles that we've been through that

342
00:25:01,699 --> 00:25:09,379
other coins are still going to experience. You know, we've had four or five bear bull markets,

343
00:25:09,379 --> 00:25:15,379
whereas many of the projects, maybe one or two max, and they'll experience the same drawdowns

344
00:25:15,379 --> 00:25:20,259
that we've experienced. And, you know, in the end it'll be the people that stuck around,

345
00:25:20,259 --> 00:25:24,419
that kept developing, that put their heads to the ground, that thought about things the right way.

346
00:25:24,419 --> 00:25:28,500
Think about value first. You know, if you have VCs backing you, they're going to say, when,

347
00:25:29,219 --> 00:25:34,259
when profits, when bottom line, when revenue, when, how can you pump this? And you're reporting

348
00:25:34,259 --> 00:25:40,259
to them versus your organic communities asking when can we change the world? It's a totally

349
00:25:40,259 --> 00:25:45,460
different dynamic and allows you to freely express yourself and develop and think about

350
00:25:46,099 --> 00:25:53,219
things in the right way. You know, we feel. Okay. So now should we talk about the real

351
00:25:53,219 --> 00:25:59,780
meat of the substance, which is the L2 or for example, whatever, whatever it is that makes you

352
00:25:59,780 --> 00:26:07,379
say that, um, you will, did you say something on Twitter earlier this week that was like,

353
00:26:08,099 --> 00:26:10,340
whatever Cisco inverse BIP300 or something.

354
00:26:14,659 --> 00:26:17,939
Right. Don't you have some kind of, maybe you're talking about the optimistic L2,

355
00:26:19,379 --> 00:26:23,860
the optimistic rollup or just the ability to move coins.

356
00:26:24,580 --> 00:26:29,860
It might've been Zhao, but he might've mentioned something that, uh, I didn't catch the tweet,

357
00:26:29,860 --> 00:26:35,300
but I know he said something that there was some, you know, we should look to each other

358
00:26:35,300 --> 00:26:40,020
or talk to each other about we're solving the same sort of problems and potentially,

359
00:26:40,020 --> 00:26:42,580
you know, there's opportunities to collaborate there.

360
00:26:43,139 --> 00:26:47,300
Yeah. There was a tweet that said that we outshined BIP300 and the idea was okay,

361
00:26:47,379 --> 00:26:54,580
well, come on and tell us how. Um, I feel that we, you know, we can look at Bitcoin,

362
00:26:55,460 --> 00:26:59,539
from two different angles. There's BTC, the economics of BTC, and then there's the proof

363
00:26:59,539 --> 00:27:07,060
of work network that is supporting it. Um, the perspective of our project is that,

364
00:27:07,060 --> 00:27:11,460
that proof of work is extensible, of course, through merge mining. And so what we're doing

365
00:27:11,460 --> 00:27:19,300
with Bitcoin is we are providing utility essentially that is supported by Bitcoin's

366
00:27:19,300 --> 00:27:26,500
extensible proof of work. And we are saying that essentially we are, uh, we are providing

367
00:27:27,379 --> 00:27:37,539
the security of Bitcoin, um, for that, um, for that utility use case. Um, and I don't think,

368
00:27:37,539 --> 00:27:50,740
um, uh, I'm, I'm not sure how BIP300, um, with, with that being said, uh, can, um, like is,

369
00:27:50,740 --> 00:27:56,180
is useful or something maybe that Bitcoin should necessarily implement if merge mining is already

370
00:27:56,180 --> 00:28:00,340
in place. And there's a means to scale Bitcoin's proof of work through that. Now, if you wanted to,

371
00:28:01,139 --> 00:28:09,219
I think, um, extend BTC itself onto other chains than it would be, um, uh,

372
00:28:10,900 --> 00:28:18,579
is a type of merge mining that, uh, and the merge mining field is a little crowded or whatever.

373
00:28:19,380 --> 00:28:24,419
Um, because we have many ways of not only doing merge mining, including vanilla merge mining that

374
00:28:24,419 --> 00:28:30,339
is invented by Satoshi a long time ago, and that many coins have been merged mind with,

375
00:28:30,339 --> 00:28:36,820
which I assume would describe you from 2014 to 2016, based on what you said, uh, earlier.

376
00:28:36,820 --> 00:28:41,860
And then there are, there's in fact a BIP301, which is different form of merge mining that was

377
00:28:41,860 --> 00:28:49,539
sort of invented by me. And then, uh, BIP301 has been emulated in many ways by the Super Testnet

378
00:28:49,539 --> 00:28:58,659
or even, um, um, who else, uh, Ruben Somsen, people invented different ways of doing it today.

379
00:29:00,339 --> 00:29:07,060
There are, there's like, um, I think that the, uh, the sunny Ray proof of work, proof of stake,

380
00:29:07,060 --> 00:29:11,700
like it's not in merge mining, but there's that, like that type of technique is possible where you

381
00:29:12,419 --> 00:29:18,099
have merge mining and then you do other stuff. You have people stake the merge-mined coins.

382
00:29:18,180 --> 00:29:26,260
And then there's like some second round or something like that. So that's 301 and 301 is

383
00:29:26,260 --> 00:29:33,219
sort of optional. I mean, drivechain is considered like something that uses 300 and 301 and how the

384
00:29:33,219 --> 00:29:38,899
sidechain comes to consensus. That's kind of like, uh, however they want to do that. That's

385
00:29:38,899 --> 00:29:42,740
up to them. You know, as far as I'm concerned, it's a different piece of software and they can

386
00:29:42,740 --> 00:29:50,099
do whatever they want. BIP300 is about sending BTC to and from a different blockchain network.

387
00:29:50,099 --> 00:29:59,539
So it's deposits and withdrawals. And that works based on paying off the miners in all sorts of

388
00:29:59,539 --> 00:30:05,539
ways and making it very difficult for them to steal and making it so that if they do steal,

389
00:30:05,620 --> 00:30:13,539
it will be economically devastating for them. Uh, and so that certain chains where the chain

390
00:30:13,539 --> 00:30:20,019
deposit, the total amount of coins deposited in the chain is less than the turnover in transaction

391
00:30:20,019 --> 00:30:29,219
fees for certain chains, it will be economically secure. And that is a BIP300 idea. So together,

392
00:30:29,219 --> 00:30:35,140
those ideas are drivechain. I think the 301, you know, it was invented in like January, 2017,

393
00:30:35,140 --> 00:30:40,260
and we have different ways of emulating it. I think it's, I think 301 is a pretty good idea.

394
00:30:41,620 --> 00:30:44,500
I don't think it's like, it's nowhere near as important,

395
00:30:45,940 --> 00:30:52,500
especially since we can already do it on Bitcoin today with just in a very inefficient way.

396
00:30:54,740 --> 00:30:58,260
And, uh, we can probably do, honestly, I haven't, I haven't really checked,

397
00:30:58,260 --> 00:31:03,459
but since it's just counting the 13,000, we can probably do BIP300 today also,

398
00:31:03,459 --> 00:31:10,419
but that's not really the point. The point is to, uh, is it 1306 blocks is the, is the number

399
00:31:10,419 --> 00:31:18,339
13,150, which is like three months worth. So like the huge overkill on our test network,

400
00:31:18,339 --> 00:31:21,779
it's only 131 now for fast testing. That's fine.

401
00:31:24,260 --> 00:31:30,419
That's PV proof base. So the state gets put on, um, the sidechain state gets fully, um,

402
00:31:31,060 --> 00:31:36,180
come to consensus. And then that gets put on the Bitcoin chain, like, uh, like an anchor type of

403
00:31:36,180 --> 00:31:44,019
thing. And then people, is that how you do it? We don't, I don't, I make no, I, I kind of flip it

404
00:31:44,019 --> 00:31:51,380
around completely where I say nothing on L2 will ever be enforceable on L1. And so L1 can ignore

405
00:31:51,380 --> 00:31:56,899
L2 completely. And then it's just the deposits and withdrawals. There's the withdrawal system

406
00:31:56,899 --> 00:32:02,260
is very, very, very slow and very transparent. And with merge mining, the L1 miners collect all

407
00:32:02,260 --> 00:32:07,300
the transaction fees, which I imagine will be enormous in total because there's no limit on

408
00:32:07,300 --> 00:32:12,820
quantity. So it's like the whole world's transaction fees, like just Visa's transaction

409
00:32:12,820 --> 00:32:16,820
fees today. It's just like hundreds of millions of dollars a day, which is much, much more than

410
00:32:17,940 --> 00:32:21,060
what is collected on BTC now, which is only hundreds of thousands.

411
00:32:21,620 --> 00:32:25,860
The miners need to mine the, uh, the sidechain blocks.

412
00:32:26,659 --> 00:32:30,899
They don't necessarily, they, if they want additional certainty, they always can,

413
00:32:30,899 --> 00:32:37,219
but there's no actual requirement. And in fact, many different shortcuts are built in

414
00:32:38,979 --> 00:32:44,099
to make it very easy for them to learn the sidechain state, even if they do absolutely nothing

415
00:32:44,099 --> 00:32:52,180
at all. So that's blind merge mining is some people, different people who are running side

416
00:32:52,180 --> 00:32:58,979
chain nodes and they know the state perfectly. They just bid on what the next block will be with

417
00:32:58,979 --> 00:33:05,620
L1 coins. And they say, put this, put this little code, put this little, uh, Merkle root or whatever,

418
00:33:06,659 --> 00:33:12,579
put this little Merkle root in L1 and I'll pay you these L1 coins. The miner, just the L1 miner

419
00:33:12,579 --> 00:33:18,979
just does that to advance the state. And, uh, when that block is found over there, then the person

420
00:33:19,060 --> 00:33:24,579
who paid L1 coins, someone who ran a sidechain node, they earn the trans pay the transaction

421
00:33:24,579 --> 00:33:31,860
visa themselves. So I don't know. I explained it. If the Merkle root is uploaded, uh, you come to

422
00:33:31,860 --> 00:33:38,260
a consensus on the Merkle root, the layer two sidechain has the witness data to create the Merkle

423
00:33:38,260 --> 00:33:45,300
root or is it that everyone's own UTXO positions, they can do an SPV proof against that Merkle root

424
00:33:45,300 --> 00:33:53,860
to exit. Uh, well again, the finding the next block is in my view, completely separate in every

425
00:33:53,860 --> 00:33:59,300
way. So finding the next block is the merge mining part and the deposits and withdrawals.

426
00:34:00,419 --> 00:34:05,380
Uh, those, those are two completely separate and inseparable things in my view, but not in

427
00:34:05,380 --> 00:34:10,339
many people's view. Many people don't have that view, but I do. And they are totally separate.

428
00:34:10,899 --> 00:34:15,940
From state to state on layer two happens on its own, but at some point you're putting the

429
00:34:15,940 --> 00:34:24,099
Merkle root back onto layer one so users can exit, right? Uh, well, it's not the Merkle root that

430
00:34:24,099 --> 00:34:29,700
allows people to exit, but it is the hash of the withdrawal transaction ID. And when the state

431
00:34:29,700 --> 00:34:36,500
advances in the merge mining dimension, also there was a hash of the hash of the sidechains block

432
00:34:36,500 --> 00:34:42,019
header. So sidechain has, I see we have a hand, but let me try to continue to answer this question

433
00:34:42,019 --> 00:34:48,820
for a second, which is that the, okay, what happens is you're a sidechain node and I'm a

434
00:34:48,820 --> 00:34:55,539
layer one miner and you are a sidechain node. You, you build the next block paying yourself

435
00:34:55,539 --> 00:35:00,740
the transaction fees. And let's say that's four Bitcoin worth of transaction fees.

436
00:35:00,820 --> 00:35:04,500
You've built that now, but you, but you have, no one has found the block per se. You've just

437
00:35:04,500 --> 00:35:10,180
built it. You know what it should look like. You know what, that's what you, you aspire this to be

438
00:35:10,180 --> 00:35:21,700
the next block. You go on L1 and then you pay the miners 3.99 BTC and L1 coins. You say 3.99 BTC L1

439
00:35:21,779 --> 00:35:24,419
You say 3.99 BTC L1 coins to

440
00:35:28,339 --> 00:35:34,579
to put this code in this special spot in L1 block. And then that is what is the sidechain

441
00:35:34,579 --> 00:35:42,820
node software interprets. They interpret that as being what counts as meeting the, you know,

442
00:35:42,820 --> 00:35:48,260
what would be the difficulty requirement and the sidechain L2. Great. Yeah. Yeah. It's putting the

443
00:35:48,260 --> 00:35:54,019
state like as in anchoring and that lets people exit, right? Later on, they can use that.

444
00:35:54,019 --> 00:35:57,940
Well, that doesn't necessarily, I mean, indirectly it does because the sidechain

445
00:35:57,940 --> 00:36:05,060
state has to advance at some point so that you, someone can brought on L2 say, I want to withdraw

446
00:36:05,060 --> 00:36:09,620
and have the sidechain become aware of that fact and then bundle all the withdrawals up.

447
00:36:10,260 --> 00:36:15,140
Yeah. So how does that withdraw work? Like I'm a user of L2 and I move up back to,

448
00:36:15,140 --> 00:36:22,579
back to base. Well, the first all like cashed and sort of collected on L2. So the withdrawals

449
00:36:22,579 --> 00:36:27,219
only happen one at a time, no matter how many people are trying to withdraw. So there could

450
00:36:27,219 --> 00:36:31,860
be many like 12,000 people trying to withdraw, but the way for the first withdrawal to finish,

451
00:36:31,860 --> 00:36:41,860
and then the sidechain, which is aware of L1, it spends its UTXO. It says here's selects the

452
00:36:41,860 --> 00:36:50,740
UTXO that has all the BTC in it, you know, the UTXO of all the sidechains coins. So the sidechain,

453
00:36:50,740 --> 00:36:57,140
maybe it has like 50,000 coins or something. It selects that UTXO, and then it pays out to the

454
00:36:57,140 --> 00:37:04,339
list of the list of 12,000 people who wanted to withdraw, who waited patiently. And the sidechain

455
00:37:04,339 --> 00:37:08,979
L2 is, yeah, I haven't explained how it happens yet, but I'm just saying this again, the sidechain

456
00:37:08,979 --> 00:37:13,780
calculates what it, what aspires to be the case. So it knows what it's sort of aiming for.

457
00:37:15,380 --> 00:37:23,780
And it constructs, what would the transaction ID be of that? If it would, you know, what would

458
00:37:23,780 --> 00:37:31,140
the transaction ID idea that be if it were included on L1? And then it does a tiny detail

459
00:37:31,140 --> 00:37:36,099
where it zeroes out part because it's like a SIG hash, no input. But, but other than that,

460
00:37:36,099 --> 00:37:41,860
it just broadcasts this hash everywhere in L2. It's in every L2 header. It's in the,

461
00:37:42,819 --> 00:37:50,099
you know, ribbon of the GUI. It's in, so, so it's a, so this hash is everywhere. And then

462
00:37:50,099 --> 00:37:56,420
the miners pick it up since the miners are human beings and not nodes. The miners can,

463
00:37:56,420 --> 00:38:00,579
the miners just need to learn from, learn it from anyone who could make it available.

464
00:38:00,579 --> 00:38:06,740
Okay. So there's a commitment of the hash and then someone needs to reveal the data behind it

465
00:38:06,740 --> 00:38:11,219
so that you can disclose the state that that's the state that's being changed.

466
00:38:11,219 --> 00:38:18,260
Well, there's not necessarily the state. It's only the, it's only the one transaction,

467
00:38:18,260 --> 00:38:23,219
but you could call it the state if you wish. You could call it like a state changes every three

468
00:38:23,219 --> 00:38:28,740
months, maybe. Anyway, we have someone who wanted to ask a question. They have a hand at least,

469
00:38:28,740 --> 00:38:37,380
crumbs. Hello. Hello. Hey guys. Thanks for letting me up. And yeah, Paul, I'm really

470
00:38:37,380 --> 00:38:41,459
impressed with sort of all the work you've been doing on, on Drivechain since like, I guess,

471
00:38:41,459 --> 00:38:50,099
2014 or around that time. So I was wondering given that the Bitcoin protocol has changed a lot,

472
00:38:50,099 --> 00:38:56,099
right? SegWit has been adopted, taproot has been adopted, replaced by fee, you know, other changes.

473
00:38:56,099 --> 00:39:01,780
Why, why was Drivechain never adopted on a, on a protocol level? And can you talk a little bit

474
00:39:01,780 --> 00:39:09,780
about your efforts to, to kind of get a consensus around this protocol change and what, what has

475
00:39:09,780 --> 00:39:15,219
been the biggest barrier to adoption? Well, I think it went through different time

476
00:39:16,420 --> 00:39:20,500
phases and you can also chop the problem down different ways. So for example,

477
00:39:20,500 --> 00:39:27,140
to this day, there is no complete, we never made, even though we made test software,

478
00:39:27,780 --> 00:39:34,819
we never made a fully complete pull request into Bitcoin Core that would have done all the

479
00:39:34,819 --> 00:39:41,459
Drivechain stuff. So we never did that. And so in that way, it wouldn't have been possible,

480
00:39:41,459 --> 00:39:45,219
but that's not really an answer to your question at all, because what could have happened could

481
00:39:45,219 --> 00:39:49,780
have been that I published this blog post in November, 2015.

482
00:39:50,248 --> 00:39:53,928
And then everyone reads it and then everyone's like, Oh, we should drop what we're doing

483
00:39:53,928 --> 00:39:58,488
and work on this because this is clearly the way to go. So even though that is the

484
00:39:58,488 --> 00:40:01,768
kind of a literal answer to your question, it's not like really a good,

485
00:40:03,368 --> 00:40:09,288
it doesn't really answer the thrust of the question. And I give kind of a rambly answer

486
00:40:09,288 --> 00:40:16,328
about this sometimes, but I'll try to like those three sort of phases. And in phase one,

487
00:40:17,288 --> 00:40:24,328
everyone was distracted by the scaling war, which was resolved with these conferences,

488
00:40:24,328 --> 00:40:31,768
scaling Bitcoin. And the solution that everyone wanted to do first was SegWit. And I was very

489
00:40:31,768 --> 00:40:37,128
supportive of this. I also thought that was a good idea to do that first. And it seemed like

490
00:40:37,128 --> 00:40:44,008
that would be done soon. And then there was a second phase when people were even more frustrated

491
00:40:44,008 --> 00:40:48,808
and the scaling war actually erupted, which was like a miners versus developers thing. So anything

492
00:40:48,808 --> 00:40:55,048
mining based was kind of stigmatized maybe, or just not people weren't as interested in it.

493
00:40:56,008 --> 00:41:05,288
And then now there is a, I would say the third sort of phase is that Bitcoin has rejected the

494
00:41:06,088 --> 00:41:11,608
original idea that it would do everything. And it is now much more of a

495
00:41:14,487 --> 00:41:22,248
it wants to just stay. People have rejected the idea that anything, it's kind of a paradox because

496
00:41:24,487 --> 00:41:29,207
altcoins went through a phase when they used to suck completely. And everyone, you know,

497
00:41:29,207 --> 00:41:34,648
like in 2011, they were all terrible. And everyone, the most shameful thing you could

498
00:41:34,648 --> 00:41:40,648
do is even discuss them and Cisco and people, I'm sure they know the attitude that I'm talking about.

499
00:41:41,447 --> 00:41:45,688
And then over time, some of the altcoins have gotten like kind of good at things,

500
00:41:45,688 --> 00:41:51,847
but Bitcoin has kind of rejected this. I think also there's a whole trajectory of the scaling

501
00:41:51,847 --> 00:41:59,847
war made it so that anyone who deviated from like the, there was like two polarized edges,

502
00:41:59,847 --> 00:42:04,728
which was like large blocks on L1 was the large blocker group. And then there's like lightning

503
00:42:04,728 --> 00:42:10,808
network. We'll fix everything in the small blocker group. And this idea is kind of like in

504
00:42:10,808 --> 00:42:16,648
between because it's not large blocks on L1. And in fact, we have, we have people who come to these

505
00:42:16,648 --> 00:42:22,487
spaces. They're very funny and they're great. Like Hector is one with, you know, we love Hector,

506
00:42:22,487 --> 00:42:27,767
of course, but there are people, there are a few people who come here and they love large blocks

507
00:42:28,567 --> 00:42:33,847
and they don't want even the large block sidechain. They get annoyed and even offended at

508
00:42:33,847 --> 00:42:37,928
being asked. So it's not, it's not that, but it's not, sorry.

509
00:42:38,487 --> 00:42:42,567
They can invest in Solana then. That's a monolithic like end game.

510
00:42:42,567 --> 00:42:48,088
Well, they're in like a Bitcoin SV or whatever. I mean, Solana is an interesting case because

511
00:42:48,088 --> 00:42:53,448
what I think about, I would always make fun of Solana all the time. And I use it as a joke,

512
00:42:53,448 --> 00:42:56,327
you know, and I use it many times. So I was at Baltic County Badger. I was like, Hey,

513
00:42:56,327 --> 00:43:02,088
if people want to put their money on Solana or whatever, why can't they, they sell their Bitcoin

514
00:43:02,088 --> 00:43:08,008
and buy Solana? They can, should be, why can't they use Solana the sidechain? But I actually

515
00:43:08,008 --> 00:43:14,808
kind of admire how just unapologetic it is, you know, like they have found their niche of just,

516
00:43:15,368 --> 00:43:22,248
it's kind of like Tron also with USDT, where it's just like, we are what we are. And that's

517
00:43:22,248 --> 00:43:28,487
much more threatening than hypocrisy, I think. Anyway, that's my rambly answer. It's not very,

518
00:43:28,487 --> 00:43:33,448
it's not a very good answer. A lot of it, I think also is weird social nonsense. Like,

519
00:43:33,448 --> 00:43:36,967
I should, I think I should write a big blog post because I get this question all the time. Like,

520
00:43:37,928 --> 00:43:43,448
people always ask this, this idea seems like it's pretty good or worth trying. And it's just like,

521
00:43:43,448 --> 00:43:55,207
why? But I don't, there's no technical answer. The chief technical critic of this idea, you know,

522
00:43:55,207 --> 00:44:00,648
is Peter Todd. And he didn't, it's extremely obvious that he didn't, he hadn't visited the

523
00:44:00,648 --> 00:44:06,568
website ever. Because even after we paid him to write this article, he didn't know that the

524
00:44:06,568 --> 00:44:12,727
software exists. So what was his argument to, you know, not like it? Because I read that little

525
00:44:12,727 --> 00:44:20,007
spat. And, you know, I thought that was really funny, but it seems like he just took the money

526
00:44:20,007 --> 00:44:24,487
and didn't really provide like a real explanation or, or what did you make of that?

527
00:44:25,128 --> 00:44:28,727
Well, you know, last week I actually read through the article because I had nothing else to do. But

528
00:44:28,727 --> 00:44:33,767
I think I should make a, I should make a video like, because we're supposed to discuss it

529
00:44:34,968 --> 00:44:42,487
on a podcast, but we haven't scheduled it yet. And I don't think, I don't think that he's trying

530
00:44:42,487 --> 00:44:46,487
to weasel out of it per se, but I also don't think that he's in any rush. I mean, I think

531
00:44:46,568 --> 00:44:50,408
subconsciously he's trying to evade. He lost his Bitcoin, right?

532
00:44:51,767 --> 00:44:57,368
No, that's Luke Dashjr. Thinking of the wrong ideologue.

533
00:44:58,007 --> 00:45:04,327
But Peter Todd, I think was thinking more like small blocks because of, I guess, just keep it,

534
00:45:05,287 --> 00:45:10,487
keep the base protocol as efficient as possible for full nodes, right? And reorgs and all that

535
00:45:10,487 --> 00:45:16,568
stuff just to reduce. Yes. And he was right about that, but he went too far and he, Peter Todd's,

536
00:45:16,568 --> 00:45:21,848
if I had to summarize it, Mr. Crumbs and also Peter, so Peter Todd has hated merge mining for

537
00:45:21,848 --> 00:45:27,447
a very long time, even back to 2014. And they did a let's talk Bitcoin episode about sidechains,

538
00:45:27,447 --> 00:45:32,568
which ended up transforming into like a commercial for his own thing, tree chains that never

539
00:45:32,568 --> 00:45:37,287
materialized and that it was complete vaporware and no one could figure out what had happened to

540
00:45:37,287 --> 00:45:41,528
it. And I even asked people at the scaling for Bitcoin program committee, when we were trying to

541
00:45:41,528 --> 00:45:46,007
figure out what were like, what, whatever happened to that idea. And even in very senior Bitcoin,

542
00:45:46,007 --> 00:45:51,047
people were like, I have no idea at scaling Bitcoin three. Well, it's a long story, but

543
00:45:51,928 --> 00:46:00,568
the Peter's core mistake is that he confuses nodes and miners. And he thinks that it's good for nodes

544
00:46:00,568 --> 00:46:06,568
to be cheap and he's right. But then he also thinks it's, it's good for mining to be cheap.

545
00:46:06,568 --> 00:46:10,487
And that's not possible. That's, that's a rejection of proof of work actually.

546
00:46:10,487 --> 00:46:20,167
So, so he has this belief that miners, that miners must do something. And then that matters

547
00:46:20,167 --> 00:46:26,487
and neither are true. It's not true that miners must run a sidechain node and it wouldn't matter

548
00:46:26,487 --> 00:46:35,928
if that was required. And he thinks that basically, if you feel that, like if the

549
00:46:35,928 --> 00:46:40,727
miners invent like these shortcuts, like I was saying, like if they have a shortcut to get the

550
00:46:40,727 --> 00:46:46,248
state that doesn't involve them running a node, like we call this a, what would we call this?

551
00:46:46,248 --> 00:46:52,487
Like a node knockoff or like a cheap node or something like that. If they do that and it works

552
00:46:52,487 --> 00:47:00,167
a hundred percent of the time, then to me, that's just some normal thing that we do. Like,

553
00:47:02,007 --> 00:47:07,688
I guess, but to him it's like a logically impossible or something. So I should make

554
00:47:07,688 --> 00:47:12,167
it a little video with like, I mean, you could give a metaphor where like a node is something

555
00:47:12,167 --> 00:47:19,848
that removes a problem because a node increases your confidence and trust. So a node makes it

556
00:47:19,848 --> 00:47:26,808
so that you don't need to trust someone. They say, oh, I sent you the money. And you say, well,

557
00:47:26,808 --> 00:47:30,648
how do I know you sent me the money? And then when you run a node, then you're like, okay,

558
00:47:31,207 --> 00:47:35,447
now I know that I got the money. And you can look at your own confirmations. So that's like

559
00:47:35,447 --> 00:47:42,968
what a node does. So we could instead say like a node, instead of deleting paranoia,

560
00:47:42,968 --> 00:47:46,248
it like deletes heat or something. Like it's like an air conditioner.

561
00:47:48,568 --> 00:47:56,088
And so we at the Bitcoin Core universe, we like build air conditioners and we want them to be

562
00:47:56,088 --> 00:48:02,167
cheap in addition to working. So that's why how decentralized the air conditioner is,

563
00:48:02,167 --> 00:48:06,007
is how cheap it is. We want everyone to be able to have air conditioners because we want all

564
00:48:06,007 --> 00:48:11,688
the trust in the world. We want all the distrust to be destroyed. So we want the world to be very

565
00:48:11,688 --> 00:48:18,327
cold indoors. And so is this a metaphor starting to make any sense? And then Peter saying like,

566
00:48:19,688 --> 00:48:25,047
miners, if they have some, any other way of being cold, then that's illegitimate or something. I

567
00:48:25,047 --> 00:48:29,688
don't know if that makes any sense at all. But this is Peter's problem is he knows that it's

568
00:48:29,688 --> 00:48:36,568
bad if for the blockchain costs to go up, but he, to him, an L2 cost is an L1 cost. So he,

569
00:48:36,568 --> 00:48:42,008
so that's why he just can't grasp the idea. But either you're a monolithic engineer or you're

570
00:48:42,008 --> 00:48:47,607
modular, your thinking is, it feels like it's in one of the camps. And if he's monolithic,

571
00:48:47,607 --> 00:48:52,328
he thinks it has to happen all in one layer just for security concerns. And the miner should

572
00:48:52,328 --> 00:48:59,448
upfront that cost. And the Nakamoto coefficient of the full nodes should enforce that the security

573
00:48:59,448 --> 00:49:04,647
of the miners to not decrease that coefficient if that work is happening off chain somewhere.

574
00:49:04,647 --> 00:49:09,847
But he doesn't see that you could offload a lot of that cost without introducing the trade-offs,

575
00:49:09,847 --> 00:49:15,688
like what you're doing with some of the, what we're doing with the rollups and the similar concept.

576
00:49:17,688 --> 00:49:20,808
Yeah, that's exactly it. That was very well put. Like he doesn't see,

577
00:49:21,688 --> 00:49:25,928
I almost want you to repeat it so that I can write it down because it was so well put. It was like,

578
00:49:26,568 --> 00:49:34,008
there's no, he doesn't really, he doesn't actually believe that you can move the compute,

579
00:49:34,008 --> 00:49:42,647
like to him, every mining cost is an L1 node cost, which is, if you go down that road,

580
00:49:42,647 --> 00:49:49,768
and that's why I asked him, at the TabCom debate, I asked him, is every single ASIC

581
00:49:49,768 --> 00:49:54,808
that someone buys, is that a block size increase? And he sort of dodged the question because

582
00:49:56,087 --> 00:49:59,847
you can see it, when you put it as starkly as that, it doesn't make any sense.

583
00:50:00,808 --> 00:50:08,647
Paul, would you say that the Bitcoin devs, by and large, I guess, and maybe even the Bitcoin community

584
00:50:09,607 --> 00:50:15,607
have come to terms with the non-viability of lightning networks for fulfilling,

585
00:50:16,808 --> 00:50:20,808
I guess, Bitcoin's earlier vision of electronic cash at global scale?

586
00:50:21,527 --> 00:50:32,727
I think that, well, let me tell you, because the question is very emotionally charged,

587
00:50:32,727 --> 00:50:38,248
in addition to being politically sensitive, which is why it's a great question, and I hope to give

588
00:50:38,248 --> 00:50:43,688
an answer that's half as good as the question, but it's like, I'm not exactly sure how to phrase it

589
00:50:43,688 --> 00:50:50,248
in a way, but one way of phrasing it is that I had someone come up to me at TabCom,

590
00:50:51,688 --> 00:50:56,487
very senior person, I don't want to say who, but the person was talking to me, and they were kind

591
00:50:56,487 --> 00:51:02,167
of annoyed, and they said, last year, they were talking about, Matt Corallo gave a talk, and the

592
00:51:02,167 --> 00:51:06,888
talk was very good, I remember seeing the talk, last year at TabCom, Matt Corallo gave a talk

593
00:51:06,888 --> 00:51:12,647
called, Lightning is Broken, and he and I remembered the talk, and we were like, oh yeah, this is not,

594
00:51:12,647 --> 00:51:19,128
the person I'm talking about is a very senior person, and they're not particularly,

595
00:51:20,888 --> 00:51:24,248
they worked for a lightning company at one point, they're like pro-lightning,

596
00:51:25,688 --> 00:51:30,727
but they are kind of annoyed, because the talk was, Lightning is Broken, and it was a very

597
00:51:30,727 --> 00:51:35,208
convincing talk by Matt Corallo, but then what he said was, and he's like, but nothing really changed,

598
00:51:36,008 --> 00:51:42,647
was the gist of it, and so that was last TabCom, that was one TabCom ago, that was a whole year ago,

599
00:51:43,768 --> 00:51:49,208
so now we're at the next TabCom, and yeah, there was more, each year, there is more of like,

600
00:51:49,208 --> 00:51:54,647
the stuff that the very, very expert people complain about, expert people complain about a

601
00:51:54,647 --> 00:52:00,487
lot of things, and then they'd say, we'll solve it with factories or something, and over time,

602
00:52:00,487 --> 00:52:09,448
and over time, the complaining has started to filter down from like, a very few technically

603
00:52:09,448 --> 00:52:17,368
elite people, and it's in the process of slowly filtering down to the less experienced

604
00:52:17,928 --> 00:52:24,647
engineers and commentators and media people, and then down to the end users,

605
00:52:26,328 --> 00:52:30,087
so that is something that is happening. Another thing that is happening is that the people are

606
00:52:30,087 --> 00:52:35,607
doubling down on denial, and they are referring to things that aren't the Lightning Network at all,

607
00:52:35,607 --> 00:52:40,727
like for example, if what the Lightning Network is, is this network of nodes connected by

608
00:52:41,847 --> 00:52:48,888
bi-directional channels and HTLCs, now the bi-directional channel, that is very old,

609
00:52:48,888 --> 00:52:54,167
that long predates the Lightning Network, Satoshi invented that also, that's why there's n-sequence,

610
00:52:55,047 --> 00:53:00,808
it didn't really work in earlier versions of Bitcoin, but the idea of it was old, and even

611
00:53:00,808 --> 00:53:08,888
people such as the hated Mike Hearn, everyone hates him now, he was working on it in like 2014,

612
00:53:10,568 --> 00:53:16,407
so the bi-directional duplex channels between two people, that's not the Lightning Network,

613
00:53:16,487 --> 00:53:25,928
and what now has emerged is a network based on credit, which has the disadvantage of requiring

614
00:53:25,928 --> 00:53:31,448
you to care a lot about the reputation of who your node, your channel counterparty is,

615
00:53:32,167 --> 00:53:38,568
so because, well the weird way it always did though, because the best case scenario was,

616
00:53:38,568 --> 00:53:45,768
in many cases, you open a channel with someone, your funds are locked for two weeks, like if they

617
00:53:45,768 --> 00:53:52,967
just go AWOL, so that's a cost, having your money locked for two weeks is a very expensive

618
00:53:52,967 --> 00:53:58,248
cost if you really think about it, and then paying down one transaction fee on top of that,

619
00:53:59,527 --> 00:54:04,248
and so it kind of always mattered who you opened the channel with, but now we just see it just

620
00:54:04,248 --> 00:54:12,328
matters more and more and more and more and more, and as a result you, and so this is a rambly

621
00:54:12,328 --> 00:54:16,008
answer, but what I was trying to get at is people are, you know, they'll say,

622
00:54:18,647 --> 00:54:21,607
I just sent a one Satoshi payment through the Lightning Network,

623
00:54:22,568 --> 00:54:30,008
but not really, you just advanced the Satoshi, you know, for free to a third party who could

624
00:54:30,008 --> 00:54:37,047
just keep it, there's no HTLC enforcing that it goes to the end person, and that's because

625
00:54:37,047 --> 00:54:41,688
the stakes are so small, and because you already must trust the nodes for so much,

626
00:54:41,688 --> 00:54:47,607
so it's a complicated answer, but I think that there's a mix between people who are

627
00:54:47,607 --> 00:54:53,607
coming to terms with it, and people who are doubling down on lies, and also the definition

628
00:54:54,568 --> 00:54:59,448
which has changed, which is not necessarily the worst thing, but the definition is mutating.

629
00:55:01,448 --> 00:55:04,808
If the definition continues to mutate though, eventually it will just be the case that,

630
00:55:04,808 --> 00:55:10,888
you know, Venmo is a Lightning lot. Exactly. Yeah, that makes sense. I mean,

631
00:55:12,087 --> 00:55:19,287
it makes sense, you know, the momentum of the noise has to die down gradually, and then of

632
00:55:19,287 --> 00:55:25,768
course you're going to have people in denial who have really put themselves out on a limb,

633
00:55:25,768 --> 00:55:30,087
you know, for the Lightning Network's idea. So, I mean, what we kind of saw with Lightning

634
00:55:30,087 --> 00:55:37,208
Networks was that the idea was cool, but there were some issues with it. I think, you know,

635
00:55:37,208 --> 00:55:42,647
JAG understands pretty well, probably better than I do, the flood and loot vulnerability,

636
00:55:42,647 --> 00:55:46,967
and then you have the simple fact that even in the Lightning Network's white paper,

637
00:55:46,967 --> 00:55:55,768
it clearly states that there's a certain amount of L1 bandwidth that's needed to really scale,

638
00:55:55,768 --> 00:56:00,487
and a real scalability solution is one that works at the level of the architecture,

639
00:56:01,128 --> 00:56:06,967
which I guess kind of Lightning Networks does, but in practice where the rubber meets the road,

640
00:56:08,727 --> 00:56:15,208
it seems like Bitcoin doesn't have the bandwidth to really make it work for electronic cash at

641
00:56:15,208 --> 00:56:24,087
global scale, and people have just kind of not mentioned that that's directly in the Lightning

642
00:56:24,087 --> 00:56:30,487
Network's white paper. So, for me, there's two problems with LN. I think we covered that in some

643
00:56:30,487 --> 00:56:36,967
of our research, but I think there was a notable developer as well that just quit LN Lightning

644
00:56:36,967 --> 00:56:43,607
Labs or something like that, but the security researchers came up with the flood and loot

645
00:56:43,607 --> 00:56:47,688
attack. That's something that's just inherently unsolvable. That goes back to the Lightning

646
00:56:47,688 --> 00:56:52,808
Network white paper, which clearly says if you want eight billion people to do one transaction

647
00:56:52,808 --> 00:56:58,887
a year, you need so much bandwidth, and that's where the new age big blockers came from because

648
00:56:58,887 --> 00:57:05,367
they wanted to scale through LN, but in order for you to stop those attacks, if all eight billion

649
00:57:05,367 --> 00:57:11,688
people are using this, and this is discounting IoT, right, when AI and IoT comes on, but when people

650
00:57:11,688 --> 00:57:16,568
are using this thing to do one transaction to move your value off the LN back to the base chain,

651
00:57:16,568 --> 00:57:21,688
so you don't have IOUs anymore, you have actual Bitcoin, you don't have the bandwidth, and it just

652
00:57:21,688 --> 00:57:26,488
goes to the fact that Bitcoin is more of a court system. It's not meant to be that transaction

653
00:57:26,488 --> 00:57:32,488
processor. There's two problems. Obviously, the flood and loot attack is unsolvable, so they start to

654
00:57:32,488 --> 00:57:37,767
in the peering and onion filtering, they start to try to detect that, which is inherently unsolvable

655
00:57:37,767 --> 00:57:43,127
because you don't have consensus, and the second is if you try to do other tokens, like you start to

656
00:57:43,127 --> 00:57:48,647
think about USDT and under hyper Bitcoinization, it may not matter, but in today's world, there are

657
00:57:48,647 --> 00:57:53,367
other tokens. If you start to try to do this with other tokens, even if they're colored coins,

658
00:57:53,367 --> 00:57:58,328
you end up hitting the American call option problem, which again is unsolvable, and so you

659
00:57:58,328 --> 00:58:04,488
can't, you'll have this arbitrage opportunity where people will be able to steal, it'll be easier to

660
00:58:05,448 --> 00:58:12,728
create theft than it costs, and both flood and loot and the call option problem are easier to

661
00:58:12,728 --> 00:58:18,728
take money than to spend on taking that money, so that's something that you just can't solve for

662
00:58:18,728 --> 00:58:26,088
unless you have the consensus around it. And again, BIP300 and sidechains and putting the trust back

663
00:58:26,088 --> 00:58:33,208
into the miners and 51% security kind of gets around a lot of that, and you think of Bitcoin

664
00:58:33,208 --> 00:58:40,167
as more of an anchor settlement court system rather than some mechanism in which it's a

665
00:58:40,167 --> 00:58:44,407
substrate of a transaction processor where people are doing Visa MasterCard type things.

666
00:58:48,088 --> 00:58:52,568
Jag, there's some interesting potential in client-side proving though, like

667
00:58:53,448 --> 00:58:59,367
ZK client-side proving for Bitcoin, is there not? I've heard you talk about that.

668
00:58:59,367 --> 00:59:04,568
You end up at the data availability problem and Bitcoin doesn't have a solution for that, so

669
00:59:04,568 --> 00:59:10,568
the Lightning Networks is all a DA play because you need to prove that the HTLCs, you can close

670
00:59:10,568 --> 00:59:15,767
off and stop a spam attack and take your Bitcoin back out of the channel, and if there's not enough

671
00:59:15,767 --> 00:59:20,647
bandwidth to hear your court case in enough time, the judge will simply put the hammer down

672
00:59:20,647 --> 00:59:25,848
and you lost your money. And even in a ZK-based system, you could avoid some of the problems,

673
00:59:25,848 --> 00:59:30,088
like maybe the call option problem could be mitigated to a point, but you still have the

674
00:59:30,088 --> 00:59:36,007
problem of hearing the court case on the base blockchain, and if you don't have that availability,

675
00:59:36,007 --> 00:59:41,527
you run out of time to put your dispute up. So unless the chain is ZK itself,

676
00:59:42,247 --> 00:59:45,287
verifying it doesn't really make too much sense.

677
00:59:46,505 --> 00:59:58,425
Yeah, what about the idea of a ZK, like a succinct proof being stored directly on Bitcoin for DA? Is there any viability in that?

678
00:59:58,865 --> 01:00:09,464
No, the DA itself is not ZK-able. You have KZG proofs, which can prove sort of through cryptography that you're holding a subset of data.

679
01:00:09,464 --> 01:00:16,345
But again, you're not under the Bitcoin philosophy, where every node is trusting itself only.

680
01:00:17,224 --> 01:00:19,264
But the ZK is computational based.

681
01:00:19,264 --> 01:00:39,304
So if you want to solve a computation execution somewhere externally, like RISC-0 with continuations, and you distribute that ZK proof amongst a thousand computers, and you're able to do sub-second block verifications of ZK proofs, for example, you still have the problem of, okay, if people are using this with Bitcoin or value,

682
01:00:39,705 --> 01:00:41,705
how do they enter and exit in a safe way?

683
01:00:41,944 --> 01:00:52,665
And that requires, especially once you're moving the computation off, some mechanism where the witness data or the data of who owns what starts to be stored somewhere.

684
01:00:52,665 --> 01:01:12,265
And the more you think about it, the more it feels like the base layer job is just to be a court system for the DA itself and not be worried about the transactionality, like not where people are spending, receiving money for everyday transactions.

685
01:01:12,265 --> 01:01:16,344
And that's just against the Solana monolithic philosophy.

686
01:01:16,344 --> 01:01:21,625
And as soon as you get to modularity, you start to think about how can we just move the executions off?

687
01:01:22,104 --> 01:01:30,985
And having what Starknet wants to do is put that opcode on the blockchain, but you still end up, you don't solve for the DA problem.

688
01:01:30,985 --> 01:01:43,384
And the costs will still be pretty high because you're going to be using scripts to store that data and put a ZK opcode for the verification, but you're still storing a lot of data that never gets removed.

689
01:01:43,384 --> 01:01:45,625
And it'll be better than what it is today.

690
01:01:45,625 --> 01:01:48,424
It still won't scale to what we're talking about.

691
01:01:48,985 --> 01:02:14,025
Yeah, I guess it wouldn't get to the point where you could, like just I guess an example use case, participate in a prediction market that has a small turnaround time, pay an incredibly low fee, wager a very small amount, like 10 seconds before the prediction expires, which by the way, you can do that on Rolex.

692
01:02:14,904 --> 01:02:24,904
Well, if you take the Lightning Network volume that you're trying to anticipate, and you throw that into a DA layer, it also won't scale, right?

693
01:02:24,904 --> 01:02:30,984
You're talking about potentially millions of transactions between two people even within a year.

694
01:02:30,984 --> 01:02:34,665
And if you have to throw that on the base layer, it won't scale.

695
01:02:34,745 --> 01:02:42,025
So if you show a commitment to that, and that's what Drivechains is doing as well, the base chain never has to learn.

696
01:02:42,025 --> 01:02:47,544
There's no asymptotic cost or asynchronous assumption between the layer two and the base.

697
01:02:47,544 --> 01:02:59,465
If you tie in any way the base and the layer two or layer three or whatever, then you have this asynchronous assumption not only of bandwidth, but also of some security constraint the miner has to worry about.

698
01:02:59,624 --> 01:03:02,264
And that is where you start to get broken down.

699
01:03:02,264 --> 01:03:18,025
You either have some mad, mutually assured destruction there, or you end up having some sort of takeover or political centralization issue where someone doesn't believe in the philosophy and gives up and tries to attack that chain.

700
01:03:21,064 --> 01:03:22,665
These are really good answers.

701
01:03:24,184 --> 01:03:24,745
I love them.

702
01:03:25,544 --> 01:03:32,424
I just want to comment on something interesting about this whole data availability.

703
01:03:35,305 --> 01:03:36,825
It sounds like it's just like one...

704
01:03:37,385 --> 01:03:40,904
It's presented sometimes as though there's this big list of things.

705
01:03:40,904 --> 01:03:47,945
Oh, this, this, this, this, this, oh, but then, oh, number 14, we couldn't check that box, data availability.

706
01:03:48,904 --> 01:03:55,465
But really, this is the whole, it's the whole game, to some extent, because the L1 has a limited amount of space.

707
01:03:55,465 --> 01:04:10,985
And the whole idea is how do we make the transaction happen, but not consume this space, and it's only make, you know, whatever, one megabytes worth of data available every 10 minutes.

708
01:04:10,985 --> 01:04:14,105
So it's actually quite, quite at the heart of the matter.

709
01:04:14,584 --> 01:04:38,425
And for some reason, I'm not really sure why, but in Bitcoin, the technical community or whatever, has evolved over time to really prioritize what you might call the unilateral exit, which is to say, we're using L1, and we want to use the Lightning Network.

710
01:04:38,425 --> 01:04:54,505
The Lightning Network has to always give me something that I could broadcast on L1, I individually, could broadcast on L1 in order to get my money back from the L2.

711
01:04:54,505 --> 01:05:06,425
After all, what if all the people I'm participating in the L2 with just leave, they go AWOL, absent without leave, they just disappear, then I have to have something to come to L1.

712
01:05:06,425 --> 01:05:22,985
Now, that is the that has always been the philosophy. And that strikes through to like ARK, and other things also do this. And federated model might do this, I know, state chains do something like this.

713
01:05:22,985 --> 01:05:39,545
But that is never that doesn't actually work. Because if you have eight, if 8 billion people, 8 billion people won't fit on L1, and then they go to L2, you have 8 billion people, well, then they can't, all of them can't go from L2 to L1.

714
01:05:39,545 --> 01:05:53,145
So there's kind of a little bit of a paradox there, about this data availability, to push all the data away for everyone, but then give everyone something where they can come back to L1, everyone gets the unilateral exit.

715
01:05:53,145 --> 01:06:02,105
That's actually a paradox. And there was something else that I really wanted to say that seemed important, very important about oh, data availability. Yes.

716
01:06:02,105 --> 01:06:24,105
It's a paradox to this is, it's actually related, which is giving everyone something they can broadcast on L1. It's the same thing as solving the data availability problem, because it's just the data that you would have to put on L1 is split up among everyone who owns the L2, who's using the L2.

717
01:06:24,105 --> 01:06:42,105
And so I just wanted to try to comment that what drivechain does is it says, well, we have this second blockchain where everyone over there has this new, common data structure that they all share, and that they all need in order to run a node.

718
01:06:42,105 --> 01:06:50,105
And that they, that's kind of how I solve the data. That's how I dodge the data availability problem and also solve it.

719
01:06:50,105 --> 01:07:04,105
And I don't know if this is making any sense as a rambling answer, but I think the only way of actually solving it is to dodge it because of what I was saying before about you giving everyone unilateral exit just recreates the problem on L1 and it will never work.

720
01:07:04,105 --> 01:07:30,105
And this is exactly why what you were talking about before with the lightning white paper, saying that, and this actually dies into many other things about the lightning network, such as the creators emphasizing the HTLCs only work for high value payments and for low value payments, they don't, and just the whole thing is just a credit network anyway, which it is.

721
01:07:30,105 --> 01:07:46,105
And that the quantity of bytes required to enforce the HTLC or the PTLC or whatever the thing is, if that quantity of bytes is already basically almost as much as in the L1, a small, small, small L1 transaction.

722
01:07:46,105 --> 01:07:56,105
And as a result, the fee rate, you know, the fees on both networks and it being the same, the three, the dust to their shoulders are being the same anyway.

723
01:07:57,105 --> 01:08:06,105
And under the flood and loot, you just flood every channel regardless of the amount that's in there and force them to hit the main chain.

724
01:08:06,105 --> 01:08:14,105
But I guess in that scenario, the flood usually will target the low value channels and not the high value.

725
01:08:14,105 --> 01:08:23,104
So if you're using, maybe that's why they mean to, it's a high value payment channel system and not low value penny transactions or low value.

726
01:08:23,104 --> 01:08:27,104
Flood and loot is a completely different, there's many unsolvable problems with lightning.

727
01:08:27,104 --> 01:08:32,104
I think of which flood and loot is only one, I think that's related to the channel risk.

728
01:08:32,104 --> 01:08:46,104
But the HTLC is that if you actually were to pull the, if you were to say, let's say it's an ABC, A is paying C and I'm B and I have a channel open to A and C.

729
01:08:47,104 --> 01:08:56,104
If the fee rate is currently, let's say the fee rate is currently $10 for a transaction, that's 220 bytes, that's the L1 fee rate.

730
01:08:56,104 --> 01:09:01,104
So $10 for one transaction.

731
01:09:02,104 --> 01:09:13,104
If I have a channel with A and a channel open with B, my channel with A is going to increase by one HTLC and the one on B is going to increase.

732
01:09:13,104 --> 01:09:23,104
The AB channel is going to, the size of the transaction that would be broadcast, that is going to grow to include an HTLC.

733
01:09:24,104 --> 01:09:29,104
And then potentially it depends, you know, I could, the BC one could also grow.

734
01:09:29,104 --> 01:09:35,104
And now to, just to do, just to grow that I need the hash pre-image 32 bytes.

735
01:09:35,104 --> 01:09:38,104
I need to have another output.

736
01:09:38,104 --> 01:09:41,104
I need to have another, that's eight bytes just to count how many coins.

737
01:09:41,104 --> 01:09:49,104
And then to spend these later, they're going to become, each of this is going to become an input where I have to provide the pre-image or just 32 bytes or I have to provide something.

738
01:09:50,104 --> 01:09:53,104
And I have to provide another signature.

739
01:09:53,104 --> 01:09:59,104
The signature has to cover this thing, 64 bytes.

740
01:09:59,104 --> 01:10:09,104
So just to spend the HTLC is going to cost, like, it depends completely on the scenario, but it's going to cost like 100, 200 bytes.

741
01:10:10,104 --> 01:10:13,104
Even in best case, like point time lock.

742
01:10:13,104 --> 01:10:23,104
In any reasonable case, the H, just using the HTLC, the amount of ink it would require to write to the transaction to L1.

743
01:10:23,104 --> 01:10:30,104
In the worst case scenario of everyone going AWOL, and I have to broadcast on L1.

744
01:10:30,104 --> 01:10:33,104
That's going to cost me hundreds of bytes.

745
01:10:33,104 --> 01:10:38,104
If it's already 220 bytes, it's already costing $10 worth of transaction fees.

746
01:10:38,104 --> 01:10:41,104
Is this making sense?

747
01:10:41,104 --> 01:10:44,104
In that scenario, I can never route a payment that's less than $10.

748
01:10:44,104 --> 01:10:47,104
It's not even worth it to go to court.

749
01:10:47,104 --> 01:10:49,104
It's like your court analogy.

750
01:10:49,104 --> 01:10:54,104
It's like the court charges, the court is charging $10 to hear an HTLC case.

751
01:10:55,104 --> 01:11:05,104
If I route $7 and then they just leave, I'm not going to court to collect $7 if the court is going to charge $10.

752
01:11:05,104 --> 01:11:10,104
So that's just one of the many problems is the sensitivity to L1 fees.

753
01:11:10,104 --> 01:11:17,104
The onboarding is the biggest problem with the Lightning Network is that just to join the network, people need two of two multi-sig output.

754
01:11:17,104 --> 01:11:20,104
They need their own two of two multi-sig output.

755
01:11:21,104 --> 01:11:27,104
Even in the most absurdly generous case, this is not unrealistic and will never happen and has terrible UX.

756
01:11:27,104 --> 01:11:35,104
They would need to have joined some kind of group, some kind of coalition, provided the public key, the XPUB,

757
01:11:35,104 --> 01:11:46,104
and then have it do some kind of statistical crypto magic to create the output that we will then all spend the first coin, the funding transaction.

758
01:11:47,104 --> 01:11:48,104
So the onboarding is huge.

759
01:11:48,104 --> 01:11:51,104
Privacy is not good.

760
01:11:51,104 --> 01:11:52,104
The payments fail.

761
01:11:52,104 --> 01:11:53,104
The payments really can't fail.

762
01:11:53,104 --> 01:11:55,104
It's not a big difference between.

763
01:11:55,104 --> 01:12:07,104
So it's like the on-chain, the payment has trouble making it into a block, but it hits the mempool instantly.

764
01:12:07,104 --> 01:12:17,104
And then once it's into a block, everyone knows that everyone can kind of estimate for themselves how likely it is to settle based on the number of confirmations.

765
01:12:17,104 --> 01:12:27,104
So once you get one confirmation, most people in most contexts would just think, well, this seems really, really, really likely to be going through.

766
01:12:27,104 --> 01:12:28,104
It seems legit.

767
01:12:28,104 --> 01:12:35,104
And then even the exchanges only require three-ish confirmations these days.

768
01:12:36,104 --> 01:12:38,104
And then if you want more certainty, wait for more confirmations.

769
01:12:38,104 --> 01:12:41,104
Yeah, you could detect an attack as well.

770
01:12:41,104 --> 01:12:46,104
They could just wait for more confirmations if everyone knows there's something happening.

771
01:12:46,104 --> 01:12:57,104
But the DA problem, we classify it in the modular blockchain paradigm as a specific problem.

772
01:12:57,104 --> 01:13:05,104
We understand that all blockchains, it's all they are is data and proving the data is mapped to some state.

773
01:13:05,104 --> 01:13:22,104
But specifically when you're talking about blockchain, modular blockchain, where you're separating execution state and not as much with UTXO, but with the accounting model, you do have the roll-ups proving just a Merkle state or just a hash that gets put on the chain.

774
01:13:22,104 --> 01:13:35,104
But for people to be able to know, not that 8 billion people are going to move back to the base chain, but just that they have immutable decentralized ability, should they choose to one day do it, they have the ability to do it.

775
01:13:35,104 --> 01:13:48,104
The roll-ups can say they inherit the base layer security if that data availability exists so that someone can take that data and prove to the Merkle state that they are part of that state.

776
01:13:49,104 --> 01:14:03,104
And to solve that problem, you have to take the data off of the blockchain, but you have to do it in such a way that the blockchain knows that the data has been posted and that's a specific problem once you get into modular blockchain.

777
01:14:03,104 --> 01:14:26,104
And the problem would be that if you have a validator or a layer 2 block producer and he chooses to withhold the data or change one byte, it's called the fisherman's dilemma, then they could manipulate that byte and then post the state on the layer 1 and no one is able to move their money back off of the chain because the state has been updated with the bad Merkle route.

778
01:14:27,104 --> 01:14:38,104
So in order to solve that problem, the validator must prove that the hash of the data exists on the layer 1 and then commit that hash into the state that they're updating.

779
01:14:38,104 --> 01:14:47,104
Therefore, when the state gets updated, it checks, okay, does the hash of the data exist because the network would have validated it? Yes? Okay, then the state's accepted.

780
01:14:47,104 --> 01:15:02,104
And with the ZK roll-ups, they actually go further and put the hash in the public verifier, we check the circuit, and it checks that the data actually was committed, it was on chain, and it's part of the circuit.

781
01:15:03,104 --> 01:15:07,104
And so there's no fraud proof assumption there either.

782
01:15:07,104 --> 01:15:13,104
So that's a really, really cool breakthrough that we've considered on the data availability.

783
01:15:13,104 --> 01:15:21,104
Because you're only proving short term during the time of confirmation, you can actually delete the data after from the blockchain.

784
01:15:21,104 --> 01:15:33,104
So not only do the miners only propagate raw data without checking it, just a simple hash, and that data could represent all the transactions, that raw data is really cheap.

785
01:15:33,104 --> 01:15:39,104
It's bandwidth cost, but it's cost that goes away after the finality event.

786
01:15:39,104 --> 01:15:40,104
That's why we have finality.

787
01:15:40,104 --> 01:15:46,104
After the finality event, you remove the data, and all you get left is a hash of the data.

788
01:15:46,104 --> 01:15:55,104
So when you replay the blockchain, you're just replaying hashes that represent any number of transactions that have happened off the chain.

789
01:15:55,104 --> 01:16:07,104
So that's specifically, in the Ethereum or EVM world, when we talk about DA, the DA problem, it's a short term data store that gets removed from the base blockchain after some time.

790
01:16:07,104 --> 01:16:14,104
And you're using that in your roll-ups to prove that data was stored to solve that problem, the withholding data problem.

791
01:16:15,104 --> 01:16:24,104
Yeah, because of the pruning, it helps full nodes be able to run more easily and sync very easily with the network.

792
01:16:24,104 --> 01:16:26,104
It keeps things lightweight.

793
01:16:30,104 --> 01:16:34,104
Okay, we have some other people who are now speakers.

794
01:16:34,104 --> 01:16:36,104
Grant and Klaus.

795
01:16:37,104 --> 01:16:52,104
When you were talking about Nakamoto consensus and what it takes to allow for miners to do something but not have the energy so high,

796
01:16:52,104 --> 01:16:57,104
I was thinking about the Nakamoto consensus that Bram Cohen created for Chia.

797
01:16:57,104 --> 01:17:02,104
Have you looked into proof of space and time much in the hard drive utilization?

798
01:17:02,104 --> 01:17:04,104
A very long time ago.

799
01:17:04,104 --> 01:17:16,104
I think it was weird because I was looking into it in the context of something that would be an exception to my nothing is cheaper than proof of work essay.

800
01:17:16,104 --> 01:17:31,104
Because I thought there's a trapped market for hard drive space, which is that you buy a hard drive and you start filling it up.

801
01:17:32,104 --> 01:17:36,104
But until you fill it up, there's a lot of empty space on there.

802
01:17:42,104 --> 01:17:52,104
So what I was thinking was, this is something where it is sort of a free resource to you, but to the network, it could be worth something.

803
01:17:52,104 --> 01:17:54,104
And in that sense, it might be an exception.

804
01:17:55,104 --> 01:18:07,104
But the paradox is resolved if as soon as someone invents like a SIA or a Filecoin or a storage, then that becomes a valuable resource again.

805
01:18:07,104 --> 01:18:09,104
And then you start wasting it.

806
01:18:09,104 --> 01:18:17,104
And I've heard it's pretty brutal. I don't know if this is to be the case, but I have heard that it shreds the hard drives really quickly.

807
01:18:17,104 --> 01:18:19,104
I don't know if that's true.

808
01:18:19,104 --> 01:18:27,104
So the way the consensus mechanism works is you take the ASIC style portion of what Bitcoin is doing.

809
01:18:27,104 --> 01:18:30,104
You do that once and then you write it to the hard drive.

810
01:18:30,104 --> 01:18:37,104
So that part, which is called plotting, is the part that has been referred to as shredding hard drive.

811
01:18:38,104 --> 01:18:45,104
Because that is such an intensive process that when it was originally done, people did it on an SSD.

812
01:18:45,104 --> 01:18:49,104
And there's a lot of read-write that happens during that process.

813
01:18:49,104 --> 01:18:58,104
And so the early plotters on Chia, they would use a technology called NVMe or they would use RAM to do the plotting.

814
01:18:58,104 --> 01:19:00,104
And that eliminated that issue.

815
01:19:00,104 --> 01:19:05,104
And so what happens is you write a hard drive completely with data.

816
01:19:05,104 --> 01:19:06,104
So you fill it up.

817
01:19:06,104 --> 01:19:12,104
And then for the consensus mechanism, you're occasionally reading from the drive.

818
01:19:12,104 --> 01:19:16,104
So there's no write load on the drive once you reach steady state.

819
01:19:16,104 --> 01:19:26,104
So after you've done that first bit of work, the only thing that's happening in the consensus mechanism is you're doing occasional reads from the drive to see if you have a proof.

820
01:19:26,104 --> 01:19:31,104
So the way that they describe it is it's like proof of proof of work.

821
01:19:31,104 --> 01:19:39,104
And there's an attack that if you were just using proof of space, that there are certain ways that you can subvert that.

822
01:19:39,104 --> 01:19:45,104
And so the next part that needed to be brought in was a verifiable delay function.

823
01:19:45,104 --> 01:19:51,104
And so on Chia, there's actually two elements that are participating in the consensus mechanism.

824
01:19:51,104 --> 01:19:55,104
It's the distributed network of people who have hashes on hard drives.

825
01:19:56,659 --> 01:20:16,898
Operating in the same facility that ASICs are. And then you have these entities that exist on chain called time lords that are running a VDF. And that VDF has to verify that a certain amount of time has elapsed and then is responsible for emitting the signage points that are then distributed to the network.

826
01:20:16,898 --> 01:20:34,259
So if you look at the Nakamoto coefficient for Chia, it's actually quite high. And there's a broad base of participation. So I think from a Nakamoto consensus mechanism, this one is fairly interesting from it being a novel.

827
01:20:34,259 --> 01:20:52,019
The hardness of those coins are dependent on the hardware, the disk, Moore's law cost, right? So as the hardware gets more efficient, the hardness of the coins being output and the security of the coins through the verifiable delay is ensured, right?

828
01:20:52,019 --> 01:21:07,459
And so my concerns there would be around the hard drive costs and the abundance of hard drives, especially with artificial intelligence being able to go into servers and attacking them and taking them over and using that for re-plotting.

829
01:21:07,459 --> 01:21:36,099
And then also just dynamically on the VDF or the time lord being able to manipulate that because the hardness is based on hardware rather than a simple hash function, which even in the quantum realm, you cannot get around the XOR and the AND gates that are happening within the SHA-256. And so it's actually much more secure and much harder to manipulate that than go and get some hardware, some disk, and manipulate that to do your attack.

830
01:21:37,059 --> 01:22:02,978
Well, I'm not sure about that. Like, if you're talking about the capability to plot to win, right? So this is getting down into some of the deep guts of how this stuff works. But there's a way that you can determine whether the files that you have on your hard drive could possibly contain a proof for the signage point that's been proposed to the network.

831
01:22:03,938 --> 01:22:17,218
But let's stop for a second. So let's assume Chia has found a way to do modular scaling, right? I'm assuming there's a general purpose execution, right? Not just file storage, or is it just file storage?

832
01:22:17,218 --> 01:22:23,619
It doesn't do file storage at all. Like, Chia is not doing SCIA or Filecoin type operations.

833
01:22:23,619 --> 01:22:35,619
If it's general purpose execution, you're going to be doing modular execution, right? Then you end up having some sort of mechanism where the proofs get stored for a state transition of that modular chain.

834
01:22:36,099 --> 01:22:51,298
The event of manipulating that just once is a fault tolerance on the system level that we're looking to try to prevent. If you can even do it once by rolling back or manipulating that state, that ends up creating a fault in the entire design, in my mind.

835
01:22:51,298 --> 01:23:07,698
And that's why I was thinking, all it takes is someone to get ahead on the curve on the hardware for the disk to be able to plot an attack once, which undermines the system almost forever because you have to fork and manipulate the algorithm around it to prevent that scenario from happening.

836
01:23:08,578 --> 01:23:21,138
Well, in the two years that Chia has been in operation, what you've described has never been demonstrated, so I don't believe that that type of attack exists, but I mean...

837
01:23:21,298 --> 01:23:42,578
Yeah, I mean, of course it has. I'm just saying, theoretically, if you wanted to get ahead and try to do that, and if Chia scales up through a modular approach, like we're talking pushing 1,000 plus transactions per minute or per second around these sidechains, then you end up having this asynchronous...

838
01:23:42,658 --> 01:23:57,619
Yeah, I really wasn't talking to the scaling capabilities in any way. That's, I think, something that's been yet to be demonstrated on chains. Chia has been operating without L2s, so I think with respect to how...

839
01:23:58,578 --> 01:24:01,459
But you know that my normal commentary...

840
01:24:02,578 --> 01:24:17,858
Like, I wrote that essay, Nothing is Cheaper than Proof of Work, because the proof of stake people were claiming, not only is this better or whatever than proof of work, but also it doesn't waste...

841
01:24:18,418 --> 01:24:21,059
Proof of work is just wasting a bunch of resources.

842
01:24:22,019 --> 01:24:35,298
And so I was like, well, you know, whatever you do, there's this pile of money coming in. There's the newly minted coins plus the transaction fees. This is coming in. It's coming into the blockchain, you know, it's coming, it's being paid to someone.

843
01:24:36,258 --> 01:24:55,538
So people are going to fight. You have to build some clever way of people fighting over it that doesn't cost any resources. So that's why I was originally looking into the proof of space and time, because I was like, maybe if there's more hard drives out there that are just empty and just used by normal people versus the...

844
01:24:55,538 --> 01:25:17,459
Although it's hard to tell, because you mentioned that one thing about AI hacking into a server or whatever, AWS. But I was also thinking of, doesn't the NSA have all these multiple giant facilities that just have absurd amounts of storage space, and they just log everything in the hopes that there'll be an encryption vulnerability one day, and they'll just decrypt everything?

845
01:25:17,698 --> 01:25:41,459
Well, I mean, on the network, right. So it operates just like Bitcoin from the perspective of, like, what are you trying to do when you're making a new block, right? You're trying to have the correct answer to a particular math problem, and it's different on Chia. So it uses a different set of algorithms. And so if you have the correct input to that, then you can sign the block and you swoop up what's in the mempool.

846
01:25:41,459 --> 01:26:01,698
So I think there's this misconception that Chia is somehow like storing data. It's like, what you're doing is you're storing proofs. So those same proofs that are being generated by Bitcoin are sitting there on your hard drive. So you're just looking them up. So from the perspective of, like, what does Chia look like? It looks like Bitcoin in so many different ways, like it's a UTXO...

847
01:26:01,698 --> 01:26:31,138
No, no one's disputing that. I'm just saying, you're saying, what do you think of proof of space and time? I famously wrote this essay about, like, these are all just different versions of proof of work. And I mean, so one way, I think that if you really want to look at it from my perspective, I think, let's fast forward to the future. Everything happens on Chia. Chia is collecting $700 million a day in transaction fees from everything, which includes payments,

848
01:26:31,858 --> 01:27:00,179
and smart contracts, and data storage, and whatever else. So just a billion, a billion a day is coming in. There's no US dollar, because we've had hyper Chia-ization. And there's only Chia, right? So, but whatever was a billion dollars worth of stuff, that's how much you can buy with the crypto that comes in each, each Chia block each day, or each day's worth.

849
01:27:00,418 --> 01:27:28,418
So, in that scenario, someone out there is going to build the equivalent of an ASIC for, to mine Chia, or whatever. And they're going to build something, and it's going to have just the right amount of RAM to do that thing you mentioned before, and it's going to have the right amount of storage space, and it's going to have great heating. So they'll just build an ASIC version of that is my, is my extremely strong suspicion.

850
01:27:28,978 --> 01:27:43,059
So yeah, so I'm kind of very happy with my, I just sit here on my little hill. I'm like the king of this little hill, where I just say, everything, it just is proof of work. And I've been living here a long time, and I don't really see why I'm going to move.

851
01:27:43,059 --> 01:28:12,978
Yeah, that's, that's definitely an argument. And that's been demonstrated to some extent, because that's called plotting to win. And we've demonstrated that with GPUs already. It's not about whether you can do something like that. It's about whether it's more cost and energy efficient to do it with a hard drive, right? Because you can simulate a certain amount of space on Chia with a GPU. So just purely with a GPU, you can plot to win, you can keep your plot in memory.

852
01:28:13,059 --> 01:28:16,818
And then you can use that. So that's already possible. Like,

853
01:28:17,059 --> 01:28:40,419
yeah, but that's great. I'm saying, I'm saying your revenue is now gone up to $365 billion a year. So can't you go into the lab and design something that's going to be more efficient for you to just produce and run than what people are doing in their home? Maybe, maybe not.

854
01:28:40,419 --> 01:29:09,698
There's intrinsic levers built into the protocol that caused that to not work. So like, one of the things that you have to do when you're proving that you have a certain amount of space is that the space you have is a certain size. And so ultimately, what you get down to is bus speeds and how fast you can move data across, you know, whatever it is that you're going to use to generate the data internally, and then make use of it. And so when you talk about an ASIC,

855
01:29:10,979 --> 01:29:35,779
it's not exactly the special purpose kind of hardware that you would want to design. But you're talking about something like maybe an FPGA that would be able to do something like this. And then being able to move the data around on the bus. And so it's not like the team didn't think about this kind of stuff. Like they said, Hey, let's look out 100 years, like what, what is it going to take to keep this chain resistant to this type of stuff.

856
01:29:35,779 --> 01:30:05,698
And so there's there's inherent levers within the consensus mechanism that say, the plot filter can require a larger size file. So right now use K 32, it could require K 33, or K 34. And if that occurs, then you wouldn't have consumer grade hardware that could do this. Now, if you're saying, well, the NSA could build something like that. And it's like, okay, maybe like you could go after that. But if the size of the network is growing proportionally, right, it still might not be cost efficient to even

857
01:30:06,019 --> 01:30:09,219
try to go about, you know, simulating that amount of space.

858
01:30:09,378 --> 01:30:29,539
That's civil defense, right? So you're, if AI takes multiple servers of small servers over, you're not able to detect those events, you can't differentiate those between regular users, there's going to be small plots, right? I had a question was, is there a longest chain rule? How's the fragility handled in that?

859
01:30:29,539 --> 01:30:33,618
It's the heaviest chain, so longest and highest CLVM cost.

860
01:30:33,698 --> 01:31:01,859
Yeah, so that helps. Because if someone was to attack, over time, you know, the longest chain or the heaviest chain is a ghost, it should prevail. So anyways, that does help. But yeah, I would lean to look into like the nitty gritty details, for sure. Obviously, it's really cool design. I, you know, I've gotten some feedback from what it's about. But um, yeah, I always the devil's in the details.

861
01:31:01,859 --> 01:31:26,738
So for me, like the fault tolerance is the main thing. If you can cause one fault ever, I think the heaviest chain might prevent that if you can ever cause one fault, then when you're scaling up, and you're going modular, that's when those risks start to appear. But it seems like it's really, really good as a base layer as a monolithic design. I'd love to see how it scales up once once it starts to get going.

862
01:31:27,698 --> 01:31:39,698
I think the other thing that's worth considering as far as like what Bitcoin's been attempting to do and sort of been listening to the Bitcoin VM guys bemoan the lack of certain types of opcodes that they wish they had.

863
01:31:39,698 --> 01:32:02,659
So for example, we had Chia adopted, you know, a Lisp language, which is, you know, similar to the approach that Cardano took, which is having a functional language that's relatively complete in its ability to express ideas, and then keeping what's on chain pretty small by saying, we're not going to reveal what the smart contract is until you actually try to spend one of the coins that exists.

864
01:32:02,659 --> 01:32:24,258
Starting from the hash and saying, each coin has a hash, and if you want to spend this coin, you have to reveal what the smart contract is, and what solves that smart contract in the spend bundle. And that's the point at which you pay those costs to be able to move that coin to some new owner or some new contract that secures it.

865
01:32:25,698 --> 01:32:30,099
Yeah, so like a UTXO sort of model built into the smart contract.

866
01:32:30,659 --> 01:32:34,659
Well, each coin has its own attached smart contract.

867
01:32:34,659 --> 01:32:56,659
So just like how Bitcoin has Bitcoin script attached, and it's like almost what Chia did was say, pay to script hash is the primary thing that we want to do, as well as having, you know, something equivalent to partially signed Bitcoin transactions, which is Chia offer files to eliminate counterparty risk and allow you to trade assets back and forth.

868
01:32:56,818 --> 01:33:06,818
There's some other interesting stuff that's happened with Chia with respect to, like, how do you actually do, you know, bigger, harder problems like making an AMM singleton spend?

869
01:33:16,818 --> 01:33:18,979
We lost that person, I think.

870
01:33:20,578 --> 01:33:21,938
I think everyone got muted.

871
01:33:22,419 --> 01:33:23,618
Okay, we're back now, though.

872
01:33:25,138 --> 01:33:30,258
The last thing you heard me say is like, I was just trying to say a few things about like, how the on-chain programming is working.

873
01:33:30,258 --> 01:33:31,219
I think you said AMM.

874
01:33:32,019 --> 01:33:39,219
Yeah, like just how you do more sophisticated style programming, like AMMs and like singleton spend aggregations.

875
01:33:39,219 --> 01:33:45,138
And how do you actually do some of these more sophisticated vehicles that we've seen on Ethereum?

876
01:33:45,459 --> 01:33:47,859
And how do you do that in like a UTXO model?

877
01:33:48,659 --> 01:33:50,659
Yeah, Cardano is also tackling that as well.

878
01:33:50,659 --> 01:33:54,339
Anyway, did we ever get to Klaus?

879
01:33:54,339 --> 01:33:56,339
We should probably get to him.

880
01:33:56,339 --> 01:33:58,339
I think Ron covered everything.

881
01:33:58,339 --> 01:34:00,339
My mind is melting right now.

882
01:34:00,339 --> 01:34:02,339
Well, yeah.

883
01:34:02,339 --> 01:34:09,459
We'll post the recordings later so people can listen when they're in a very, very busy time.

884
01:34:10,019 --> 01:34:18,899
We'll post the recordings later so people can listen when they're in a very, very quiet room with a pen and a piece of paper.

885
01:34:20,019 --> 01:34:22,498
And listen a second time.

886
01:34:26,659 --> 01:34:29,698
It's great to finally meet you guys.

887
01:34:29,698 --> 01:34:30,899
Likewise.

888
01:34:30,899 --> 01:34:32,659
Nice to talk to you on Spaces.

889
01:34:32,659 --> 01:34:37,698
I think we've messaged like once or twice, I think, before over the years, maybe.

890
01:34:40,258 --> 01:34:42,258
Paul, I'll definitely give you guys a follow.

891
01:34:42,258 --> 01:34:46,339
I hope we can continue this discussion and further Spaces if you guys would like.

892
01:34:48,979 --> 01:34:49,539
Cool, great.

893
01:34:50,498 --> 01:34:50,979
Excellent.

894
01:34:52,818 --> 01:34:53,618
All right, back to Klaus.

895
01:34:55,459 --> 01:34:57,299
Yes, thanks for stopping by.

896
01:34:57,299 --> 01:35:01,539
We'll just go back to our regularly scheduled rambling now, I suppose.

897
01:35:03,299 --> 01:35:04,738
Oh, yeah, welcome.

898
01:35:04,738 --> 01:35:06,339
I think we do Spaces as well.

899
01:35:06,339 --> 01:35:08,019
We'd love to have you on as well.

900
01:35:08,019 --> 01:35:08,578
Just chatting.

901
01:35:09,299 --> 01:35:09,859
Absolutely.

902
01:35:11,698 --> 01:35:12,339
All right, cool.

903
01:35:12,339 --> 01:35:13,299
Thanks for having us.

904
01:35:13,938 --> 01:35:18,339
Hope everyone enjoyed the discussion and I'm sure there will be more in the future.

905
01:35:19,539 --> 01:35:20,419
Yeah, for sure.

906
01:35:20,419 --> 01:35:20,979
Thanks a lot.

907
01:35:25,938 --> 01:35:30,578
I had a comment to make about what Jagdeep was talking about scaling.

908
01:35:31,539 --> 01:35:39,938
I feel like there is an inherent issue in both the UTXO and account model with the scaling aspect,

909
01:35:40,659 --> 01:35:45,058
you know, at least for on-chain, because there's a lot of coordination that is involved.

910
01:35:46,178 --> 01:35:52,258
And I'm not sure what he was referring to when, you know, these popular buzzword these days is

911
01:35:52,258 --> 01:35:53,779
modular blockchain.

912
01:35:53,779 --> 01:35:57,378
I mean, is that consensus separate?

913
01:35:57,779 --> 01:36:07,299
Because, you know, UTXO has outputs and it has to coordinate as well to,

914
01:36:08,099 --> 01:36:11,219
you know, you basically have downloaded the entire blockchain.

915
01:36:11,219 --> 01:36:16,258
So it still has to, on a local machine is fine, but among other machines,

916
01:36:16,258 --> 01:36:18,578
it still has to do the coordination part.

917
01:36:18,578 --> 01:36:19,938
So does the account model.

918
01:36:20,498 --> 01:36:26,899
So I'm not quite sure that, how these change address any kind of scalability,

919
01:36:26,899 --> 01:36:30,659
because that's where the bottleneck is, is the coordination.

920
01:36:33,859 --> 01:36:39,859
Well, I'm not an expert on that particular topic, but I do think the one advantage of the UTXO

921
01:36:39,859 --> 01:36:45,859
model is that it is easier to chop into tiny pieces, you know,

922
01:36:45,938 --> 01:36:47,859
easier to chop into tiny pieces, you know,

923
01:36:49,698 --> 01:36:54,818
where you have your UTXO set, and then you bolt on a bunch of things.

924
01:36:55,618 --> 01:37:02,659
Each one of those could usually be discarded or added back.

925
01:37:02,659 --> 01:37:07,458
And so the damage is limited, whereas with the account model,

926
01:37:07,458 --> 01:37:10,338
each thing could affect the state of like everything else.

927
01:37:10,338 --> 01:37:12,579
And so it's just a little more interactive.

928
01:37:13,458 --> 01:37:18,738
But I don't really know specifically exactly what that was referring to.

929
01:37:18,738 --> 01:37:21,539
But I know the account model has numerous disadvantages.

930
01:37:22,579 --> 01:37:23,378
Yeah, definitely.

931
01:37:23,378 --> 01:37:26,978
I mean, UTXO is definitely better in that respect.

932
01:37:28,098 --> 01:37:30,819
What I'm looking from the both point of view,

933
01:37:30,819 --> 01:37:38,978
like even UTXO and account models still require two things to be changed,

934
01:37:39,059 --> 01:37:43,218
like the bearer and the sort of amount.

935
01:37:43,218 --> 01:37:48,978
And so it's still not like one-to-one like cash exactly,

936
01:37:49,699 --> 01:37:53,059
where you just change the bearer, right?

937
01:37:53,858 --> 01:37:55,138
And so it's interesting.

938
01:37:55,138 --> 01:38:03,618
That's where I think most of the scaling issues come in these approaches.

939
01:38:03,618 --> 01:38:06,098
And I'm not sure.

940
01:38:06,098 --> 01:38:11,059
I was just trying to ask him if deep left, like how modular approach solves it,

941
01:38:11,059 --> 01:38:14,899
but because it's still be based on either UTXO or account model.

942
01:38:15,618 --> 01:38:18,419
So I'm just trying to wrap my head around.

943
01:38:20,738 --> 01:38:24,498
The coordination problem doesn't go away in either, both of them, right?

944
01:38:27,539 --> 01:38:28,819
Yeah, that is a good point.

945
01:38:28,819 --> 01:38:32,738
I mean, my view, which is not his, so I don't know what he would say.

946
01:38:32,738 --> 01:38:37,059
But I think it's like the, you know, you have like small blocker,

947
01:38:37,059 --> 01:38:41,699
large blocker type people in every paradigm.

948
01:38:41,699 --> 01:38:46,019
And so the large, some people want the node to be more expensive.

949
01:38:46,899 --> 01:38:54,738
And as a result, they are already game for,

950
01:38:56,498 --> 01:38:58,258
so they're already game for paying more.

951
01:38:58,258 --> 01:39:00,659
And that's the modularity coming in to save the day.

952
01:39:01,458 --> 01:39:02,338
But I don't know.

953
01:39:02,338 --> 01:39:03,299
I don't know what they would mean.

954
01:39:04,179 --> 01:39:04,899
It's a good question.

955
01:39:06,258 --> 01:39:09,378
Yeah, because there's no inherent parallelism, right?

956
01:39:09,378 --> 01:39:16,419
In the transaction, like the congestion will happen as a result of coordination.

957
01:39:19,059 --> 01:39:21,858
So I think L2s will be required for sure.

958
01:39:23,618 --> 01:39:29,618
Unless you have some completely different paradigm from UTXOs and account model.

959
01:39:31,458 --> 01:39:37,539
Anyways, just some thoughts.

960
01:39:37,539 --> 01:39:38,498
Yes, definitely.

961
01:39:39,458 --> 01:39:39,699
Okay.

962
01:39:39,699 --> 01:39:51,618
Anyone else have any, anyone else want to come up and speak or have a question or comment?

963
01:39:52,110 --> 01:40:02,150
Anyone want to say, should we just talk about the, the boring topics of the day? Like you

964
01:40:02,150 --> 01:40:08,070
want to talk about Sam Bakeman Fried or whatever everyone is talking about, whatever all the

965
01:40:08,070 --> 01:40:13,430
cool kids are talking about. We try never to do that here. We only talk about the pure

966
01:40:13,430 --> 01:40:20,370
alpha cutting edge. We are the, we're like the hidden jazz club, you know, that none

967
01:40:20,409 --> 01:40:23,810
of the, none of the other people know about. We do the best, but you know, we can just

968
01:40:23,810 --> 01:40:25,729
hang out and talk about fun things.

969
01:40:25,729 --> 01:40:29,010
I'd like to ask you a question about what you think about what's going on with Bitcoin VM. Like

970
01:40:29,010 --> 01:40:31,650
what the, are you paying attention to that at all?

971
01:40:32,450 --> 01:40:33,650
You mean BitVM?

972
01:40:34,170 --> 01:40:35,930
Yeah, yeah, yeah.

973
01:40:36,049 --> 01:40:41,729
Well, I think it's a, it's a very good idea. In a way, I think it's related, it's kind of

974
01:40:41,729 --> 01:40:46,690
what I was talking about before, where the whole community has gone in the wrong direction, I

975
01:40:46,690 --> 01:40:52,369
think, which is that what I was saying before about the L2s is that there's a direction of

976
01:40:52,369 --> 01:40:57,010
always requiring each person to get something that they could bring unilaterally to L1.

977
01:40:58,010 --> 01:41:01,730
But I'm saying that's kind of pointless because there's no way everyone can use it, so

978
01:41:01,730 --> 01:41:03,330
there's no way it's really been given.

979
01:41:04,770 --> 01:41:10,730
And what I mean in this case is there's this whole like, ever since the block size war and

980
01:41:10,730 --> 01:41:18,249
the frustration with scaling, the frustration with SegWit, and the frustration with Soft

981
01:41:18,249 --> 01:41:23,930
Forks, that has led the community to evade the Soft Fork issue and delay Soft Fork.

982
01:41:23,930 --> 01:41:30,249
Soft Forks went from being just get 51% of miners to upgrade to the software to like an

983
01:41:30,249 --> 01:41:34,770
unjumpable hurdle that cannot be an impassable barrier.

984
01:41:35,730 --> 01:41:41,730
And as a result, people are now interested in this type of thing with, can we do something

985
01:41:41,730 --> 01:41:47,249
really, really complicated that the end user is not going to understand, so it really won't

986
01:41:47,249 --> 01:41:51,489
be self-sovereign, it would be a black box, it might as well be closed source.

987
01:41:52,050 --> 01:41:59,650
Should we do a very complicated thing in order to get, you know, basically Bitcoin, the EVM

988
01:41:59,970 --> 01:42:00,690
onto Bitcoin?

989
01:42:01,889 --> 01:42:07,169
And so I think it is actually, in a way, it may be part of the healing process, because

990
01:42:07,169 --> 01:42:12,289
once people see that you can do it this way, they'll want to do it and then they'll want

991
01:42:12,289 --> 01:42:13,490
to do it a better way.

992
01:42:13,490 --> 01:42:19,330
And then they'll evolve back toward the correct answer of just doing it the efficient way

993
01:42:19,330 --> 01:42:21,490
with modular sidechains.

994
01:42:22,210 --> 01:42:27,729
So I think as I've started to look at this, it really does bring up the fact that Bitcoin

995
01:42:27,729 --> 01:42:31,169
script is pretty limited in what it's capable of doing right now.

996
01:42:31,729 --> 01:42:38,690
I'm wondering if this is, you know, a sea change moment where the development community

997
01:42:38,690 --> 01:42:42,210
starts to really push back and say, look, you know, we have all these opcodes that are

998
01:42:42,210 --> 01:42:48,289
disabled and they're causing us to be able to just not do fundamental, like fairly simple

999
01:42:48,289 --> 01:42:49,490
operations.

1000
01:42:49,490 --> 01:42:54,850
And some of the stuff that BitVM is demonstrating here is it's like, all right, if you're not

1001
01:42:54,850 --> 01:42:59,809
going to give us, you know, the opcodes we really need to do what we want to do, then

1002
01:42:59,809 --> 01:43:02,050
we can go down and build them in digital circuits.

1003
01:43:02,050 --> 01:43:06,770
And then from there, we can do these very convoluted things that allow us to do whatever

1004
01:43:06,770 --> 01:43:07,330
we want.

1005
01:43:07,330 --> 01:43:11,889
So it might force the issue just from the perspective of like, we're going to do it

1006
01:43:11,889 --> 01:43:12,449
anyway.

1007
01:43:12,449 --> 01:43:18,130
So either you make it in programming language or we're going to compute all these pre-images

1008
01:43:18,130 --> 01:43:23,889
offline and use them to prove that these digital circuits are working correctly on Bitcoin.

1009
01:43:23,889 --> 01:43:28,449
Seems like we're trying to push Bitcoin script with this whole idea.

1010
01:43:31,490 --> 01:43:32,930
I think that's correct.

1011
01:43:32,930 --> 01:43:39,970
And I think that it is also, I'm not really sure how to go about saying this, but there

1012
01:43:39,970 --> 01:43:47,009
is a kind of, you have to equivocate if you're in Bitcoin, you have to take two different

1013
01:43:47,009 --> 01:43:52,449
things at once where you say, well, it's really cool when things are built on Bitcoin.

1014
01:43:52,449 --> 01:43:58,610
And then you also have to say, Bitcoin's perfect the way it is.

1015
01:43:58,610 --> 01:44:01,249
And so if you can't build on Bitcoin, then that's also good.

1016
01:44:02,930 --> 01:44:04,529
And those are just two different things.

1017
01:44:04,529 --> 01:44:11,330
So, but I think that you're right, that part of this would be, I mean, Adam Beck often,

1018
01:44:11,330 --> 01:44:15,490
very often tells a story about how people didn't want to add support.

1019
01:44:15,490 --> 01:44:20,289
They were worried about adding support for some kind of thing in, I don't remember what

1020
01:44:20,289 --> 01:44:20,610
it was.

1021
01:44:20,689 --> 01:44:23,409
I think it was like a C++ compiler or something like that.

1022
01:44:24,289 --> 01:44:25,090
Ancient history.

1023
01:44:26,770 --> 01:44:28,050
And people were worried about it.

1024
01:44:28,050 --> 01:44:35,169
And then someone demonstrated that you could emulate that, whatever the thing was, you

1025
01:44:35,169 --> 01:44:36,289
could emulate it already.

1026
01:44:37,969 --> 01:44:39,330
And then they just dropped the issue.

1027
01:44:39,969 --> 01:44:42,770
They added it because they said, well, you can already do it.

1028
01:44:42,770 --> 01:44:49,250
So, I feel like that's where we're at.

1029
01:44:49,250 --> 01:44:53,889
With this whole discussion and what's being demonstrated, it's like you can keep withholding

1030
01:44:53,889 --> 01:44:57,729
updates to the language, but you can't fundamentally stop computing.

1031
01:44:57,729 --> 01:45:02,849
And if you make us do it in this really convoluted way, it just makes us do a lot of offline

1032
01:45:02,849 --> 01:45:07,569
computation to be able to do the same thing that would be much more reasonably done.

1033
01:45:08,770 --> 01:45:12,210
It's just part of the programming language of the chain.

1034
01:45:13,729 --> 01:45:26,449
I had a quick thought on what I was talking earlier really quickly.

1035
01:45:26,449 --> 01:45:36,770
And I'm going to say, historically, all the blockchains with UTXOs and as well as account

1036
01:45:36,770 --> 01:45:41,250
model, they at least involve at least two transactional units.

1037
01:45:42,129 --> 01:45:49,729
Because you have this interconnected ledger and history of each asset in the ledger is

1038
01:45:49,729 --> 01:45:51,490
kind of dependent on the other assets.

1039
01:45:52,370 --> 01:46:05,009
So, I think there's the limitation of any performance improvements because you can get

1040
01:46:05,090 --> 01:46:10,610
this congestion, additional layers, such as with rollups.

1041
01:46:13,409 --> 01:46:20,129
So, you're looking at what AVAX or these folks do with federated consensus.

1042
01:46:21,729 --> 01:46:26,210
I mean, they do introduce compromises, of course, in security and performance.

1043
01:46:26,210 --> 01:46:33,490
So, I don't know where I'm going with this, but I'm saying if there is a way to have these

1044
01:46:35,569 --> 01:46:44,129
cross-dependencies reduced or these assets be independently updating and don't require

1045
01:46:44,129 --> 01:46:45,330
any sort of coordination.

1046
01:46:45,330 --> 01:46:52,530
I mean, that would be an example of a perfect sort of parallelism, analogous to, say, real

1047
01:46:52,530 --> 01:46:53,889
cash in the real world.

1048
01:46:55,569 --> 01:46:59,490
No, but that is the goal with sidechains is that they're all independent pieces of software.

1049
01:47:00,210 --> 01:47:04,530
And each person is a benevolent dictator of their own little realm.

1050
01:47:05,810 --> 01:47:07,169
And they do whatever they want over there.

1051
01:47:07,810 --> 01:47:08,530
Right.

1052
01:47:08,530 --> 01:47:09,569
But, yeah.

1053
01:47:29,569 --> 01:47:31,810
Come on up if anyone has a question or comments.

1054
01:47:32,370 --> 01:47:33,810
Happy Friday to everyone.

1055
01:47:35,729 --> 01:47:38,210
Um, what's coming up?

1056
01:47:38,210 --> 01:47:39,009
Anything good?

1057
01:47:39,009 --> 01:47:39,810
Nothing, really.

1058
01:47:43,810 --> 01:47:47,729
There's the Texas thing in the middle of the Thanksgiving is coming up.

1059
01:47:47,729 --> 01:47:49,889
Before that, there's that mining thing in Texas.

1060
01:47:51,490 --> 01:47:52,449
That could be fun.

1061
01:47:52,449 --> 01:47:54,530
Right now, isn't there something now in Dubai?

1062
01:47:55,169 --> 01:47:56,849
Not there, but whatever it is.

1063
01:47:56,849 --> 01:47:59,889
I think there's something in Amsterdam right now.

1064
01:47:59,889 --> 01:48:01,409
In April, there's a big one.

1065
01:48:01,409 --> 01:48:02,770
I went to the Singapore one.

1066
01:48:03,090 --> 01:48:05,490
The 2049, I was crowded.

1067
01:48:05,490 --> 01:48:06,449
10,000 people.

1068
01:48:07,009 --> 01:48:08,129
Oh, good.

1069
01:48:08,129 --> 01:48:13,009
Yeah, the Dubai one is going to be a bigger one because, you know, I'm in podcasting and

1070
01:48:13,009 --> 01:48:13,250
stuff.

1071
01:48:13,250 --> 01:48:15,250
So, yeah, it was pretty massive.

1072
01:48:15,250 --> 01:48:18,129
Singapore, a lot of companies showed up.

1073
01:48:20,129 --> 01:48:23,969
And Dubai one is going to be a bigger, supposedly bigger.

1074
01:48:25,810 --> 01:48:28,610
So, yeah, Asia is buzzing.

1075
01:48:28,610 --> 01:48:30,849
Actually, I compare US and Asia.

1076
01:48:31,089 --> 01:48:33,890
I'm so slow right now in the US.

1077
01:48:35,649 --> 01:48:42,050
Yeah, that was also my experience that in Asia, everyone was very optimistic, excited

1078
01:48:42,050 --> 01:48:43,729
all the time about everything.

1079
01:48:44,610 --> 01:48:49,570
And also US, that's when also I was like, USDT is taking over.

1080
01:48:49,570 --> 01:48:54,610
And this mirrors an experience I had before when it was like all the NFT stuff was doing

1081
01:48:55,329 --> 01:48:55,729
ETH.

1082
01:48:55,729 --> 01:48:59,729
Like, I'm not really active with NFTs at all, to say the least.

1083
01:48:59,810 --> 01:49:02,289
But I think people should be free to do it.

1084
01:49:02,289 --> 01:49:04,769
I don't consenting adults to do it.

1085
01:49:04,769 --> 01:49:06,849
And I know that they like the art market.

1086
01:49:06,849 --> 01:49:11,409
They people are using it for like all kinds of money laundering and tax evasion.

1087
01:49:12,209 --> 01:49:13,810
Yeah, which is fine for them.

1088
01:49:13,810 --> 01:49:14,610
Good for them.

1089
01:49:14,610 --> 01:49:17,969
But I was just trying to say that USDT is taking over in Asia.

1090
01:49:17,969 --> 01:49:19,649
But everyone, but people are loving.

1091
01:49:19,649 --> 01:49:20,529
They love everything.

1092
01:49:20,529 --> 01:49:21,649
They love every project.

1093
01:49:21,649 --> 01:49:23,409
They love every coin.

1094
01:49:23,409 --> 01:49:25,649
There's no Bitcoin maximalism over there, I think.

1095
01:49:25,649 --> 01:49:26,610
And now that I could tell.

1096
01:49:27,490 --> 01:49:28,529
Yeah, exactly.

1097
01:49:28,529 --> 01:49:29,649
That's what I felt.

1098
01:49:29,649 --> 01:49:30,529
And you know what?

1099
01:49:30,529 --> 01:49:35,169
I'm kind of scared of this naive optimism over there.

1100
01:49:35,169 --> 01:49:39,409
Actually, we don't want SBF 2.0 happening over there.

1101
01:49:39,409 --> 01:49:42,209
But from what I'm hearing, the regulators are pretty strict.

1102
01:49:43,089 --> 01:49:51,169
So maybe what we do see like this, the overly optimism in the space over there that every

1103
01:49:51,169 --> 01:49:52,050
project is cool.

1104
01:49:52,050 --> 01:49:55,250
It's probably people are catching up to the tech.

1105
01:49:55,250 --> 01:50:00,209
I mean, I had some hard questions from some folks on stage, and they literally would dodge

1106
01:50:00,209 --> 01:50:00,769
the questions.

1107
01:50:00,769 --> 01:50:07,810
And people wouldn't even worry about it because I think it's still new for a lot of folks

1108
01:50:07,810 --> 01:50:08,610
there.

1109
01:50:08,610 --> 01:50:15,250
But yeah, I kind of agree with you that it's like, what's going on here?

1110
01:50:15,250 --> 01:50:22,370
Like it's everybody is so positive about every project and nobody's like critical about how

1111
01:50:22,370 --> 01:50:23,409
this is going to scale.

1112
01:50:23,409 --> 01:50:25,490
What are the security assumptions?

1113
01:50:25,490 --> 01:50:26,849
Blah, blah, blah, this, that.

1114
01:50:28,930 --> 01:50:31,729
Yeah, I have the same feeling.

1115
01:50:40,130 --> 01:50:49,409
And a little bit of regulatory ping pong, so to speak, which was FTX collapsed last

1116
01:50:49,409 --> 01:50:49,969
November.

1117
01:50:51,490 --> 01:50:56,849
And that was bad, of course, for, I mean, you know, Bitcoin had nothing to do with it,

1118
01:50:56,849 --> 01:50:58,529
but we all suffer as a result.

1119
01:50:59,490 --> 01:51:08,050
And then regulators moved in at the same time that for all these other Asian markets, I

1120
01:51:08,050 --> 01:51:11,810
think, Bitcoin and everything had been banned.

1121
01:51:11,810 --> 01:51:12,930
Then it was like unbanned.

1122
01:51:13,250 --> 01:51:17,570
And then Coinbase, Binance, et cetera, people decided to fight the SEC in the U.S.

1123
01:51:18,450 --> 01:51:19,649
They sort of slowly won.

1124
01:51:19,649 --> 01:51:21,969
So we've kind of been trading places back and forth.

1125
01:51:22,690 --> 01:51:24,450
Very fast-paced industry.

1126
01:51:27,649 --> 01:51:30,769
Anyway, come up on, oh, we have Satoshi and Joyous here.

1127
01:51:30,769 --> 01:51:31,250
Hello.

1128
01:51:31,810 --> 01:51:32,610
Nice to see you again.

1129
01:51:32,610 --> 01:51:33,250
Hey, what's up?

1130
01:51:33,250 --> 01:51:34,370
Happy Friday, everybody.

1131
01:51:36,450 --> 01:51:37,890
So I have this weird thought.

1132
01:51:38,370 --> 01:51:45,169
I was listening earlier about the merged chains, and I'm wondering, maybe I'm overthinking

1133
01:51:45,169 --> 01:51:50,610
it, but I'm wondering, like, what's the actual purpose for a new token for a merged chain?

1134
01:51:50,610 --> 01:51:55,729
If it's merged anyways, it's like miningly merged with Bitcoin.

1135
01:51:55,729 --> 01:51:59,169
It's leveraging Bitcoin for security or like some sort of finality.

1136
01:51:59,810 --> 01:52:04,289
So it's like the new asset really just like trying to compete in the market, like for

1137
01:52:04,289 --> 01:52:04,930
its own niche.

1138
01:52:04,930 --> 01:52:09,729
I think you might know a little bit about that because HiveMind needs its own token,

1139
01:52:09,729 --> 01:52:11,250
but I still don't understand like where.

1140
01:52:11,250 --> 01:52:13,969
Ah, yes, that's a completely different thing, yeah.

1141
01:52:13,969 --> 01:52:21,890
So the way it started was with Namecoin, and Namecoin was an attempt to create a new project

1142
01:52:21,890 --> 01:52:26,849
for DNS and have a new coin that would float against BTC.

1143
01:52:26,849 --> 01:52:30,529
And it's a very intriguing case because anyone can go back and read the original Bitcoin

1144
01:52:30,529 --> 01:52:32,769
talk thread that has Satoshi and Joyous on it.

1145
01:52:32,769 --> 01:52:39,490
And he doesn't seem to be threatened at all by a new coin, and he helped invent Namecoin

1146
01:52:39,490 --> 01:52:42,690
and he helped invent merged mining so that each chain...

1147
01:52:42,690 --> 01:52:49,729
Because I think Satoshi thought that they might compete for mining strength, and he

1148
01:52:49,729 --> 01:52:54,690
thought it's better if they just cooperate and they can all merge the same.

1149
01:52:54,690 --> 01:52:59,250
All the transaction fees will go to the same group of people, increasing total strength.

1150
01:52:59,969 --> 01:53:03,570
That's his three words, increasing total strength is his quote.

1151
01:53:04,450 --> 01:53:09,649
So he wanted the hashrate to be very high, and he thought we can merge them all there

1152
01:53:09,649 --> 01:53:13,490
into one project, into one set of miners for free.

1153
01:53:15,089 --> 01:53:16,130
And that is what he did.

1154
01:53:17,010 --> 01:53:22,849
And there was no way of making it so that Bitcoin could be used on the Namecoin side

1155
01:53:22,849 --> 01:53:23,409
chain.

1156
01:53:23,810 --> 01:53:32,050
On the Namecoin sidechain, that is what, you know, that is what in drivechain, BIP300

1157
01:53:32,050 --> 01:53:34,690
aspires to do that we don't have.

1158
01:53:34,690 --> 01:53:36,690
And this is a long, long, long, long time ago.

1159
01:53:37,329 --> 01:53:37,969
And...

1160
01:53:37,969 --> 01:53:39,010
One second, let me stop you.

1161
01:53:39,010 --> 01:53:43,010
So if there was a way to move Bitcoin back and forth, do you think there's any purpose

1162
01:53:43,010 --> 01:53:44,930
for a new asset as Namecoin?

1163
01:53:47,490 --> 01:53:50,930
In the case of Namecoin, no, because I think the only reason they did it that way was because

1164
01:53:50,930 --> 01:53:52,209
they didn't know what else to do.

1165
01:53:52,769 --> 01:53:56,209
Whereas I would do it with BTC the whole way.

1166
01:53:56,209 --> 01:53:58,209
BTC paying the transaction fees.

1167
01:53:58,209 --> 01:54:02,769
So just in the case of that, you know, good mechanism of back and forth, that's the reason

1168
01:54:02,769 --> 01:54:04,610
why the other chain has its own asset.

1169
01:54:04,610 --> 01:54:09,089
But really, it's really not competing with Bitcoin since it's still giving all the all

1170
01:54:09,089 --> 01:54:11,329
the revenue fees to the miners anyways.

1171
01:54:11,329 --> 01:54:15,649
But in a way, it's still diluting the value because it has its own like floating price.

1172
01:54:15,649 --> 01:54:18,930
But you're saying it's only because there was no good mechanism to go back and forth.

1173
01:54:18,930 --> 01:54:21,810
Otherwise, it would just be useless to have another asset, right?

1174
01:54:22,450 --> 01:54:24,450
Yes.

1175
01:54:24,450 --> 01:54:27,089
In the case of Hivemind, there is something.

1176
01:54:27,089 --> 01:54:36,050
First of all, almost everything is done with the BTC asset, the cash asset, you know,

1177
01:54:37,250 --> 01:54:43,890
placing a bet, you know, betting in the markets, you know, going long or short, buying a share,

1178
01:54:44,930 --> 01:54:50,209
buying all the shares and opening your own little exchange with all the like opening

1179
01:54:50,209 --> 01:55:00,050
lightning channels with trades in them, creating a market, creating a question that you want

1180
01:55:00,050 --> 01:55:01,729
the oracle to answer.

1181
01:55:01,729 --> 01:55:07,649
So all of those things, basically everything is done with the BTC coin unit.

1182
01:55:08,529 --> 01:55:09,490
There is a different coin.

1183
01:55:09,490 --> 01:55:12,130
Is the fees for all these transactions also on BTC the unit?

1184
01:55:12,130 --> 01:55:12,529
Yes.

1185
01:55:12,529 --> 01:55:13,010
Nice.

1186
01:55:13,010 --> 01:55:13,329
Yes.

1187
01:55:15,490 --> 01:55:20,050
The reason why there's a second unit is because again, it's just was technically and economically

1188
01:55:20,050 --> 01:55:21,729
required in my opinion.

1189
01:55:21,729 --> 01:55:29,010
I may be incorrect in my, I'm like this peer to peer oracle, like mad scientist.

1190
01:55:29,010 --> 01:55:35,169
So I may be wrong about this, but the point of the, there's like an employees only section

1191
01:55:35,169 --> 01:55:40,610
that is sort of like a corporation where you buy in and then you're running the oracle,

1192
01:55:40,610 --> 01:55:42,209
you're answering the questions.

1193
01:55:42,209 --> 01:55:47,969
And we want, if that thing does a terrible job, we want basically the market capitalization

1194
01:55:47,969 --> 01:55:51,570
of that corporation to collapse.

1195
01:55:51,570 --> 01:55:54,209
So there must be an independently floating having the coin.

1196
01:55:56,209 --> 01:55:56,769
Exactly.

1197
01:55:56,769 --> 01:55:57,329
Yes.

1198
01:55:57,329 --> 01:56:01,250
Centralized type of company where people can come and go as, as pleased, right?

1199
01:56:01,250 --> 01:56:01,490
Right.

1200
01:56:01,490 --> 01:56:07,169
It has this very, very narrow, very narrow and well-defined purpose of doing the peer

1201
01:56:07,169 --> 01:56:07,969
to peer oracle.

1202
01:56:08,769 --> 01:56:13,969
And as a result, it's, it needed to have a floating thing.

1203
01:56:13,969 --> 01:56:15,250
And it also, it doesn't compete.

1204
01:56:15,250 --> 01:56:20,529
There's absolutely zero sense whatsoever in which it competes with BTC to be used as

1205
01:56:20,529 --> 01:56:21,329
money.

1206
01:56:21,329 --> 01:56:22,610
If that would be ridiculous.

1207
01:56:22,610 --> 01:56:22,849
Right.

1208
01:56:22,849 --> 01:56:26,289
So, and in fact, even on its own blockchain, it's not used for payment.

1209
01:56:26,289 --> 01:56:30,450
It's the same thing as like tokenization as far as just like just a company that has

1210
01:56:30,450 --> 01:56:31,089
shares.

1211
01:56:31,089 --> 01:56:33,329
It's not really competing as a base asset.

1212
01:56:33,329 --> 01:56:36,610
Another reason why I'm actually in favor, even though I don't, I don't, I haven't

1213
01:56:36,610 --> 01:56:37,169
really messed.

1214
01:56:37,169 --> 01:56:43,810
I, I don't really like participate in ERC20 or NFTs or whatever, but I think it's a

1215
01:56:43,810 --> 01:56:50,130
perfectly valid thing to want the blockchain to do because we do it all the time with

1216
01:56:50,130 --> 01:56:57,410
every stock, every bond, every IOU, every forward contract, every receipts, every,

1217
01:56:57,410 --> 01:57:03,569
when you buy concert tickets, when you catch the game ball at a baseball game, it's

1218
01:57:03,569 --> 01:57:09,250
like we have collectibles, you know, when they make only 2,000 of a certain type of

1219
01:57:09,250 --> 01:57:09,490
watch.

1220
01:57:10,049 --> 01:57:10,209
Yeah.

1221
01:57:10,209 --> 01:57:13,170
I agree as well that like, there's nothing inherently wrong with tokenization.

1222
01:57:13,170 --> 01:57:15,969
It's just, you know, like that, that's fine.

1223
01:57:15,969 --> 01:57:19,890
I think the issue that comes in is the misleading marketing that goes along with it.

1224
01:57:19,890 --> 01:57:20,370
Right.

1225
01:57:20,370 --> 01:57:22,290
That's really what everybody doesn't like.

1226
01:57:22,290 --> 01:57:24,849
And they conflate it together with just, you know, creating tokens.

1227
01:57:24,849 --> 01:57:27,490
But I think creating tokens is not an issue.

1228
01:57:27,490 --> 01:57:28,929
It's the marketing that.

1229
01:57:28,929 --> 01:57:32,370
So, yeah, back to the question is all these other chains that, you know, that were

1230
01:57:32,370 --> 01:57:33,490
previously speaking.

1231
01:57:34,130 --> 01:57:36,049
So, like, what's the point of the asset there?

1232
01:57:36,049 --> 01:57:40,689
Are they really just trying to compete as far as like just having new assets that's

1233
01:57:40,689 --> 01:57:41,410
competing in the market?

1234
01:57:41,410 --> 01:57:46,449
Because it seems like, you know, they are like, I don't know, what would their say

1235
01:57:46,449 --> 01:57:47,089
be?

1236
01:57:47,089 --> 01:57:52,049
Is the new asset required as far as, you know, in their protocols or it's more just,

1237
01:57:52,049 --> 01:57:53,250
you know, they want a new asset?

1238
01:57:53,250 --> 01:57:54,370
The CISCOIN people?

1239
01:57:55,490 --> 01:58:02,130
The CISCOIN, yeah, I guess the CISCOIN people, but also I think what's that other

1240
01:58:02,130 --> 01:58:04,209
protocol that Stacks as well?

1241
01:58:05,969 --> 01:58:09,329
Yeah, well, with Stacks, I think it was so that they could raise all that money they

1242
01:58:09,329 --> 01:58:09,729
want.

1243
01:58:09,729 --> 01:58:10,449
That's the problem.

1244
01:58:10,449 --> 01:58:13,250
And, you know, this is the corruption of incentives.

1245
01:58:13,250 --> 01:58:17,490
It's very it's and I say corruption because it goes both ways.

1246
01:58:18,130 --> 01:58:25,490
I think there's a mixture of legitimate and illegitimate incentives, which they each kind

1247
01:58:25,490 --> 01:58:28,610
of chip into each other, which is not so great.

1248
01:58:29,809 --> 01:58:35,410
But I think the lack of sidechains opens the door to this where people just say, well,

1249
01:58:35,410 --> 01:58:36,849
what do you want me to do instead?

1250
01:58:37,809 --> 01:58:42,849
I can't I don't want to just not launch the project and it has to have some, you know,

1251
01:58:42,849 --> 01:58:47,809
it has to have some currency because with no two way peg, your options are one way peg,

1252
01:58:49,089 --> 01:58:51,490
which one way peg just isn't that good.

1253
01:58:51,490 --> 01:58:58,049
One way peg has a lot of the disadvantages of having your own coin because the exchange

1254
01:58:58,049 --> 01:58:59,250
rate can still fluctuate.

1255
01:59:00,370 --> 01:59:05,490
And but it has none of the advantages of just giving yourself more money and rewarding the

1256
01:59:05,490 --> 01:59:09,809
people in your community who are helping make your your project a success.

1257
01:59:10,689 --> 01:59:16,610
So the so your options are like create a new coin or do like a one way peg.

1258
01:59:17,250 --> 01:59:20,929
The one way peg is not that's like what, you know, like RSK is kind of doing.

1259
01:59:21,969 --> 01:59:24,130
Well, not really because they have a two way peg with the.

1260
01:59:24,130 --> 01:59:26,929
But it's.

1261
01:59:28,929 --> 01:59:33,089
Yeah, like Liquid and RSK, they emphasize.

1262
01:59:34,370 --> 01:59:37,809
The two way peg that is like assisted by the federation.

1263
01:59:39,089 --> 01:59:39,729
But the.

1264
01:59:42,929 --> 01:59:46,449
It's it becomes a one way peg if people don't believe that it works, so.

1265
01:59:47,809 --> 01:59:52,449
So, yeah, I think the having a new coin obviously gives you a lot of benefits in the form of.

1266
01:59:53,363 --> 01:59:55,203
You have early adopters, you have.

1267
01:59:56,683 --> 01:59:58,243
People cheering for the project.

1268
02:00:00,363 --> 02:00:02,883
So that's good. I don't think there's.

1269
02:00:04,403 --> 02:00:07,923
A. Like a globally.

1270
02:00:10,082 --> 02:00:11,363
Beneficial purpose.

1271
02:00:13,563 --> 02:00:17,563
But it's hard to say because, you know, this is not like something where.

1272
02:00:18,563 --> 02:00:33,003
Everyone is going to know about every project, this is a very pretty complicated industry overall, so you never know you hear about some project and you think it's a scam, but then you hear about it, you know, it's actually not that much of a scam at all on a relative basis.

1273
02:00:34,283 --> 02:00:41,323
But I don't I don't see why we would if you can get rid of the new coin, then you always should.

1274
02:00:42,283 --> 02:00:43,683
I mean, when else would we do that?

1275
02:00:43,683 --> 02:00:51,483
You know what I mean? Like what if you went to Walmart and you had to buy a Walmart coin to shop there and the prices are fluctuating?

1276
02:00:52,523 --> 02:00:53,523
No one would want that.

1277
02:00:53,523 --> 02:01:07,563
So. Yeah, I just I don't know, maybe maybe maybe I don't fully understand because sometimes they pitch it as it's like it's actually required on a network level, but then they do have this quasi two way peg, right?

1278
02:01:07,923 --> 02:01:09,123
Like sacks or something like that.

1279
02:01:09,362 --> 02:01:11,483
So they still have Bitcoin that goes back and forth.

1280
02:01:11,962 --> 02:01:16,123
So it's like, well, we need a new asset to pay our our, you know, our validators or something.

1281
02:01:17,203 --> 02:01:24,603
But then it's like, all right, well, if you need if you need a new asset to pay for the validators, that means you you need money to pay for those validators.

1282
02:01:24,603 --> 02:01:29,402
Right. So it's either you have that money or you don't, because if you do have that money, then just pay them in Bitcoin.

1283
02:01:29,682 --> 02:01:33,002
And if you don't have that money, then like what are you paying them with?

1284
02:01:33,002 --> 02:01:34,603
You're paying them with money that you don't have.

1285
02:01:34,883 --> 02:01:38,642
So then then it just then it's you just like, you know, creating a new asset to speculate on.

1286
02:01:39,002 --> 02:01:48,203
So I kind of seem to me it seems like it's a little bit like misleading to like to say that, you know, this this token is absolutely needed on a protocol level.

1287
02:01:49,042 --> 02:01:51,883
Maybe that part I don't understand if they are needed or not, you know.

1288
02:01:52,883 --> 02:02:08,242
But I do understand the idea of of like, you know, crowd sale, raising the speculation also, you know, obviously people want to get into something early and it can help bootstrap network adoption to have like early bag holders and things like this, you know.

1289
02:02:08,242 --> 02:02:09,802
So from that perspective does make sense.

1290
02:02:09,923 --> 02:02:12,083
And that's fine if you're like transparent and honest about it.

1291
02:02:12,322 --> 02:02:17,242
But then the moment you start saying, well, this is needed on a protocol level, there's no other way to do it without actually creating an asset.

1292
02:02:17,443 --> 02:02:18,723
I have a trouble understanding that.

1293
02:02:18,882 --> 02:02:20,322
Well, but I could be wrong.

1294
02:02:20,322 --> 02:02:20,643
I don't know.

1295
02:02:22,123 --> 02:02:23,923
Yep, just wanted to share my thoughts on that.

1296
02:02:31,723 --> 02:02:37,283
Oh, well, come up and ask if you wish.

1297
02:02:39,762 --> 02:02:42,602
Or we will end the space.

1298
02:02:44,602 --> 02:02:46,443
I have a question for the Chia guys.

1299
02:02:46,602 --> 02:02:49,962
So they were talking about the plotting on the hard drive.

1300
02:02:49,962 --> 02:03:02,602
I'm wondering if you have like a one terabyte hard drive and you have, you know, maybe 16 gigs or 32 gigs of RAM, how much write like total write is needed on this one terabyte, like to plot it one time or something like that.

1301
02:03:03,083 --> 02:03:12,643
Like the initial plot, the initial plotting operation, you would need a separate thing to actually achieve the plotting.

1302
02:03:12,643 --> 02:03:14,322
You wouldn't do it on that drive.

1303
02:03:14,882 --> 02:03:17,723
So you would you would use like your graphics card to do it.

1304
02:03:18,522 --> 02:03:23,402
Nobody really plots with with like drive based plotting anymore.

1305
02:03:23,402 --> 02:03:24,882
So that's like way old tech.

1306
02:03:25,123 --> 02:03:29,923
So you would use like a leftover graphics card or something like that and use that to create your plot.

1307
02:03:29,923 --> 02:03:33,843
And then all the intensive operation would be done using your graphics card.

1308
02:03:34,042 --> 02:03:36,843
And one terabyte isn't going to get you anything on Chia these days.

1309
02:03:36,843 --> 02:03:39,203
You've got to have something like one hundred terabytes.

1310
02:03:39,602 --> 02:03:40,802
You know, I get that.

1311
02:03:40,802 --> 02:03:44,563
I'm just thinking, like, if it's a one terabyte drive, how much is actually being written on it?

1312
02:03:44,923 --> 02:03:52,123
Like to fully plot it, would it be about one terabyte, two terabytes, or is it actually going to be like 100 terabytes to fully plot it upright?

1313
02:03:54,483 --> 02:04:02,003
Oh, I see what you're asking, like how how much in total write operations does it take to produce the actual plot file?

1314
02:04:02,003 --> 02:04:08,843
Yeah, I think it's about I think it's about two or three X the size of the plot.

1315
02:04:08,843 --> 02:04:12,763
So you need about 300 gigs of space to make a 100 gig plot.

1316
02:04:13,723 --> 02:04:20,522
Got it. And how often like once you plot it, is that it or does it you have to replot it every week or like how does that work?

1317
02:04:20,522 --> 02:04:22,283
Nope. You only plot you only plot it once.

1318
02:04:22,283 --> 02:04:23,082
You never have to plot it.

1319
02:04:23,082 --> 02:04:24,802
And then from then on, you don't need any more.

1320
02:04:24,802 --> 02:04:27,402
Right. You just have like occasional read speed, right?

1321
02:04:27,682 --> 02:04:28,883
Read operations. Correct.

1322
02:04:28,922 --> 02:04:36,003
Got it. Is there is there also like an amount of read operations that you need or like per like time or how does that work?

1323
02:04:37,723 --> 02:04:39,723
So you have to respond to the signage points.

1324
02:04:40,043 --> 02:04:45,563
So if you're not part of a pool, then the only time you're reading from the disk is when you're responding to signage points.

1325
02:04:45,682 --> 02:04:49,482
So the network will broadcast and say, who's going to make the next block?

1326
02:04:49,682 --> 02:04:51,922
And then you need to go look at your plots.

1327
02:04:51,922 --> 02:04:58,003
And there's a thing that allows you to determine ahead of time whether you would need to look at a plot.

1328
02:04:58,283 --> 02:04:59,883
So it's called passing the plot filter.

1329
02:05:00,082 --> 02:05:06,283
And roughly if you have 512 plots, you would pass the plot filter once every signage point.

1330
02:05:06,922 --> 02:05:12,843
So just to break it down, if you have, let's say, you know, one terabyte drive, that's that's fully plotted.

1331
02:05:13,082 --> 02:05:15,922
How often do you actually read one terabyte?

1332
02:05:16,443 --> 02:05:17,883
Is that like a long time?

1333
02:05:18,362 --> 02:05:21,962
So you see, you don't read all of that one terabyte.

1334
02:05:21,962 --> 02:05:26,522
So that would you'd have like eight plot files, like eight to ten plot files on that disk.

1335
02:05:27,082 --> 02:05:34,123
And you would be passing the plot filter about once every maybe 50 times.

1336
02:05:34,163 --> 02:05:44,202
So you would you would be reading from that disk to see if you had a proof, like maybe once every 10 or 15 minutes.

1337
02:05:45,603 --> 02:05:51,283
And the amount of data you would read would be like a couple of megabytes out of that.

1338
02:05:52,003 --> 02:05:54,642
So a couple of megabytes every 10 or 15 minutes.

1339
02:05:54,922 --> 02:05:59,563
So how long would it take to read one terabyte for one terabyte drive is what I'm thinking.

1340
02:05:59,563 --> 02:06:01,402
Like, are you are you reading one terabyte a day?

1341
02:06:01,402 --> 02:06:02,723
Are you reading one terabyte a week?

1342
02:06:02,922 --> 02:06:05,802
Are you reading one terabyte a month from one terabyte drive?

1343
02:06:06,402 --> 02:06:07,362
Like on average, right?

1344
02:06:10,802 --> 02:06:14,962
You're asking for like a very specific number, and I don't I don't have that right in front of me.

1345
02:06:14,962 --> 02:06:20,123
I could I could I could point you to a place where you could reference this and I could look it up for you.

1346
02:06:20,123 --> 02:06:32,163
But I don't have that right at the top of my head of exactly how much data throughput goes across the drive, like per unit time, because it's different if you're pooled versus not pooled.

1347
02:06:32,163 --> 02:06:35,883
Because the way the pool works is it's sending you fake signage points.

1348
02:06:35,922 --> 02:06:38,283
So you're reading from the disk more often if you're pooled.

1349
02:06:38,522 --> 02:06:40,522
But if you're not pooled, then it's like way less.

1350
02:06:40,522 --> 02:06:46,043
So it's like two different styles of doing this if you're going to participate in a pool or not.

1351
02:06:46,682 --> 02:06:50,802
And usually I work with like the pool, not the not the base case, which is the

1352
02:06:52,763 --> 02:06:56,443
I brought it up because, you know, you guys are talking about shredding the drive.

1353
02:06:56,443 --> 02:07:00,402
So I was just wondering, like, what an actual, you know, how much read write on average?

1354
02:07:00,443 --> 02:07:06,883
Yeah, it's the shred part was the plotting that that that's the thing that people sort of got confused on early on.

1355
02:07:06,883 --> 02:07:18,883
But since you only do that once, like the reading from a drive with almost nowhere on the drive whatsoever, like it's a it's an operation that's fundamentally non destructive and non mutative on the drive.

1356
02:07:18,883 --> 02:07:21,883
So it puts almost no load on it to do a read from it.

1357
02:07:22,362 --> 02:07:24,603
I see. All right. Well, thanks for answering those.

1358
02:07:31,402 --> 02:07:40,642
If nobody has a topic, I wanted to come back to the horizontal scaling of blockchains.

1359
02:07:40,642 --> 02:07:53,043
I mean, is there an inherently architectural issue with the way we design public blockchains for scaling horizontally?

1360
02:07:53,283 --> 02:08:00,763
Could something better be done in that respect?

1361
02:08:03,522 --> 02:08:05,123
Yeah, I mean, any thoughts would be.

1362
02:08:05,922 --> 02:08:10,922
You mean horizontally, like by increasing block size or horizontally by like just adding a sidechain?

1363
02:08:12,802 --> 02:08:17,123
Yeah, see, that's the that's mostly where the discussion ends up, right?

1364
02:08:17,443 --> 02:08:41,842
I am going more fundamentally, like at a lower level, because, you know, you have this, you know, there is a cross dependency among assets, you know, they require sort of a global ordering of transactions, you know, to have some sort of deterministic execution.

1365
02:08:41,842 --> 02:08:49,003
And so I'm just wondering, can that dependency be minimized or?

1366
02:08:51,362 --> 02:08:54,682
I think the fundamental thing is the block size, because it's limited.

1367
02:08:55,362 --> 02:09:00,162
So no matter how much you optimize other parts, there's still a limited block size, right?

1368
02:09:00,563 --> 02:09:19,162
And the limited block size is for the decentralization of the network, less data being needed to be stored, less data that's needed to be verified, and, you know, running the compensation on that, verifying the signatures, whatever, passing that data around.

1369
02:09:19,162 --> 02:09:27,763
The less data is, you know, the argument for less data that's being passed around, the more decentralized it is, right?

1370
02:09:28,003 --> 02:09:29,443
So you still have a limit there.

1371
02:09:29,763 --> 02:09:40,883
So if you want to horizontally scale, it's either you increase that limit, which a lot of people are opposed to, because that's going to, you know, hurt decentralization, or you just have to just have another chain.

1372
02:09:41,722 --> 02:09:47,282
And the only way to have that other chain is if you're going to go back and forth, you need a mechanism to go back and forth, right?

1373
02:09:47,282 --> 02:10:05,282
Yeah, well, you know, I'm thinking how cash works, and I'm no proponent, like, I do crypto podcasting and stuff, so I'm not saying, yeah, I'm just trying to see, like, you know, you can settle, do a cash settlement independently, right?

1374
02:10:05,282 --> 02:10:10,962
see like, you know, can settle, do a cash settlement independently, right?

1375
02:10:11,122 --> 02:10:16,002
It's just the bearer changes, there is, that's just one.

1376
02:10:19,342 --> 02:10:24,602
What I'm saying is you don't need to look at prior transactions to

1377
02:10:24,616 --> 02:10:30,216
verify the current one in cash, sort of purely

1378
02:10:30,216 --> 02:10:31,556
cash kind of transaction.

1379
02:10:33,116 --> 02:10:38,236
I think that's what there is some parallelism there, but

1380
02:10:38,236 --> 02:10:43,936
in context of blockchain, trying to rephrase that and probably rethink

1381
02:10:43,989 --> 02:10:49,609
in terms of how a public blockchain can really

1382
02:10:49,609 --> 02:10:54,309
reduce those sorts

1383
02:10:54,309 --> 02:11:00,229
of interdependencies. I I don't see a way, but I'm just sort of

1384
02:11:00,229 --> 02:11:03,249
to brainstorm with the rest of you folks.

1385
02:11:05,282 --> 02:11:09,282
Yeah, but what was the question, you know, that was originally about horizontal scaling?

1386
02:11:10,282 --> 02:11:24,282
Yeah, yeah. So this ties to the horizontal scaling, right? Like, how do you scale horizontally? I mean, you know, with L2s as a solution, sidechains and all that, but

1387
02:11:26,282 --> 02:11:35,282
they come at the cost of like, performance, you know, all those trade offs that they come, you know, at the cost of.

1388
02:11:40,282 --> 02:11:46,282
So, I mean, there's no question, I mean, it's pretty open ended in terms of like, is, is there a way to rethink these

1389
02:11:47,282 --> 02:12:05,282
monetary schemes like UTXOs and account based money schemes like that lends itself to more sort of throughput? I don't know.

1390
02:12:05,282 --> 02:12:07,282
What about something like eCash?

1391
02:12:08,282 --> 02:12:15,282
Do you have a shiny cake has come up? Maybe we should let them ask their question or comment.

1392
02:12:16,282 --> 02:12:22,282
Yes, I have a question. One moment. Give me two minutes. I'm just preparing something to eat. But give me two minutes.

1393
02:12:23,282 --> 02:12:24,282
Okay, great.

1394
02:12:25,282 --> 02:12:28,282
You said eCash? Like Chaumian eCash?

1395
02:12:29,282 --> 02:12:49,282
Yeah, like Chaumian eCash. If you see like what Kali is building with the Nodcash and eCash stuff over there. Like, there's still like a Mint that is like centralized. But as far as like, if you do trust the Mint, I think that there is some more scalability. Not sure.

1396
02:12:50,282 --> 02:13:06,282
Yeah, I mean, once you remove the, yeah, yeah, that's not, not, that trust me bro model is the issue there. So yeah, that's not probably what I'm pointing to actually.

1397
02:13:10,282 --> 02:13:11,282
All right.

1398
02:13:19,282 --> 02:13:23,282
Is somebody still having a question or can I ask something?

1399
02:13:24,282 --> 02:13:25,282
Go for it, man.

1400
02:13:25,282 --> 02:13:50,282
Nice. Okay. Sorry to interrupt. It's not Bitcoin in this case. I have a question about SkyDodgeNet from Paul's perspective. Is somebody like the developer MLG, who's also known as one of the most involved testers of your idea.

1401
02:13:51,282 --> 02:14:11,282
Is he able to solve those tasks to make these sidechains available? What he's showing for, for example, Thunder sidechain inside. Is it really like a solvable task for one person alone? Or do you think he needs some more and some more people help him?

1402
02:14:12,282 --> 02:14:32,282
Well, I'm not sure. I think, so SkyDodge is an altcoin that implements BIP300, and which is great. And we also, we develop like LayerTwo Labs and myself and other people who collaborate with us, but mostly us.

1403
02:14:33,282 --> 02:14:58,282
We develop the sidechains, the sidechain full node software, which really anyone can use if they just point them at a different L1. So we do like a lot of the work and he is certainly a great tester and helper of, you know, he tries out our software and that's very good. I like that.

1404
02:14:59,282 --> 02:15:19,282
And, but we do an enormous, you know, percentage of the work, I can know whatever, 99% of the work. And he has turned it into like a funny little altcoin. And they didn't, they give themselves a huge amount of the coin. I don't know, but I would think they would probably want to hire someone to.

1405
02:15:20,282 --> 02:15:28,282
But they're very funny. I think the SkyDodge people are very funny. And they, I like that they are testing my idea, but I don't know.

1406
02:15:29,282 --> 02:15:50,282
At the moment, it's not really like profitable. It's more like helping the idea grow. He's believing in your idea, and he's 100% behind. But for me, it's like, not a professional coder. It's also sometimes really hard to judge about the ability to get something like this ready.

1407
02:15:51,282 --> 02:16:15,282
And I think he's just able to work with what you give him and then to add maybe some things and maybe fix some miner bugs. I don't know. Or some small bugs. I'm not sure. But I'm just questioning myself. What do you think about this idea? Is it like, possible to realize it like this? Also, like he's fighting alone at the moment for nothing. No money at the moment.

1408
02:16:15,282 --> 02:16:20,282
It's completely community-driven, the project. There's nobody getting paid.

1409
02:16:20,402 --> 02:16:20,642
paid.

1410
02:16:23,182 --> 02:16:25,982
In Skydosh, I mean, I don't know, I'm not paying anyone over there.

1411
02:16:26,502 --> 02:16:30,762
But I think they offered me like many, I don't know how many, I don't know what that's

1412
02:16:30,762 --> 02:16:31,722
worth, but they offered me

1413
02:16:31,788 --> 02:16:32,548
like a bunch of coins.

1414
02:16:32,668 --> 02:16:33,968
They told me take a bunch of these coins.

1415
02:16:34,328 --> 02:16:38,708
I haven't quite taken them yet, I think I eventually will or something I suppose.

1416
02:16:39,048 --> 02:16:39,628
I mean why not?

1417
02:16:40,568 --> 02:16:41,888
but I don't know.

1418
02:16:42,028 --> 02:16:42,888
think they,

1419
02:16:45,282 --> 02:17:03,283
I'm not sure what their plans are for that. But I think it's a funny name. It's a funny meme. It's got BIP300. What do you think? We should do something differently? Like we being LayerTwo Labs or myself or something?

1420
02:17:03,283 --> 02:17:27,283
I mean, it's already the first mainnet of your idea. But it's still not 100% ready to run. And he's fighting for this kind of idea. And I'm asking myself, will he be able to solve these issues that at the moment it's not easy to do? Alone with your help, I don't know.

1421
02:17:28,283 --> 02:17:55,283
Well, yeah, we have a different... It might be a good idea for them to start over. Because we have our own way. We have the launcher and stuff now to make it very easy for people to run all those different sidechains and find them. And keep everything very organized and relatively user-friendly. And we intend to continue to improve. I intend to improve everything.

1422
02:17:56,283 --> 02:18:21,283
We have more of an emphasis on front-end and back-end. I'm expanding the team often. And so I'm expanding it a lot. So maybe we should. Maybe LayerTwo Labs should just release... We should hard fork Sky Doge. We should partner with this. Presumably they have the domain and social accounts. And we should just do it as a joke.

1423
02:18:22,283 --> 02:18:46,283
And redo it with a pre-mine and hire those people. And maybe that would be funny enough. Why not? It's not like we're getting enough love from the actual Bitcoin maximalists. So that should be a funny idea, I think. Especially if it has an absurd name, an absurd logo. We could have a lot of fun with it maybe. I don't know. And really test it out. But there you go.

1424
02:18:47,283 --> 02:18:55,283
It's interesting. And what kind of time period would you say? How long would it take to get these things, what they have on their website, running?

1425
02:18:56,883 --> 02:18:59,143
What do they have on their Bit Assets?

1426
02:19:00,643 --> 02:19:01,563
We have already.

1427
02:19:02,183 --> 02:19:05,343
Some of them, I'm kind of perfectionist.

1428
02:19:05,603 --> 02:19:10,163
We had Bit Assets a long time ago, months ago.

1429
02:19:10,483 --> 02:19:12,583
I took it, sort of like...

1430
02:19:12,583 --> 02:19:14,283
I've become relatively

1431
02:19:14,363 --> 02:19:16,443
ashamed with some or another.

1432
02:19:17,163 --> 02:19:21,703
even like some, it's relatively easy to upgrade to the latest version.

1433
02:19:21,823 --> 02:19:23,123
We had the latest version of Zcash.

1434
02:19:23,403 --> 02:19:25,943
we're like, should we upgrade again to again the latest version?

1435
02:19:26,063 --> 02:19:27,063
The answer is sort of yes.

1436
02:19:28,243 --> 02:19:32,163
And yeah, I realize this is probably very frustrating and confusing for people on the

1437
02:19:32,163 --> 02:19:33,283
outside who

1438
02:19:33,283 --> 02:19:37,283
who just don't know what's going on, are...

1439
02:19:41,463 --> 02:19:45,523
BitAssets is... let me try to explain, you know, sometimes I have a lot of thoughts

1440
02:19:45,523 --> 02:19:49,843
bubbling in my head, you know, and I just want to convey them all at once.

1441
02:19:50,363 --> 02:19:52,183
And it doesn't go over very well, but

1442
02:19:53,620 --> 02:19:59,700
dump them all out now. So BitAssets is currently being rewritten in Rust,

1443
02:19:59,700 --> 02:20:05,700
because a lot of things are being rewritten in Rust. And the old sidechain template,

1444
02:20:05,700 --> 02:20:12,500
which is still available and still in use, is in C++ and Qt. Qt is the front-end GUI,

1445
02:20:12,500 --> 02:20:20,259
the graphical user interface. So Qt is okay. There's nothing wrong with it. It's nice.

1446
02:20:20,259 --> 02:20:26,260
I like it for mainchain L1. It's the same thing in Bitcoin Core. That's why it's the same.

1447
02:20:27,139 --> 02:20:33,220
And that's why we used it. But for the sidechains, it's not great. Because first of all,

1448
02:20:33,220 --> 02:20:41,060
we clone sometimes sidechains such as Ethereum and Zcash that have no front-end at all.

1449
02:20:42,420 --> 02:20:49,940
So if we were relying on the Qt front-end, now we just got deleted. So the other reason is that Qt

1450
02:20:49,940 --> 02:20:54,580
reads a lot of its data directly from... it's very tightly integrated with the code.

1451
02:20:56,819 --> 02:21:03,619
I'm not sure if this point is easy to convey, developer to non-developer, but other front-ends

1452
02:21:03,619 --> 02:21:10,259
will just ask for data with RPC or with something like that. But Qt doesn't work that way. So Qt

1453
02:21:10,659 --> 02:21:18,259
is tightly... it's like a Siamese twin. It's sewn in together. So we have decided to try to

1454
02:21:18,259 --> 02:21:24,100
separate out the front-end completely, which is its own project. But this is by far the right

1455
02:21:24,100 --> 02:21:28,899
decision, I think. Because when you separate the front-end, you cut the Siamese twin,

1456
02:21:29,460 --> 02:21:35,540
you also get competition among front-ends. So we just say, these are the RPCs you need to support.

1457
02:21:35,540 --> 02:21:40,659
And if you want to build your own front-end, which includes your own wallet, your own node,

1458
02:21:40,659 --> 02:21:47,219
your own whatever, your own way of viewing the node. Now, that just went from basically impossible

1459
02:21:47,299 --> 02:21:53,140
to very, very, very easy for anyone with any front-end experience to completely redo the

1460
02:21:53,140 --> 02:22:00,019
front-end of any sidechain. So I was kind of redoing that. And then while we were at it,

1461
02:22:02,820 --> 02:22:08,419
we have a lot of brilliant people over here, and one of them rewrote the sidechain template in Rust

1462
02:22:08,419 --> 02:22:13,139
because everyone loves Rust these days. And they got it down to a very high performance,

1463
02:22:13,139 --> 02:22:20,499
seven megabytes. So we had bitnames, the namecoin sidechain that was in C++ Qt, but now

1464
02:22:20,499 --> 02:22:26,499
that's been rewritten in Rust. And now that bitnames happens to be very similar to bitassets.

1465
02:22:26,499 --> 02:22:35,620
So we were just like, well, when bitnames is really, really good, we'll just redo bitassets

1466
02:22:35,620 --> 02:22:40,579
in Rust and all with different front-end. So on one hand, you could say this is evidence of

1467
02:22:41,460 --> 02:22:46,419
Paul being scatterbrained and having no focus, and this is all just mission creep,

1468
02:22:46,980 --> 02:22:54,579
and it's all chaos. But it's quite difficult. It's quite difficult to get something that has

1469
02:22:54,579 --> 02:23:01,059
a good user experience for Mac, Windows, and Linux, and has a front-end that works on everything,

1470
02:23:01,859 --> 02:23:08,579
which includes the desktop, laptop, phone. So it's a very unfortunate growing pain.

1471
02:23:09,299 --> 02:23:17,219
But we have actually done a lot of work already. The bitasset sidechain, I specced that out

1472
02:23:17,939 --> 02:23:23,859
in 2018 or something. And I get messages from people all the time asking me about it now.

1473
02:23:25,299 --> 02:23:29,620
And they like the idea. They think I was right about everything that I said.

1474
02:23:31,540 --> 02:23:37,059
And so, yes, it's true. Developers are always going to want to take time, rewrite everything

1475
02:23:37,059 --> 02:23:42,740
from scratch, redo everything from the general case, solve the general case, whatever.

1476
02:23:44,260 --> 02:23:52,100
And that is definitely frustrating for the end user, who wants everything to just be finished

1477
02:23:52,100 --> 02:24:02,740
now. But a lot of stuff also fell through the cracks temporarily. So we had the latest Zcash

1478
02:24:02,740 --> 02:24:08,260
and latest Ethereum. But those don't have any GUI. So we either build one from scratch

1479
02:24:10,020 --> 02:24:15,779
ourselves, or we modify something else, modify Metamask or something.

1480
02:24:16,339 --> 02:24:23,459
So what we're going to have instead is this unified modular front-end experience. And

1481
02:24:24,020 --> 02:24:29,140
then we're going to have the back-end node experience. And this is all going to be organized

1482
02:24:30,020 --> 02:24:35,619
in the launcher. And the launcher will know what operating system you are running. And then it will

1483
02:24:36,339 --> 02:24:41,700
download the node software or point you to the node source code. Just download the binaries or

1484
02:24:42,580 --> 02:24:48,580
download the nodes or stuff like that. So that is my plan, because it actually becomes

1485
02:24:49,939 --> 02:24:55,779
a bigger task when you say, instead of just shipping one piece of software,

1486
02:24:56,580 --> 02:25:00,820
you've got to ship Bitcoin Core. You have to ship Mac, Windows, Linux version.

1487
02:25:01,459 --> 02:25:08,580
Now we have to ship one. We have basically three columns, Mac, Windows, Linux. Three columns,

1488
02:25:08,580 --> 02:25:18,659
and then as many rows as there are sidechains. And it's difficult. And the decisions that I

1489
02:25:18,659 --> 02:25:24,659
have made in working with this problem of how to do this, and I've tried to reshrink the problem.

1490
02:25:25,540 --> 02:25:28,739
And as a result, we've done a lot of work that no one has seen yet.

1491
02:25:29,540 --> 02:25:35,860
But I think if you plot it on a graph, it's gone very well. LayerTwo Labs was only created,

1492
02:25:36,899 --> 02:25:42,100
you know, we only started to, I don't even remember when I made the slides to ask for

1493
02:25:42,100 --> 02:25:46,260
money. I think that was August 25th of last year. We got funding in November.

1494
02:25:47,700 --> 02:25:53,860
And we have large block sidechain. We have latest Zcash sidechain. We have Ethereum,

1495
02:25:53,860 --> 02:25:58,659
latest Ethereum sidechain. We have, they said large blocks. I don't remember what I have to

1496
02:25:58,659 --> 02:26:03,939
put them in the right order. So I don't repeat or forget any. But we have BitNames sidechain.

1497
02:26:03,939 --> 02:26:09,219
We have, we had BitAssets, but it just doesn't work for every, it's just not as good. It works,

1498
02:26:09,219 --> 02:26:14,499
but it's just not as good as it could be. So I kind of like pulled the plug on it temporarily.

1499
02:26:15,140 --> 02:26:18,100
If anyone, you know, if you want, like, if you're a great developer and you want a job,

1500
02:26:18,899 --> 02:26:22,739
then there's plenty of stuff that we're working on if you're very good.

1501
02:26:23,540 --> 02:26:28,179
And we have the latest core sidechain. It's the sidechain that is the latest version of Bitcoin

1502
02:26:28,179 --> 02:26:35,059
core that has 118, 119, you know, it has CTV in it. It has one, it's basically Bitcoin Inquisition,

1503
02:26:35,059 --> 02:26:46,420
but it has a sidechain. And it has OP_VAULT. And it may have other fun arc-shaped opcodes soon.

1504
02:26:47,380 --> 02:26:51,700
We have the Rust rewrite large box sidechain, which is different from the original

1505
02:26:52,260 --> 02:26:56,659
large box sidechain. We're working on the Bitcoin Hivemind as a sidechain.

1506
02:26:58,980 --> 02:27:03,140
So we have quite a bit. We have a blank version. We have a sidechain that is very blank

1507
02:27:03,860 --> 02:27:13,059
in terms of the test. The C++ template is just a blank sidechain that has the GUI, C++ Qt.

1508
02:27:13,300 --> 02:27:18,659
And we have, that's just like where the starting point would be. We have that and we have the Rust

1509
02:27:19,300 --> 02:27:27,140
starting point one, which we call plain, the LAIN. So we have a lot that we have already made.

1510
02:27:28,100 --> 02:27:34,659
And stuff, it's, I realize it's annoying because the end user, they either just see something that

1511
02:27:34,659 --> 02:27:41,140
works or they just kind of see nothing. But we are, we're in the arena trying things.

1512
02:27:43,219 --> 02:27:45,300
No, I just mean like we are,

1513
02:27:50,580 --> 02:27:53,059
I don't, you only see like the tip of the iceberg really.

1514
02:27:55,059 --> 02:28:02,420
It's, and yeah, if we had more, sometimes we got like whatever Zcash just got stuck on this very

1515
02:28:02,420 --> 02:28:09,860
obscure linking error for a tiny, for like a little while. So sometimes just a tiny little

1516
02:28:09,860 --> 02:28:16,739
thing trips us up. And this switch to unified frontend, I think will be key because

1517
02:28:18,739 --> 02:28:25,859
we want the frontend and backend to be separate. And when they are separate,

1518
02:28:26,820 --> 02:28:30,660
we will have a frontend that works for every sidechain that does not,

1519
02:28:31,939 --> 02:28:36,660
because the Qt one is too tightly integrated. So you can't, you couldn't use the Qt frontend

1520
02:28:37,619 --> 02:28:42,580
in something that was, that had like a very different backend. So they just didn't fit

1521
02:28:42,580 --> 02:28:47,220
together. And this is Bitcoin Core has just had Qt for a very long time. Well, the Bitcoin Core

1522
02:28:47,220 --> 02:28:52,739
is also trying to get rid of Qt. So, so I don't know, that's kind of a rambling answer, but we

1523
02:28:52,739 --> 02:29:00,099
plan on, we're doing a lot of software development over here. We do much more actual real work than

1524
02:29:00,820 --> 02:29:08,340
I think. I think by, you know, certainly if you actually plotted it on a graph,

1525
02:29:09,539 --> 02:29:18,900
like the actual raw capacity of what we can accomplish for the user in a user-friendly

1526
02:29:18,900 --> 02:29:28,020
way in terms of transaction throughput, privacy, usability, extensibility, reliability,

1527
02:29:28,660 --> 02:29:33,700
just overall ability. Like I would say that we have blown way past the entire

1528
02:29:33,700 --> 02:29:38,660
Lightning Network like a long time ago. We're like 10x or 100x superior.

1529
02:29:41,059 --> 02:29:50,020
If or slash when BIP300 activates on Bitcoin Core. So it was already 100x

1530
02:29:51,220 --> 02:29:57,700
superior to the entire state of the art of the industry. And BitAssets, the old Qt version,

1531
02:29:58,260 --> 02:30:03,619
that's in C++, it still exists. The old versions are all there for download. It's just,

1532
02:30:03,619 --> 02:30:10,580
it's very, very difficult to like, right now, we're changing it, but it's very difficult to

1533
02:30:10,580 --> 02:30:15,859
just release something because you, the end user, you'd have to download it, install it.

1534
02:30:16,660 --> 02:30:20,419
You have to download it as, you know, if it's just a binary, you have to download it and run it.

1535
02:30:20,419 --> 02:30:29,700
Then you have to like edit the conf files so that it can connect to L1 main chain. And

1536
02:30:30,660 --> 02:30:33,859
we just have a different way of doing it now that will make it much easier for you.

1537
02:30:35,059 --> 02:30:36,900
So it's just like, I don't know, it's a work in progress.

1538
02:30:38,580 --> 02:30:42,580
Hey Paul, I wanted to know, you have considered building on top of Chialisp?

1539
02:30:45,539 --> 02:30:46,260
On top of what?

1540
02:30:47,220 --> 02:30:47,780
Chialisp.

1541
02:30:50,419 --> 02:30:52,340
What is that? Chialisp? What is that?

1542
02:30:54,499 --> 02:30:56,580
Chialisp. Chia, basically.

1543
02:30:57,539 --> 02:31:03,059
Oh, Chia. You mean coin? Well, no, I don't know why I would. Should I?

1544
02:31:05,140 --> 02:31:08,260
I think you should. You should definitely look into the code.

1545
02:31:09,539 --> 02:31:11,780
But the code really doesn't make any difference, does it?

1546
02:31:12,099 --> 02:31:13,619
In what form? In what sense?

1547
02:31:14,580 --> 02:31:24,099
Well, it's all about the community and the market cap. And so the code is kind of irrelevant, I

1548
02:31:24,099 --> 02:31:30,499
think. Do you disagree or no? I mean, is that a fair thing to say? I mean, someone launches a

1549
02:31:30,499 --> 02:31:37,220
project and it's number 500 on coin market cap. The code could be perfect, but that doesn't

1550
02:31:38,179 --> 02:31:42,979
necessarily matter. Especially if it's for a while, because then people will just say,

1551
02:31:44,739 --> 02:31:49,939
though this code, they'll either say this code is bad. Here's the proof. Or they'll say,

1552
02:31:52,979 --> 02:31:58,660
here's this idea. It's number 500 on coin market cap, but the code is good. And then they'll say,

1553
02:31:58,660 --> 02:32:04,499
well, okay, we'll copy paste the code into our own coin. And then we'll launch a new coin.

1554
02:32:05,059 --> 02:32:15,220
So I think that's what, so I think the, I don't think the code matters.

1555
02:32:22,179 --> 02:32:24,179
I still think you should look at it. Trust me.

1556
02:32:25,939 --> 02:32:26,580
Okay, cool.

1557
02:32:27,859 --> 02:32:28,900
I have a last question.

1558
02:32:29,299 --> 02:32:36,260
If you would go to mainnet in the next year, what would be your plan? How would you arrange

1559
02:32:36,260 --> 02:32:41,939
the project to get as time efficient as possible to some kind of product?

1560
02:32:42,739 --> 02:32:43,380
For BIP300?

1561
02:32:45,380 --> 02:32:50,499
For example, you have to go like the Skydodge, sorry to name it. But for example, you have to

1562
02:32:50,499 --> 02:32:55,539
go the same name like this one, that's the same way like them. And you have to go to mainnet

1563
02:32:55,780 --> 02:33:03,939
and to create a usable product. What kind of strategy would you suggest?

1564
02:33:03,939 --> 02:33:11,619
Ah, well, I mean, if you're saying if I activate on Bitcoin, the easiest way would be to just

1565
02:33:11,619 --> 02:33:18,900
do as a miner activated software to go to launch a completely separate thing. I mean, I don't know,

1566
02:33:18,900 --> 02:33:21,539
that would be, that's a very different thing that involves a lot of

1567
02:33:21,619 --> 02:33:30,900
strategy, I would think. So it is a, but I think the, I don't know, I'm not sure.

1568
02:33:34,099 --> 02:33:40,099
Okay, because you were talking about a funny idea to launch an on thing with Skydodge Corporation.

1569
02:33:40,099 --> 02:33:44,820
I just wondering what kind of plan you would go with and if you have to.

1570
02:33:45,619 --> 02:33:48,020
In that particular case, I would say maximum.

1571
02:33:48,099 --> 02:33:48,820
If you have to.

1572
02:33:49,700 --> 02:33:54,580
In that particular case, I would say maximize like the irony and humor of the situation

1573
02:33:54,580 --> 02:34:03,380
and just do it with a lot of self-awareness and just Skydodge is a funny name. So if we could,

1574
02:34:04,340 --> 02:34:09,460
that would be funny to partner with. So that would be a funny, I think that would be kind of

1575
02:34:09,460 --> 02:34:14,340
fun and the irreverence of it, like the idea that I have been in the Bitcoin community for like much

1576
02:34:14,340 --> 02:34:20,179
more than 10 years and I have like never done a thing and now to do it, I think that would be

1577
02:34:20,179 --> 02:34:28,979
funny actually. So I think that would be a neat idea. But I think that would be like to just

1578
02:34:28,979 --> 02:34:35,539
demonstrate the product and just kind of have fun with it. What I would say would be the strategy

1579
02:34:35,539 --> 02:34:41,299
to, because I think the Bitcoin's biggest weakness now is that everyone is,

1580
02:34:44,260 --> 02:34:47,859
Bitcoin is not succeeding at its core goal to replace the banks.

1581
02:34:48,739 --> 02:34:55,380
And so everyone is the conflict in their own mind with how upset they are over that.

1582
02:34:56,419 --> 02:35:02,260
And this is causing people to be annoyed and we have this cult also.

1583
02:35:03,140 --> 02:35:08,900
The cult cannot tolerate anyone having fun, which is why it doesn't like people like Udi or whatever.

1584
02:35:09,780 --> 02:35:14,900
So if you could just bring back the fun and the humor of it and target the end user,

1585
02:35:14,900 --> 02:35:20,020
just don't try to evade the world of developers, especially developers in

1586
02:35:20,820 --> 02:35:28,739
BTC and try to evade every cultural leader in BTC, just try to avoid all that and then just

1587
02:35:28,739 --> 02:35:33,299
do something that the end user thinks is fun and just completely ignore

1588
02:35:33,299 --> 02:35:38,419
the BTC orthodoxy. That would be probably the strategy in that case.

1589
02:35:39,380 --> 02:35:44,419
Yeah, it's good that they support each other. And it's a little bit of pity. It's a big pity

1590
02:35:44,419 --> 02:35:50,499
that such less core developers help you developing the project. And it's great to

1591
02:35:50,499 --> 02:35:55,619
have such people like MLG also around that really try to help you.

1592
02:35:56,179 --> 02:36:04,900
Yes, it is. And yeah, having help is good. And Bitcoin Core, unfortunately, there has been a

1593
02:36:04,900 --> 02:36:14,020
prestige economy has been created around Bitcoin Core where it matters a lot who contributes.

1594
02:36:14,820 --> 02:36:19,220
And as a result, there's gatekeeping and they don't want certain people contributing because

1595
02:36:20,179 --> 02:36:26,260
it would increase their prestige, which is very bad for the end Bitcoin user.

1596
02:36:26,820 --> 02:36:34,580
But the gap between the end Bitcoin user and the insider technical person is enormously vast.

1597
02:36:35,619 --> 02:36:40,660
Anyway, I think we had Ethan come up first and then Morgan, I think.

1598
02:36:42,900 --> 02:36:43,700
Hey, can you hear me?

1599
02:36:44,660 --> 02:36:45,140
Hello.

1600
02:36:46,099 --> 02:36:51,780
Hey, thanks for having the space. So I've looked at a lot of your tweets going back and forth

1601
02:36:51,780 --> 02:36:59,060
with people on about the Lightning Network and why and some disadvantages of the way that it's

1602
02:36:59,060 --> 02:37:10,260
implemented. And it seems that that any scaling mechanism for a small blockchain is going to be

1603
02:37:10,819 --> 02:37:16,099
bottlenecked by the very low write throughput to the global state.

1604
02:37:17,300 --> 02:37:28,180
And that a lot of the B-cashers, I guess I really did not ever approach Bitcoin Cash with an open

1605
02:37:28,180 --> 02:37:38,739
mind. And as I know that the large blocks threaten the consensus because not as many people can

1606
02:37:39,300 --> 02:37:48,180
consume them. It's more difficult to mine. But how will the low write throughput to

1607
02:37:49,780 --> 02:37:54,020
the current Bitcoin blockchain be overcome then?

1608
02:37:56,260 --> 02:38:05,060
Yeah, well, I have a there is a way of scaling Bitcoin with sidechains that and there's also

1609
02:38:05,859 --> 02:38:10,739
there's quite a there are a lot of there are more different there are more L2s than just the

1610
02:38:10,739 --> 02:38:15,540
Lightning Network, which is part of why I named the company LayerTwo Labs, because

1611
02:38:16,739 --> 02:38:19,859
it's the obsession with the Lightning Network is has

1612
02:38:22,260 --> 02:38:26,819
shut off interest in other L2s and even the biggest.

1613
02:38:28,579 --> 02:38:33,619
Well, it's a long story. But basically, we had a similar question earlier today where

1614
02:38:34,420 --> 02:38:40,099
it I think it's not a good idea to have the L2 give every single user something that they can

1615
02:38:40,099 --> 02:38:45,140
broadcast on L1 to get their coins back. Because if 8 billion people won't fit on L1, then it

1616
02:38:45,140 --> 02:38:50,579
doesn't matter that 8 billion people are on an L2 or each of them could go because it's just not

1617
02:38:50,579 --> 02:38:56,420
the case. So I think that that's actually dead end. And I think that's how both Ellen and

1618
02:38:56,819 --> 02:39:05,140
and ARK insist on that. And it's a long story short, but other sidechains have wrestled with

1619
02:39:05,140 --> 02:39:12,260
that concept. And I think that's not headed in the right direction. I wrote a post.

1620
02:39:14,819 --> 02:39:20,020
The difference with scaling with sidechains is that you can both onboard on L1 and off,

1621
02:39:20,020 --> 02:39:29,859
excuse me, on L2. And you can actually offboard on L2 also. So you can someone on L1, like a rich

1622
02:39:29,859 --> 02:39:36,819
guy, Michael Saylor, or whatever, Roger Ver, I used to use the example, they send like 50,000

1623
02:39:36,819 --> 02:39:46,499
coins to the sidechain with one L1 transaction. And then only periodically there's L1 transactions.

1624
02:39:47,369 --> 02:39:53,049
You know, to maintain the sidechain. But on the sidechain, the 50,000 coins can you can make a new

1625
02:39:53,049 --> 02:39:58,329
address, make your new sidechain address and collect the coins over there, send them to other

1626
02:39:58,329 --> 02:40:05,449
people send them back and forth. And, and then actually, if you say that someone panics, and

1627
02:40:05,449 --> 02:40:11,369
they say, Oh, I want to go to L1, but there's not enough space. What do I do? The L1 ARK method is

1628
02:40:11,369 --> 02:40:16,169
to give everyone something they can broadcast on L1. But as I've explained, and as you asked in

1629
02:40:16,169 --> 02:40:23,048
your question, that idea is dead, actually, it's not going to work. So because everyone can't 8

1630
02:40:23,048 --> 02:40:26,329
billion people can't use it. So what difference does it make if they have it or not, you might

1631
02:40:26,329 --> 02:40:32,088
as well just raffle them off and only let a few people get them get the unilateral exit transaction,

1632
02:40:32,088 --> 02:40:37,768
because that's the only people who are going to get it in time. So the what you do instead is you

1633
02:40:37,768 --> 02:40:46,329
say that on L2, you sell your right to go back to someone else to anyone who will buy. And in that

1634
02:40:46,329 --> 02:40:51,929
way, the transaction, the coins can actually collapse back, they can fan out. And they can

1635
02:40:51,929 --> 02:40:58,809
also collapse on L2. You say, Listen, I have eight coins on this network, but I want to have L1 coins.

1636
02:41:00,169 --> 02:41:07,289
And you say, Well, okay, I'll give you something on either the different L2 network or on L1.

1637
02:41:08,569 --> 02:41:13,929
And that's still both of those things require block space, getting on their respective networks.

1638
02:41:13,929 --> 02:41:19,929
So there, the difference is small, but I think it's big enough to make a difference because

1639
02:41:21,688 --> 02:41:27,209
the end user signs off the coins on L2 or for an exchange for whatever else they want.

1640
02:41:27,209 --> 02:41:34,408
So it could be a car could be a coins on some different L2s and different sidechain.

1641
02:41:34,968 --> 02:41:40,169
And then you end up with people on the L2 who have, you know, at the end of the day, there's

1642
02:41:40,169 --> 02:41:46,408
only like, one guy with 10,000 coins, one guy was 15,000 coins, and then a third guy was 15,000

1643
02:41:46,408 --> 02:41:52,968
coins. And then those three people withdraw to L1. And those three people could be like foundry,

1644
02:41:53,529 --> 02:42:00,408
marathon, whatever. You know, I see. The thing is, I wouldn't. Yeah, okay, my bad.

1645
02:42:02,968 --> 02:42:08,089
So, so I wrote a post about this called thunder sidechains for scaling.

1646
02:42:08,968 --> 02:42:16,808
Thunder is like a little joke. And the, there's certainly no perfection. But I do think that

1647
02:42:17,528 --> 02:42:22,089
lightning, my problem with the lightning network, I would like to reiterate and make this very,

1648
02:42:22,089 --> 02:42:28,729
very clear. The fact that the lightning network basically doesn't work. That doesn't concern me at

1649
02:42:28,729 --> 02:42:36,649
all. I think that's fine. Nothing works at first. You know, Elon Musk's rockets explode, etc.

1650
02:42:37,369 --> 02:42:47,048
Before they work. The issue is instead, that the dishonesty and just everyone losing their brain,

1651
02:42:47,048 --> 02:42:53,129
basically. And that is the kiss of death. Now, I think nothing will, you see what I mean? Like,

1652
02:42:53,129 --> 02:43:00,089
what if it was, there's a huge difference between Elon Musk is building reusable rockets,

1653
02:43:00,089 --> 02:43:06,168
and they explode. And they're, they're spending a lot of the running out of money. But every time

1654
02:43:06,168 --> 02:43:10,888
the rocket explodes, they've got cameras, they have the black box, they have sensors, they have

1655
02:43:10,888 --> 02:43:18,328
debates, that people with blueprints and, you know, AutoCAD and everything. So they're changing

1656
02:43:18,328 --> 02:43:25,129
it around. And they get a little closer each time. And they think, I really think that we'll get it,

1657
02:43:25,129 --> 02:43:29,048
they try. And they launched the rocket. And I think we know that this is going to fail.

1658
02:43:29,688 --> 02:43:35,688
But we want to collect the data. We need to try if we're ever going to collect real data.

1659
02:43:36,248 --> 02:43:43,209
Now imagine if SpaceX work differently. And every time the rocket exploded, they said stuff like,

1660
02:43:43,209 --> 02:43:48,089
well, actually, we want the rocket to explode. Or they said, or they don't, there's no actual

1661
02:43:48,089 --> 02:43:53,129
rocket, like there's just like a custodial rocket, that's like a fake toy model rocket.

1662
02:43:53,768 --> 02:43:59,849
And everyone's using that. And, you know, and people seriously believe that with the toy model

1663
02:44:00,808 --> 02:44:08,729
rocket, we're going to make it to Mars or something. And so the self delusion is what

1664
02:44:08,729 --> 02:44:16,648
proves that the project is doomed, because you can't fix a problem that you are in denial about.

1665
02:44:16,648 --> 02:44:21,449
So that, that is the problem. And the fact that so many people have reacted recently to my

1666
02:44:22,408 --> 02:44:30,169
very, like, tame, little tweet, it proves really just how insecure. You know what I mean? Like,

1667
02:44:30,169 --> 02:44:33,368
if someone said, Oh, SpaceX, they'll never, you know, they won't, they're not going to make it.

1668
02:44:35,129 --> 02:44:37,449
If you work at SpaceX, and you think you're going to make it.

1669
02:44:39,449 --> 02:44:42,169
What do you do? You just ignore that. And you just say, Yeah, we have to work hard.

1670
02:44:43,129 --> 02:44:45,769
We're going to ignore that person. A lot of people think we're not going to make it.

1671
02:44:46,729 --> 02:44:50,169
But then if to like, to react in such a

1672
02:44:52,808 --> 02:44:59,528
paranoid and sort of defensive way, that's because what lightning network really is,

1673
02:45:00,488 --> 02:45:07,609
is not a protocol for scaling BTC. The lightning network is just a medium. It's a figurehead.

1674
02:45:08,569 --> 02:45:15,368
It is a kind of tribal mask or something. It's a ritual. Lightning network is like a

1675
02:45:15,368 --> 02:45:21,368
performance. It's something that people say is good for Bitcoin. But and it's something that we

1676
02:45:21,368 --> 02:45:24,968
kind of in a sense, there's this very real sense in which the lightning network is just something

1677
02:45:24,968 --> 02:45:28,408
that everyone pretended that they believed in, in order to win the scaling war.

1678
02:45:30,408 --> 02:45:34,569
Right, the so so the the L2 that you're referencing,

1679
02:45:34,569 --> 02:45:37,129
which I kind of understand better how you're you're thinking that.

1680
02:45:39,688 --> 02:45:44,408
That right, like the I like the analogy you made about the HTLC is about like how

1681
02:45:44,408 --> 02:45:50,248
someone steals you, steals less than it costs to bring them to court, then you're basically just

1682
02:45:50,248 --> 02:45:56,729
SOL. And it's the same deal for getting like scammed on a lightning micropayment. Is it so

1683
02:45:56,729 --> 02:46:03,769
expensive to actually go and submit the redemption? The L2 that you're referencing, would that be just

1684
02:46:03,769 --> 02:46:10,488
a large block sidechain then? And you have the same problems as Bitcoin Cash?

1685
02:46:11,208 --> 02:46:18,729
It does. But the key is, this is, I think, the key to understanding it all, which is that

1686
02:46:18,729 --> 02:46:28,968
what was the problem that the large block nodes had is that the runaway cost of running a full

1687
02:46:28,968 --> 02:46:35,129
node. So, for example, one of the many problems with Bitcoin Cash was there are enormous number

1688
02:46:35,129 --> 02:46:38,968
and I've tweeted a big table. If you guys think I'm hard on the lightning network,

1689
02:46:38,968 --> 02:46:45,449
I like crush Bitcoin Cash and I go on their podcasts and don't mean to them. And I have this

1690
02:46:45,449 --> 02:46:50,968
big table of like the Bitcoin Cash mistakes. And I think you can find it. And I put them all on a

1691
02:46:50,968 --> 02:46:56,088
huge list, just like I did with the lightning network. And I was just just that kind of guy.

1692
02:46:56,889 --> 02:47:01,289
And they had lots of problems. But one is that they never really explained.

1693
02:47:01,449 --> 02:47:08,248
Like they said, OK, one megabyte is too small, but then it's kind of like what is so they wanted

1694
02:47:08,248 --> 02:47:12,009
to change the eight megabytes. But it's kind of like that's just the difference of degree.

1695
02:47:12,808 --> 02:47:17,368
They're evading the issue of principle, right? Like what is what should the number be?

1696
02:47:18,088 --> 02:47:20,889
And they said, well, they think the line should be at eight instead of at one.

1697
02:47:20,889 --> 02:47:21,368
I don't know.

1698
02:47:21,368 --> 02:47:29,368
They never really explained. And they also never really explained like an obvious question.

1699
02:47:29,368 --> 02:47:32,488
I mean, it's insulting to use that word, but I really feel it was obvious,

1700
02:47:33,769 --> 02:47:38,729
which is that what do we do when the blocks fill up at eight megabytes?

1701
02:47:39,289 --> 02:47:44,488
Want to just be the same thing, the same problem, just double now because we already

1702
02:47:45,289 --> 02:47:49,769
had some people like in the reality where we hard forked eight megabytes.

1703
02:47:49,769 --> 02:47:54,648
We already did a hard fork to go from one to eight. So when we go from eight to 64 and then

1704
02:47:54,968 --> 02:48:02,169
64 to infinite. And if we're going to go to infinite, then why don't we just go to infinite

1705
02:48:02,169 --> 02:48:06,648
like today? You know, like I think that would have been the smarter thing. But even the Bitcoin

1706
02:48:06,648 --> 02:48:10,648
cash community was very the large blocker community was very divided. I remember Gavin

1707
02:48:10,648 --> 02:48:17,928
Andreessen saying no one wants no one supports an unlimited block size increase. But then look

1708
02:48:17,928 --> 02:48:22,168
at exactly what happened to them as they created their large block version and then they got

1709
02:48:22,168 --> 02:48:27,368
immediately outflanked, not immediately, but like one year later by a Bitcoin SV.

1710
02:48:28,248 --> 02:48:32,969
And now they're trapped because they have to say, well, small blocks are bad. And then people

1711
02:48:32,969 --> 02:48:38,089
say, well, what about what about Bitcoin Cash? Your blocks are smaller than Bitcoin SVs. And

1712
02:48:38,089 --> 02:48:43,368
then they have to say, well, Bitcoin SVs are too big. So is this starting to make sense about now?

1713
02:48:43,848 --> 02:48:48,889
That problem doesn't even with so there's two already we've hit two things, two huge differences

1714
02:48:49,769 --> 02:48:54,329
between scaling via sidechains and by a large block sidechain.

1715
02:48:55,769 --> 02:49:00,728
Two huge differences between that and Bitcoin Cash is one is no one pays the cost except the

1716
02:49:00,728 --> 02:49:07,529
people who want to run the large block node, whereas in the naive L1 large block is in

1717
02:49:07,529 --> 02:49:12,889
Bitcoin Cash world. It's a one size fits all. So everyone has to run the more expensive node.

1718
02:49:13,449 --> 02:49:17,288
Inside chains, you have everyone run the small, tiny node. And then whoever wants

1719
02:49:18,248 --> 02:49:22,248
the minority who wants to run the more expensive node.

1720
02:49:25,529 --> 02:49:29,928
They do so. So that's one huge difference. But the second difference is that naturally,

1721
02:49:29,928 --> 02:49:35,928
the block size limit is going to be changing around now because you make it too big on the

1722
02:49:35,928 --> 02:49:41,048
large block sidechain, you might kill the network and then it'll all be that network will die out.

1723
02:49:41,048 --> 02:49:46,409
But the regular main chain L1 network will survive. And if you make it too small,

1724
02:49:46,409 --> 02:49:50,808
then someone will make a new large block sidechain somewhere else. So now I have three networks,

1725
02:49:50,808 --> 02:49:55,209
one small one that's mandatory for everyone, a large block sidechain that's kind of full and

1726
02:49:55,209 --> 02:50:01,928
then one that's newer and is empty. So naturally, more block space would be coming in and out of

1727
02:50:01,928 --> 02:50:07,048
existence. There would be something to regulate it. And that thing would be adding and removing

1728
02:50:07,048 --> 02:50:15,368
sidechains on L1. So this answers the question because it says it has the potential to be

1729
02:50:15,368 --> 02:50:21,368
unlimited, but at any given time, it would be limited. And I want to mention a third thing,

1730
02:50:21,368 --> 02:50:27,048
which is that there is a big difference in having one chain for everything, Bitcoin SV.

1731
02:50:28,409 --> 02:50:34,569
The scaling via sidechains allows you to have a lot of heterogeneity, first of all.

1732
02:50:34,569 --> 02:50:37,449
So you can have some sidechains that are very, very pushing the envelope.

1733
02:50:38,728 --> 02:50:44,329
Maybe they don't have a long run future, like a Solana style sidechain that is huge,

1734
02:50:44,329 --> 02:50:49,368
that's not sustainable, but has huge blocks, huge transaction throughput. And then you'd have maybe

1735
02:50:49,368 --> 02:50:53,368
some that are different. You have a whole range, you know, we have a whole spectrum of like

1736
02:50:53,368 --> 02:51:01,608
decentralization and security and fees. So we hit the whole region. But in particular, you'd have

1737
02:51:02,329 --> 02:51:10,569
geographically distributed sidechains, since most of the trade in America is like you have

1738
02:51:10,569 --> 02:51:16,248
North America sidechain, you have Europe sidechain, you have Southeast Asia sidechain,

1739
02:51:16,248 --> 02:51:21,449
you have China sidechain, and you have the rest of the world sidechain. And just like

1740
02:51:22,248 --> 02:51:26,728
almost all my transactions are in US dollars since I live in the United States.

1741
02:51:27,288 --> 02:51:33,129
And then when I go to Europe, I make one big transaction swapping some of my cash for euros.

1742
02:51:34,329 --> 02:51:38,168
And then I make transactions over there. So it's just the way it is, it just happens to be the

1743
02:51:38,168 --> 02:51:45,449
economic reality that people are clumped up already into big clusters of and that within

1744
02:51:45,449 --> 02:51:53,368
cluster trade is enormous, much 10, 50, 100x, the inter cluster trade. And so you already get some

1745
02:51:53,368 --> 02:51:57,608
efficiency there. It's actually the same principles of lightning network that if even if I

1746
02:51:59,048 --> 02:52:05,608
this is superior to Bitcoin SV, because in my universe, I would run, even as a full node user,

1747
02:52:06,409 --> 02:52:14,248
I would run main chain L1. And I would run the US large block sidechain only I don't need to run

1748
02:52:14,248 --> 02:52:19,368
the Southeast Asia, I don't really care. No one's paying me over there. I get paid on the

1749
02:52:19,928 --> 02:52:26,728
North America chain, because I work at whatever North America company. So only rarely do people

1750
02:52:26,728 --> 02:52:32,009
have to go in between. And so it's a similar principle to lightning network where you ignore

1751
02:52:32,009 --> 02:52:36,728
things that you don't see just on a slightly different, you know, slightly different trade

1752
02:52:36,728 --> 02:52:42,168
off. So those are some of my lists is my reasons why I want to emphasize the large block scaling

1753
02:52:42,168 --> 02:52:47,769
via sidechains is very different from naive L1 large block ism.

1754
02:52:48,728 --> 02:52:58,168
I see. So you're so like a BIP300 is, in essence, going to be increasing the amount of block space

1755
02:52:58,168 --> 02:53:04,649
there is, but then regulating exactly how much through market forces, I guess that like, it's

1756
02:53:04,649 --> 02:53:11,449
just if it's way too big, then people just won't run it because that's annoying and expensive. And

1757
02:53:13,129 --> 02:53:22,168
that it doesn't, I guess, inflated on L1. It just uses L1 is sort of like a peg for all whatever

1758
02:53:22,168 --> 02:53:27,288
ideas people might have. Okay, that makes a lot more sense. I appreciate it. Thank you for doing

1759
02:53:27,288 --> 02:53:34,488
the right. Yeah, of course. The issue with the block size is that is global is like a, you know,

1760
02:53:34,488 --> 02:53:40,488
tragedy of the commons type problem. So once you have it so that a sidechain is free to fail,

1761
02:53:40,889 --> 02:53:47,209
that is very healthy, because sidechains free to fail. And as a result, you know,

1762
02:53:47,209 --> 02:53:53,209
like it's it's completely the absolute reverse night and day where it would be with L1. Because

1763
02:53:53,209 --> 02:53:56,808
we no one would say, Oh, we'll just set the block size to something else. And if Bitcoin fails,

1764
02:53:56,808 --> 02:54:02,089
then whatever, it's not a big deal. Everyone L1 fail at Bitcoin fails, that's a big deal that

1765
02:54:02,089 --> 02:54:07,529
everyone's gonna be really pissed off about that. But if it's an optional sidechain that starts

1766
02:54:08,488 --> 02:54:14,649
with no coins, and people have to voluntarily send the coins to that, then they have to attract

1767
02:54:14,649 --> 02:54:20,889
users. And then if they die, then we won't shed a tear. They sort of have their fate is in their

1768
02:54:20,889 --> 02:54:25,608
own hands. So that's the idea. So now maybe we'll go to Morgan, I suppose. Hello. Hello.

1769
02:54:27,288 --> 02:54:35,288
Hey, Paul. I haven't talked with you before, but I'm a big fan of all of your pontificating and

1770
02:54:35,288 --> 02:54:42,488
harassment of Bitcoin Core. I salute you for your work. One of the things I wanted to talk to you

1771
02:54:42,488 --> 02:54:50,889
about was this user interface, the front ends, either using or not using BIP300. And I'm

1772
02:54:50,889 --> 02:54:59,048
wondering if you could answer a question maybe. In an example, like how samurai wallet uses BIP

1773
02:54:59,048 --> 02:55:09,129
47. And it doesn't seem to be a very popular thing and other wallets. Is there a way today,

1774
02:55:09,129 --> 02:55:18,329
a wallet could implement BIP 30 without any approval from other nodes and, and basically

1775
02:55:19,129 --> 02:55:27,368
do some some testnet stuff on a user interface level with BIP300. And, and like building user

1776
02:55:27,368 --> 02:55:33,449
interfaces that are, you know, showing off these sidechains and drivechains. Is that being done

1777
02:55:33,449 --> 02:55:39,048
in a way or can it not be done in a way? No, it's being, we do it now with our test

1778
02:55:39,048 --> 02:55:43,769
software, which is not actual real Bitcoin. So I don't think it can be the way.

1779
02:55:46,089 --> 02:55:53,288
BIP 47 is a great example of, I can give you more pontification, especially BIP 39,

1780
02:55:53,288 --> 02:55:58,969
where everyone, people for some reason hate BIP 39. Everyone in the technical community,

1781
02:56:00,329 --> 02:56:04,808
where I should say is a small minority of the elite technical community

1782
02:56:05,368 --> 02:56:10,409
had some kind of problem with BIP 39 and BIP 47. And I'm going to get into that in a second.

1783
02:56:11,288 --> 02:56:16,409
But, you know, who didn't have a problem with it was the end user who was like, oh, this is great.

1784
02:56:16,409 --> 02:56:21,288
I just have to write down 12 words. And then I don't need to like, print out this thing of

1785
02:56:21,288 --> 02:56:28,488
gibberish where I have no idea. I have no idea if I printed it outright or if someone switches

1786
02:56:28,488 --> 02:56:32,889
the piece of paper for a different one, I won't even notice. But now I just write down 12 words

1787
02:56:32,889 --> 02:56:41,048
and I just, you know, stick them in a book or something. So people love BIP 39, which is like

1788
02:56:41,048 --> 02:56:51,048
taking over. BIP 47 is, you know, people thought it was wasting block space

1789
02:56:52,968 --> 02:56:56,649
because the first transaction between two parties is 20% larger.

1790
02:56:59,608 --> 02:57:03,368
And then we would have never, we could have gotten rid of Bitcoin addresses.

1791
02:57:04,169 --> 02:57:08,728
You just like friend request someone on the blockchain. And then you have an encrypted

1792
02:57:08,728 --> 02:57:12,488
tunnel back and forth. You can send them money. You could send them messages.

1793
02:57:13,848 --> 02:57:19,049
And this is what we all would have had a long time ago. Like, I don't even know how long,

1794
02:57:19,049 --> 02:57:26,968
like 2015 or something. And yeah, this is because of people, you know, and I love Luke Dashjr.

1795
02:57:26,968 --> 02:57:32,889
He's great, but he's also crazy. And he just thought this is wasting block space.

1796
02:57:32,889 --> 02:57:37,129
The friend request thing, which is like 40 bytes. Again, it's like 20.

1797
02:57:37,129 --> 02:57:45,368
The first transaction is like 20% larger, which is nothing. And so then they fight this war

1798
02:57:45,368 --> 02:57:51,289
to keep this type of thing out. And then they get a big, you know,

1799
02:57:51,289 --> 02:57:59,689
when ordinals and stuff, inscriptions, when that finally broke out, I mean,

1800
02:58:00,809 --> 02:58:03,608
now they have to deal with it. It's like, it's a perfect example of like,

1801
02:58:04,488 --> 02:58:06,968
not solving a problem and kicking the can down the road.

1802
02:58:08,009 --> 02:58:13,289
And then having to pay for it later. And yeah, bit 47 is another thing where

1803
02:58:15,848 --> 02:58:24,488
it's super arcane reason why it was like, unanimously, quote, unanimously discouraged

1804
02:58:24,488 --> 02:58:30,649
for implementation. But again, the end user, I think they would love nothing more than to get

1805
02:58:30,649 --> 02:58:36,488
rid of all, no one likes these Bitcoin addresses. They're weird. People, they're definitely not

1806
02:58:36,488 --> 02:58:39,929
going to last, you know, like in 30 years, people are going to look back and they're going to be

1807
02:58:39,929 --> 02:58:48,009
like, oh, yeah, kind of like how we look at like, maybe IP addresses, or I don't know, maybe like

1808
02:58:48,009 --> 02:58:52,968
usenet or something where it just, it's going to look old. And we're gonna be like, yeah,

1809
02:58:52,968 --> 02:58:57,368
that's what Bitcoin was like. Yeah, we got to get rid of these stupid Bitcoin addresses.

1810
02:58:57,368 --> 02:59:02,968
But anyway, that's just some of my pontification. So let me let me continue on that, then, like,

1811
02:59:02,968 --> 02:59:14,169
why is, or how can BIP 30 be implemented in multiple wallets now, as an example,

1812
02:59:14,169 --> 02:59:22,088
you know, to go against the common grain where BIP 39 and 47, 39 is used everywhere, 47 is used in

1813
02:59:22,088 --> 02:59:26,968
Samurai and some other things. Why can't BIP 30 be used right now?

1814
02:59:29,608 --> 02:59:38,248
As an example, I work at Edge, I'm QA engineer over here. And I in the past, when I, my company

1815
02:59:38,248 --> 02:59:43,689
made the first Bitcoin ATM long ago, and I white labeled air bits and said, Hey, can you guys help

1816
02:59:43,689 --> 02:59:50,809
me build a point of sale? And I changed, you know, air bits into Bitcoin pay, it basically put some

1817
02:59:50,809 --> 02:59:57,368
lipstick on the make, you know, on the pig and tried to get it put into these casinos. And so I

1818
02:59:57,368 --> 03:00:03,208
took someone else's wallet and said, Hey, let's make a user interface for the casinos. And they

1819
03:00:03,208 --> 03:00:09,608
helped me build that. So my thought process, knowing that that could be done is why is someone

1820
03:00:09,608 --> 03:00:16,409
not making a wallet that's like BIP300 friendly or throwing BIP300 in like a test version of a

1821
03:00:16,409 --> 03:00:23,529
wallet now? And trying it out? Is that able to be done? Or? Well, there's courage for a reason.

1822
03:00:23,733 --> 03:00:53,733
The Well, I would incur I mean, the thing, the reason why it wouldn't, it won't, the actual rules of BIP300 will not be enforced until 51% hash rate runs software that enforces them. So that is the soft fork. And we have testnet software already that we're trying to make. And we have a test network with, you know, with fake coins. And we already we have that

1823
03:00:53,733 --> 03:01:23,733
and we we want to continue to make that. And in fact, I think the right thing to do next would be to make a signet version, but who has time, but we have we have it because we have now we have just open in reg test. So that it's very easy for each per I think signet is actually probably better. We'll have a common signet and we'll have like a faucet. And so we kind of go back and forth between just like turning the network loose. And just letting people reg test only, which is the most convenient.

1824
03:01:23,733 --> 03:01:53,533
Because, you know, they can find the programmer to just find a block every two seconds or something. But I think signet is the way to go next. But but we have wallets, we and we do need, we have like desktop node software with desktop wallet. But we do need people to make to add support to whatever wallet it is that they, you know, people like certain wallet, then it would have to support this type of thing. If each wallet is kind of like the each sidechain is a

1825
03:01:53,572 --> 03:02:20,292
piece of software. So each wallet is kind of be like the the jacks multi currency wallet or something like that, where it would have to be a little like that, to be a mobile wallet. But, but yeah, I think all that should be done, but they won't, you understand that they won't actually be able to send Bitcoin to like the Zcash sidechain until BIP300 activates, they won't, they'll actually be able to send the coins, but they won't be safe. The coins will be vulnerable to just

1826
03:02:21,292 --> 03:02:45,973
Okay, so when, when, when we have, say, a user interface, like, say, we make a desktop version of a user interface that is playing with the BIP300 test coins, are we able to make test sidechains like a test Zcash and a test Ethereum and and test the interoperability in that way?

1827
03:02:46,372 --> 03:02:49,893
Yeah, exactly. Yes, that is the case.

1828
03:02:51,693 --> 03:03:13,613
Okay, so because I've always wanted to do stuff like that on top of Bitcoin, and I used to use counterparty, like religiously, and I think the biggest problem with all this cool shit that was done on top of Bitcoin just didn't have good user interfaces, you know, and I think that's a big issue and getting it to people, you know?

1829
03:03:14,613 --> 03:03:35,613
Yeah, I agree. I mean, you know, Steve Jobs would repeat that over and over and over again, everyone would say, Oh, Steve Jobs is so smart, business genius, and they'd say, what's the secret? And he's like, repeating it over and over and over again. He's like, just focus on the user focus on the customer focus on the user experience. So certainly, that should be number one priority.

1830
03:03:36,613 --> 03:03:47,093
Well, you've been around as long as me, but you may know this, and I don't know this. What was the threshold that got 39 and 47 put in play? Like,

1831
03:03:47,093 --> 03:04:15,813
right, 39 and 47 do not require, whether or not you use them does not affect if it's not affected by if other people are using them. In fact, the more people using 39, the more the better it is, whereas 300 requires 51% of miners to run the software first. So that's the that's the stumbling block. Otherwise, this all would have happened long ago.

1832
03:04:17,973 --> 03:04:24,132
Is there a specific technical reason that you could kind of explain to a layman why that is different?

1833
03:04:25,012 --> 03:04:53,893
Yeah, the coins the way the design of 300 is that the coins and must the coins can easily be you track which coins are in which sidechain and then they return through this kind of gauntlet, the sort of like slow hallway with a bunch of locked doors. And that is a very slow withdrawal system that is designed to make it infeasible for the coins to be withdrawn to any mistaken

1834
03:04:53,893 --> 03:05:23,012
destination. And if you if everyone, the BIP300 code enforces that, that like hallway thing, but if no one runs, if miners aren't running the code, then they can just mine a block that just takes the coins in the very next block, or someone else can just take the coins and pay a high fee and the miners won't really know that what they're doing is breaking any rules. So

1835
03:05:24,292 --> 03:05:48,773
they that is why this the rules of BIP300 will not be enforced, unless 51% of miners upgrade, which is the used to really not be a big deal. We did, we did many of these such soft fork things 16 or 17. In the first seven years of bitcoins history, but then came this SegWit disaster and everyone

1836
03:05:50,532 --> 03:05:52,933
panicked on doing them further to our detriment.

1837
03:05:53,893 --> 03:06:04,292
Is that why 301 is there as a sister bit because that encourages this hallway action from happening in a faster way?

1838
03:06:05,092 --> 03:06:20,132
I'm afraid they're actually completely different things. And 301 is a much tamer smaller problem that is already solved in many different ways. And a BIP300/301 301 itself is easily emulated by

1839
03:06:20,132 --> 03:06:37,092
other things like Ruben Somsen, and Super Testnet have already built space chains that use line merge mining. So they are they already kind of exists. It's not a very efficient way, but it does exist. And so

1840
03:06:37,812 --> 03:06:38,773
everyone got muted.

1841
03:06:41,733 --> 03:06:44,613
Okay, I'm back. So they

1842
03:06:44,613 --> 03:07:03,333
really ask, I wanted to kind of get an idea from it. You know, I'm a developer, but I wanted to get an idea from a user interface user experiences. Why can't we just shove new features in everyone's face? Why do we have to have the Illuminati of Bitcoin like approve it when these other BIPs just don't work anymore?

1843
03:07:03,333 --> 03:07:17,092
interface user experiences? Why can't we just shove new features in everyone's face? Why do we have to have the Illuminati of Bitcoin like approve it when these other BIPs kind of went through? But that answers my question on that.

1844
03:07:17,893 --> 03:07:46,373
If we had BIP300, then even things that are soft forks or hard forks, they would also be in the same category as BIP 39 or BIP 47. Where you could just launch it without getting approval from the community. And in fact, the point of sidechains is actually if you disagree with the community, you think they're doing something wrong. So actually, the point, you do have to get 51% miners to

1845
03:07:46,773 --> 03:07:52,933
approve you taking the slot, so to speak. But again, the slot is supposed to be for dissent.

1846
03:07:54,692 --> 03:07:55,493
So,

1847
03:07:55,972 --> 03:07:59,653
so this may be the last BIP we ever need if we can kind of get it.

1848
03:08:00,613 --> 03:08:27,173
Yes, that would be the hope, or even maybe this BIP would just make it so that extremely contentious ideas move to the L2. And as a result, there's just so much less politics and less unproductive chatter on L1 so that the only L1 changes are like, very, very tame, very, very conservative, very, very good ideas that just are made based on merit and not on

1849
03:08:28,053 --> 03:08:46,852
Is there a metric, a way of measuring right now approval? I mean, do we have a percentage threshold of, I mean, we don't have our user authenticated, you know, soft fork flags and stuff right now. But is there a way to measure how much approval BIP300 has right now? And when it comes to nodes?

1850
03:08:47,173 --> 03:09:13,173
Well, not when it comes to nodes. I think we have, yeah, we should probably try to do that somehow. I mean, for now, I'm actually focused on getting out the, an actual pull request to Bitcoin Core that activates both 300 and 301 that is like, rebased and like good enough to actually use. Because until you have a real proposal,

1851
03:09:13,173 --> 03:09:41,813
people won't really know like, what it is, I think. You could ask, like, the smart thing would be, I suppose, to ask the heads of mining pools, you know, if they would support activating it. So we've had the one public yes from Luxor pool. So that's whatever, 3% or so. So that's three down 47 to go.

1852
03:09:43,173 --> 03:09:49,412
But that's just I wasn't me who asked some random other person. So I think that would be a good 90% though.

1853
03:09:49,412 --> 03:10:19,332
Well, I suppose, if to actually add the sidechain, you would need 90%. But maybe it could be the case that a miner has a belief of the form. I don't want to get involved in soft fork activation. But then if BIP300 activated, they might be like, okay, whether I wanted it or not, BIP300 is activated. So now that it is activated, should we,

1854
03:10:19,892 --> 03:10:25,733
should we try out the slot? And then they could so their willingness to participate?

1855
03:10:26,532 --> 03:10:31,013
Is there any way to know it's activated? Unless there's like actually already a slot with 90%

1856
03:10:31,013 --> 03:10:33,892
approval? I really know, right?

1857
03:10:35,892 --> 03:10:45,253
It is like all things, it exists between a state of certainty and doubt. But it, there is a way of

1858
03:10:45,253 --> 03:10:48,452
activating it where everyone knows and there's a way of activating it where people don't know

1859
03:10:49,173 --> 03:10:54,693
yet until after it had activated. There's always a way of finding out eventually that it did activate,

1860
03:10:54,693 --> 03:11:01,013
which is to try and break the BIP300 rules and notice that the block never is the block is always

1861
03:11:01,013 --> 03:11:07,493
getting orphaned. The but what I was we were just talking about moments ago was like having 50% of

1862
03:11:07,493 --> 03:11:16,933
the pools say they would support it and then have them run the software. And then in that context,

1863
03:11:17,573 --> 03:11:19,412
people would know that it had activated.

1864
03:11:23,652 --> 03:11:28,292
Well, that that's all I wanted. I'm going to step down but I will I'll join the discord and I want

1865
03:11:28,292 --> 03:11:34,133
a job so whenever you need someone you call me and I fully support you and I think we need some

1866
03:11:34,133 --> 03:11:40,212
dramatic changes to Bitcoin. And I think technical options like this are great. So keep

1867
03:11:40,212 --> 03:11:43,013
keep kicking ass, man. Go ahead. Thanks.

1868
03:11:46,212 --> 03:11:52,933
I just want to say BIP 47 is amazing. I know the Samurai users really, really love it. You made a

1869
03:11:52,933 --> 03:11:56,613
really good point that it would just be so much easier for like the user, you know, if you just

1870
03:11:56,613 --> 03:12:03,332
share the, you know, like like the payment that is derived from the BIP 47. I think Sparrow also

1871
03:12:03,332 --> 03:12:09,173
implemented it. I mean, I know that it has, which is great. Yes, it's not. It's like a wall. Any

1872
03:12:09,173 --> 03:12:17,412
wallet can just do it also. So even though core so it's an example of how core, you know, there's

1873
03:12:17,412 --> 03:12:24,133
it's often thrown around this this great lie that Bitcoin Core is like an open system and that

1874
03:12:24,133 --> 03:12:30,452
anyone can work on it and that it's a meritocracy. But but basically, you know, one person's merit

1875
03:12:30,452 --> 03:12:40,373
is another person's. Terrible idea, but but I think BIP 47 in particular proves that Bitcoin

1876
03:12:40,373 --> 03:12:44,693
core often makes mistakes and they don't take the idea with the most merit. Well,

1877
03:12:44,693 --> 03:12:50,693
39 as well, of course, still doesn't have 39, right? Bitcoin Core does not implement 39.

1878
03:12:51,332 --> 03:12:57,253
No, there's no you get no passphrase. And if for a while you back it up, if you generate

1879
03:12:58,053 --> 03:13:02,133
more keys, you still have to back it up every time. No, I think there's HD wallets. But I think

1880
03:13:03,733 --> 03:13:08,852
but you have to for a very long time, you could not

1881
03:13:11,573 --> 03:13:17,253
switch wallets if you were using the QT client. I think it was only version 20 that allowed you to

1882
03:13:17,253 --> 03:13:22,772
like save the wallet to like a file and then like open a different one or something. You could not

1883
03:13:22,772 --> 03:13:27,332
like oh, I think it was maybe set the seed randomness. That's what it was. You could not

1884
03:13:27,332 --> 03:13:35,253
set the seed randomness until version 20 or something like that. But so it's just not the

1885
03:13:35,253 --> 03:13:41,092
case that Bitcoin Core is a meritocracy. And it's not the case that if it was, then no one would

1886
03:13:41,092 --> 03:13:45,412
ever complain about anything. All the complaining would be illegitimate. So I guess if someone wants

1887
03:13:45,412 --> 03:13:50,772
to live in that fantasy world where they believe two lies at once that are mutually reinforcing,

1888
03:13:51,733 --> 03:13:58,693
then that's great. Good for you. But there is no such thing. Nothing is infallible. And there's

1889
03:13:58,693 --> 03:14:05,652
no process that is without error. And the key is to how to correct the error. The number one

1890
03:14:05,652 --> 03:14:11,652
question is always how can Bitcoin survive mistakes made by Bitcoin Core, which are inevitable.

1891
03:14:12,852 --> 03:14:14,772
And so yeah.

1892
03:14:15,332 --> 03:14:21,733
Do you think that there's benefits to alternate implementations being more widely adopted,

1893
03:14:21,733 --> 03:14:26,133
like Bitcoin Knots and like whatever other alternate implementations about following

1894
03:14:26,133 --> 03:14:29,493
the same consensus? The alternate implementations,

1895
03:14:30,852 --> 03:14:36,452
I think Satoshi was strongly against them. He said they would always be a menace to the network

1896
03:14:36,452 --> 03:14:42,133
because if they ever disagree, it may fork the network. And Corey Fields is a brilliant guy. He

1897
03:14:42,133 --> 03:14:49,972
gave a talk about 2 plus 2 equals 3 about saying whatever Bitcoin Core does is what everyone else

1898
03:14:49,972 --> 03:14:56,613
has to do. Although I think that that position is a little bit overstated because it's not like

1899
03:14:56,613 --> 03:15:00,532
literally the end of the world. You could run Bitcoin Knots and you could also know that you're

1900
03:15:00,532 --> 03:15:06,613
running a minority piece of software. And so you could know that, hey, I'm in danger of forking

1901
03:15:06,613 --> 03:15:11,412
off. And certainly, I think you don't want any miners. You want all the hash rate to be running

1902
03:15:11,412 --> 03:15:18,452
the exact same piece of consensus, the exact same consensus library. But other than that,

1903
03:15:18,452 --> 03:15:24,212
an end user could run whatever to process the node, however they like. The blockchain process,

1904
03:15:24,212 --> 03:15:32,292
the blockchain, however they like. But these don't tend to be very popular.

1905
03:15:33,253 --> 03:15:40,452
Bitcoin, the JavaScript one, and Bitcoin Knots, Luke S. Jr.'s thing. But Bitcoin,

1906
03:15:41,092 --> 03:15:47,652
the JavaScript node, it has excellent comments. It's very easy to read. It's been said,

1907
03:15:47,652 --> 03:15:52,373
when I was in San Francisco in 2019, it was often said that if you want to actually learn how

1908
03:15:52,373 --> 03:16:00,613
Bitcoin Core worked, you should just read Bitcoin, the JavaScript Bitcoin Core node because it had

1909
03:16:01,173 --> 03:16:04,373
a layout and it had comments and it had like a consistent style.

1910
03:16:06,212 --> 03:16:12,212
So it was easier to read. And yeah, there's not that many comments in Bitcoin Core,

1911
03:16:12,212 --> 03:16:18,933
which is very shameful. And also very, very, very, very much against the spirit of self-sovereignty.

1912
03:16:18,933 --> 03:16:25,573
It's a very hypocritical Bitcoin Core too. We talk a big talk about your node protects you

1913
03:16:25,573 --> 03:16:33,652
and trust don't verify. But really, it should be like every single line of code should have like

1914
03:16:33,652 --> 03:16:38,613
more comments than code should be explaining every single thing so that

1915
03:16:39,733 --> 03:16:42,772
anyone who tried to do something nefarious would be caught easily.

1916
03:16:47,173 --> 03:16:53,253
I don't know. Sam Parker has a question. He has written it in the form of a tweet

1917
03:16:53,652 --> 03:16:58,292
and he has not come up to ask it. And I don't know why, but the question is,

1918
03:16:58,292 --> 03:17:02,852
was this larger TX optional if you didn't intend an ongoing relationship with a party?

1919
03:17:05,573 --> 03:17:07,892
I have to admit that I'm not totally sure what that means.

1920
03:17:07,892 --> 03:17:15,652
You're talking about BIP 47. And in that case, you don't really do that transaction unless you want it.

1921
03:17:15,813 --> 03:17:24,532
Yes. Was this larger transaction optional? Yes. You only did it if you sent the BIP 47 style

1922
03:17:24,532 --> 03:17:30,133
transaction. So it's not like every transaction would become 20% bigger, but if you wanted to

1923
03:17:30,133 --> 03:17:35,653
use a BIP 47 and create the tunnel. And one intriguing thing also is that the recipient

1924
03:17:35,653 --> 03:17:41,733
gets it for free. So if I want to send money to Edward Snowden, I look up his friend code or

1925
03:17:41,733 --> 03:17:47,493
whatever. Then I friend him on the blockchain. And then he and I have an encrypted tunnel and

1926
03:17:47,493 --> 03:17:54,133
he didn't even have to do anything. So BIP 47 was fine to me. BIP 47 has also been improved.

1927
03:17:55,572 --> 03:18:03,653
There's a version 3 and a version 4. The guy, Justice Ranvir, he had some differences of

1928
03:18:03,653 --> 03:18:07,332
opinion with Bitcoin Core and he kind of just left to do his own thing, many such cases.

1929
03:18:08,212 --> 03:18:13,733
But he has a different GitHub library where he does version 3, version 4

1930
03:18:14,533 --> 03:18:22,133
of BIP 47. And Ruben Sampson has further tinkered with this idea to do the

1931
03:18:23,092 --> 03:18:29,332
silent payments thing, which is basically a sort of a version of BIP 47.

1932
03:18:30,293 --> 03:18:37,572
And so the larger transaction is optional. Yes, the answer is yes.

1933
03:18:38,452 --> 03:18:41,653
And so one of the benefits is that all other transactions

1934
03:18:42,293 --> 03:18:46,373
in this channel of sorts that you've opened is much, much smaller on-chain?

1935
03:18:49,013 --> 03:18:54,052
No, they are regular size, but you get an endless, each of you gets an endless vector

1936
03:18:55,013 --> 03:19:03,812
array, so to speak, of like, I get a list. You and I, I make the BIP 47 transaction to you,

1937
03:19:03,812 --> 03:19:09,332
and it causes both of our wallets to become aware of each other's friend code. We store it.

1938
03:19:10,212 --> 03:19:15,733
It's this one blockchain event. We store it and then I can look up, there's like a Paul-Sam

1939
03:19:15,733 --> 03:19:20,692
list where Paul pays Sam. And then it's like, imagine like a Microsoft Excel or something.

1940
03:19:21,013 --> 03:19:26,052
We have like a column that's like Paul pays Sam. And then you have a second column that's

1941
03:19:26,052 --> 03:19:31,733
Sam pays Paul. And then the rows are just Bitcoin addresses. So we have now, each of us has an

1942
03:19:31,733 --> 03:19:37,812
unlimited stream of new Bitcoin addresses to use. That's the key is they're all different.

1943
03:19:38,533 --> 03:19:42,773
So there's never any address reuse, but we know now we have an infinite number.

1944
03:19:42,773 --> 03:19:47,893
We can just keep going down the list over and over and over again. And whenever I want to send

1945
03:19:47,893 --> 03:19:52,613
you money, I know what public key to use next. And then once you receive money there, you think,

1946
03:19:52,613 --> 03:19:57,253
okay, now not only am I going to check everything on this list, but I'm going to check the next one

1947
03:19:57,253 --> 03:20:01,812
on the list because Paul just used one, two, three, four, five, six. So now I'm going to check

1948
03:20:01,812 --> 03:20:07,493
number seven. And you're going to add that as like a watching only thing, as one of your,

1949
03:20:07,493 --> 03:20:13,972
is mine equals true. And then you, when I send you money on seven, then you switch to eight.

1950
03:20:13,972 --> 03:20:17,013
So it's like, they all have their own gap limit or something.

1951
03:20:17,572 --> 03:20:23,172
And, but also key is that we derive a, not only do we have an endless series of.

1952
03:20:24,361 --> 03:20:32,361
Bitcoin addresses and ECDSA public keys, and, you know, it could be any kind of, any kind of public key.

1953
03:20:32,361 --> 03:20:41,361
We have a shared secret also. So just between all these things, we have basically the ability to send messages to each other.

1954
03:20:41,361 --> 03:20:52,361
So that can include me sending you like a text message or something on Telegram that's encrypted, like through some rail, but your wallet could open it.

1955
03:20:52,361 --> 03:20:59,361
Cause we have, you and I, we have this tunnel already. And since you can do that, then the message could be something like.

1956
03:20:59,361 --> 03:21:11,361
It could be, I could literally send you a message that has you like, you know, like curl CURL something and decode that you and I can have like a whole encrypted video chat or something.

1957
03:21:11,361 --> 03:21:20,361
We can disguise the limit because we, we know, know each other's key. And so it's also replacing like PGP, it's replacing web of trusts, replacing everything.

1958
03:21:20,361 --> 03:21:25,361
It wouldn't literally replace all that overnight, of course, but I'm just trying to give an idea of.

1959
03:21:25,361 --> 03:21:32,361
Yeah, I just want to give one more example. The Bitcoin company, it's a gift card website, like similar to BitRefill.

1960
03:21:32,361 --> 03:21:40,361
It actually implemented paying in BIP-47 logins. So you can just like, you know, have an account that you don't have an email address or anything.

1961
03:21:40,361 --> 03:21:45,361
You just, you know, you register your account with the BIP-47 and you log in with BIP-47.

1962
03:21:45,361 --> 03:21:52,361
So that's an example of what you're talking about. You can use this for, you know, authentication, logging in, talking, whatever you want to do.

1963
03:21:52,361 --> 03:22:01,361
That's a, excuse me, that's a really cool idea. It's like you're entangling your, your HD wallet generation with this other guy.

1964
03:22:01,361 --> 03:22:11,361
But yeah, like I, it seems like something, excuse me, it seems like something like you can, you don't necessarily need to do anything on the core level for that.

1965
03:22:12,361 --> 03:22:18,361
You could push this up a layer. And I'm assuming that that's, you said that Ruben Somsen was doing something like this for silent payments.

1966
03:22:18,361 --> 03:22:22,361
I'm assuming that's what he's doing.

1967
03:22:22,361 --> 03:22:25,361
Yes, that's right.

1968
03:22:25,361 --> 03:22:26,361
Interesting.

1969
03:22:26,361 --> 03:22:33,361
And I just want to, yeah, so look into silent payments if you want to see. That was kind of like what became of BIP-47.

1970
03:22:33,361 --> 03:22:41,361
But what I want to stress is it was, this idea was killed because it was wasting block space quotes, quote wasting.

1971
03:22:41,361 --> 03:22:47,361
And there was this notification transaction on Chain that people thought was inelegant.

1972
03:22:47,361 --> 03:22:52,361
But it turns out, in my opinion, they're certainly right.

1973
03:22:52,361 --> 03:22:56,361
I mean, if you look at the technical details, it does feel inelegant.

1974
03:22:56,361 --> 03:23:06,361
However, later attempts to replicate this functionality without the inelegant part have faced disastrous trade-offs.

1975
03:23:06,361 --> 03:23:20,361
And what this does with the, with the one quote inelegant part, which again can be, can be shrunk down and compacted so that the only cost you pay is the first transaction between two people is 20% larger.

1976
03:23:21,361 --> 03:23:25,361
It goes from being 220 bytes to like 200 and whatever, 48 bytes or something.

1977
03:23:25,361 --> 03:23:29,361
So, so that's not that much.

1978
03:23:29,361 --> 03:23:41,361
And the different versions, either they introduced a requirement that in order to receive money, you have to scan the entire blockchain again.

1979
03:23:42,361 --> 03:23:49,361
Like, so whenever you get a new, like a new person wants to friend request you or something.

1980
03:23:49,361 --> 03:23:54,361
So the, you either have to scan everything or you have to do some other stuff.

1981
03:23:54,361 --> 03:23:58,361
So it's something that looked kind of inelegant at first.

1982
03:23:58,361 --> 03:24:07,361
My view now is that this is just an example of how something can really, really, really be misleading and how it looks.

1983
03:24:07,361 --> 03:24:15,361
Because I, now with hindsight, I now look back on this and I see it, I still see it as inelegant, not elegant.

1984
03:24:15,361 --> 03:24:21,361
I see it as this creepy kludge, like friend requesting someone on the blockchain.

1985
03:24:21,361 --> 03:24:25,361
And it's just this, this pointless OP_RETURN bare multisig junk is in the blockchain.

1986
03:24:25,361 --> 03:24:27,361
It does look like it's spamming the blockchain.

1987
03:24:27,361 --> 03:24:33,361
But now I, I see that as, even though I still see it, I see it as an illusion.

1988
03:24:33,361 --> 03:24:36,361
It's like when you see an optical illusion that you already know.

1989
03:24:36,361 --> 03:24:42,361
And you say, you see the two lines and you know that they're the same length, but they still look like a different length.

1990
03:24:42,361 --> 03:24:44,361
That's how I see it now.

1991
03:24:44,361 --> 03:24:49,361
I look back on bit 47 and I think that was a really, really good idea.

1992
03:24:49,361 --> 03:24:53,361
We could have had that idea in like 2014 or 2015 or something.

1993
03:24:53,361 --> 03:24:57,361
It wasn't that long after stealth addresses.

1994
03:24:57,361 --> 03:25:00,361
And that was like 2012, 2013, 2014, something like that.

1995
03:25:00,361 --> 03:25:03,361
So, so we could have had this idea the whole time.

1996
03:25:03,361 --> 03:25:07,361
No addresses in the UI, just the friend code.

1997
03:25:09,361 --> 03:25:11,361
Imagine that, that would have been amazing.

1998
03:25:11,361 --> 03:25:12,361
Would have been way better.

1999
03:25:12,361 --> 03:25:13,361
Wow.

2000
03:25:13,361 --> 03:25:18,361
It's quite soon also to go from, people would have also hated this, but it would have been,

2001
03:25:18,361 --> 03:25:25,361
I think this is like if history had taken a different turn, the idea of putting the name system on the blockchain also.

2002
03:25:25,361 --> 03:25:30,361
Which again, this would have been like wasting space because you would broadcast a message that says like,

2003
03:25:30,361 --> 03:25:35,361
I want to be truth coin on the Bitcoin world.

2004
03:25:35,361 --> 03:25:38,361
I want to be truth coin, you know, dot bit or something.

2005
03:25:38,361 --> 03:25:43,361
And then if two people, you know, you do like a hash reveal and whoever gets it first,

2006
03:25:43,361 --> 03:25:47,361
whoever is first in the blockchain gets it, gets the name.

2007
03:25:47,361 --> 03:25:54,361
But if we had done that, like Namecoin, like Namecoin as counterparty on Bitcoin,

2008
03:25:54,361 --> 03:25:56,361
you know, if that makes any sense to anyone.

2009
03:25:56,361 --> 03:26:02,361
But if we had done that, we would be wasting more block space, but then it would be even,

2010
03:26:02,361 --> 03:26:04,361
it would be even more user friendly.

2011
03:26:04,361 --> 03:26:07,361
It would be like very difficult because now you just have,

2012
03:26:07,361 --> 03:26:13,361
we would just be truth coin and then there'd be Satoshi Enjoyer and then there'd be ZK Chesterton.

2013
03:26:13,361 --> 03:26:18,361
And that we would just be sending you, there would not only be no addresses,

2014
03:26:18,361 --> 03:26:21,361
but the friend code would just be an actual name.

2015
03:26:21,361 --> 03:26:23,361
It would not even be a, and there would have been,

2016
03:26:23,361 --> 03:26:28,361
we would have long blown past the point where like Silk Road,

2017
03:26:28,361 --> 03:26:31,361
Silk Road would have been like a name on the blockchain.

2018
03:26:31,361 --> 03:26:33,361
And that would have done all the authentication.

2019
03:26:33,361 --> 03:26:35,361
There would still need to be like a site and stuff.

2020
03:26:35,361 --> 03:26:38,361
But then with Telegram bots and stuff, it would have been a very different world.

2021
03:26:38,361 --> 03:26:44,361
But because people were so, well, you know, I'm just going to say that this is like,

2022
03:26:44,361 --> 03:26:47,361
you know, this is the decision that was made to, it's right there in the BIP.

2023
03:26:47,361 --> 03:26:50,361
It says unanimously discouraged for implementation.

2024
03:26:50,361 --> 03:26:55,361
So decide for yourselves, of course, a meritocracy after that.

2025
03:27:00,361 --> 03:27:05,361
I think there was other reasons why they might have not thought it's a good idea.

2026
03:27:05,361 --> 03:27:09,361
Because like if you want to say it's like privacy preserving,

2027
03:27:09,361 --> 03:27:14,361
if on chain I'm opening up this tunnel between me and you,

2028
03:27:14,361 --> 03:27:16,361
and then I go ahead and do a transaction,

2029
03:27:16,361 --> 03:27:19,361
like chances are I'm probably just sending you those funds, right?

2030
03:27:19,361 --> 03:27:21,361
Because I just opened the channel with you.

2031
03:27:21,361 --> 03:27:27,361
But I think the BIP had that, it had some ways of obscuring that.

2032
03:27:27,361 --> 03:27:31,361
So like when A, if I open the tunnel with you,

2033
03:27:31,361 --> 03:27:37,361
I use your friend code and everyone sees that someone is friending you,

2034
03:27:37,361 --> 03:27:39,361
but they don't know it's me.

2035
03:27:39,361 --> 03:27:44,361
I spend some BTC and they don't know.

2036
03:27:44,361 --> 03:27:49,361
They don't know it's a, there's three outputs.

2037
03:27:49,361 --> 03:27:57,361
So I spent some inputs and then one of them I, one of the,

2038
03:27:57,361 --> 03:27:59,361
okay, let me re-explain it.

2039
03:27:59,361 --> 03:28:01,361
I select one input and then there's two outputs.

2040
03:28:01,361 --> 03:28:06,361
One of those outputs has a bare multisig with three keys.

2041
03:28:06,361 --> 03:28:10,361
One of those three keys is your friend code.

2042
03:28:10,361 --> 03:28:13,361
So everyone knows that someone's friending you,

2043
03:28:13,361 --> 03:28:14,361
but they don't know.

2044
03:28:14,361 --> 03:28:20,361
And then the other part is a, something that you will be able to calculate a,

2045
03:28:20,361 --> 03:28:24,361
I give them a code that enables you to decrypt my friend code.

2046
03:28:24,361 --> 03:28:27,361
So my friend code is never given away.

2047
03:28:27,361 --> 03:28:31,361
So you don't know, everyone knows that Soshi and Joy are getting a new friend,

2048
03:28:31,361 --> 03:28:32,361
but no one knows who it is.

2049
03:28:32,361 --> 03:28:34,361
Only you know that it's me.

2050
03:28:34,361 --> 03:28:38,361
And then the other script of the three is an output,

2051
03:28:38,361 --> 03:28:40,361
which would normally have been changed,

2052
03:28:40,361 --> 03:28:43,361
because I'm going to select, you know, something that has four Bitcoin.

2053
03:28:43,361 --> 03:28:49,361
I'm going to pay 0.01 in fee and then pay 3.9999 back to myself.

2054
03:28:49,361 --> 03:28:56,361
And, but however, that does not need to be, that part you can flip around.

2055
03:28:56,361 --> 03:29:00,361
That could be my first payment to you, or it could be the change.

2056
03:29:00,361 --> 03:29:02,361
And then the change could be a different output or my first payment to you

2057
03:29:02,361 --> 03:29:05,361
could be the other output in that transaction.

2058
03:29:05,361 --> 03:29:07,361
So you can scramble all those.

2059
03:29:07,361 --> 03:29:12,361
So they don't really know how much you're being paid in the first payment either,

2060
03:29:12,361 --> 03:29:14,361
if anything, you know what I mean?

2061
03:29:14,361 --> 03:29:17,361
Like I can select 3.99, pay some to myself, pay some to you.

2062
03:29:17,361 --> 03:29:18,361
Yeah, yeah.

2063
03:29:18,361 --> 03:29:21,361
Like it would look like a page join kind of, or not a page join.

2064
03:29:21,361 --> 03:29:22,361
It's more.

2065
03:29:22,361 --> 03:29:24,361
They just don't know which one.

2066
03:29:24,361 --> 03:29:26,361
You can't really know which one is which, yeah.

2067
03:29:26,361 --> 03:29:29,361
Yeah, they don't know which one's the change, which one's to you necessarily.

2068
03:29:29,361 --> 03:29:36,361
So, so it's not, it's not great, but it's not, it's also not broken either.

2069
03:29:36,361 --> 03:29:40,361
For most of the people, most of the time it would have worked.

2070
03:29:40,361 --> 03:29:44,361
I agree, because you can open a channel, like open this tunnel with you today

2071
03:29:44,361 --> 03:29:46,361
and with somebody else tomorrow and somebody else the third day,

2072
03:29:46,361 --> 03:29:50,361
and then I could just pay one of you and nobody knows which one I paid, right?

2073
03:29:50,361 --> 03:29:52,361
Like automatically.

2074
03:29:52,361 --> 03:29:54,361
Right, no one knows who wants.

2075
03:29:54,361 --> 03:29:55,361
Someone knows.

2076
03:29:55,361 --> 03:29:58,361
So on day one, I opened the tunnel with you.

2077
03:29:58,361 --> 03:30:03,361
So someone knows that you have a tunnel.

2078
03:30:03,361 --> 03:30:06,361
And then I open a tunnel with Sam on Tuesday,

2079
03:30:06,361 --> 03:30:09,361
and then on Wednesday I open a channel with Moon.

2080
03:30:09,361 --> 03:30:12,361
And then from then on, no one knows if I'm using any of the tunnels.

2081
03:30:12,361 --> 03:30:14,361
Everything just looks like a normal Bitcoin transaction.

2082
03:30:14,361 --> 03:30:18,361
The tunnels are only for so we can agree on a list of Bitcoin addresses

2083
03:30:18,361 --> 03:30:23,361
without interacting.

2084
03:30:23,361 --> 03:30:28,361
And so, because the problem with the interaction is I have to –

2085
03:30:28,361 --> 03:30:30,361
well, interaction is bad for privacy,

2086
03:30:30,361 --> 03:30:33,361
but the problem with interaction is like I interact with Sam

2087
03:30:33,361 --> 03:30:37,361
and he gives me a Bitcoin address.

2088
03:30:37,361 --> 03:30:40,361
Is that one like burned forever?

2089
03:30:40,361 --> 03:30:43,361
Because if he doesn't use it, like then what do I do?

2090
03:30:43,361 --> 03:30:48,361
So I have to keep track of a lot of state, actually,

2091
03:30:48,361 --> 03:30:53,361
because if I give one to Sam and one to Satoshi and Joy and one to Moonsettler,

2092
03:30:53,361 --> 03:30:58,361
then I don't – I've given three off of my list.

2093
03:30:59,361 --> 03:31:03,361
So I have to keep track of how many I've given out.

2094
03:31:03,361 --> 03:31:08,361
In this scheme, everyone gets their own list that starts at one, starts at zero.

2095
03:31:08,361 --> 03:31:13,361
So I can do this all day, and I don't have to be online to do it either.

2096
03:31:13,361 --> 03:31:15,361
Just someone needs to find my friend code.

2097
03:31:15,361 --> 03:31:16,361
So I can be like Edward Snowden.

2098
03:31:16,361 --> 03:31:19,361
I can be like on the run, and I have no internet.

2099
03:31:19,361 --> 03:31:21,361
But then when I get to my internet, I can find it.

2100
03:31:21,361 --> 03:31:23,361
All of a sudden I have 40,000 new friends,

2101
03:31:23,361 --> 03:31:26,361
and they all want to send me money and messages.

2102
03:31:27,361 --> 03:31:30,361
Send me a little thank you email or something.

2103
03:31:32,361 --> 03:31:34,361
You know how it is.

2104
03:31:36,361 --> 03:31:40,361
So that was – again, it looked ugly, but it still does.

2105
03:31:40,361 --> 03:31:42,361
But now I see it as an illusion.

2106
03:31:42,361 --> 03:31:44,361
When you would see – you look at those two lines,

2107
03:31:44,361 --> 03:31:48,361
you know the lines with the arrows pointing in and out on the edges,

2108
03:31:48,361 --> 03:31:52,361
and the one line looks bigger than the other,

2109
03:31:52,361 --> 03:31:54,361
even though you know they're the same length.

2110
03:31:54,361 --> 03:31:59,361
So, again, I see it for the ugliness that it is,

2111
03:31:59,361 --> 03:32:04,361
but at the same time, it was by far a superior idea

2112
03:32:04,361 --> 03:32:09,361
to whatever else we thought was good at the time or even since.

2113
03:32:09,361 --> 03:32:13,361
Like it's a better idea than probably Taproot, 547 is.

2114
03:32:13,361 --> 03:32:17,361
So there you go.

2115
03:32:18,361 --> 03:32:20,361
Just – excuse me.

2116
03:32:20,361 --> 03:32:21,361
Going back to something you were saying earlier.

2117
03:32:21,361 --> 03:32:25,361
I've been thinking recently that you were talking about the problem

2118
03:32:25,361 --> 03:32:29,361
with Lightning basically is, yeah, there's a hard cap

2119
03:32:29,361 --> 03:32:37,361
on how small of an amount you can basically go to court for.

2120
03:32:39,361 --> 03:32:45,361
And that really – like that – the problem of kind of guaranteeing

2121
03:32:45,361 --> 03:32:48,361
settlement of fraud proofs in a very general way

2122
03:32:48,361 --> 03:32:50,361
is something I've been thinking about a lot recently.

2123
03:32:50,361 --> 03:32:57,361
And basically, yeah, if that problem actually is unsolvable

2124
03:32:57,361 --> 03:33:03,361
without either going full sidechain or increasing block size,

2125
03:33:03,361 --> 03:33:08,361
like if we're like really bumping up against like information theory

2126
03:33:08,361 --> 03:33:13,361
type stuff there, which is possible, but I suspect we aren't,

2127
03:33:13,361 --> 03:33:17,361
then yeah, that's – we absolutely need to do that.

2128
03:33:17,361 --> 03:33:27,361
But if there is a mechanism by which we can guarantee, you know,

2129
03:33:27,361 --> 03:33:34,361
asterisk settlement of fraud proofs in like extremely high volume

2130
03:33:34,361 --> 03:33:40,361
and for arbitrarily small amounts, you know, I'm thinking something

2131
03:33:40,361 --> 03:33:44,361
by some mechanism along the lines of congestion control

2132
03:33:45,361 --> 03:33:50,361
or some kind of batching like that, then yeah, the whole –

2133
03:33:50,361 --> 03:33:53,361
basically the small block dream is dead.

2134
03:33:58,361 --> 03:34:02,361
Well, I think certainly a lot of stuff could be invented.

2135
03:34:02,361 --> 03:34:08,361
And who knows? Like I think Ark is a good example of like fixing onboarding.

2136
03:34:09,361 --> 03:34:17,361
But Ark, of course, has its own weird tradeoff with the –

2137
03:34:17,361 --> 03:34:20,361
every transaction there must be funds that are locked

2138
03:34:20,361 --> 03:34:22,361
for like the whole period of time.

2139
03:34:22,361 --> 03:34:24,361
But that's not really the point.

2140
03:34:24,361 --> 03:34:32,361
I think the point is like the small block dream – I don't know.

2141
03:34:32,361 --> 03:34:35,361
I have a very different way of just looking at the whole thing.

2142
03:34:35,361 --> 03:34:42,361
Like the way I would see it was it's a dispute between two groups of people.

2143
03:34:42,361 --> 03:34:47,361
Like these two types of people are very – they have a different type of person

2144
03:34:47,361 --> 03:34:49,361
and different types of transactions.

2145
03:34:49,361 --> 03:34:54,361
So I see the world as very heterogeneous.

2146
03:34:54,361 --> 03:34:56,361
You know, it's very different.

2147
03:34:56,361 --> 03:35:02,361
So like – so for example, Roger Ver was a famous large blocker,

2148
03:35:02,361 --> 03:35:06,361
and he was rich, and he lived in Japan.

2149
03:35:06,361 --> 03:35:11,361
So he could easily afford – to him, running in the full node was nothing.

2150
03:35:11,361 --> 03:35:17,361
And running one that was 10 or 100 or 1,000 times larger would have been nothing.

2151
03:35:17,361 --> 03:35:22,361
He would have been thinking to himself, you know, I have whatever, billions of dollars.

2152
03:35:22,361 --> 03:35:26,361
B-I-L, billions of dollars.

2153
03:35:26,361 --> 03:35:30,361
He's thinking like what? Like I'll just buy nodes like all over the world.

2154
03:35:30,361 --> 03:35:33,361
So he had like a very different point of view.

2155
03:35:33,361 --> 03:35:34,361
You know what I mean?

2156
03:35:34,361 --> 03:35:40,361
And then like you had Cypherpunk people were thinking like, okay, it's happened.

2157
03:35:40,361 --> 03:35:42,361
They're going to arrest everyone.

2158
03:35:42,361 --> 03:35:44,361
We're all on the – it's like the end of hackers.

2159
03:35:44,361 --> 03:35:51,361
We have to use the payphone to hack into whatever, the mainframe.

2160
03:35:51,361 --> 03:35:58,361
And so we need – you know, every second is going to count,

2161
03:35:58,361 --> 03:36:03,361
and we need to be able to hide our location behind Tor,

2162
03:36:03,361 --> 03:36:09,361
and we need the network to be – we need the network to be there.

2163
03:36:09,361 --> 03:36:11,361
We can't have it die.

2164
03:36:11,361 --> 03:36:15,361
You know, it's like a little fire, like a little candle, so we've got to protect it.

2165
03:36:15,361 --> 03:36:20,361
And so just – I don't think one of the two groups was wrong or right.

2166
03:36:20,361 --> 03:36:25,361
I think it depended on the end use case, really.

2167
03:36:25,361 --> 03:36:33,361
So when Ross Albright is running Silk Road, he –

2168
03:36:33,361 --> 03:36:37,361
the biggest priority for him would have been privacy.

2169
03:36:37,361 --> 03:36:44,361
That would have outweighed by far like, you know, the decentralization.

2170
03:36:44,361 --> 03:36:49,361
But decentralization would also have been a priority because he has to hide his node.

2171
03:36:49,361 --> 03:36:54,361
So he would have liked small block, you know, Zcash or whatever.

2172
03:36:54,361 --> 03:37:00,361
So let's just assume that Silk Road large block would have – he would have been a small blocker.

2173
03:37:00,361 --> 03:37:09,361
However, he was leading a double life, so he, you know,

2174
03:37:09,361 --> 03:37:13,361
he would be running Silk Road as Dread Pirate Roberts, but then he would –

2175
03:37:13,361 --> 03:37:20,361
as Ross Albright, he would walk down the street of San Francisco and buy coffee or something.

2176
03:37:21,361 --> 03:37:26,361
And my point is, when he buys coffee, he switches from being a small blocker to a large blocker.

2177
03:37:26,361 --> 03:37:30,361
He doesn't have a type, you know. It's the transactions that have a type.

2178
03:37:30,361 --> 03:37:36,361
So he switches, and then he switches and becomes a large blocker for a couple moments,

2179
03:37:36,361 --> 03:37:38,361
and then he switches back.

2180
03:37:38,361 --> 03:37:44,361
So my view is all the transactions are very different, like all these USDT, these Tron transactions.

2181
03:37:44,361 --> 03:37:48,361
They are different for a different type of person.

2182
03:37:48,361 --> 03:37:51,361
The Zcash transactions are for a different type of person.

2183
03:37:51,361 --> 03:37:55,361
The Monero transactions are for a different type of person.

2184
03:37:55,361 --> 03:38:04,361
So I don't have this view that, you know, like the small block dream is –

2185
03:38:04,361 --> 03:38:09,361
to me, the small block dream is just that L1 is there, you know, as a small block version,

2186
03:38:09,361 --> 03:38:14,361
and then the large block version is – can also be there.

2187
03:38:14,361 --> 03:38:20,361
So I don't see it – I think trying to make it one size fits all is doomed kind of no matter what,

2188
03:38:20,361 --> 03:38:27,361
because I think there's just too much of a difference in people and in their circumstances around the world.

2189
03:38:27,361 --> 03:38:30,361
You know, there's 8 billion people.

2190
03:38:30,361 --> 03:38:34,361
Some are very poor. Some are very rich.

2191
03:38:34,361 --> 03:38:37,361
Some have great Internet. Some have terrible Internet.

2192
03:38:37,361 --> 03:38:41,361
Some can easily afford transaction fees. Some cannot.

2193
03:38:41,361 --> 03:38:45,361
Some can easily afford to wait for block inclusion.

2194
03:38:45,361 --> 03:38:49,361
Some need it instantly. Some need, you know, some need privacy.

2195
03:38:49,361 --> 03:38:52,361
Some don't. Some need decentralization. Some don't.

2196
03:38:52,361 --> 03:38:57,361
So I think there's just too much of a difference in the world is my guess.

2197
03:38:57,361 --> 03:39:08,361
Excuse me. Interesting. To me, the quote-unquote small block dream, like what I like about it is it is a –

2198
03:39:08,361 --> 03:39:17,361
it's a hyper-conservatist take on the kind of stateless blockchain idea,

2199
03:39:17,361 --> 03:39:26,361
where the idea is basically you have a – like basically you have no blockchain.

2200
03:39:26,361 --> 03:39:33,361
Like all you have is the UTXO, something equivalent to the UTXO set, the active state,

2201
03:39:33,361 --> 03:39:41,361
and you have a recursive zero-knowledge proof that has recursively verified the complete history of the chain

2202
03:39:41,361 --> 03:39:48,361
up to and including that particular snapshot of the active state, and then that is your blockchain.

2203
03:39:49,361 --> 03:40:01,361
And so the size of your blocks at that point doesn't really matter for anything other than like bandwidth requirements

2204
03:40:01,361 --> 03:40:06,361
for running a node and like latency finality stuff.

2205
03:40:06,361 --> 03:40:11,361
And this is – in my opinion, this is like the endgame for blockchains,

2206
03:40:11,361 --> 03:40:14,361
and this is eventually where every blockchain is going to converge into.

2207
03:40:14,361 --> 03:40:20,361
In fact, you can see even though there's only a small number of non-Bitcoin blockchains that do this,

2208
03:40:20,361 --> 03:40:24,361
we have through the zero-sync guys like Bitcoin is actually going to.

2209
03:40:24,542 --> 03:40:30,222
be getting this, albeit like at a layer up, and that they're – what they're doing is like recursively verifying it.

2210
03:40:30,942 --> 03:40:41,261
But if you don't want to trust the – your execution history of your chain to put that under

2211
03:40:42,382 --> 03:40:49,222
cryptographic assumptions in the way you have to do to do that, well then the next –

2212
03:40:50,181 --> 03:40:55,702
the – so if you – yeah, so then the next best thing to do would be something like SmallBlock.

2213
03:40:56,261 --> 03:41:01,702
I do – I already disagree though with a lot of what you said, or I'm not even sure that you realize what you're saying.

2214
03:41:01,702 --> 03:41:07,461
You're saying the large – see, because the zero-sync – let's start with the zero-sync guys, which, you know, I love the zero-sync guys. They're great.

2215
03:41:08,661 --> 03:41:16,902
Okay, we got Robin Linus. He's a big PIV300 supporter, by the way, but he's also great for other reasons.

2216
03:41:17,461 --> 03:41:36,902
So he's got a great accent. No, no, the zero-sync guys are great, but what the zero-sync solves is a problem where you run an SPV node and they lie to you about it being a valid blockchain history, but that problem is – that's a non-existent – that has never happened, so it's a non-existent problem.

2217
03:41:36,902 --> 03:42:04,902
So it's nice to get that extra cherry on top certainty, but just the way that SPV works already, you have to put in all the thermodynamic work to get the header, and having the zero-sync proof, I think, doesn't really add – you know, it doesn't really add that – I'm all for this research being done. I think it's great, but it doesn't add very much, so that's the first point I want to mention. I'm curious to see your reaction.

2218
03:42:04,902 --> 03:42:14,902
They're also proving the hash chains as well, so you don't need to download the complete hash chain. They're just basically summing the cumulative hash weight across all block headers.

2219
03:42:14,902 --> 03:42:30,902
Yeah, but the headers are 4.4 megabytes per year, so it might as well be zero, right? I mean, I'm not really – what it would take to download the ZK Prover would be larger than –

2220
03:42:30,902 --> 03:42:32,902
That's probably true, yes.

2221
03:42:32,902 --> 03:42:54,902
Okay, so that's not really an issue, and it speaks to maybe a misunderstanding of nodes, but I don't know. We should probably evade that for now, because the large-block vision – that was the large-block vision – was that everyone will run SPV, and no one needs to run a full node, because we can trust the miners, so to speak.

2222
03:42:54,902 --> 03:43:11,902
Now, with ZeroSync, trust the miners is basically replaced by trust the ZeroSync Prover, but I think that is a small improvement, but you understand what I'm trying to say, that that has never actually happened.

2223
03:43:11,902 --> 03:43:24,902
The other thing, though, is that neither SPV nor ZeroSync solved the problem that we discussed in this space a few hours ago, which is the data availability problem.

2224
03:43:24,902 --> 03:43:48,902
You always need to have someone who's out there who's able to serve block 350,425, because if no one has that block, then no one knows if everything in it is valid, and this is a horrible problem, because now you have to assume that it's invalid, and so now you have to re-org.

2225
03:43:48,902 --> 03:43:58,902
So if anyone ever loses a block, then the blockchain must go back to that spot. So this is a horrendously difficult problem, which is not good at all.

2226
03:43:58,902 --> 03:44:05,902
It's the only blockchain, I think, that has really solved it, and that's Arui. They're, in my opinion, the only ones that have actually solved this problem.

2227
03:44:05,902 --> 03:44:28,902
Yeah, well, it's very difficult, because you need to... Well, yeah, in Bitcoin, that's part of the reason for small blocks, though, is to say we'll keep the cost of serving all this data limited, which will prevent it from growing to an unlimited degree, and then the higher the cost, the fewer people are going to do it, of course, other things being equal.

2228
03:44:29,902 --> 03:44:55,901
So that's another point to make. Third, you mentioned... Actually, I have also solved it myself, and you mentioned fraud proofs. I don't know if you read, I wrote a little post on truthcoin.info about fraud proofs, including a solution to data availability where you randomly query the block, and I think it was in 2016, a long time ago, and I wrote about this.

2229
03:44:55,901 --> 03:45:03,901
That's interesting. That's what Arweave does, although they base it... Maybe... Were you the guy that inspired the Permacoin proposal?

2230
03:45:04,901 --> 03:45:05,901
Oh, I don't... I'm not aware of that.

2231
03:45:05,901 --> 03:45:06,901
Maybe this is your idea.

2232
03:45:06,901 --> 03:45:17,901
But it probably was my idea, because I do get lots of questions often about my ideas, and then later I find out that... And, you know, I think... Isn't Eric Wall involved with Arweave or something?

2233
03:45:17,901 --> 03:45:25,901
I don't know. The NFT people seem to like Arweave. That would be cool if that was your idea, because I agree, because that precise idea is...

2234
03:45:25,901 --> 03:45:27,901
Oh, you can look it up on my...

2235
03:45:27,901 --> 03:45:31,901
Yeah. This is the only thing that I've stumbled upon...

2236
03:45:32,901 --> 03:45:45,901
My idea requires that you open a channel. It doesn't have to be a Lightning channel, but it can be any bi-directional channel with whoever is claiming to have the block.

2237
03:45:45,901 --> 03:45:53,901
So that is kind of a funny thing about it, is it sort of required the Lightning network or something like it. It's a very neat idea.

2238
03:45:54,901 --> 03:46:00,901
And, yeah, the fraud proofs are very cool. A very, very interesting thing.

2239
03:46:00,901 --> 03:46:07,901
It used to be said in the past that... People used to say certain things that I think are very suspect now.

2240
03:46:07,901 --> 03:46:12,901
So, for example, they said, oh, we could have large blocks if only we had fraud proofs.

2241
03:46:12,901 --> 03:46:15,901
I kind of didn't believe that. I still don't.

2242
03:46:15,901 --> 03:46:18,901
They could have large blocks in Layer 1 if we had fraud proofs.

2243
03:46:18,901 --> 03:46:22,901
I don't actually believe that, but it was just kind of like...

2244
03:46:22,901 --> 03:46:32,901
Because then they would say... Right after that, they said, we can't have fraud proofs because there's no way to check if a block is...

2245
03:46:32,901 --> 03:46:40,901
There's no way to check if the block is following the block size limit or not without downloading the whole block.

2246
03:46:40,901 --> 03:46:44,901
And I thought, that's not true at all.

2247
03:46:44,901 --> 03:46:53,901
That's not actually a good reason, because you just break the block into tiny little pieces and have each piece keep track of how much of the space it's using.

2248
03:46:53,901 --> 03:47:03,901
And then, since the sum has to equal the total thing, each incremental part, you have a fraud proof for each increment, any mistaken increment.

2249
03:47:03,901 --> 03:47:06,901
So I wrote about that in the fraud proofs post.

2250
03:47:07,901 --> 03:47:16,901
But what really got me on the whole thing was that it's clear that everyone's kind of being a little dishonest, as usual.

2251
03:47:16,901 --> 03:47:23,901
Where they were saying, like, X is why we can't have Y and Y is why we can't have Z.

2252
03:47:23,901 --> 03:47:29,901
And so just for fun, I invented X and Y, but it was just to show people that it's not the real reason for Z.

2253
03:47:29,901 --> 03:47:33,901
The real reason for Z is the full node cost. You have to serve the data.

2254
03:47:33,901 --> 03:47:40,901
That the blockchain is harder, is more effort to process, store, validate the blockchain, the larger the block size.

2255
03:47:40,901 --> 03:47:51,901
And so if you buy that frame, then everything can have some kind of fraud proof already and will.

2256
03:47:51,901 --> 03:47:53,901
And it could have ZK proofs.

2257
03:47:53,901 --> 03:48:03,901
And then the real problem, my point of view, is that the entire problem is just people disagree over how expensive the node should be.

2258
03:48:03,901 --> 03:48:09,901
And so that's the idea, is to try to get them to cooperate despite that disagreement.

2259
03:48:09,901 --> 03:48:12,901
So that's kind of my take on the whole thing.

2260
03:48:12,901 --> 03:48:18,901
Sure. I just looked it up here. Andrew Miller published the Permacoin paper in 2014.

2261
03:48:19,901 --> 03:48:21,901
So he scooped you by a couple of years.

2262
03:48:21,901 --> 03:48:25,901
But the cool thing about Arweave is that they actually use this.

2263
03:48:25,901 --> 03:48:31,901
And actually, I think Greg Maxwell actually, of course, had a post years ago where he was like,

2264
03:48:31,901 --> 03:48:39,901
an idea for an altcoin would be a coin where the proof of work algorithm was doing random querying into the UTXO set.

2265
03:48:39,901 --> 03:48:42,901
So that I wouldn't be surprised if that predates this paper.

2266
03:48:43,901 --> 03:48:53,901
But the cool thing about Arweave and the cool thing about using this random data querying system as your consensus mechanism is if you construct it right,

2267
03:48:53,901 --> 03:49:05,901
the chain doesn't advance on blocks that have not achieved a sufficient threshold of data availability that has been proven on them.

2268
03:49:06,901 --> 03:49:11,901
So if the data hasn't been disseminated, there is no data withholding attack in this model.

2269
03:49:11,901 --> 03:49:19,901
Because if the data hasn't been disseminated to a sufficient number of miners and a sufficient amount of the hash has mined on it,

2270
03:49:19,901 --> 03:49:25,901
the block doesn't get produced at all, which is a very, very cool thing.

2271
03:49:25,901 --> 03:49:32,901
And it's the only thing I've seen that I think solves the data withholding, data availability problem sufficiently.

2272
03:49:32,901 --> 03:49:45,901
Because I don't even know whether or not we know to a sufficient degree how we prevent data withholding attacks on Bitcoin now where the miner hits a block.

2273
03:49:45,901 --> 03:49:53,901
If someone announces that they have found a block and then they don't give you the whole block, then they are kicked off. They are banned or whatever.

2274
03:49:54,901 --> 03:49:57,901
Okay, so this is basic data.

2275
03:49:57,901 --> 03:50:01,901
Yeah, exactly. Which is not ideal.

2276
03:50:01,901 --> 03:50:03,901
That seems unsatisfactory.

2277
03:50:03,901 --> 03:50:13,901
Well, you know, I think it's like the network is robust to not having found a block. You know what I mean?

2278
03:50:13,901 --> 03:50:18,901
It's not like if we go 11 minutes without finding a block, your computer bursts into flames.

2279
03:50:18,901 --> 03:50:23,901
So it's kind of like saying, if you say that you have found a block, then give us the block.

2280
03:50:23,901 --> 03:50:25,901
You know, and otherwise, don't bother us.

2281
03:50:25,901 --> 03:50:28,901
So but yeah, it's not.

2282
03:50:28,901 --> 03:50:32,901
There's in particular, not like I was asking you before.

2283
03:50:32,901 --> 03:50:36,901
How do we know that someone has blocked 300,000?

2284
03:50:38,901 --> 03:50:46,901
Like, I mean, you know, we we just kind of hope that no one loses it.

2285
03:50:47,901 --> 03:50:58,901
Yeah. And actually, the interesting thing about Bitcoin not having a recursive ZKP is that basically every block is part of its recursive proof.

2286
03:50:58,901 --> 03:51:08,901
And the reason why we're trusting that someone is going to be keeping the data is because you can't actually verify the tip of the chain unless you have that data.

2287
03:51:08,901 --> 03:51:10,901
It's part of the proof.

2288
03:51:11,901 --> 03:51:23,901
And so, you know, by like this weird dichotomy whereby like, quote unquote, modern blockchain design is all about stripping away the need to store the full proof of the chain.

2289
03:51:23,901 --> 03:51:30,901
But in doing so, you're also dramatically reducing the data availability requirements for the data that you do want to store.

2290
03:51:30,901 --> 03:51:41,901
So anyway, yeah, I just thought I would mention that about how.

2291
03:51:41,901 --> 03:51:46,901
I don't think zero sink.

2292
03:51:46,901 --> 03:51:50,901
Zero sink is not is totally irrelevant.

2293
03:51:50,901 --> 03:51:54,901
Zero sink is like a slightly improved, modified SPV.

2294
03:51:54,901 --> 03:51:58,901
But SPV already has like a 100 percent success rate.

2295
03:51:59,901 --> 03:52:06,901
And for SPV not to work, you need to have someone mine a whole block.

2296
03:52:07,901 --> 03:52:10,901
That is invalid. And then.

2297
03:52:11,901 --> 03:52:17,901
You know. Propose it to the network, like send it around as if it were valid.

2298
03:52:19,901 --> 03:52:24,901
And the network should rely on SPV, that would be a bad idea to rely on it.

2299
03:52:24,901 --> 03:52:33,901
But the network. I mean, SPV, it would cost them about an opportunity cost.

2300
03:52:33,901 --> 03:52:37,901
It costs them whatever that is, seven BTC to make that.

2301
03:52:37,901 --> 03:52:42,901
So this is already a very expensive attack just to do something that won't work.

2302
03:52:42,901 --> 03:52:44,901
And that's why it has never been done.

2303
03:52:45,901 --> 03:52:47,901
Because it costs you whatever that is, like.

2304
03:52:48,901 --> 03:52:52,901
Whatever that is, like $200,000, $250,000.

2305
03:52:55,901 --> 03:52:57,901
So it's expensive and.

2306
03:53:02,901 --> 03:53:07,901
But the I think the problem is just full node costs, and that is why.

2307
03:53:08,901 --> 03:53:11,901
Sidechain solve it because there is heterogeneity.

2308
03:53:13,901 --> 03:53:14,901
The distribution is different.

2309
03:53:28,901 --> 03:53:32,901
Anyway. Nice to hear from you. I see you on Twitter sometimes.

2310
03:53:33,901 --> 03:53:36,901
We seem to be dwindling down. We had many more people before.

2311
03:53:36,901 --> 03:53:41,901
But now we have. What do we have here? 18.

2312
03:53:42,901 --> 03:53:46,901
So maybe we should begin to wind it down.

2313
03:53:47,901 --> 03:53:48,901
Let's.

2314
03:53:50,901 --> 03:53:52,901
If anyone wants to ask anything.

2315
03:53:56,901 --> 03:53:57,901
I just want to give a suggestion.

2316
03:53:58,901 --> 03:53:59,901
Great.

2317
03:54:00,901 --> 03:54:03,901
Chris Black was part of the audience like a few weeks ago.

2318
03:54:03,901 --> 03:54:04,901
He never came up.

2319
03:54:05,901 --> 03:54:07,901
He has like a podcast that he started recently.

2320
03:54:08,901 --> 03:54:11,901
And he started having like some, I guess, controversial figures on there.

2321
03:54:12,901 --> 03:54:13,901
He had Uri on there yesterday or something like that.

2322
03:54:14,901 --> 03:54:18,901
Might be a good idea to go on there and like explain BIP300.

2323
03:54:22,901 --> 03:54:24,901
I almost always accept.

2324
03:54:25,901 --> 03:54:32,901
I'm not aware of having really rejected anyone when they said come on my podcast.

2325
03:54:33,901 --> 03:54:37,901
Oftentimes people invite me to their conference and then they're like, just get on this nine hour flight.

2326
03:54:38,901 --> 03:54:40,901
And I was like, oh my God, I'm not going to do that.

2327
03:54:41,901 --> 03:54:44,901
I feel bad for everyone that I say no to, though.

2328
03:54:45,901 --> 03:54:46,901
But yeah, I don't.

2329
03:54:47,901 --> 03:54:48,901
But yeah, I'd love to go on.

2330
03:54:50,901 --> 03:54:53,901
I'll go on whatever podcasts people think so.

2331
03:54:57,901 --> 03:54:58,901
Chris Black.

2332
03:54:59,901 --> 03:55:00,901
Hopefully he'll read it.

2333
03:55:00,901 --> 03:55:01,901
Yeah, that'd be great.

2334
03:55:02,901 --> 03:55:05,901
Yeah, I think it's a much more effective if someone else asks.

2335
03:55:06,901 --> 03:55:07,901
Oh, you should.

2336
03:55:07,901 --> 03:55:08,901
They say, oh, you should have this person on.

2337
03:55:09,901 --> 03:55:10,901
Then the one person.

2338
03:55:15,901 --> 03:55:21,901
I kind of have a very full schedule anyway, so it's not as though I'm desperate to go on any podcast anytime soon.

2339
03:55:22,901 --> 03:55:23,901
But if someone wants to have me on, then that's good.

2340
03:55:25,901 --> 03:55:26,901
Probably a better interview, too.

2341
03:55:31,901 --> 03:55:32,901
OK, well, this has been fun.

2342
03:55:33,901 --> 03:55:34,901
I don't see any new people.

2343
03:55:35,901 --> 03:55:36,901
No new questions.

2344
03:55:37,901 --> 03:55:38,901
So.

2345
03:55:39,901 --> 03:55:40,901
Thanks for a great space, everyone.

2346
03:55:41,901 --> 03:55:42,901
Until next time.

2347
03:55:46,901 --> 03:55:47,901
Until next time.

2348
03:55:48,901 --> 03:55:49,901
Happy Friday.

2349
03:55:49,901 --> 03:55:50,901
Happy weekend.

2350
03:55:50,901 --> 03:55:51,901
Every Friday.