1 00:00:00,428 --> 00:00:04,028 Hello, and welcome to Drivechain Twitter Spaces. 2 00:00:05,508 --> 00:00:10,788 This is Henry of LayerTwo Labs, and today is Thursday, April 27th. 3 00:00:12,548 --> 00:00:14,548 Welcome to all those who've joined the audience. 4 00:00:15,948 --> 00:00:21,868 Welcome to our listeners who listen on demand after these are recorded live. 5 00:00:22,788 --> 00:00:24,987 We record twice a week, and 6 00:00:26,028 --> 00:00:28,028 the goal is to have anyone 7 00:00:28,628 --> 00:00:34,067 who would like to join the stage and ask questions, share a comment, 8 00:00:34,788 --> 00:00:38,347 criticism, hopes and dreams about Bitcoin 9 00:00:39,108 --> 00:00:41,508 and how Bitcoin can be more extensible. 10 00:00:42,588 --> 00:00:44,428 There can be more development on Bitcoin. 11 00:00:44,428 --> 00:00:46,908 There can be more protocols in Bitcoin, 12 00:00:46,908 --> 00:00:49,588 and how Bitcoinization and the Bitcoin movement 13 00:00:49,588 --> 00:00:54,148 can be strengthened and accelerated through the adoption of Drivechain, 14 00:00:54,187 --> 00:00:58,588 which would allow for peer-to-peer, two-way pegged sidechains 15 00:00:58,588 --> 00:01:00,588 to exist on Bitcoin for the first time ever, 16 00:01:02,347 --> 00:01:05,428 enabling more value accrual to Bitcoin, 17 00:01:05,428 --> 00:01:07,548 the token, as well as Bitcoin's block space. 18 00:01:09,508 --> 00:01:15,548 Drivechain reduces the likelihood of disruptive 19 00:01:16,267 --> 00:01:20,828 and costly hard fork disputes within Bitcoin's community. 20 00:01:20,868 --> 00:01:24,908 It enables the Layer 1 to ossify by strengthening 21 00:01:24,908 --> 00:01:29,067 and increasing the breadth and variety of Layer 2s that are possible. 22 00:01:30,428 --> 00:01:33,387 It potentially solves the Bitcoin security budget problem 23 00:01:33,387 --> 00:01:34,987 of low fees in the future, 24 00:01:37,027 --> 00:01:40,067 and it potentially eliminates Bitcoin's competition. 25 00:01:41,188 --> 00:01:47,267 Right now, there is a growing set of competing L1s in the blockchain ecosystem. 26 00:01:47,267 --> 00:01:51,188 It would be ideal if Bitcoin had 100% dominance and no competitors. 27 00:01:52,947 --> 00:01:56,188 Network effect is important in the market for money. 28 00:01:57,027 --> 00:01:59,947 Therefore, to ensure the success of Bitcoin, 29 00:02:00,627 --> 00:02:05,788 to ensure it becomes an even more substantial economic phenomenon, 30 00:02:05,788 --> 00:02:08,547 it's important that Bitcoin be the largest by market cap 31 00:02:08,547 --> 00:02:14,547 and preferably the only by market cap cryptocurrency base layer. 32 00:02:18,267 --> 00:02:20,267 Welcome to those in the audience. 33 00:02:21,267 --> 00:02:23,748 If you have a question or if you'd like to chat about Drivechain, 34 00:02:23,748 --> 00:02:25,748 please come on up to the stage. 35 00:02:25,748 --> 00:02:27,748 Just raise your hand, 36 00:02:27,748 --> 00:02:31,028 and you'll be let up to ask your question and share your comments. 37 00:02:35,668 --> 00:02:37,668 Don't be shy. 38 00:02:48,267 --> 00:02:54,267 I have put in the nest a bunch of tweets about Drivechain and related topics. 39 00:02:54,267 --> 00:03:02,267 We've got tweets from Adam Back, Paul Sztorc, LayerTwo Labs, Guy Swann, and others. 40 00:03:04,267 --> 00:03:06,267 Fiatjaf. 41 00:03:06,267 --> 00:03:09,267 There are a lot of Drivechain supporters out there. 42 00:03:09,267 --> 00:03:11,267 One of them is Hector, 43 00:03:11,267 --> 00:03:15,267 and he's been a big supporter of Drivechain for a long time. 44 00:03:15,267 --> 00:03:17,267 There are a lot of Drivechain supporters out there. 45 00:03:17,267 --> 00:03:20,267 One of them is Fiatjaf, the creator of Nostr. 46 00:03:20,267 --> 00:03:24,267 He is an avid and emphatic Drivechain supporter. 47 00:03:26,267 --> 00:03:29,267 Another Drivechain supporter is Adam Back, 48 00:03:29,267 --> 00:03:32,267 Dr. Adam Back, creator of Blockstream. 49 00:03:36,267 --> 00:03:39,267 Another Drivechain supporter is Michael Tidwell, 50 00:03:40,267 --> 00:03:44,267 founder of TabConf, the Atlanta Bitcoin Conference. 51 00:03:48,267 --> 00:03:50,267 And there are many others. 52 00:03:50,267 --> 00:03:54,267 Many other highly sophisticated Bitcoiners with years of experience in the community 53 00:03:54,267 --> 00:03:59,267 and many years of experience as software engineering professionals 54 00:03:59,267 --> 00:04:08,267 think that Drivechain could be very good for Bitcoin and definitely worth the effort involved 55 00:04:08,267 --> 00:04:12,267 in the community's analysis and adoption of it. 56 00:04:38,267 --> 00:04:40,267 Thank you. 57 00:05:08,267 --> 00:05:10,267 Thank you. 58 00:05:38,267 --> 00:05:40,267 Thank you. 59 00:06:08,267 --> 00:06:10,267 Thank you. 60 00:06:28,267 --> 00:06:29,267 All right. 61 00:06:29,267 --> 00:06:35,267 We will wait until we have a speaker or a questioner. 62 00:06:36,267 --> 00:06:40,267 Welcome to all who have joined the audience. 63 00:06:42,267 --> 00:06:46,267 Everyone is welcome to come on up to the stage, ask any questions, 64 00:06:46,267 --> 00:06:49,267 share any comments about Drivechain. 65 00:06:50,267 --> 00:06:56,267 Drivechain is Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 300 and 301, 66 00:06:56,267 --> 00:07:00,267 and we talk about it twice a week here on Twitter Spaces, 67 00:07:01,267 --> 00:07:06,267 sometimes to a large crowd, sometimes to a smaller crowd, 68 00:07:06,267 --> 00:07:12,267 depending on the appetite for Drivechain conversation. 69 00:07:12,267 --> 00:07:18,267 Lately, the level of attention and interest in Drivechain has grown a lot, 70 00:07:18,267 --> 00:07:24,267 with Fiatjaf, Adam Back, and others tweeting about it, supporting it. 71 00:07:24,267 --> 00:07:29,267 Many people have downloaded the Drivechain software available at drivechain.info 72 00:07:29,267 --> 00:07:35,267 and also at layer2labs.com and also at GitHub. 73 00:07:37,267 --> 00:07:44,267 Bitcoiners can download the software and experiment with this innovative technology. 74 00:07:44,267 --> 00:07:46,267 Oh, we have a questioner. 75 00:07:46,267 --> 00:07:48,267 Excellent. 76 00:07:48,267 --> 00:07:52,267 Welcome to the stage, Mr. Raz. 77 00:07:53,267 --> 00:07:57,267 Welcome. Please share your thoughts or questions, anything you want to say. 78 00:07:58,267 --> 00:08:04,267 So how do you measure the interest in BIP300 and Drivechain? 79 00:08:04,267 --> 00:08:07,267 When you say what you just said is that the interest is growing, 80 00:08:07,267 --> 00:08:13,267 is it just by Twitter or is there another way that you're gauging the level of interest? 81 00:08:14,267 --> 00:08:17,267 It's my personal estimate. 82 00:08:17,267 --> 00:08:22,267 Having talked to community insiders and Bitcoiner observers, 83 00:08:22,267 --> 00:08:26,267 I noticed that there has been an increase in the number of articles. 84 00:08:26,267 --> 00:08:32,267 For example, in this calendar year, there have been probably three or five articles 85 00:08:32,267 --> 00:08:38,268 about Drivechain, about the need for a change in the Bitcoin culture. 86 00:08:38,268 --> 00:08:44,268 For example, there was an article just this month in Protos about Drivechain, 87 00:08:44,268 --> 00:08:47,268 specifically in the history of it. 88 00:08:47,268 --> 00:08:53,268 And let's see, there was an article the prior month by Jameson Lopp 89 00:08:53,268 --> 00:08:59,268 about Bitcoin maximalism, where he talked in great detail about not only Drivechain, 90 00:08:59,268 --> 00:09:05,268 but other ideas in recent years that have, in his view, become important 91 00:09:05,268 --> 00:09:11,268 in terms of illustrating the need for Bitcoin to have more technological options 92 00:09:11,268 --> 00:09:17,268 and variety and innovation built on top of it so that that kind of innovation 93 00:09:17,268 --> 00:09:23,268 and growth doesn't instead accrue on altcoins, mainly Ethereum. 94 00:09:23,268 --> 00:09:28,268 So I think there's, for example, Jameson Lopp talking about the reasons 95 00:09:28,268 --> 00:09:34,268 why CASA doesn't only support Bitcoin and talking about Drivechain, 96 00:09:34,268 --> 00:09:37,268 bringing those things together, he is an example of someone 97 00:09:37,268 --> 00:09:43,268 who really would understand very well the history of Bitcoin 98 00:09:43,268 --> 00:09:47,268 and how Drivechain sits in that history and how, at this moment, 99 00:09:47,268 --> 00:09:55,268 with Ethereum seemingly persistently maintaining about half of the value of Bitcoin, 100 00:09:55,268 --> 00:10:02,268 in his view, there's a real need for Bitcoin to be broader and more expansive 101 00:10:02,268 --> 00:10:08,268 in terms of what it can support to hopefully recapture that part of the market. 102 00:10:08,268 --> 00:10:11,268 Bitcoin used to be the whole blockchain ecosystem. 103 00:10:11,268 --> 00:10:16,268 Now it's like half, one might say, in terms of different metrics, 104 00:10:16,268 --> 00:10:20,268 most simply the value out there. 105 00:10:20,268 --> 00:10:23,268 So it'd be great for Bitcoin to grow and expand, 106 00:10:23,268 --> 00:10:28,268 and that way business people like him could just be Bitcoiners alone. 107 00:10:28,268 --> 00:10:30,268 And he's not even like an avid DriveChainer. 108 00:10:30,268 --> 00:10:33,268 He's more of like a Drivechain-friendly commentator, 109 00:10:33,268 --> 00:10:37,268 but he understands the whole history very well 110 00:10:37,268 --> 00:10:41,268 and how there is seemingly a need more and more for Drivechain. 111 00:10:41,268 --> 00:10:46,268 In his recent conversation, Lopp talked with Brad Mills and Adam Back 112 00:10:46,268 --> 00:10:51,268 and Austin Alexander about Drivechain and other topics, 113 00:10:51,268 --> 00:10:56,268 and I felt like Lopp really gets it, Adam Back really gets it. 114 00:10:56,268 --> 00:10:58,268 There's another example. 115 00:10:58,268 --> 00:11:01,268 Years ago when Drivechain was first introduced, 116 00:11:01,268 --> 00:11:05,268 I'm not sure if Back was openly for it, 117 00:11:05,268 --> 00:11:08,268 whereas in the last two years he's become openly for it, 118 00:11:08,268 --> 00:11:13,268 speaking about it next to Paul on stage multiple times last year, 119 00:11:13,268 --> 00:11:16,268 two or three times at major conferences last year, 120 00:11:16,268 --> 00:11:19,268 and then probably this year as well. 121 00:11:19,268 --> 00:11:27,268 So that's another example of an increase in my personal anecdotal observations, 122 00:11:27,268 --> 00:11:31,268 an increase in the level of enthusiasm and attention 123 00:11:31,268 --> 00:11:37,268 and formal inclusion of Drivechain in the set of important ideas 124 00:11:37,268 --> 00:11:42,268 that are within the orbit of Bitcoin's future potential 125 00:11:42,268 --> 00:11:46,268 in the next couple of months or years for growth. 126 00:11:46,268 --> 00:11:48,268 That's my metric. 127 00:11:48,268 --> 00:11:52,268 I don't have a number of tweets metric where it's more scientific, 128 00:11:52,268 --> 00:11:54,268 but that would be good to have, of course. 129 00:11:55,268 --> 00:11:58,268 Yeah, I think you mentioned a couple that could be provided 130 00:11:58,268 --> 00:12:05,268 into some sort of index over the support or consensus around BIP300. 131 00:12:05,268 --> 00:12:09,268 So if we were to just look at articles published about the topic 132 00:12:09,268 --> 00:12:14,268 and compare now back to what Paul's been writing about BIP300 133 00:12:14,268 --> 00:12:17,268 at least since 2015 or maybe even earlier, 134 00:12:17,268 --> 00:12:20,268 I think that's a good gauge. 135 00:12:20,268 --> 00:12:26,268 Something that you could objectively parse out of all those things 136 00:12:26,268 --> 00:12:29,268 that you've been noticing that you just mentioned 137 00:12:29,268 --> 00:12:31,268 that gives a better indicator, 138 00:12:31,268 --> 00:12:34,268 and I really think that this would be representative 139 00:12:34,268 --> 00:12:36,268 of what gets thrown around, 140 00:12:36,268 --> 00:12:39,268 this idea of a coalition behind these ideas, 141 00:12:39,268 --> 00:12:42,268 so Lopp, Atomback, and these others that you've mentioned. 142 00:12:42,268 --> 00:12:45,268 If there was some sort of objective thing 143 00:12:45,268 --> 00:12:50,268 like you looked at a number of people in a coalition 144 00:12:50,268 --> 00:12:55,268 and what a definition of joining this coalition is, 145 00:12:55,268 --> 00:12:57,268 I think that needs to be very clear, 146 00:12:57,268 --> 00:12:59,268 and then you could look over time and say, 147 00:12:59,268 --> 00:13:03,268 hey, this coalition is growing X number over this amount of time, 148 00:13:03,268 --> 00:13:07,268 and that would be, I think, a really nice way to present 149 00:13:07,268 --> 00:13:10,268 to other people that haven't researched or spent time on it 150 00:13:10,268 --> 00:13:13,268 that there is growing support for something like this. 151 00:13:15,268 --> 00:13:17,268 Very well said. 152 00:13:19,268 --> 00:13:22,268 Welcome to the stage, David. 153 00:13:23,268 --> 00:13:25,268 Hey, thanks. 154 00:13:25,268 --> 00:13:27,268 I just was crashing the party, listening, 155 00:13:27,268 --> 00:13:31,268 always kind of intrigued on the drivechains and scaling debates, 156 00:13:31,268 --> 00:13:36,268 so I wasn't sure if you guys were on a specific topic. 157 00:13:36,268 --> 00:13:38,268 No, it's pretty free form. 158 00:13:40,268 --> 00:13:42,268 David, have you ever spoken in this space before? 159 00:13:42,268 --> 00:13:44,268 If not, I would love to hear, 160 00:13:44,268 --> 00:13:46,268 or maybe you have, but it's been a while. 161 00:13:46,268 --> 00:13:49,268 I'd love to hear a general kind of overview 162 00:13:49,268 --> 00:13:51,268 of your perspective on Bitcoin and drivechain, 163 00:13:51,268 --> 00:13:54,268 because I've been following your tweets for something like a year now, 164 00:13:54,268 --> 00:14:01,268 and you have a lot of good information on Rootstock, Sovereign, drivechain, 165 00:14:01,268 --> 00:14:05,268 and it seems like you're very much kind of in the... 166 00:14:05,268 --> 00:14:09,268 Actually, I think I remember us speaking about half a year ago, 167 00:14:09,268 --> 00:14:12,268 and maybe you had said you don't actually work for Sovereign or Rootstock, 168 00:14:12,268 --> 00:14:16,268 but you're just like a fan at this time, if I recall correctly. 169 00:14:16,268 --> 00:14:22,268 What's your perspective, and what are you sensing in the community? 170 00:14:22,268 --> 00:14:27,268 Would you say that Bitcoin layer 2 scaling and drivechain 171 00:14:27,268 --> 00:14:30,268 is something to be excited about in your view, 172 00:14:30,268 --> 00:14:33,268 or are you more pessimistic at this moment, 173 00:14:33,268 --> 00:14:37,268 and you would say that the toxic maxis sort of dominate the discourse 174 00:14:37,268 --> 00:14:40,268 and that a soft fork is unlikely, 175 00:14:40,268 --> 00:14:44,268 given the experience that was had with BIP-119, 176 00:14:44,268 --> 00:14:47,268 where that didn't succeed, it seems, 177 00:14:47,268 --> 00:14:53,268 and that was, some would say, not that big a lift 178 00:14:53,268 --> 00:14:57,268 compared to the mental kind of decision to make drivechain 179 00:14:57,268 --> 00:14:59,268 kind of strikes people as a big decision. 180 00:14:59,268 --> 00:15:03,268 So what's your thought on all of that? 181 00:15:04,268 --> 00:15:07,268 Yeah, I mean, there's a ton that I want to say, 182 00:15:07,268 --> 00:15:09,268 and I can ramble on here for a while, I suppose, 183 00:15:09,268 --> 00:15:10,268 but feel free to interject. 184 00:15:10,268 --> 00:15:12,268 Please do. That'd be great. 185 00:15:12,268 --> 00:15:17,268 Yeah, I mean, so I guess I just consider myself like an amateur researcher, right? 186 00:15:17,268 --> 00:15:20,268 You know, I spend most of my days just doom scrolling on Bitcoin Twitter, 187 00:15:20,268 --> 00:15:22,268 and then, you know, kind of moonlight writing articles on, you know, 188 00:15:22,268 --> 00:15:26,268 passion projects of mine, which are things like ZK roll-ups 189 00:15:26,268 --> 00:15:28,268 and Bitcoin-backed credit, and, you know, 190 00:15:28,268 --> 00:15:31,268 Bitcoin-backed stable coins are kind of like my present-day baby. 191 00:15:31,268 --> 00:15:35,268 So I'm very much in this kind of similar camp as you all is like, 192 00:15:35,268 --> 00:15:38,268 hey, there's more to Bitcoin than, you know, 193 00:15:38,268 --> 00:15:42,268 kind of what, like, you know, the holy priest bestow as, you know, righteous. 194 00:15:42,268 --> 00:15:47,268 I am a fan of drivechains and Paul, and I think he's brilliant and all that, 195 00:15:47,268 --> 00:15:51,268 but, like, candidly, I just think drivechains has, like, a massively, 196 00:15:51,268 --> 00:15:57,268 and probably at this point, like, impossibly uphill battle to climb. 197 00:15:57,268 --> 00:16:02,268 I think it works against Paul and you guys that drivechains has been around 198 00:16:02,268 --> 00:16:05,268 for so long that the idea kind of has, like, become stale. 199 00:16:05,268 --> 00:16:09,268 Even if it's, like, the most promising scaling solution, 200 00:16:09,268 --> 00:16:13,268 I think that's, like, makes it very, very difficult to kind of market. 201 00:16:13,268 --> 00:16:16,268 And I think we even kind of see that in these spaces, 202 00:16:16,268 --> 00:16:18,268 how there's, like, there's kind of so few of us in here, 203 00:16:18,268 --> 00:16:21,268 even if we think it's, like, the most important thing going. 204 00:16:21,268 --> 00:16:24,268 I think the best shot, I do in the community, 205 00:16:24,268 --> 00:16:27,268 I think that they are warming up and they're, like, 206 00:16:27,268 --> 00:16:30,268 some of the scar tissue from the block size wars is somewhat fading 207 00:16:30,268 --> 00:16:34,268 or, like, some of the kind of, like, crazy lunatic maxis are, like, you know, 208 00:16:34,268 --> 00:16:37,268 if you go and meet people in, like, real conversations and you talk with, 209 00:16:37,268 --> 00:16:40,268 like, you know, Adam Back and, you know, Jameson 210 00:16:40,268 --> 00:16:43,268 and any of the other, like, kind of prominent devs, 211 00:16:43,268 --> 00:16:44,268 they're kind of, like, open to it. 212 00:16:44,268 --> 00:16:46,268 They're like, okay, yeah, we acknowledge that, like, you know, 213 00:16:46,268 --> 00:16:48,268 Bitcoin is going to need to scale. 214 00:16:48,268 --> 00:16:51,268 Like, drivechains could be a promising solution. 215 00:16:51,268 --> 00:16:53,268 So I'm optimistic on that front. 216 00:16:53,268 --> 00:16:58,268 But I just don't see, like, BIP300 and 301 being passed through as a soft fork. 217 00:16:58,268 --> 00:17:01,268 I think more realistically, like, the Blockstream guys, 218 00:17:01,268 --> 00:17:06,267 who they do still have a ton of pull, are going to wait for simplicity. 219 00:17:06,267 --> 00:17:11,267 I think the only soft fork that really has the potential of being pushed sooner 220 00:17:11,267 --> 00:17:16,267 is, like, the OpStark Verify for a ZK roll-up 221 00:17:16,267 --> 00:17:19,267 because it's a newer, sexier thing. 222 00:17:19,267 --> 00:17:21,267 It's more trustless than drivechains. 223 00:17:21,267 --> 00:17:25,267 It has advantages of, like, you know, compressing. 224 00:17:25,267 --> 00:17:27,267 Like, we see stuff with, like, zero sync 225 00:17:27,267 --> 00:17:32,267 and then compressing the initial block download. 226 00:17:32,267 --> 00:17:36,267 Like, Blockstream send them up through their satellite. 227 00:17:36,267 --> 00:17:40,267 A lot of the core devs are fans of, like, you know, Starks and Stark Proofs. 228 00:17:40,267 --> 00:17:43,267 You know, John Light's paper on roll-ups was, like, really powerful. 229 00:17:43,267 --> 00:17:45,267 So I think that probably has a better chance. 230 00:17:45,267 --> 00:17:47,267 But realistically, it's probably just going to be like, ah, shit. 231 00:17:47,267 --> 00:17:48,267 Like, simplicity is going on. 232 00:17:48,267 --> 00:17:51,267 You know, liquid sidechain here sometime this year. 233 00:17:51,267 --> 00:17:54,267 It'll probably sit in test for the next, you know, two, three, four years. 234 00:17:54,267 --> 00:17:56,267 And then we'll merge that into Bitcoin. 235 00:17:56,267 --> 00:17:58,267 And then at that point, everybody gets what they want. 236 00:17:58,267 --> 00:18:01,267 We'll get the Stark Verifier, which is what I want. 237 00:18:01,267 --> 00:18:03,267 And we'll get BIP300 and 301. 238 00:18:03,267 --> 00:18:06,267 That's kind of how I see things playing out at this point. 239 00:18:06,267 --> 00:18:08,267 The only part of that that I would object to 240 00:18:08,267 --> 00:18:11,267 was when you said two to three years for simplicity. 241 00:18:11,267 --> 00:18:16,267 Because I recall Adam Back himself, right, like a simplicity advocate. 242 00:18:16,267 --> 00:18:21,267 I think he said five years in that conversation that I was mentioning to Roz 243 00:18:21,267 --> 00:18:27,267 about Brad Mills and Jameson Lopp and Austin Alexander 244 00:18:27,267 --> 00:18:32,267 when they spoke on Brad Mills' podcast, Magic Internet Money, 245 00:18:32,267 --> 00:18:36,267 like a month ago at Satoshi Roundtable. 246 00:18:36,267 --> 00:18:37,267 Oh, great. 247 00:18:37,267 --> 00:18:39,267 Yeah, what a great conversation. 248 00:18:39,267 --> 00:18:43,267 And I'm just sort of personally getting really more interested in Jameson Lopp lately. 249 00:18:43,267 --> 00:18:46,267 Having not been too familiar with his work, he is just great. 250 00:18:46,267 --> 00:18:51,267 I really was impressed by his Bitcoin maximalism history article 251 00:18:51,267 --> 00:18:54,267 that I posted in the Nest here, along with a bunch of other tweets. 252 00:18:54,267 --> 00:18:58,267 And he mentions drivechains there, and he also mentions rollups. 253 00:18:58,267 --> 00:19:02,267 So along the lines of what you just said, very well. 254 00:19:02,267 --> 00:19:07,267 There is, one could say, like a competition among these scaling solutions 255 00:19:07,267 --> 00:19:09,267 for attention and adoption. 256 00:19:09,267 --> 00:19:12,267 And you're right that drivechain is older. 257 00:19:12,267 --> 00:19:14,267 Rollups are newer. 258 00:19:14,267 --> 00:19:18,267 And therefore, you know, perhaps that makes drivechains less sexy 259 00:19:18,267 --> 00:19:22,267 because, you know, if something is great, then it's going to succeed early. 260 00:19:22,267 --> 00:19:28,267 And if it doesn't get, you know, it's like rarely do things get started 261 00:19:28,267 --> 00:19:31,267 and then years later become super awesome. 262 00:19:31,267 --> 00:19:32,267 So you're right. 263 00:19:32,267 --> 00:19:35,267 Like it's sort of a stale idea, one could say. 264 00:19:35,267 --> 00:19:41,267 Of course, the opposite might be true, that at first it was thought about 265 00:19:41,267 --> 00:19:46,267 and now with the benefit of hindsight and experience, one can say, 266 00:19:46,267 --> 00:19:49,267 look, we've been thinking about this idea for a long time. 267 00:19:49,267 --> 00:19:53,267 As Adam Back has tweeted, you know, Paul has really built it out. 268 00:19:53,267 --> 00:19:57,267 You know, there's been a lot of code written, a lot of design and validation. 269 00:19:57,267 --> 00:20:03,267 I think that's the word Adam Back used in a tweet like three or four months ago. 270 00:20:03,267 --> 00:20:06,267 He's like, congrats to Paul and the team. 271 00:20:06,077 --> 00:20:13,077 You know, at drivechain for validating and building out like the test net and the whole design of drivechain. 272 00:20:13,077 --> 00:20:25,317 So he he sort of is like he wrote like concept acknowledged, which, you know, is sort of like a software expression, as I understand, for just saying, like, I approve the overall design of this. 273 00:20:25,317 --> 00:20:27,796 In other words, he hasn't like vetted the code. 274 00:20:27,796 --> 00:20:29,796 Was it concept-ack? 275 00:20:29,796 --> 00:20:32,277 Yeah, concept-ack, exactly. 276 00:20:32,277 --> 00:20:34,277 Yeah, very critical concept-ack. 277 00:20:36,277 --> 00:20:38,277 Yeah, what do you mean? Go on. 278 00:20:38,277 --> 00:20:44,277 I mean, what you said is exactly accurate. Concept-ack. 279 00:20:44,277 --> 00:20:47,277 Oh, critical like in a good sense. Yes. Is that what you meant? 280 00:20:47,277 --> 00:20:52,277 That concept, yes. It's a good-ack to get. 281 00:20:52,277 --> 00:20:53,277 Yeah. 282 00:20:53,277 --> 00:20:57,277 Rather than an-ack, we don't want to get the-ack. That would be the alternative. 283 00:20:57,277 --> 00:21:03,277 Exactly. Yes, of course. An-ack from Back is good. It's like a Dr. Seuss poem. 284 00:21:03,477 --> 00:21:09,477 The-ack from Back. That could be a great sort of kid's Bitcoin book. 285 00:21:09,477 --> 00:21:12,477 There's a t-shirt design in that somewhere. 286 00:21:12,477 --> 00:21:21,477 Yes. Yeah. With like a Dr. Seuss sort of copyright infringement on the t-shirt. That would be just the perfect situation. 287 00:21:21,676 --> 00:21:27,676 So, yeah, David, I think that it's, yeah, you're right. 288 00:21:27,676 --> 00:21:29,676 It's not like new and amazing. 289 00:21:29,676 --> 00:21:31,676 But in Bitcoin, things move slowly. 290 00:21:31,676 --> 00:21:35,676 So it's possible one could say, even the critics of Drivechain could say, 291 00:21:35,676 --> 00:21:39,676 well, you know, we've been thinking about it for seven years. 292 00:21:39,676 --> 00:21:42,676 And at this point, it's pretty clear. 293 00:21:42,676 --> 00:21:45,676 For example, one little nuance, just psychologically, 294 00:21:45,676 --> 00:21:48,676 this is kind of like inside baseball, not really something the public would be aware of. 295 00:21:48,877 --> 00:21:54,877 But among the very inner group of Bitcoiners, like the top, you know, 0.1%, 296 00:21:54,877 --> 00:22:00,877 like that one in a thousand who are really, really into Bitcoin, 297 00:22:00,877 --> 00:22:06,877 you know, and they're familiar with like what things Greg Maxwell wrote in 2017 about Drivechain, 298 00:22:06,877 --> 00:22:13,877 criticizing it and the fact that Adam Back in only recent years became like a public supporter of it and that sort of thing. 299 00:22:14,077 --> 00:22:23,077 They would say, those critics might say, at least with Drivechain, we really know it well and it's familiar. 300 00:22:23,077 --> 00:22:29,077 And the supporters of Drivechain, mainly like Paul and CryptAxe above all, 301 00:22:29,077 --> 00:22:34,077 are people who had this idea and stuck with it and persevered with it 302 00:22:34,077 --> 00:22:37,077 and really proved year after year, more and more, 303 00:22:37,077 --> 00:22:41,077 that they're like sort of trying hard to build it out 304 00:22:41,276 --> 00:22:44,276 and fully educate the community on it. 305 00:22:44,276 --> 00:22:48,276 So, for example, even Brad Mills has been saying like, 306 00:22:48,276 --> 00:22:51,276 look how long, in some tweets he wrote like, 307 00:22:51,276 --> 00:22:56,276 look how many years TruthCoin has been developing Drivechain and trying to explain it. 308 00:22:56,276 --> 00:23:00,276 So he wasn't even saying, you know, Brad wasn't saying that he supports Drivechain. 309 00:23:00,276 --> 00:23:06,276 He was just saying he supports how the manner in which Paul has persistently 310 00:23:06,476 --> 00:23:11,476 and in a dedicated and industrious manner developed the Drivechain testnet 311 00:23:11,476 --> 00:23:16,476 and related kind of materials and resources and phenomena 312 00:23:16,476 --> 00:23:21,476 to kind of elaborate the vision that Drivechain offers. 313 00:23:21,476 --> 00:23:24,476 So while you're right that it's been a long time, 314 00:23:24,476 --> 00:23:28,476 it also, there's some positive things that have come out of that. 315 00:23:28,476 --> 00:23:30,476 Because if you try something for a long time, 316 00:23:30,476 --> 00:23:35,476 that's inherently like a demonstration of perseverance. 317 00:23:35,677 --> 00:23:40,677 So I think that sort of thing will make a lot of sense and be known. 318 00:23:40,677 --> 00:23:43,677 Like even like someone like Shinobi probably would say, 319 00:23:43,677 --> 00:23:45,677 you've got to hand it to like Paul. 320 00:23:45,677 --> 00:23:49,677 Look how many years he's been pushing this thing, right? 321 00:23:49,677 --> 00:23:52,677 It isn't like he came along with an idea and then six months later was like, 322 00:23:52,677 --> 00:23:57,677 well, people don't like it, so I'll just go build on Ethereum. 323 00:23:57,677 --> 00:23:58,677 Like he never did that. 324 00:23:58,877 --> 00:24:06,877 So that separates Paul from like the many founders 325 00:24:06,877 --> 00:24:10,877 who like have good ideas and then Bitcoin doesn't accommodate it 326 00:24:10,877 --> 00:24:11,877 and then they just leave. 327 00:24:11,877 --> 00:24:14,877 Like the founder of Avalanche or the founder of Cardano 328 00:24:14,877 --> 00:24:15,877 or any of these things. 329 00:24:15,877 --> 00:24:18,877 They probably at some point were like Bitcoiners 330 00:24:18,877 --> 00:24:20,877 and then they were like, how about I do this idea? 331 00:24:20,877 --> 00:24:26,876 And then if Greg and Luke and Adam and Peter 332 00:24:27,077 --> 00:24:32,077 and other like sort of Bitcoin influencers 333 00:24:32,077 --> 00:24:34,077 and intelligentsia don't like it, 334 00:24:34,077 --> 00:24:36,077 then that's the end of it for them. 335 00:24:36,077 --> 00:24:39,077 But in Paul's case, he spent the next seven years 336 00:24:39,077 --> 00:24:41,077 developing and speaking and publishing. 337 00:24:41,077 --> 00:24:45,077 And as Paul has said in the recent year, 338 00:24:45,077 --> 00:24:47,077 our call, he said in different interviews, 339 00:24:47,077 --> 00:24:50,077 maybe even in conversations with you 340 00:24:50,077 --> 00:24:52,077 on different podcasts and things, 341 00:24:52,277 --> 00:24:57,277 that the place that he's gotten at conferences 342 00:24:57,277 --> 00:24:59,277 has kind of moved up over the years. 343 00:24:59,277 --> 00:25:01,277 Like he used to be like on the side stage 344 00:25:01,277 --> 00:25:03,277 and now he's at the main stage. 345 00:25:03,277 --> 00:25:05,277 And now he's on the main stage like next to Adam Back 346 00:25:05,277 --> 00:25:08,277 in like a one-on-one conversation with Aaron Varen Breedum 347 00:25:08,277 --> 00:25:09,277 about the history of Drivechain. 348 00:25:09,277 --> 00:25:11,277 So the amount of attention and respect 349 00:25:11,277 --> 00:25:17,277 that Drivechain is getting and that its authors are getting 350 00:25:17,277 --> 00:25:21,277 and that the whole community is like getting is increased. 351 00:25:22,277 --> 00:25:28,277 So I'm 100% with you and I'm in total agreement. 352 00:25:30,277 --> 00:25:35,277 However, I still just think it's an uphill battle. 353 00:25:35,277 --> 00:25:38,277 It's like, how do you get that broad-based support 354 00:25:38,277 --> 00:25:40,277 from the community? 355 00:25:40,277 --> 00:25:41,277 And this is like one of the reasons 356 00:25:41,277 --> 00:25:45,277 why I'm so gung-ho on Sovereign, 357 00:25:45,277 --> 00:25:47,277 even though it looks like a shit coin 358 00:25:47,277 --> 00:25:49,277 and it's basically like a ghost town on RSK. 359 00:25:49,277 --> 00:25:51,277 It's because they have that one single use case 360 00:25:51,277 --> 00:25:54,277 of like the Bitcoin-backed borrowing 361 00:25:54,277 --> 00:25:56,277 where it's like you can go up to these Bitcoiners 362 00:25:56,277 --> 00:25:58,277 and say, hey, look, like on these sidechains 363 00:25:58,277 --> 00:26:00,277 you can borrow against your Bitcoin 364 00:26:00,277 --> 00:26:05,277 at 0% interest outside of the fiat rails without KYC 365 00:26:05,277 --> 00:26:06,277 and as a byproduct of borrowing, 366 00:26:06,277 --> 00:26:08,277 we create this Bitcoin-backed stable coin. 367 00:26:08,277 --> 00:26:10,277 And that Bitcoin-backed stable coin, 368 00:26:10,277 --> 00:26:13,277 people are like, hey, I want to hold that 369 00:26:13,277 --> 00:26:15,277 because I think it's censorship resistant 370 00:26:15,277 --> 00:26:16,277 and safer than dollars. 371 00:26:16,277 --> 00:26:17,277 Sorry, I got to put you guys on mute. 372 00:26:17,277 --> 00:26:18,277 One second, I'm going through a gate. 373 00:26:18,277 --> 00:26:20,277 Just give me 10 seconds. 374 00:26:20,277 --> 00:26:23,277 No problem. 375 00:26:23,277 --> 00:26:29,277 I think the rank of drivechain focus topics 376 00:26:29,277 --> 00:26:30,277 at a conference is a really good one 377 00:26:30,277 --> 00:26:33,277 to throw in that thing we were talking about earlier, 378 00:26:33,277 --> 00:26:35,277 Henry, that you mentioned. 379 00:26:35,277 --> 00:26:38,277 The rank of drive topics at conference lineups. 380 00:26:38,277 --> 00:26:39,277 It's a good one. 381 00:26:39,277 --> 00:26:41,277 Yeah, I agree. 382 00:26:41,277 --> 00:26:42,277 I agree. 383 00:26:42,277 --> 00:26:44,277 I mean, I could try to find where Paul said that 384 00:26:44,277 --> 00:26:46,277 or we could just ask Paul sometime 385 00:26:46,277 --> 00:26:51,277 that what exactly is the evidence at Bitcoin? 386 00:26:51,277 --> 00:26:53,277 For example, one could just review the public information 387 00:26:53,277 --> 00:26:57,277 at Bitcoin Miami over the last four years. 388 00:26:57,277 --> 00:27:00,277 When was drivechain mentioned at all? 389 00:27:00,277 --> 00:27:03,277 And then was it maybe last year 390 00:27:03,277 --> 00:27:05,277 when he was on stage with Aaron Van Weerdam? 391 00:27:05,277 --> 00:27:07,277 I think it was maybe Bitcoin Amsterdam. 392 00:27:07,277 --> 00:27:10,277 That was one where he was on stage with Adam Back 393 00:27:10,277 --> 00:27:13,277 in a conversation with Aaron Van Weerdam 394 00:27:13,277 --> 00:27:15,277 of Bitcoin Magazine. 395 00:27:15,277 --> 00:27:18,277 So that was like a great kind of moment. 396 00:27:18,277 --> 00:27:21,277 And then again, in Riga, in Latvia, 397 00:27:21,277 --> 00:27:23,277 there was like maybe four people on stage 398 00:27:23,277 --> 00:27:29,277 and it was Paul and Adam again talking about drivechain. 399 00:27:29,277 --> 00:27:32,277 Also, David, just to make a point 400 00:27:32,277 --> 00:27:33,277 that kind of supports your point 401 00:27:33,277 --> 00:27:35,277 and doesn't support my point at all, 402 00:27:35,277 --> 00:27:39,277 is that in that interview with Eric Wall, 403 00:27:39,277 --> 00:27:42,277 he was talking about two months ago. 404 00:27:42,277 --> 00:27:44,277 I forget who was interviewing Eric. 405 00:27:44,277 --> 00:27:45,277 It was Peter McCormick. 406 00:27:45,277 --> 00:27:48,277 And Eric was talking about the history 407 00:27:48,277 --> 00:27:50,277 of different matters like drivechain. 408 00:27:50,277 --> 00:27:54,277 And Eric literally said drivechain is dead, 409 00:27:54,277 --> 00:27:58,277 that the toxic maxis have completely rejected it, 410 00:27:58,277 --> 00:28:01,277 that the high priests have rejected it. 411 00:28:01,277 --> 00:28:06,277 So yeah, that supports kind of everything you were saying. 412 00:28:06,277 --> 00:28:09,277 There's like total silence from Greg Maxwell 413 00:28:09,277 --> 00:28:12,277 and negativity from Peter Todd, 414 00:28:12,277 --> 00:28:13,277 both of whom I respect, 415 00:28:13,277 --> 00:28:16,277 but I'm saying they're either silent 416 00:28:16,277 --> 00:28:18,277 or negative on drivechain. 417 00:28:18,277 --> 00:28:20,277 I think negative in both cases, 418 00:28:20,277 --> 00:28:23,277 especially Peter more vocally on Twitter. 419 00:28:23,277 --> 00:28:27,277 And then there's others who were not in favor of it, 420 00:28:27,277 --> 00:28:29,277 probably, but more silently, 421 00:28:29,277 --> 00:28:32,277 who were just as influential within Blockstream 422 00:28:32,277 --> 00:28:36,277 other than Adam Back, who's obviously for it, 423 00:28:36,277 --> 00:28:38,277 but not in extreme terms. 424 00:28:38,277 --> 00:28:39,277 He's not like Fiatjaf. 425 00:28:40,277 --> 00:28:41,277 He actually tweeted though, 426 00:28:41,277 --> 00:28:44,277 Back tweeted, like, I think we need it soon. 427 00:28:44,277 --> 00:28:45,277 He wrote the word soon. 428 00:28:45,277 --> 00:28:47,277 Like, cause he's concerned 429 00:28:47,277 --> 00:28:49,277 that there's too much use of custodial lightning 430 00:28:49,277 --> 00:28:52,277 and he wants the world to onboard to Bitcoin 431 00:28:52,277 --> 00:28:53,277 in the next 10 years. 432 00:28:53,277 --> 00:28:55,277 And we need peer-to-peer solutions for that. 433 00:28:55,277 --> 00:28:58,277 Otherwise, everyone will just end up at Coinbase. 434 00:28:58,277 --> 00:29:02,277 So things like other ideas aren't good enough 435 00:29:02,277 --> 00:29:04,277 and we need this additional piece 436 00:29:04,277 --> 00:29:07,277 in the puzzle of strengthening Bitcoin 437 00:29:07,277 --> 00:29:10,277 with opt-in layers that are more scalable. 438 00:29:10,277 --> 00:29:12,277 So he likes the large block sidechain. 439 00:29:12,277 --> 00:29:14,277 He also likes the privacy sidechain. 440 00:29:14,277 --> 00:29:15,277 Back really gets it. 441 00:29:15,277 --> 00:29:16,277 He gets drivechain. 442 00:29:16,277 --> 00:29:17,277 He likes the Zcash sidechain 443 00:29:17,277 --> 00:29:21,277 and the Thunder sidechain that has one gigabyte blocks. 444 00:29:21,277 --> 00:29:22,277 He probably also likes HiveMind, 445 00:29:22,277 --> 00:29:25,277 although that's the one that Fiatjaf really likes, 446 00:29:25,277 --> 00:29:26,277 is HiveMind specifically, 447 00:29:26,277 --> 00:29:27,277 which has the oracles, 448 00:29:27,277 --> 00:29:29,277 which is the kind of thing you might like, 449 00:29:29,277 --> 00:29:32,277 which is more high-tech and very exciting 450 00:29:32,277 --> 00:29:34,277 if you like complex, 451 00:29:34,277 --> 00:29:38,277 but potentially high-value technologies like oracles. 452 00:29:38,277 --> 00:29:41,277 Oracles could be useful for creating a stable coin 453 00:29:41,277 --> 00:29:43,277 that's not actually backed by dollars, 454 00:29:43,277 --> 00:29:45,277 but instead is like a futures market, 455 00:29:45,277 --> 00:29:46,277 if you know what I mean. 456 00:29:46,277 --> 00:29:50,277 Like a truly decentralized oracle for a stable coin. 457 00:29:50,277 --> 00:29:52,277 Paul has talked a little bit about that once or twice, 458 00:29:52,277 --> 00:29:56,277 how the HiveMind oracle could be used for a stable coin. 459 00:29:56,277 --> 00:30:00,277 Could you talk a little bit about the sovereign dollar 460 00:30:00,277 --> 00:30:02,277 and what is the connection 461 00:30:03,277 --> 00:30:05,277 between sovereign and Rootstock and Bitcoin? 462 00:30:05,277 --> 00:30:06,277 As I understand, 463 00:30:06,277 --> 00:30:10,277 there's like a federated peg between Rootstock and Bitcoin. 464 00:30:10,277 --> 00:30:13,277 So if that federated peg ever failed, 465 00:30:13,277 --> 00:30:15,277 how would that impact the sovereign dollar? 466 00:30:15,277 --> 00:30:18,277 Like is the foundation of the sovereign system, 467 00:30:18,277 --> 00:30:19,277 Rootstock, 468 00:30:19,277 --> 00:30:21,277 and therefore if the foundation of Rootstock 469 00:30:21,277 --> 00:30:23,277 is this two-way peg, 470 00:30:23,277 --> 00:30:27,277 then is it all built on top of that federation 471 00:30:27,277 --> 00:30:28,277 or is that not accurate? 472 00:30:28,277 --> 00:30:29,277 Yeah, okay. 473 00:30:29,277 --> 00:30:30,277 So much that, 474 00:30:30,277 --> 00:30:32,277 like I want to cover. 475 00:30:32,277 --> 00:30:33,277 One, you know, 476 00:30:33,277 --> 00:30:36,277 my question in this scenario I want to propose to you guys 477 00:30:36,277 --> 00:30:37,277 is like, you know, 478 00:30:37,277 --> 00:30:38,277 so I was there, you know, 479 00:30:38,277 --> 00:30:40,277 when Adam and Paul were on stage in Amsterdam 480 00:30:40,277 --> 00:30:41,277 and, you know, 481 00:30:41,277 --> 00:30:42,277 Adam says, yes, 482 00:30:42,277 --> 00:30:43,277 I support drive change on Android. 483 00:30:43,277 --> 00:30:44,277 I'm like, put them on the spot. 484 00:30:44,277 --> 00:30:45,277 And I was like, oh my gosh, 485 00:30:45,277 --> 00:30:46,277 this is so amazing. 486 00:30:46,277 --> 00:30:47,277 My question is like, 487 00:30:47,277 --> 00:30:48,277 how do you take it from that, 488 00:30:48,277 --> 00:30:49,277 that step of like, hey, 489 00:30:49,277 --> 00:30:52,277 it's beginning to get mind share with like important people 490 00:30:52,277 --> 00:30:53,277 to being like, 491 00:30:53,277 --> 00:30:55,277 how do we actually merge this into Bitcoin? 492 00:30:55,277 --> 00:30:57,277 Like that is like a total empty space. 493 00:30:57,277 --> 00:30:59,277 Like I don't know how that happens. 494 00:30:59,277 --> 00:31:02,277 And I am kind of of the mindset where there's like this meme. 495 00:31:02,277 --> 00:31:03,277 If you've seen it, 496 00:31:03,277 --> 00:31:05,277 it's where it's like the guy crying and it's kind of like, 497 00:31:05,277 --> 00:31:06,277 bro, please, bro. 498 00:31:06,277 --> 00:31:07,277 If you just like, 499 00:31:07,277 --> 00:31:09,277 if you use like my defy protocol or my chain, 500 00:31:09,277 --> 00:31:10,277 like it's going to be so good for Bitcoin. 501 00:31:10,277 --> 00:31:11,277 Like I kind of feel like that's, 502 00:31:11,277 --> 00:31:14,277 that's like drivechains marketing strategy right now. 503 00:31:14,277 --> 00:31:15,277 And like, 504 00:31:15,277 --> 00:31:17,277 that stinks because I don't want drivechains in here. 505 00:31:17,277 --> 00:31:20,277 But I think that the narrative needs to flip to, 506 00:31:20,277 --> 00:31:21,277 to instead being like, 507 00:31:21,277 --> 00:31:25,277 like you almost proposing this question to Max is where you're saying 508 00:31:25,277 --> 00:31:26,277 like, look, 509 00:31:26,277 --> 00:31:27,277 like you don't, 510 00:31:27,277 --> 00:31:29,277 you don't want like a trustless two way peg. 511 00:31:29,277 --> 00:31:32,277 Like you want to keep using these custodial and federated services. 512 00:31:32,277 --> 00:31:33,277 And, 513 00:31:33,277 --> 00:31:34,277 and, 514 00:31:34,277 --> 00:31:36,277 and the way you have to do that is you have to give them some sort of 515 00:31:36,277 --> 00:31:39,277 application or some sort of thing that they actually want to use. 516 00:31:39,277 --> 00:31:42,277 When the reality is nobody gives a crap about privacy. 517 00:31:42,277 --> 00:31:43,277 Like that, 518 00:31:43,277 --> 00:31:44,277 that's not going to, 519 00:31:44,277 --> 00:31:45,277 you know, 520 00:31:45,277 --> 00:31:46,277 cause enough of an impetus for people to say, 521 00:31:46,277 --> 00:31:49,277 I want trustless sidechain so that I can use, 522 00:31:49,277 --> 00:31:50,277 use, 523 00:31:50,277 --> 00:31:51,277 use privacy. 524 00:31:51,277 --> 00:31:52,277 But if we can do this thing, 525 00:31:52,277 --> 00:31:54,277 and this is where I was going with all the sovereign stuff and, 526 00:31:54,277 --> 00:31:56,277 and where I'll explain it next is that if we can give them a use case 527 00:31:56,277 --> 00:31:57,277 where we say, 528 00:31:57,277 --> 00:31:58,277 you can never sell your Bitcoin. 529 00:31:58,277 --> 00:32:00,277 You can borrow against it at 0% interest rate with, 530 00:32:00,277 --> 00:32:01,277 with no longterm. 531 00:32:01,277 --> 00:32:03,277 You can have these censorship resistant Bitcoin backed dollars. 532 00:32:03,277 --> 00:32:04,277 And then you, 533 00:32:04,277 --> 00:32:07,277 you kind of infiltrate that market with something that they selfishly 534 00:32:07,277 --> 00:32:08,277 want. 535 00:32:08,277 --> 00:32:10,277 And then you pose that question and you say, 536 00:32:10,277 --> 00:32:11,277 you guys want to keep using federations? 537 00:32:11,277 --> 00:32:12,277 Like, 538 00:32:12,277 --> 00:32:13,277 like, 539 00:32:13,277 --> 00:32:14,277 are you sure about that? 540 00:32:14,277 --> 00:32:15,277 Like that's, 541 00:32:15,277 --> 00:32:16,277 that's the way we have to win this, 542 00:32:16,277 --> 00:32:17,277 this competition. 543 00:32:17,277 --> 00:32:18,277 It's the chicken and the egg game. 544 00:32:18,277 --> 00:32:19,277 And we, 545 00:32:19,277 --> 00:32:21,277 we are not going to be able to merge drivechains in first and then 546 00:32:21,277 --> 00:32:22,277 build these applications. 547 00:32:22,277 --> 00:32:23,277 We have to build the applications, 548 00:32:23,277 --> 00:32:24,277 you know, 549 00:32:24,277 --> 00:32:25,277 essentially mind virus. 550 00:32:25,277 --> 00:32:27,277 Everybody was something that they actually want. 551 00:32:27,277 --> 00:32:29,277 And this is the only thing that the coin maxis want is to not sell 552 00:32:29,277 --> 00:32:30,277 their, 553 00:32:30,277 --> 00:32:31,277 their, 554 00:32:31,277 --> 00:32:32,277 their Bitcoin. 555 00:32:32,277 --> 00:32:34,277 And then all the stuff follows. 556 00:32:34,277 --> 00:32:37,277 So that now brings me to the sovereign stuff. 557 00:32:37,277 --> 00:32:39,277 And really quickly before I get to that, 558 00:32:39,277 --> 00:32:40,277 yes, 559 00:32:40,277 --> 00:32:41,277 hive mind is amazing. 560 00:32:41,277 --> 00:32:42,277 You know, 561 00:32:42,277 --> 00:32:43,277 trust us. 562 00:32:43,277 --> 00:32:45,277 Decentralized oracles are really amazing. 563 00:32:45,277 --> 00:32:47,277 I was also reading an article from some of the Stark where guys are, 564 00:32:47,277 --> 00:32:49,277 they're talking about things like a storage proofs. 565 00:32:49,277 --> 00:32:50,277 I don't know if you saw that, 566 00:32:50,277 --> 00:32:54,277 but essentially you can you can port Oracle data from one, 567 00:32:54,277 --> 00:32:59,277 from one chain to another trustlessly using validity proofs, 568 00:32:59,277 --> 00:33:01,277 which are the same proofs that underpin like ZK rollups. 569 00:33:01,277 --> 00:33:02,277 So you could almost, 570 00:33:02,277 --> 00:33:04,277 you could derive these, 571 00:33:04,277 --> 00:33:08,277 these price oracles on something like a hive mind chain and then port 572 00:33:08,277 --> 00:33:09,277 them into, 573 00:33:09,277 --> 00:33:10,277 you know, 574 00:33:10,277 --> 00:33:11,277 a ZK rollup or something trustlessly. 575 00:33:11,277 --> 00:33:13,277 So I dunno, 576 00:33:13,277 --> 00:33:14,277 it's beyond me technically, 577 00:33:14,277 --> 00:33:16,277 but like when you were saying that, 578 00:33:16,277 --> 00:33:17,277 I'm like, 579 00:33:17,277 --> 00:33:18,277 Oh my gosh, 580 00:33:18,277 --> 00:33:20,277 like this would just be like the Holy grail where you have prediction 581 00:33:20,277 --> 00:33:21,277 markets creating, 582 00:33:21,277 --> 00:33:22,277 you know, 583 00:33:22,277 --> 00:33:24,277 an oracle system that underpins a Bitcoin backed dollar. 584 00:33:24,277 --> 00:33:27,277 That just makes my mind like so happy. 585 00:33:27,277 --> 00:33:28,277 Okay. 586 00:33:28,277 --> 00:33:30,277 Sovereign stuff. 587 00:33:30,277 --> 00:33:31,277 Yeah, 588 00:33:31,277 --> 00:33:32,277 you're exactly right. 589 00:33:32,277 --> 00:33:33,277 Like for right now, 590 00:33:33,277 --> 00:33:34,277 everything is essentially like, 591 00:33:34,277 --> 00:33:35,277 you know, 592 00:33:35,277 --> 00:33:38,277 predicated on a federated peg. 593 00:33:38,277 --> 00:33:41,277 So Rootstock in particular, 594 00:33:41,277 --> 00:33:44,277 it has, 595 00:33:44,277 --> 00:33:46,277 it's, 596 00:33:46,277 --> 00:33:48,277 it's consensus layer is, 597 00:33:48,277 --> 00:33:49,277 is merge-mined with, 598 00:33:49,277 --> 00:33:50,277 with, 599 00:33:50,277 --> 00:33:51,277 with, 600 00:33:51,277 --> 00:33:52,277 you know, 601 00:33:52,277 --> 00:33:53,277 it's not like the 301, 602 00:33:53,277 --> 00:33:54,277 you know, 603 00:33:54,277 --> 00:33:55,277 blind merge money. 604 00:33:55,277 --> 00:33:56,277 It's just like normal, 605 00:33:56,277 --> 00:33:57,277 traditional merge mining, 606 00:33:57,277 --> 00:33:58,277 but then the peg itself uses the, 607 00:33:58,277 --> 00:33:59,277 the federation. 608 00:33:59,277 --> 00:34:00,277 So, 609 00:34:00,277 --> 00:34:01,277 you know, 610 00:34:01,277 --> 00:34:02,277 you, 611 00:34:02,277 --> 00:34:03,277 you, 612 00:34:03,277 --> 00:34:04,277 you bridge your, 613 00:34:04,277 --> 00:34:05,277 your, 614 00:34:05,277 --> 00:34:06,277 your Bitcoin in, 615 00:34:06,277 --> 00:34:07,277 you get the Bitcoin IOU called RBTC. 616 00:34:07,277 --> 00:34:08,277 And then in order to use the applications. 617 00:34:08,277 --> 00:34:09,277 Yeah. 618 00:34:09,277 --> 00:34:11,277 It'd be almost like you're operating on Ethereum where you pledge your 619 00:34:11,277 --> 00:34:13,277 Bitcoin into a smart contract. 620 00:34:13,277 --> 00:34:15,277 And then if you want to use like the zero protocol, 621 00:34:15,277 --> 00:34:17,277 which is the one that allows you to borrow against your Bitcoin at 0% 622 00:34:17,277 --> 00:34:18,277 interest, 623 00:34:18,277 --> 00:34:20,277 it locks that collateral on the smart contract. 624 00:34:20,277 --> 00:34:21,277 You choose, 625 00:34:21,277 --> 00:34:22,277 you know, 626 00:34:22,277 --> 00:34:23,277 how much you want to borrow. 627 00:34:23,277 --> 00:34:27,277 And then it mints those stable coins into existence. 628 00:34:27,277 --> 00:34:29,277 In terms of like risks, 629 00:34:29,277 --> 00:34:32,277 if the Bitcoin price moves against you, 630 00:34:32,277 --> 00:34:33,277 you could get liquidated. 631 00:34:33,277 --> 00:34:35,277 If the federation breaks, 632 00:34:35,277 --> 00:34:37,277 you could obviously get rug pulled. 633 00:34:37,277 --> 00:34:38,277 You know, 634 00:34:38,277 --> 00:34:40,277 if the Oracle gets manipulated, 635 00:34:40,277 --> 00:34:44,277 they could cause mass liquidations on, 636 00:34:44,277 --> 00:34:46,277 on the chain. 637 00:34:46,277 --> 00:34:47,277 So there's definite, 638 00:34:47,277 --> 00:34:49,277 definite significant material risks. 639 00:34:49,277 --> 00:34:50,277 But in my opinion, 640 00:34:50,277 --> 00:34:53,277 it's still like probably once we release some more, 641 00:34:53,277 --> 00:34:55,277 more tools and more development on it, 642 00:34:55,277 --> 00:34:58,277 like it's going to be the single best way for people to borrow against 643 00:34:58,277 --> 00:34:59,277 their Bitcoin. 644 00:34:59,277 --> 00:35:01,277 I think it's just going to be like a home run product. 645 00:35:01,277 --> 00:35:04,277 And I think that will be like the bedrock for, 646 00:35:04,277 --> 00:35:07,277 for which all this other stuff that we want has to be built on. 647 00:35:07,277 --> 00:35:09,277 That's kind of my grand strategy. 648 00:35:14,277 --> 00:35:15,277 Cool. 649 00:35:15,277 --> 00:35:17,277 Very cool. 650 00:35:18,277 --> 00:35:20,277 In merge mining on RSK, 651 00:35:20,277 --> 00:35:24,277 are the Bitcoin miners who are merge mining RSK, 652 00:35:24,277 --> 00:35:28,277 are they getting paid in RBTC or BTC? 653 00:35:32,277 --> 00:35:34,277 That's a good question. 654 00:35:34,277 --> 00:35:35,277 Yeah, 655 00:35:35,277 --> 00:35:36,277 it's a good question. 656 00:35:36,277 --> 00:35:37,277 I actually, 657 00:35:37,277 --> 00:35:38,277 I don't know. 658 00:35:38,277 --> 00:35:42,277 I think that in blind merge mining, 659 00:35:43,277 --> 00:35:47,277 one important difference is that the merge, 660 00:35:47,277 --> 00:35:50,277 the miners are getting paid in Bitcoin. 661 00:35:50,277 --> 00:35:53,277 Paul has pointed out that an ordinary merge mining, 662 00:35:53,277 --> 00:35:55,277 the miners are paid in the old coin. 663 00:35:55,277 --> 00:35:57,277 So I think that might be the difference. 664 00:35:57,277 --> 00:35:59,277 Now I read in some Rootstock literature, 665 00:35:59,277 --> 00:36:01,277 the Bitcoin miners are paid in Bitcoin, 666 00:36:01,277 --> 00:36:07,277 but that may be maybe just like a rhetoric and they're actually paid in the 667 00:36:07,277 --> 00:36:08,277 old coin, 668 00:36:08,277 --> 00:36:10,277 which has been at some point converted automatically maybe. 669 00:36:11,277 --> 00:36:12,277 Yeah, 670 00:36:12,277 --> 00:36:13,277 I'm not sure. 671 00:36:13,277 --> 00:36:14,277 So that's, 672 00:36:14,277 --> 00:36:16,277 and you can help me clarify on this, 673 00:36:16,277 --> 00:36:19,277 but that's the whole debate with sidechains, 674 00:36:19,277 --> 00:36:20,277 right? 675 00:36:20,277 --> 00:36:21,277 It's like, 676 00:36:21,277 --> 00:36:24,277 you don't want to increase the burden on the miners for them to run the 677 00:36:24,277 --> 00:36:25,277 nodes. 678 00:36:25,277 --> 00:36:26,277 So then Paul says, 679 00:36:26,277 --> 00:36:27,277 Hey, 680 00:36:27,277 --> 00:36:28,277 well, 681 00:36:28,277 --> 00:36:29,277 don't worry. 682 00:36:29,277 --> 00:36:31,277 This is what the 301 is where it's blind merge mining, 683 00:36:31,277 --> 00:36:32,277 where, 684 00:36:32,277 --> 00:36:34,277 and can you clarify that for me where they're essentially just mining, 685 00:36:34,277 --> 00:36:37,277 but they don't realize which chains they're mining. 686 00:36:37,277 --> 00:36:38,277 Is that how that works? 687 00:36:38,277 --> 00:36:39,277 Right. 688 00:36:39,277 --> 00:36:43,277 So there could be a hundred sidechains that are a BIP301 merge-mined and a 689 00:36:43,277 --> 00:36:44,277 miner would be, 690 00:36:44,277 --> 00:36:51,277 would be receiving the transaction fees from those sidechains without knowing 691 00:36:51,277 --> 00:36:54,277 that miner is participating. 692 00:36:54,277 --> 00:36:57,277 It's kind of like if you're singing, 693 00:36:57,277 --> 00:37:00,277 this is just an analogy I just made up in my head. 694 00:37:00,277 --> 00:37:05,277 Like if you're singing a song in the dark and you don't know how many people 695 00:37:06,277 --> 00:37:09,277 are listening in the room where you are, 696 00:37:09,277 --> 00:37:17,276 then you're blind to like how much value you're creating for all those people. 697 00:37:17,276 --> 00:37:19,276 Similarly, 698 00:37:19,276 --> 00:37:24,276 it doesn't cost anything for Bitcoin miners when another sidechain is 699 00:37:24,276 --> 00:37:29,276 created and they have to keep on hashing. 700 00:37:29,276 --> 00:37:31,276 But now they're receiving the side, 701 00:37:31,276 --> 00:37:35,276 the additional transaction fees from those sidechains. 702 00:37:35,276 --> 00:37:38,276 So that's what blind merge mining is about. 703 00:37:38,276 --> 00:37:40,276 Whereas currently with merge mining today in Bitcoin, 704 00:37:40,276 --> 00:37:42,276 it's not blind. 705 00:37:42,276 --> 00:37:45,276 It's Satoshi's merge mining, 706 00:37:45,276 --> 00:37:49,276 which is like a lower form of merge mining because each time a new side 707 00:37:49,276 --> 00:37:51,276 chain is brought into existence, 708 00:37:51,276 --> 00:37:56,276 the fees are only sent to the miners who are running the sidechain node and 709 00:37:56,276 --> 00:37:59,276 merge mining it like on purpose. 710 00:37:59,276 --> 00:38:08,276 So blind merge mining alleviates most or all of the concerns that relate to 711 00:38:08,276 --> 00:38:17,276 merge mining in terms of the imposition of costs on miners by having to run nodes. 712 00:38:17,276 --> 00:38:19,276 Running a node is like one computer. 713 00:38:19,276 --> 00:38:21,276 I don't know why people are so alarmed about like, 714 00:38:21,276 --> 00:38:27,276 oh, if there's like 10 sidechains that have a billion dollars of fees on each 715 00:38:27,276 --> 00:38:29,276 of them, then, you know, 716 00:38:29,276 --> 00:38:32,276 miners will have to run those nodes or miss out on the fees. 717 00:38:32,276 --> 00:38:36,276 There's all kinds of things that miners do that small miners can't do. 718 00:38:36,276 --> 00:38:41,276 Like big miners have like a custom agreement with some power company or the 719 00:38:41,276 --> 00:38:47,276 big miner, you know, has like a, has a massive solar farm. 720 00:38:47,276 --> 00:38:50,276 There's all kinds of things that large miners do that smaller miners can't do. 721 00:38:50,276 --> 00:38:52,276 So running an extra node on a, 722 00:38:52,276 --> 00:38:58,276 on a laptop isn't like the worst of all these centralizing forces. 723 00:38:58,276 --> 00:39:02,276 Nevertheless, there's a lot of concern over merged mining. 724 00:39:02,276 --> 00:39:06,276 Most of those concerns are about merged mining as it exists today. 725 00:39:06,276 --> 00:39:09,276 Like the people who are concerned, not that you raised any of these concerns, 726 00:39:09,276 --> 00:39:14,276 but they're concerned about the centralizing effects on miners, 727 00:39:14,276 --> 00:39:17,276 that there could be more concentration in the mining market. 728 00:39:17,276 --> 00:39:21,276 In other words, fewer small miners and just a few big miners. 729 00:39:21,276 --> 00:39:23,276 Those centralizing forces were first of all, 730 00:39:23,276 --> 00:39:26,276 like predicted by Satoshi when he talked about server farms and how not 731 00:39:26,276 --> 00:39:28,276 everyone would be mining. 732 00:39:28,276 --> 00:39:33,276 He talked about that and blind merge mining alleviates these concerns to a 733 00:39:33,276 --> 00:39:36,276 great extent because now everyone's getting some of the fees, 734 00:39:36,276 --> 00:39:38,276 whether or not they run the node. 735 00:39:38,276 --> 00:39:39,276 Now, of course, 736 00:39:39,276 --> 00:39:42,276 some miners will run the nodes because they want to know what's going on on 737 00:39:42,276 --> 00:39:48,276 the sidechain or because they want to attempt to use that knowledge of 738 00:39:48,276 --> 00:39:53,276 what's going on on the sidechain to get more value by doing meds where 739 00:39:53,276 --> 00:39:59,276 they would reorder the transactions that are included in blocks in order 740 00:39:59,276 --> 00:40:05,276 to get more profit potentially so they can run some fancy software that 741 00:40:05,276 --> 00:40:08,276 could tell them how to make more money. 742 00:40:09,497 --> 00:40:16,057 But this is no different than on Wall Street where there's all kinds of trading firms making money 743 00:40:16,057 --> 00:40:22,137 different ways. It isn't like the existence of high frequency trading has caused the stock market 744 00:40:22,137 --> 00:40:29,097 not to work. So I don't think the med will have much of an impact on anyone other than those who 745 00:40:29,097 --> 00:40:35,977 are doing a lot of very short term, extremely short term transactions. Like if I buy some 746 00:40:35,977 --> 00:40:41,017 Bitcoin, I don't care if my order gets filled this minute or the next minute. So I don't care 747 00:40:41,017 --> 00:40:46,296 if my transaction is moved around a slight amount or included in a block a little bit sooner or 748 00:40:46,296 --> 00:40:54,057 later. But those who are doing like short term smart contracts would be influenced by the existence 749 00:40:54,057 --> 00:40:59,976 of these blockchain specific issues of transactions ordering. So some people are alarmist about this 750 00:40:59,976 --> 00:41:04,697 and they come into these Twitter spaces and they say interesting things about how the med could be 751 00:41:04,697 --> 00:41:09,897 significant and important and how drivechain would exacerbate it and make Bitcoin more like 752 00:41:09,897 --> 00:41:18,296 Ethereum. Or that there's other concerns that some people have regarding stablecoins and Ethereum 753 00:41:18,296 --> 00:41:26,536 with a lot of value there and that could lead to centralizing forces in terms of Circle, for 754 00:41:26,536 --> 00:41:32,697 example, in Ethereum having like a large influence potentially on the state of the network or the 755 00:41:32,697 --> 00:41:38,697 permission nature of it. And people are concerned about having that happen on Bitcoin. I see tweets 756 00:41:38,697 --> 00:41:45,817 about that. Some Bitcoin critics and pundits have talked about, well, if it's actually good for 757 00:41:45,817 --> 00:41:50,057 Bitcoin that the large stablecoins aren't on Bitcoin because potentially that could be a 758 00:41:50,057 --> 00:41:54,457 source of problems for Ethereum if there's like one or two centralized parties that have enormous 759 00:41:54,457 --> 00:42:01,336 economic power. So if there were ever like a chain split, then most of the economic weight would be 760 00:42:01,336 --> 00:42:08,777 on the side of these centralized parties that are going to be screening transactions for OFAC 761 00:42:08,777 --> 00:42:14,857 compliance, making it hard or impossible for like certain addresses to get their transactions 762 00:42:14,857 --> 00:42:20,297 through. Like right now in Ethereum, it takes it takes much longer. It takes like five times longer 763 00:42:20,297 --> 00:42:25,176 for your transaction to get through. Like instead of 12 seconds, it takes like a full minute if 764 00:42:25,176 --> 00:42:30,057 you're sending some kind of tornado cash payment or something. And so people are watching to see 765 00:42:30,057 --> 00:42:36,777 if that gets worse and how that how that plays out. So it's cool that you're in that space because 766 00:42:36,777 --> 00:42:42,376 there's a huge market for stablecoins, obviously, and there's lots of fees to be collected there. 767 00:42:44,376 --> 00:42:51,176 Yeah, I mean, the Bitcoin back stablecoin thing, it's like the analogy I give is like when most of 768 00:42:51,176 --> 00:42:54,857 us, you know, find and discover Bitcoin and even now once we're inundated with it and like you go 769 00:42:54,857 --> 00:42:57,976 into a room with like a bunch of normies and like anything they say you just like you want to like 770 00:42:57,976 --> 00:43:02,456 look at them and be like, dude, like Bitcoin like solves your problems. And even if it doesn't 771 00:43:02,456 --> 00:43:06,536 actually solve everything, it's like that's just like the way many Bitcoiners like feel when they 772 00:43:06,536 --> 00:43:11,096 go in the room. Like when I go into rooms like this and we're talking about Bitcoin, like everything 773 00:43:11,096 --> 00:43:15,017 you guys say, I'm just like, oh man, like we need to solve the Bitcoin back stablecoin problem. 774 00:43:15,017 --> 00:43:20,297 And then it allows us to kind of like, you know, start this conversation with drivechains and ZK 775 00:43:20,297 --> 00:43:27,017 rollup. So I agree with you. It's like the centralized stablecoins is like a major, major, 776 00:43:27,017 --> 00:43:31,417 probably the number one issue in Ethereum. And that's why I think we have to solve it on Bitcoin. 777 00:43:31,417 --> 00:43:35,816 And even if we have to do that on a federated sidechain first, it's fine, because that's a 778 00:43:35,816 --> 00:43:42,137 step in the right direction. The other question I was going to ask you, though, is like, 779 00:43:43,417 --> 00:43:50,057 and sorry if I'm kind of hijacking the conversation, is why don't you guys take 780 00:43:50,057 --> 00:43:55,976 the approach of kind of becoming like a data availability layer for the ZK rollups? Like 781 00:43:55,976 --> 00:43:59,976 right now, I feel like Paul's approach has kind of been like, no, ZK rollups won't work because, 782 00:43:59,976 --> 00:44:03,896 you know, it runs into the data availability limits and there's still like the 400 million 783 00:44:03,896 --> 00:44:09,417 weight unit block size limit on Bitcoin. Therefore, like ZK rollups can't scale. And it's like that's 784 00:44:09,417 --> 00:44:14,137 true to an extent. Like there is going to have to be a dedicated like data availability layer 785 00:44:14,137 --> 00:44:19,497 if you really want like hyperscalability with ZK rollups. And like that is where drivechains 786 00:44:19,497 --> 00:44:23,256 are very complementary. And so like if you guys said, hey, like we're going to have the 787 00:44:23,256 --> 00:44:26,376 Thunder chain and we're going to have, you know, the privacy chain, but we're also going to have 788 00:44:26,376 --> 00:44:31,976 like a dedicated data availability chain like Celestia, if you guys are familiar with that. 789 00:44:31,976 --> 00:44:36,776 And that will pair perfectly with ZK rollups. Like that is a nice narrative for you guys to like 790 00:44:36,776 --> 00:44:44,216 latch on to with some of this momentum that the ZK rollups kind of community is garnering. And 791 00:44:44,216 --> 00:44:50,776 that's like probably the most valid application, I think. I'm curious if you guys have familiarity 792 00:44:50,776 --> 00:45:02,056 with that. I think you're right in your outlook that there is discourse about the relative benefits 793 00:45:02,056 --> 00:45:09,897 of the rollups and drivechains. And Paul has written about that on his FAQ, which he recently 794 00:45:09,897 --> 00:45:15,976 revised. So if you're interested in the, it sounds like you are interested in the exact 795 00:45:16,697 --> 00:45:23,737 perspective that he has on rollups versus sidechains, their relative merits and disadvantages, 796 00:45:23,737 --> 00:45:30,857 advantages, then check out the latest version of the FAQ on drivechain.info, which the FAQ was 797 00:45:30,857 --> 00:45:37,897 revised fully by Paul and published, I think like 30 days ago. So that's like the latest 798 00:45:37,897 --> 00:45:42,216 take on his outlook on that because the prior version was written in 2018. 799 00:45:43,177 --> 00:45:49,897 And there's a few paragraphs on rollups. I think that Paul probably would agree with people who 800 00:45:49,897 --> 00:45:56,936 say let's do both drivechain and rollup on layer one. However, he also appreciates how John Light 801 00:45:56,936 --> 00:46:04,056 has said to me in this space in a tweet that I, like he said it here and then I transcribed it 802 00:46:04,056 --> 00:46:08,617 from the recorded space and then he liked the tweet that I put out. So I feel like I accurately 803 00:46:08,617 --> 00:46:15,417 transcribed it. John Light said, regarding his own views, he said, I would like to see Bitcoin 804 00:46:15,417 --> 00:46:21,656 have drivechains and rollups. And because drivechains is an older idea that's simpler in 805 00:46:21,656 --> 00:46:29,256 nature, maybe, that it probably is good to have drivechain first. So, you know, then, and he 806 00:46:29,256 --> 00:46:34,536 probably is sympathetic also, I think, with the idea that if we do drivechain first, one of the 807 00:46:34,536 --> 00:46:40,376 drivechains would have rollups on it. And then that would probably and potentially accelerate 808 00:46:40,376 --> 00:46:48,137 the adoption of rollups on layer one, because they could be tested in a drivechain. There would be a 809 00:46:48,137 --> 00:46:54,457 drivechain that is an identical, you know, that is a clone of Bitcoin. So a sidechain is identical 810 00:46:54,457 --> 00:47:01,656 to Bitcoin, except that it includes the rollup opcodes. And therefore, it would be like a great 811 00:47:01,656 --> 00:47:10,297 testnet, a testnet that has real money in it. So that's the approach. Yeah, I'm in agreement 812 00:47:10,297 --> 00:47:16,376 with that position. Now, of course, the drivechain enthusiast might say, well, if we just get 813 00:47:16,376 --> 00:47:21,177 drivechain, that's really all we need. But it's interesting that it's a little bit complicated, 814 00:47:21,177 --> 00:47:26,376 because, you know, for example, Paul's view, which is like quite a substantial view within 815 00:47:26,376 --> 00:47:32,297 the drivechain community, although not the only one, of course, it's, his view is that it would 816 00:47:32,297 --> 00:47:39,417 be great to have Bitcoin have a smaller block size, and in addition, have drivechain. So Paul, 817 00:47:39,417 --> 00:47:44,697 you know, he has written, he has tweeted, you know, Bitcoin must have a smaller block size. 818 00:47:44,697 --> 00:47:50,697 He has written that must, that was his word, in a tweet, in multiple tweets, like Bitcoin must 819 00:47:50,697 --> 00:47:56,297 have a smaller block size, and Bitcoin must ossify. And we need sidechains. So 820 00:47:58,297 --> 00:48:01,337 I think my understanding is that Paul's view is that like, let's get, 821 00:48:02,297 --> 00:48:06,857 he didn't say we also need like layer one rollups. So probably it's Paul's view that 822 00:48:06,857 --> 00:48:11,096 all the benefits of rollups could exist on the sidechains, that the benefits of that on the 823 00:48:11,096 --> 00:48:16,137 mainchain, it's not as clear. And as he's pointed out, and as I'm sure you've noticed, he has 824 00:48:16,137 --> 00:48:23,417 highlighted the various limitations and hazards of rollups on layer one. There probably are, 825 00:48:23,417 --> 00:48:27,417 you know, in the worst case, hypothetical scenarios, certain instances where it's better 826 00:48:27,417 --> 00:48:35,417 not to have rollups on layer one. Rollups are, I think, in Paul, the way Paul talks about it, 827 00:48:35,417 --> 00:48:39,816 like he emphasizes that the main, the main thing happening with rollups is that, 828 00:48:39,816 --> 00:48:45,496 like in comparison to drivechain, rollups are very high tech. So it's hard to completely 829 00:48:46,457 --> 00:48:50,777 understand what's going on there, unless you're very advanced. Like the people who really 830 00:48:50,777 --> 00:49:00,457 understand rollups in depth, have like a PhD in computer science, or in mathematics. Whereas, 831 00:49:00,457 --> 00:49:04,936 and the whole topic is just newer, whereas sidechains is kind of like an older idea doesn't 832 00:49:04,936 --> 00:49:10,217 use anything that's like rocket science. So it could be more, it can be more broadly understood, 833 00:49:10,217 --> 00:49:14,296 like what's really happening there. So that's an advantage. 834 00:49:16,217 --> 00:49:20,537 Kind of our average person kind of can understand what's happening, like with a sword, 835 00:49:20,537 --> 00:49:23,816 but like inside of a gun, it's like more complicated, right? It's like, it's like 836 00:49:23,816 --> 00:49:29,577 newer technology. Yeah, I mean, I'll quickly just add here, like, I think the underlying 837 00:49:29,577 --> 00:49:33,577 cryptography and math, like it is, it's so freaking far beyond me, like, I agree, 838 00:49:33,577 --> 00:49:36,697 I couldn't even contemplate it. I think Paul's kind of like, you know, probably in the same boat. 839 00:49:37,337 --> 00:49:41,897 But the general information out there around rollups is like, extremely robust. And the 840 00:49:41,897 --> 00:49:48,296 development community and the level of research is like, unparalleled, like, it's amazing how many 841 00:49:48,296 --> 00:49:52,697 resources and how much research is going on in that community. And like, we need to be able to 842 00:49:52,697 --> 00:49:59,337 to tap into that, like there is extreme value there. So that's kind of my, my retort for that, 843 00:49:59,337 --> 00:50:03,897 like, I am putting some trust in the hyper smart people to be like, yes, like, like, believe us, 844 00:50:03,897 --> 00:50:08,856 this cryptography, like, is legitimate. It's not just like fake moon math. But like, outside of 845 00:50:08,856 --> 00:50:18,296 that, tons and tons of very clean resources and information on rollups. Cool. 846 00:50:21,176 --> 00:50:26,936 To what extent is the rollup idea, maybe, like hampered by the fact that Ethereum 847 00:50:27,577 --> 00:50:35,657 is very, like, invested, literally, and also, like, narrative wise, in rollups. So like, 848 00:50:35,657 --> 00:50:42,296 the rollup story is happening on Ethereum. And there really might be no other more obvious case 849 00:50:42,296 --> 00:50:49,816 of like Ethereum having sort of led on something, I guess, NFTs is another case of like, Ethereum is 850 00:50:49,816 --> 00:50:56,137 kind of the NFT land, primarily, even though Bitcoin had NFTs first, maybe the same thing 851 00:50:56,137 --> 00:51:00,936 is true of the rollup stuff. I think there was Greg Maxwell, Reddit post where he was like, 852 00:51:00,936 --> 00:51:06,697 pointing out that, like, you know, years ago, he was talking about rollups, maybe for Bitcoin. So 853 00:51:06,697 --> 00:51:11,017 some of these ideas were mentioned a little bit on Bitcoin, but then happens big on Ethereum, 854 00:51:11,017 --> 00:51:16,056 like NFTs. And at this point, if people say, let's do rollups, then like the toxic maxi crowd 855 00:51:16,056 --> 00:51:22,777 might not love it, because they might think it's, it's like something that's associated with, 856 00:51:23,736 --> 00:51:30,137 with, with Ethereum. And maybe there could be in the complexity, you know, a lurking bug that would 857 00:51:30,137 --> 00:51:36,376 then embarrass our community, the Bitcoin community with the need for a sudden and somewhat 858 00:51:36,376 --> 00:51:44,056 centralized decision to undo it. You know, fork out the change, if there's a problem of any sort. 859 00:51:45,416 --> 00:51:49,577 So it's a complex change, it would be like a couple of years, like, how soon could this 860 00:51:49,657 --> 00:51:56,137 How soon could this OpStark, you know, whatever, like soft fork happen, this one or two opcodes? 861 00:51:56,137 --> 00:52:01,897 How many different alternatives are out there? Is there just one that, you know, John Light, 862 00:52:01,897 --> 00:52:07,337 other kind of rollup focused thinkers are interested in? Like, I see Moon Settler talking 863 00:52:07,337 --> 00:52:12,217 about one. And is it, are they all interested in the same exact thing? Is there any kind of 864 00:52:12,217 --> 00:52:18,056 consensus among the rollup community within Bitcoin on what exactly is the proposal? 865 00:52:18,296 --> 00:52:23,337 Well, there's kind of like a, like a rough consensus for me. So like the general idea, 866 00:52:23,337 --> 00:52:28,056 which John laid out in his paper is that you would need like two soft forks. One is you need 867 00:52:28,056 --> 00:52:34,457 some sort of ZKP verify, this is like the OpStark, you know, verify opcode. And then the second thing 868 00:52:34,457 --> 00:52:41,097 is some sort of like, covenants, you need some way to essentially restrict like a UTXO to where 869 00:52:42,056 --> 00:52:48,616 it can only like update the state. How do I want to say this, like, like, you need some sort of 870 00:52:48,616 --> 00:52:52,457 like generalized or recursive covenants to say, hey, look, you know, 10 minute block like this 871 00:52:52,457 --> 00:52:57,176 UTXO can only be updated with the Stark. And then, you know, like, like people can't like 872 00:52:57,176 --> 00:53:03,337 essentially spend out of that, that UTXO, you need the covenant to be able to do that. But there is 873 00:53:03,337 --> 00:53:07,816 a white paper that's been circulating over the past few months, kind of, I don't know if I want 874 00:53:07,897 --> 00:53:12,217 to say behind the scenes, but kind of in a smaller group of people that are part of this community, 875 00:53:13,017 --> 00:53:18,616 where John's was kind of like, John is not a programmer. He's not a developer. He's just an 876 00:53:18,616 --> 00:53:23,816 incredible researcher. Somebody has actually written a white paper of like how you could 877 00:53:23,816 --> 00:53:29,416 technically, you know, build this on Bitcoin, and they put out a proposal where they're actually 878 00:53:29,416 --> 00:53:34,217 going to try to, you know, go through this entire process of getting a roll up out there. And they 879 00:53:34,217 --> 00:53:41,256 proposed a way to do this without covenants to where you would only need the OP Stark verify 880 00:53:42,217 --> 00:53:50,296 opcode. And you could essentially recreate the covenant feature that you need, but without 881 00:53:50,296 --> 00:53:55,176 actually having covenant. So if we only need that one single opcode, like, that's, that's compelling. 882 00:53:55,977 --> 00:53:59,897 Now, this is like pretty early stages. And I don't think we've received like full official 883 00:53:59,897 --> 00:54:03,256 confirmation as to whether this is technically possible. But like, you know, I've read the white 884 00:54:03,256 --> 00:54:07,657 paper. And, you know, I'm kind of a dummy compared to a lot of these other people, but it seemed to 885 00:54:07,657 --> 00:54:14,137 make sense to me. And so I'm hoping that kind of gains mindshare in the, in the community. 886 00:54:15,416 --> 00:54:19,176 Because that would be pretty cool. Regarding your other questions, like what else is needed? 887 00:54:21,256 --> 00:54:24,616 I think everybody refers to the opcode is like a Stark verified, because, you know, 888 00:54:24,616 --> 00:54:28,056 Starks are considered kind of like, like the gold standard of all these different, 889 00:54:28,936 --> 00:54:33,577 you know, cryptographic primitives, like you could use snarks, or plunky, or I don't even know, 890 00:54:33,577 --> 00:54:40,616 there's tons of other ones, but, but Starks are, they're quantum resistant. And they also have no 891 00:54:40,616 --> 00:54:49,017 trusted setup, some of these other ones, you know, in order to like, I forget whether it's a Zcash 892 00:54:49,017 --> 00:54:52,936 or Monero, like, like, there has to be some sort of like trusted setup there. The point I'm making 893 00:54:52,936 --> 00:54:58,856 is that is that Starks are considered kind of like the highest standard at the moment. And so 894 00:54:58,856 --> 00:55:02,217 that's why people are kind of in the Bitcoin community saying, look, if we're going to do 895 00:55:02,217 --> 00:55:06,616 some sort of roll up, like the cryptographic primitive, we probably want to use is Starks 896 00:55:06,616 --> 00:55:15,657 with a T as opposed to snarks or anything else. Yeah, there's, there's that snark and stark 897 00:55:15,657 --> 00:55:23,577 situation where the Starkware company kind of used a term that was in the industry and made 898 00:55:23,577 --> 00:55:30,537 it like their own trademark, kind of, like, I'm not, I'm not saying that I know the close details 899 00:55:30,537 --> 00:55:37,416 of all that. But it seems like there's some nomenclature confusion, as there often is, 900 00:55:37,416 --> 00:55:44,296 right in anything, where there's commerce and science, there can be overlapping definitions 901 00:55:44,296 --> 00:55:49,736 and brand names, like, you know, Coinbase just made a company out of part of the Bitcoin 902 00:55:49,736 --> 00:55:55,496 vocabulary, like the Coinbase didn't always have a capital C. Same thing with Starks, I think. 903 00:55:58,137 --> 00:56:07,097 Yeah, yeah, that's, that's exactly right. Yeah, I mean, like, one of the credible critiques, 904 00:56:07,097 --> 00:56:14,777 I asked Sergio Lerner, about roll ups. And he just made a point that what's working against 905 00:56:14,777 --> 00:56:20,697 roll ups right now is that, like, like, the research is moving too fast. Like, it's, it's 906 00:56:20,697 --> 00:56:25,657 almost like, like, there is a tiny concern that like, you know, what if in the next couple years, 907 00:56:25,657 --> 00:56:32,616 like, there's like, it's like this parabolic amount of like, research papers, almost like 908 00:56:32,616 --> 00:56:35,337 the AI industry, it's like, you look at the charts, and it's just like, there's a new research 909 00:56:35,337 --> 00:56:39,337 paper that comes out, like every, every week. And that's kind of what's going on in like, 910 00:56:40,056 --> 00:56:44,777 the roll ups in the ZKP space right now. And he's like, well, we kind of need to wait to see how 911 00:56:44,777 --> 00:56:48,056 things like settle down to see like, who is going to be the winner? Like, is it actually going to be 912 00:56:48,056 --> 00:56:53,577 Starks? Is that like the best primitive to put on onto Bitcoin? And I was like, I was like, 913 00:56:54,137 --> 00:56:57,897 kind of annoyed by that. But I was also like, checking my ego. I'm like, okay, I don't know 914 00:56:57,897 --> 00:57:01,496 what the heck I'm talking about, like when it comes to the truly technical stuff. And that seems 915 00:57:01,496 --> 00:57:05,176 like a legitimate critique is that we need we need to see which one of these is going to be when 916 00:57:05,176 --> 00:57:09,657 is going to win and be best. We need the pace of innovation to plateau a little bit. 917 00:57:13,977 --> 00:57:16,296 Yes. Yeah, that's interesting. 918 00:57:19,097 --> 00:57:26,617 So you've mentioned like two or three years, if I were if I heard you say right, like for 919 00:57:27,577 --> 00:57:31,577 well, what you had mentioned two or three years as the as the timeline for simplicity that I had 920 00:57:31,577 --> 00:57:36,056 talked about, maybe it's like longer than that. You know, in terms of what Adam Beck has said, 921 00:57:36,056 --> 00:57:43,337 in terms of this Stark roll up, upgrade possibility, like my general takeaway from 922 00:57:43,337 --> 00:57:46,776 everything you've said, and what I've read elsewhere is that there's like a growing 923 00:57:46,776 --> 00:57:52,377 interest in that among some people, like, for example, Shinobi, you know, vociferous 924 00:57:52,377 --> 00:58:00,776 critic of drive gene. He has tweeted in favor of like Starks or Snarks, you know, this kind of 925 00:58:01,337 --> 00:58:08,776 upgrade that, as you've said, offers kind of a trustless, not miner-centric, not incentives 926 00:58:08,776 --> 00:58:15,977 based, but instead cryptographically secured scaling model for more extensibility and perhaps 927 00:58:15,977 --> 00:58:21,896 like a two way peg. So I think that there are some people who would like Bitcoin to 928 00:58:21,896 --> 00:58:27,896 leapfrog, we could say. So instead of going through the sidechain phase, instead, 929 00:58:28,776 --> 00:58:34,217 having not done that for years, just skip ahead all the way to the roll up, we could say, you know, 930 00:58:34,217 --> 00:58:40,857 the high tech solution. But then the question, of course, becomes how soon can that be done? So how 931 00:58:40,857 --> 00:58:47,816 soon will the Bitcoin community be ready? In terms of, as you just described, having a sense 932 00:58:47,816 --> 00:58:54,776 of, you know, what is the change? How much confidence is there in its safety? And how 933 00:58:54,776 --> 00:59:00,776 likely is it that if we do a change, then in just a year from then, there'll be something better 934 00:59:00,776 --> 00:59:06,776 that we'll wish we had waited for. And then we could vet, we could have vetted and adopted that 935 00:59:07,497 --> 00:59:13,016 better change. So there's always that paradox of, you know, wait, or move forward. 936 00:59:14,617 --> 00:59:23,977 So how how close do you think we are to seeing a roll up or ZK related soft fork in your estimation? 937 00:59:27,097 --> 00:59:31,016 Yeah, I don't know. I mean, that one's gonna be beyond me. I mean, people have like proposed, 938 00:59:31,016 --> 00:59:34,457 I think Eric Wall put out like, you know, percentage timeframe, he was like, less than a 939 00:59:34,457 --> 00:59:40,377 year, like, you know, less than 1%. I think he was like, his target was kind of like, like, 940 00:59:41,176 --> 00:59:48,697 most likely, four to six years out, I think, roast beef for Lalu, for lighting labs, like, 941 00:59:48,697 --> 00:59:53,337 he's motivated to get, you know, a stark bear fire in there as well, because that has implications 942 00:59:53,337 --> 01:00:02,936 for, for like taro, and some of the stuff they're doing. And so he proposed like, like 2028. So I 943 01:00:02,936 --> 01:00:07,656 don't know, people are being super conservative with with their, their timeframes. 944 01:00:07,492 --> 01:00:33,172 I don't know. And that's kind of why I, I keep going back and forth in my head. I'm like, now that that blocks room is like, putting simplicity on testnet, like, like, are we just going to get to this point where it's going to take so long, where it's just like, well, simplicity is like, basically here, like, let's just wait, wait, wait for that. And I think it's going to kind of render a lot of our conversations, you know, moot points. 945 01:00:33,172 --> 01:01:02,172 But if the simplicity is, let's say, five years away, you know, if I recall correctly, that's what Atomback said, you know, in just recent weeks. So the five years is such a long time. Would you agree? Or do you not feel that way? Like some people would say Bitcoin doesn't really have any competition, and that everything else is a distraction, and that we should not be hurried at all. And that as Bitcoin has a larger community and larger value, 946 01:01:03,692 --> 01:01:25,812 more and more caution is warranted. I have the quote right here from Atomback, because I transcribed a lot of the conversation that he had with Brad Mills, and Jameson Lopp. Because often I'll like transcribe, you know, what's said on a podcast, and then, you know, tweet, you know, the most important sentence. 947 01:01:26,812 --> 01:01:50,812 So, his statement regarding the five years that I keep on referencing, because I just think it's like a very noticeable amount of time, right? Like, if he had said five months, okay, that's exciting. Simplicity is like here right now. But if he says five years, and he's a supporter of it, of course, like five years is a long time. Like, in five years from now, who knows what, like the Ethereum Bitcoin ratio might be? 948 01:01:50,812 --> 01:02:16,812 It would be great for Bitcoin to act sooner than five years. So, he said, here's his quote, I think drivechains or sidechain opcodes are likely possible to achieve faster than, and I would put in brackets, than simplicity, because he was, actually, let me just read the question Brad Mills asked. 949 01:02:17,812 --> 01:02:37,812 That way, I don't have to like, you know, provide like an annotated version of what Adam said. So, Brad asked, would it make sense to do both at once? Do BIP300 and 301 and add in simplicity? So, that could be the last soft fork that anybody can then create anything they want. 950 01:02:38,812 --> 01:02:50,812 That was Brad's question, basically asking, what about doing drivechain and simplicity together? And Adam writes, I think drivechain or sidechain opcodes are likely possible to achieve faster because they're smaller, simpler, narrower software. 951 01:02:51,812 --> 01:03:09,812 But as a plan C, I think simplicity could easily implement the opcodes for a drivechain. And paradoxically, I think it might be easier, not that simplicity is at a stage where anybody could sensibly propose it as software for Bitcoin. 952 01:03:09,812 --> 01:03:25,812 That's five years plus away, presumably, after people have experimented with it on Liquid for a while. But it might paradoxically be easier to get consensus to add a script upgrade, because then the question is to the community, do you want soft extensibility? 953 01:03:25,812 --> 01:03:39,812 So, you could ossify it. Whereas with a new feature that comes in, people start to critique and try to value it, like, do I care about it? Do other people care about it? Is it worth the risk? The features that enable so that it was a debate around lightning. 954 01:03:39,872 --> 01:03:41,192 it was a debate around lightning, 955 01:03:42,572 --> 01:03:44,212 it's like, well, is this worth it? 956 01:03:44,472 --> 01:03:45,572 guess lightning is useful. 957 01:03:46,092 --> 01:03:48,112 So it's sort of like they want to judge the feature. 958 01:03:48,652 --> 01:03:52,812 Whereas if the feature is general self extensibility, then they'll go, oh, 959 01:03:53,012 --> 01:03:53,992 extensibility is good. 960 01:03:54,312 --> 01:03:56,589 Okay, great. We'll go implement a Drivechain with 961 01:04:04,029 --> 01:04:09,729 So basically he's saying there's something psychologically difficult for people about 962 01:04:09,729 --> 01:04:13,089 drivechain that might in the case of simplicity 963 01:04:15,367 --> 01:04:16,767 So, I 964 01:04:16,767 --> 01:04:27,047 guess 965 01:04:27,047 --> 01:04:30,144 he's kind of just confirming 966 01:04:31,812 --> 01:05:01,812 simplicity is new, drivechain is not. So there's just like baggage. This is kind of what Eric Wall would say. There's like baggage with drivechain that is just holding it back, just mental baggage from like the disagreements that have been voiced by like Greg Maxwell, Peter Todd and others. People have just been like, they're like just worried. They're worried that drivechain is somehow giving too much power to miners and that it might actually increase the power that large miners have. 967 01:05:01,812 --> 01:05:13,812 And that's what Maxwell was writing about in 2017. He wrote in this lengthy post on the Bitcoin dev list. To Paul, he criticized drivechain in like five paragraphs in 2017. 968 01:05:13,812 --> 01:05:20,812 And Paul, you know, points people to this on his website, drivechain.info. He says, if you want to read the criticisms, here it is. 969 01:05:21,812 --> 01:05:46,812 And he lists, among others, like Maxwell's sort of essay on that email where Maxwell talks about it being like, he even writes that he seems to, Maxwell seems to say, in my opinion, his email seems to say, his public email seems to say that the sidechain white paper from Blockstream in 2014 was not a roadmap. 970 01:05:46,812 --> 01:06:07,812 It was, Maxwell likes to think of it now, it seems to me, as just a academic exercise, a thought experiment, a discussion of the possibilities for doing sidechains on Bitcoin and how sidechains could maybe potentially be something the Bitcoin community could develop further and embrace. 971 01:06:08,812 --> 01:06:33,812 So I think Maxwell would say that the drivechain people are too hung up on the sidechain idea and, you know, and are too aggressive in being comfortable with the miner centric role of the drivechain design and that Maxwell prefers a conservative approach to how miners are and doesn't want to increase the centralization or concentration of miners. 972 01:06:34,812 --> 01:06:39,812 So it seems that some people have just basically soured on sidechains and other people haven't. 973 01:06:40,812 --> 01:06:43,812 So some people are worried about, you know, killing the goose that lays the golden egg. 974 01:06:44,812 --> 01:06:53,812 They're worried about the L1 and other people like the drive chainers want to be ambitious and say, let's build out the sidechains, let's embrace this. 975 01:06:54,812 --> 01:07:07,812 And it actually is the best approach for Bitcoin, because, you know, Paul would probably say, and I would say, like, Bitcoin is stronger when it has all these big, large, powerful sidechains attached to it, because then that means the whole Bitcoin community is bigger. 976 01:07:08,812 --> 01:07:11,812 There's more innovation, there's more narrative, there's more fees, there's more value. 977 01:07:12,812 --> 01:07:13,812 The whole system is stronger. 978 01:07:14,812 --> 01:07:28,812 Whereas, like the Maxwell view, as best I understand it, is that it's risky, it could end up harming the layer one, and it could increase the miners and how the larger miners, how much power they have. 979 01:07:29,812 --> 01:07:41,812 So I think, like, the question to the point that we're like, we're kind of like tiptoeing around or like beating around the bush on is like, ultimately, like, what is the catalyst that forces people's hands on all this? 980 01:07:42,812 --> 01:07:51,812 Like, we can sit here and like, like, you know, do mental masturbation all about like, you know, drivechains and sidechains and what's best and what's not. 981 01:07:51,812 --> 01:07:58,812 But like, you know, what is ultimately going to be the impetus that that people say, hey, like, we have to make a decision on drivechains, like now. 982 01:07:59,812 --> 01:08:03,812 That's what I think is missing in all these conversations in all these spaces. 983 01:08:03,812 --> 01:08:07,812 Is it going to be the flippity where people are like, holy shit, like, we actually now need these things? 984 01:08:07,812 --> 01:08:10,812 Is it going to be when block fees get too high? 985 01:08:10,812 --> 01:08:13,812 Is it like, like, what is that catalyst? 986 01:08:13,812 --> 01:08:22,812 And or is it going to be like, Paul just, you know, kind of says, hey, I'm going to, you know, try to activate, you know, do a miner activated soft fork, like, like, what is it? 987 01:08:22,812 --> 01:08:23,812 That's what I don't know. 988 01:08:24,812 --> 01:08:40,812 I think that I've I've thought about that and I've I've come around to what I've just discovered in listening to Paul and all of his podcasts and some conversations on the drivechain talk Telegram group. 989 01:08:40,812 --> 01:08:49,812 I've come to feel I've come to have the view that the correct way of answering your question is as follows, that. 990 01:08:50,812 --> 01:09:01,812 That there are like there's a certain set of ways in which drivechain or something like it will come to Bitcoin, so I can't I can't answer your question about drivechain specifically. 991 01:09:02,812 --> 01:09:07,812 But we can say that the Paul view or that like the drivechain view is. 992 01:09:08,812 --> 01:09:11,812 That drivechain or something like it must come to Bitcoin. 993 01:09:13,812 --> 01:09:17,812 For the following reasons, probably one is, as you mentioned, flipping. 994 01:09:17,812 --> 01:09:28,812 So the risk of Bitcoin losing a bunch of powerful narratives like if Bitcoin is flipped by Ethereum, then Bitcoiners won't be able to credibly say anymore number go up. 995 01:09:29,812 --> 01:09:33,812 They won't be able to credibly say anymore money moves to one. 996 01:09:34,812 --> 01:09:42,812 It won't they won't be able to say anymore like, you know, it's there's Bitcoin and then there's crypto because these narratives. 997 01:09:43,812 --> 01:09:54,812 You know, about global monetization require the Bitcoin continue to have like the strongest, largest, most dominant set of narratives and economic value accrual trajectory. 998 01:09:54,812 --> 01:10:01,812 If something else is growing faster on average, then it's not helpful for Bitcoin's global monetization narrative. 999 01:10:01,812 --> 01:10:13,812 So, yeah, I agree with you that flipping is one of the like emotional and economic narratives that could compel a greater amount of attention on things like drivechain. 1000 01:10:13,812 --> 01:10:16,812 Again, not trying to change this specifically. 1001 01:10:16,812 --> 01:10:23,812 It could be the flipping gets closer and then people adopt roll ups so that I am not saying it's necessarily drivechain. 1002 01:10:23,812 --> 01:10:24,812 But I agree with you. 1003 01:10:24,812 --> 01:10:25,812 Flipping is one. 1004 01:10:25,812 --> 01:10:29,812 And cynically, I think a lot of people would just agree like that's the biggest one. 1005 01:10:29,812 --> 01:10:36,812 But there are others, David, and I think, you know, all of them probably better than I do, which is fees being too low. 1006 01:10:36,812 --> 01:10:51,812 If fees stay low forever, then there's a concern about the security budget, which is the quadrennial happening, reducing the income to the miners, which then lowers their economic security of the network. 1007 01:10:51,812 --> 01:10:55,812 So the hash rate security falls even if hash rate is rising. 1008 01:10:55,812 --> 01:11:03,812 If the cost to be a 51 percent miner is falling because of halvings, then that's the security budget problem. 1009 01:11:03,812 --> 01:11:15,812 And that was recently illuminated when Michael Saylor, unfortunately, sort of provided a confused and incorrect statement to Eric Wall on Twitter about the hash rate. 1010 01:11:15,812 --> 01:11:21,812 And, you know, Saylor basically was saying higher hash rate means higher security, which we all know is not correct. 1011 01:11:21,812 --> 01:11:23,812 It's all about economics. 1012 01:11:23,812 --> 01:11:28,812 A higher miner revenue is what matters, especially from fees. 1013 01:11:28,812 --> 01:11:34,812 So if fees stay low, then the security budget problem could be the reason why drivechain is adopted eventually. 1014 01:11:34,812 --> 01:11:37,812 That's always been my view personally, honestly. 1015 01:11:37,812 --> 01:11:40,812 Of course, I'm just a humble observer in the space. 1016 01:11:40,812 --> 01:11:46,812 I just help Paul with various tasks at the LayerTwo Labs company. 1017 01:11:46,812 --> 01:11:51,812 I can't say with certainty that there will be a security budget problem. 1018 01:11:51,812 --> 01:11:55,812 And also, of course, Paul's view is that there's no guarantee that there'll be a security budget problem. 1019 01:11:55,812 --> 01:11:58,812 There could, of course, be higher fees on Bitcoin forever. 1020 01:11:58,812 --> 01:12:12,812 Like if, for example, the taproot wizards and ordinals and whatnot, you know, if that leads to high fees permanently, if fees go to $50 and stay there for three years, then, of course, the whole security budget problem will have been disproven. 1021 01:12:12,812 --> 01:12:19,812 So there's no way we can say for certainty that low fees are going to happen forever. 1022 01:12:19,812 --> 01:12:22,812 But they've been around for 13 years almost without exception. 1023 01:12:22,812 --> 01:12:24,812 We've had low fees always on Bitcoin. 1024 01:12:24,812 --> 01:12:31,812 Even though hundreds of millions of people have been owning Bitcoin in some form, still, we have low fees. 1025 01:12:31,812 --> 01:12:37,812 So I believe that eventually will be a crisis unless drivechain is adopted. 1026 01:12:37,812 --> 01:12:38,812 That's my personal view. 1027 01:12:38,812 --> 01:12:41,812 I'm like a security budget alarmist. 1028 01:12:41,812 --> 01:12:48,812 And I think every time any Bitcoiner says that, they're speaking the truth rather than just blowing smoke, as some do. 1029 01:12:48,812 --> 01:12:58,812 And, you know, some people take the paradoxical view that especially some of the more vocal drivechain opponents will say, well, if the fees stay low forever, then Bitcoin simply fails. 1030 01:12:58,812 --> 01:13:08,812 But, of course, that doesn't make any sense because there's a third option, which is that we adopt drivechain and never have any low fees because of that. 1031 01:13:08,812 --> 01:13:15,812 So, yeah, security budget problem is another reason for that drivechain could be adopted, you know, in addition to the flipping. 1032 01:13:15,812 --> 01:13:23,812 Then, of course, interestingly, if the fees go too high for a long time, then that is another reason why drivechain may be adopted. 1033 01:13:23,812 --> 01:13:42,812 High fees on Bitcoin in perpetuity would lead to a discussion about scaling Bitcoin and the need to have peer-to-peer sidechains to scale Bitcoin because it's too expensive for ordinary people to open a lightning channel if the fees are high. 1034 01:13:42,812 --> 01:13:53,812 This is a view that has been that I've been educated on by Alex Kravitz, one of the frequent writers in the drivechain talk group. 1035 01:13:53,812 --> 01:14:05,812 His view, as I recall, is that we may see high fees on Bitcoin for forever because of ordinals and inscriptions and things like that or for other reasons, and that could lead to drivechain. 1036 01:14:06,812 --> 01:14:15,812 And then lastly, the best reason for drivechain of the four that we're discussing is in love of innovation. 1037 01:14:15,812 --> 01:14:22,812 So just to sum it all up, like, well, just love of innovation. 1038 01:14:22,812 --> 01:14:24,812 That's like Michael Tidwell's phrase from a tweet. 1039 01:14:24,812 --> 01:14:36,812 And I think Adam Back has the same view, which is that the reason to do drivechain is just to have better innovation, better technology on Bitcoin, not to be worried about altcoins, not to be worried about security budget, nothing economic. 1040 01:14:36,812 --> 01:14:38,812 It's just love of innovation. 1041 01:14:38,812 --> 01:14:46,812 So I think Tidwell, as well as Adam Back and others, just want to see cool projects like Thunder and Hivemind and Zside. 1042 01:14:46,812 --> 01:14:53,812 They want to see these cool, exciting projects available for Bitcoiners, by Bitcoiners on Bitcoin. 1043 01:14:54,812 --> 01:15:08,812 So in summary, the answer to your question is the four reasons, the four things that may lead to drivechain adoption are love of innovation, the fees being too high, the fees being too low and the flippening. 1044 01:15:08,812 --> 01:15:10,812 Those are like the four reasons. 1045 01:15:10,812 --> 01:15:17,812 And now, of course, you can't have all four at once because the fees being too high and too low are mutually exclusive. 1046 01:15:17,812 --> 01:15:18,812 But we could have three at once. 1047 01:15:18,812 --> 01:15:25,812 We could have people loving innovation, the fees being too low and the flippening getting closer. 1048 01:15:25,812 --> 01:15:33,812 Like, that's what I kind of expect is like security budget problem plus flippening would be quite like the crisis. 1049 01:15:33,812 --> 01:15:39,812 But Michael Tidwell's view is that the very best way to have Bitcoin adopt drivechain is the love of innovation. 1050 01:15:39,812 --> 01:15:57,812 In fact, his tweet is which my favorite tweet I've ever seen on drivechain of like the thousand I've read is his tweet where he says, I hope that if and when drivechain is ever adopted on Bitcoin, I hope that it's because of the love of innovation. 1051 01:15:57,812 --> 01:16:05,812 And he adds, it would it would be a sad thing if drivechain is adopted just to steal market share from altcoins. 1052 01:16:06,812 --> 01:16:18,812 So he really has the best possible view, which is the same as Adam Bax, which is and I think the same as Paul's, which is that the reason to do drivechain isn't because the altcoins are are gaining market share, that the Ethereum is growing. 1053 01:16:18,812 --> 01:16:20,812 Oh, my God, we have to do drivechain. 1054 01:16:20,812 --> 01:16:21,812 It's not that. 1055 01:16:21,812 --> 01:16:25,792 even if there never were any altcoins, there would still be a 1056 01:16:25,812 --> 01:16:31,772 very strong case to do drivechain, is to enable more technology on Bitcoin 1057 01:16:31,772 --> 01:16:37,632 to make people freer, to enable more peer to peer decentralized 1058 01:16:37,632 --> 01:16:42,352 technology like hive mind and like 1059 01:16:42,352 --> 01:16:47,772 Z side, which is the Z cash based side 1060 01:16:47,772 --> 01:16:51,572 chain on Bitcoin that gives Bitcoin is more privacy. 1061 01:16:53,112 --> 01:16:54,932 So I think it's all about love of innovation. 1062 01:16:54,932 --> 01:16:57,152 It's a very positive, optimistic thing. 1063 01:16:58,712 --> 01:17:01,792 Now, of course, if one is like an investor or a competitor... 1064 01:17:01,812 --> 01:17:07,452 person, one might love the idea of not having the Flippening occur. 1065 01:17:07,692 --> 01:17:10,312 One might want to do Drivechain because it avoids the Flippening. 1066 01:17:11,032 --> 01:17:14,732 Not that it necessarily does, but it probably helps avoid a Flippening. 1067 01:17:15,332 --> 01:17:17,372 It probably helps achieve Bitcoinization. 1068 01:17:19,252 --> 01:17:20,591 So I think that 1069 01:17:20,591 --> 01:17:24,491 a person can have multiple reasons for liking Drivechain, but you're exactly right, 1070 01:17:24,551 --> 01:17:29,491 David. The flip -in -ing is if it gets closer, that would definitely change the 1071 01:17:29,491 --> 01:17:35,431 conversation. imagine going to Bitcoin Miami with Ethereum at 90 % of the market cap 1072 01:17:35,431 --> 01:17:39,370 of Bitcoin versus going to Bitcoin Miami with Ethereum at 1073 01:17:39,470 --> 01:17:41,710 10%. Like it's a very different world. 1074 01:17:43,510 --> 01:17:48,710 And as Paul would say, the Overton window gets wider when the flipping gets closer. 1075 01:17:51,170 --> 01:17:55,730 Yeah, I mean, very well said, you know, I think it's a great speech on, you know, or 1076 01:17:55,730 --> 01:17:58,110 monologue, whatever we wanna call it, I'm not 1077 01:17:58,149 --> 01:17:59,049 to understand and agree with you. 1078 01:17:59,169 --> 01:18:01,089 it just, you know, again, in the back of my head, I'm just like, 1079 01:18:02,389 --> 01:18:03,029 but like. 1080 01:18:04,349 --> 01:18:07,969 Outside of this small circle of six people in this call, it's like. 1081 01:18:08,949 --> 01:18:10,689 Not really matters until there's this catalyst. 1082 01:18:10,949 --> 01:18:13,849 like it just sitting there waiting and being like, oh, we know the fees are going to be 1083 01:18:13,849 --> 01:18:16,009 an issue. We know like the flip anymore will eventually be an issue. 1084 01:18:16,309 --> 01:18:16,869 know scaling 1085 01:18:16,928 --> 01:18:20,008 will be an issue, but we just can't do anything. 1086 01:18:20,308 --> 01:18:22,068 It's like you're yelling into the wind. 1087 01:18:24,008 --> 01:18:29,268 I don't know, not to end this on a sour note, but that's just 1088 01:18:29,268 --> 01:18:32,488 where I feel Drivechain is and the state of Bitcoin is right now. 1089 01:18:40,567 --> 01:18:42,867 Well said. Yeah. 1090 01:18:44,487 --> 01:18:46,707 Anyways, this was super fun. 1091 01:18:47,007 --> 01:18:51,967 I'm probably going to drop off, I appreciate you kind of going back and forth with me. 1092 01:18:52,467 --> 01:18:54,486 you know, I'm sure I'll pop up on more these calls in 1093 01:18:54,546 --> 01:18:57,126 the future. Yeah, thank you for sharing your thoughts. 1094 01:18:57,406 --> 01:19:00,126 was fun to learn more about everything you said. 1095 01:19:00,466 --> 01:19:01,606 It was a lot of fun, David. 1096 01:19:01,826 --> 01:19:02,426 Thanks for being here. 1097 01:19:02,526 --> 01:19:04,186 Please come back anytime again. 1098 01:19:05,426 --> 01:19:06,226 For sure. right. 1099 01:19:06,466 --> 01:19:08,366 Well, I guess I'll see you guys in Miami if you're there. 1100 01:19:09,706 --> 01:19:10,426 Well, we'll be there. 1101 01:19:10,786 --> 01:19:13,265 The Drivechain people at LayerTwo Labs will be in a 1102 01:19:13,285 --> 01:19:19,125 booth and I think Paul is giving a speech probably, or maybe more than one, at the 1103 01:19:19,125 --> 01:19:24,905 conference. yeah, a number of people will be there who are interested in Drivechain. 1104 01:19:26,225 --> 01:19:26,945 It'll be great. 1105 01:19:27,905 --> 01:19:28,945 Maybe this will be the year. 1106 01:19:29,185 --> 01:19:30,145 This will be a big year. 1107 01:19:30,705 --> 01:19:31,725 In fact, I'm positive 1108 01:19:32,044 --> 01:19:35,344 that it'll be an exciting year for the Drivechain topic. 1109 01:19:35,844 --> 01:19:36,724 There's no doubt. 1110 01:19:37,364 --> 01:19:40,204 Awesome, man. We'll up the great work and I'll talk to guys soon. 1111 01:19:40,304 --> 01:19:40,424 See ya. 1112 01:19:42,284 --> 01:19:42,984 Talk to you soon. 1113 01:19:44,184 --> 01:19:49,864 Well, we have eight minutes left in our Drivechain chat here. 1114 01:19:50,584 --> 01:19:50,823 This 1115 01:19:50,923 --> 01:19:52,463 Drivechain is spaces. 1116 01:19:53,243 --> 01:19:57,903 Thanks to everyone who's listening in the audience and thanks to who's listening on 1117 01:19:57,903 --> 01:20:00,463 demand after it's live recorded. 1118 01:20:01,323 --> 01:20:03,963 Drivechain twitter spaces is hosted by LayerTwo Labs. 1119 01:20:05,123 --> 01:20:09,602 The CEO of LayerTwo Labs is Paul Sztorc, an independent Bitcoiner 1120 01:20:10,122 --> 01:20:16,002 who developed Drivechain over the last 8 years, with Drivechain BIP's co -author, 1121 01:20:16,622 --> 01:20:22,102 CryptAxe. Drivechain is Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 300 and 1122 01:20:23,302 --> 01:20:28,022 which introduces hashrate escrow and blind merge mining to strengthen 1123 01:20:28,381 --> 01:20:33,621 The facilities available to sidechains to make sidechains more peer -to -peer on 1124 01:20:33,621 --> 01:20:35,621 Bitcoin instead of federated. 1125 01:20:35,821 --> 01:20:41,441 would be peer -to -peer sidechains that have two -way pegs and 1126 01:20:42,381 --> 01:20:48,121 Can enable Bitcoin to have a multitude of blockchains attached to it Which is what 1127 01:20:48,121 --> 01:20:52,761 Satoshi envisioned Satoshi envisioned that every blockchain ever created would be 1128 01:20:52,761 --> 01:20:58,641 merged mind with Bitcoin increasing the total strength of the Bitcoin network That was 1129 01:20:58,641 --> 01:21:04,241 Satoshi's vision originally and that's what DriveGene is aimed to achieve. 1130 01:21:06,141 --> 01:21:07,841 only LayerOne in the world. 1131 01:21:07,921 --> 01:21:09,241 That's the drivechain view. 1132 01:21:09,941 --> 01:21:11,101 No competition for Bitcoin. 1133 01:21:11,281 --> 01:21:15,361 Bitcoin with 100 % LayerOne market cap dominance. 1134 01:21:15,841 --> 01:21:21,681 Total success and the acceleration of Bitcoinization, the 1135 01:21:21,681 --> 01:21:22,821 strengthening of Bitcoin, 1136 01:21:23,901 --> 01:21:28,921 making Bitcoin into a platform for a broad multitude of interesting, innovative 1137 01:21:28,921 --> 01:21:34,561 experimental technologies, all of them built on Bitcoin's sidechains, with the main 1138 01:21:34,561 --> 01:21:40,341 chain ossified and receiving a ton of fees from the sidechains. 1139 01:21:40,841 --> 01:21:41,821 That's the Drivechain 1140 01:21:41,940 --> 01:21:47,680 View is the only viable long -term path for Bitcoin in my personal 1141 01:21:47,680 --> 01:21:52,640 opinion. excited about really think this is an idea that 1142 01:21:52,640 --> 01:21:54,420 time has come. 1143 01:21:54,540 --> 01:21:55,340 It's long overdue. 1144 01:21:56,200 --> 01:22:00,719 Bitcoin is in a unclear 1145 01:22:00,899 --> 01:22:02,799 and risky long -term picture. 1146 01:22:04,679 --> 01:22:10,499 The Drivechain advocates tend to have a more reasonable and realistic 1147 01:22:10,499 --> 01:22:16,379 view, in my opinion, than like the maxis who think that everything is great, 1148 01:22:16,579 --> 01:22:19,379 there's nothing to worry about, and Bitcoin can stay as it 1149 01:22:19,498 --> 01:22:20,798 is and just go to the moon. 1150 01:22:22,018 --> 01:22:24,118 There's a need for scalability. 1151 01:22:24,358 --> 01:22:25,758 There's a need for greater privacy. 1152 01:22:26,038 --> 01:22:27,798 There's a need for greater extensibility. 1153 01:22:28,038 --> 01:22:32,838 There's a need for more innovation, more growth, more development, more market share, 1154 01:22:33,478 --> 01:22:36,598 faster growth. All of these things are what Drivechain aims to achieve. 1155 01:22:36,778 --> 01:22:38,277 We definitely need peer 1156 01:22:38,277 --> 01:22:40,657 peer -to -peer sidechains on Bitcoin. 1157 01:22:41,037 --> 01:22:44,337 The narrative and the technology is very important for Bitcoin's growth. 1158 01:22:45,317 --> 01:22:51,077 Hopefully, this is the year when this idea really takes off and Bitcoin can once again 1159 01:22:51,077 --> 01:22:56,417 regain that exciting identity it had back in like 2013, 1160 01:22:57,456 --> 01:23:02,176 2014. Whereas for the last eight years, we've been kind of adrift. 1161 01:23:02,676 --> 01:23:08,296 We've been adrift in this sea of narratives all about nation state adoption. 1162 01:23:08,756 --> 01:23:12,176 And the call for privacy has gone into the background. 1163 01:23:12,756 --> 01:23:15,596 And the call for peer to peer scaling has gone to the 1164 01:23:16,315 --> 01:23:21,735 More and more people are using custodial services and more and more blockchain users 1165 01:23:21,735 --> 01:23:23,775 are not even interacting with Bitcoin directly. 1166 01:23:24,435 --> 01:23:25,395 They're going to Ethereum. 1167 01:23:25,935 --> 01:23:29,295 So we need to reverse these trends and achieve 1168 01:23:29,295 --> 01:23:34,614 a stronger growth trajectory in terms of 1169 01:23:34,614 --> 01:23:37,874 of innovation, especially peer -to -peer innovation. 1170 01:23:39,114 --> 01:23:41,914 sidechains are something worth doing. 1171 01:23:42,374 --> 01:23:46,754 We should be more experimental and more technology -oriented, 1172 01:23:48,114 --> 01:23:53,094 less about the alternative, which is just 1173 01:23:53,393 --> 01:23:58,073 hodling digital gold and using custodial services. 1174 01:24:02,183 --> 01:24:04,313 I hope everyone enjoyed today's conversation. 1175 01:24:04,773 --> 01:24:07,253 We'll be back on Monday. 1176 01:24:09,123 --> 01:24:10,253 I look forward to it. 1177 01:24:10,453 --> 01:24:12,172 I hope all of you come again and 1178 01:24:12,272 --> 01:24:14,252 bring more questions and comments, 1179 01:24:15,652 --> 01:24:17,592 and it'll be great to chat with you then. 1180 01:24:17,812 --> 01:24:19,092 Have a really awesome day. 1181 01:24:22,612 --> 01:24:26,632 And, you know, if you have any questions, feel free to, like, raise your hands and come 1182 01:24:26,632 --> 01:24:28,552 on up next time and share them. 1183 01:24:28,872 --> 01:24:30,892 And I look forward to taking 1184 01:24:30,951 --> 01:24:31,271 them. 1185 01:24:32,591 --> 01:24:37,611 to our main speaker today, David, and the others who spoke as Ciao.