Cool. Great. Yes, happy to be here again. And I don't know, I don't have eight hours
today, but we've got a little bit of time, at least two hours. We'll see if we get any
questions. We're working on a cool page, like a short page to refute all of the FUD.
So that's cool. And we have a new version of the software coming out, probably like
tomorrow morning. So I'm excited about that. And that'll be pretty neat. I don't know.
I'm not sure what questions we'll still get, because we've had lots and lots of repeating
questions. But I suppose this week, one interesting thing happened was that Shinobi went back
and forth with different articles, and I kept replying to them. So if you go to my Twitter
and you look at the highlights, you will see all my best tweets about Drivechain and replying
to various critiques and things. And I'm going to be, just as a side note, I'm going to be in
October, I'm going to be in Zurich, and then I'm going to be in Berlin. I think it'll be Zurich,
and then Frankfurt, and then Berlin, and then Bitcoin Amsterdam. So if you're at any of those
events, that is where I'm going to be. That is coming up. So stop by if you're interested. And
of course, if anyone wants to say anything, just hit the speaker button. I'm going to plug in my headphones.
These have been great, but part of me does think like, I'm not sure if we are hitting diminishing
returns to them, because we have so many and all the recordings are up. And it's kind of like, what
more can be said? But there's still a lot of very confused people out there. I think the biggest
confusion is that this is some kind of big change to Bitcoin, which it's sort of, it is a big change to
Bitcoin as an idea, but the software, it's just counting the 13,000, which it already does. It
already counts the 13,000 blocks, for example. But this is just doing it via an opcode that releases
the releases funds. So it's actually probably the smallest, quote, change unquote, in Bitcoin
soft fork history. Maybe not, maybe the requirement to include the coinbase height, the height of block
height in a coinbase. That's pretty small. But other than that, it's pretty small. My headphones are
all tangled here. So yes, very quiet so far.
Hey, what's up, Paul? I'm kind of quiet now. So I just wanted to take a moment to ask you some
questions. Do you think it's possible for Bitcoin to continue to be successful and continue to be a
leading market cap, even without sidechains and drivechains? Do you think that that is possible?
I certainly think it's possible. I think it's a foolish thing, you know, because to me, it's a zero
risk. The sidechain experiment is zero risk. So I think I, you know, I hope that it's the case that it's
just like that we can just, you know, like, so people tell a story that's just we're going to millions of
dollars per coin, and there's, all we have to do is wait. And, you know, if they're, you know, I hope those
people are right, that would be pretty convenient. I think it's foolish to bet everything on that,
especially when the people saying that appear to have no idea like how Bitcoin works, or what what's
going on under the hood. They confuse terms, they have no idea like the state of the art of various
technologies, such as the lightning network that we rely on. So it's clear that the more people the
people who are really, really knowledgeable, are more sober. And people who know only a little are
like the, the crazy promoters. So I think it's certainly possible because Bitcoin is a great idea.
There's no good competitor to Bitcoin right now. Even Ethereum, which is more popular in terms of
fees is not really like, reliable, seen as reliable today, although that could change because it's had
a shrinking net, a net shrinking supply ever since they switched to proof of stake. I think proof of
stake is a big mistake. Proof of mistake, but and it's but I think it won't I don't it's proof of stake
is similar enough to proof of work that I think it's unlikely to be enough if lots of other things go
their way. So so there's currently no good competitor, etc. So I think it's possible that Bitcoin will
just continue to do very well. People will want, you know, the existing fiat currencies do such a bad
job, that people will switch to Bitcoin and Bitcoin has great momentum. Bitcoin has a long history. So I
think it's possible to answer your question.
Yeah, thanks. I share your view that it's possible, maybe even likely. And I share your view that it's
concerning that, like, a lot of people do not really understand lightning, and they don't realize how a lot
of it can eventually become all custodial. And also how there's really not much downside to trying this idea.
Yeah, I guess that was my question. I'm wondering if there's anything else I can think of. There's other
people that want to come up and talk. That's fine, too.
Okay, I have another one. Okay, good. These are these, basically, these ordinals and inscriptions creates like a
base load of fee market. The way I see it is, now that it's a lot easier for people to put data on chain, very
accessible for an average user. Somebody will always want to put data for, let's say, one sat or two sats per
V byte. Until unless, you know, Bitcoin can like really, really rise to too expensive, then maybe, you know,
maybe then that would disincentivize them. But as Bitcoin prices aren't that expensive, one sat per V byte is
kind of like a really good price to put data on chain. Do you think that's the fee market, at least a
little bit?
Absolutely. This is a very old idea that the demand for like high fidelity, highly replicated, highly
available storage, that there's always this demand for that. And that is a backstop for like using the block
space. It's a very old idea. Greg Maxwell has a famous quote, along those lines, that the demand is infinite at
the zero sat rate, which of course can literally be true, but generally true. So and in particular, the funny
thing about ordinals is that this it's just seems like this, you think this idea is really, really silly, but it
just it's never going away. It's always it always comes back, you know, ICOs, NFT, ERC, BRC, ordinal
inscription, colored coins, MasterCoin, Omni, Tether, whatever, like all this stuff is it constantly comes
back. So it's just something that people like. And it's better to do it on a specialized chain. And it's also
interesting that I in the BitAssets blog post that I wrote many years ago, I don't know how many years, but it's a
lot, maybe it's 2018, maybe it's earlier, I don't even remember. But I wrote that it might be good to just number
the assets so that they have a chronological order. And so they have the older ones have a little bit more rarity
and distinctiveness. And that is interesting, because that is the big drama of this week is the numbering of the
BitAssets. So that's kind of a, I was onto something there.
Yeah, it's a bit of a drama. Um, do you think that the OP_RETURN limit should be raised? Like, should be no limit?
Yes. And in fact, the thing is, it's only what they call a standardness limit. So it's nothing will, it's all if
someone mines a block that has an OP_RETURN that is fills everything up, takes up the whole one megabyte block.
So the current limit is just like a mempool policy standardness rule.
Yeah, what will happen is if you if someone finds the block, then your node will accept it. But if you try to
broadcast it, you're it will kind of be a little ostracized. You know what I mean? Like no one will, no one will pass
the transaction.
It won't propagate through the network. But if you have a block with this, then it's current validity, like it's valid,
valid block.
It's kind of amusing that my view is very parallel to Peter Todd's view on RBF, where I say something like, someone
could write software that converts a one megabyte file or a file of any size into a series of transactions and back
like a one to one mapping from like, what would it look like, you know, like, which is basically more or less what
stamps is, as far as I understand it, where it's like, just converts into just dumping outputs everywhere into the
into a transaction. Yeah. And so you could do that. And since you can always do that, to me, I just think, well, what's
the point of, you know, the someone is someone who's willing to pay for the block space? Why not just let them use it
directly? Why add overhead bytes. And I also think it's a good idea. I think there's plenty of applications that are
actually much cooler than merely ordinals and inscriptions. And I like this, this idea of CoinNews that I like, which is
like, you can put news there, and then everyone will see it. You have like a little code, people subscribes, like little
lists or something is all sorted by fee. And so you just see like the highest fee thing each week or each day or
whatever, however you set it up. And so I think that the block space is a cool medium, and it's going to be used for all
kinds of things in the future. But the fundamental point is that why would you insist that use of the blockchain take a
certain form? You know, like, like, that's what I'm trying to say is anything like a JPEG can be turned into a bunch of
transactions. And back, you just have a conversion.
I agree. I think also that even like, um, you know, Bitcoin to Bitcoin transfers, they're really just data, and you're just
paying for this data to be on chain. Like, if you zoom out a little bit, so it's kind of arbitrary what data you want to be on
chain, as long as you pay for it, it could be a Bitcoin transaction, or it could be a different type of data, as long as
you're paying for that data. I think that, you know, it's fine.
Yeah. And if we ask miners to do something other than maximize their revenue, then I think we are on a dark road. And it
will lead like to complete chaos and nonsense. So I just think that but whereas if we instead just say,
to take the other side of the argument, I think that they want to disincentivize other type of Bitcoin use to make it like at
least cheaper for the, you know, the use that they want for the like, for the time being, eventually, obviously, it will
become more expensive. But maybe for the time being, they want it to be cheaper. So they kind of want to disincentivize the
other use cases.
Yeah, I certainly understand that. Like if I made I put all this work into making like a prediction market sidechain, and
then like people are just, they're just putting like, silly images in that blockchain all day, I would be like, wait a
minute, I don't want this, this isn't what I wanted. But I think the thing to do about that is make your your use case very
good so that there is fee demand. And then make it so that those people who want to do that type of thing have a blockchain
that fully supports that, which is like, you know, this is just good organization, you just say, well, go to the BitAsset
sidechain, you can make all these silly, silly assets with images and stuff.
Well, like people might do it on the on the other, you know, chain that's that's made for it. But I think that there's still a
novelty doing it on the base layer. Maybe it's more like a luxury or more Beblam good. You know, if it's more expensive, it's
harder to do it on the base chain, like there will always be some sort of demand to do it on the base chain, and then it will be
more easily accessible for like the majority to do it on this other layer that's cheaper. But I don't think I agree from the
desire of the base chain.
Well, yeah, I've always kind of waited for it to go away. And that's what I was trying to say at the beginning about how
people just keep coming up with this idea over and over and over again. And we live in a world with many assets, you know, you
have the S&P 500, you have stock in Facebook or whatever, or Meta, I guess, people always changing their names. But so people
like it, I guess they like MasterCoin, they like colored coins, like they like this idea. So it is not going away. People like
it, right? Like even in 2013, 2014, but I think even before Hal Finney with the crypto trading cards.
Yeah, true, true. But I think the NFT thing is a little bit more like normie friendly, because like trying to teach people about
Bitcoin in early years, nobody really cared like in real life circles. Maybe some people might have cared, but it was very rare for
people to understand like hard money, and like the properties or the use case of like Silk Road or anything like that. But it was
just it was very like foreign. But then like, you know, ICOs come around and maybe more people are interested because now they
understand that speculation that's investing, you know, and whatever it is, they're speculating on something that can
potentially go up. But then when NFTs came around, it seemed like that was a bigger, broader use case, people were able to
understand, oh, it's a picture. Okay, I'm buying this picture. And they were able to resonate with this profile picture. And I've
seen way more people onboarded, maybe it's just because every cycle, there's more people. But I've just seen way more normies
onboarded from from NFTs than than, you know, than any of the previous cycles. So I think that there's something to that.
It is weird. I know, it's funny, like a product market fit, like phrase, it's kind of like, this is what people like, I guess, for
now, you know, well, you know, it's weird, because we have in, in Bitcoin, we have deemphasized the whole payments,
remittances, like things we used to emphasize. We have deemphasized all that, which is kind of funny, because there's a little
bit of an unexpected, ironic twist, which is that they're pushing so hard to purge many use cases, it's only left the most, the
most the one that could, like, like flout the rules is I guess what I'm trying to say. But whatever we now we have a Miguel and
Flavor who have come up, so we should maybe let them speak.
For sure.
Hello, yes, I could hear you a little. Okay, great.
So I've been sending your bit like for two years, and I found out there's nothing doing like a trustless peg, trustless peg out like
this. So I thought it was an interesting idea. And so we tested, it was good. Everything was working. And then a couple of years
later, Fiatjaf was pushing this in Brazil, like, they made a video with Bitcoineros here in Brazil. And again, this idea came up
again in my mind. And I decided to talk with a few Bitcoineros in Brazil, Bitcoiners in Brazil. And the main thing that I've, the main
critique that I got was, oh, you're pushing shitcoin to Bitcoin. But they don't understand that.
Right, it's not true. It's 0% true, right? There's already all that stuff that we mentioned, tarot, RGB, ordinals, inscriptions, all
that stuff already allows shitcoins on any blockchain. So this does nothing at all to bring shitcoins to Bitcoin. I don't know.
So that is the main thing. Even if you explain to them, like, man, we don't want to change Bitcoin. We want to ossify, right? So BIP300
could be the possibility to do that. Because if you want to have like your own agenda to push to lightning, to stable lightning or
something like that, I want to CTV, I want APO or any other soft forks. Okay, that's okay. You can get that. Do a copycat of
Bitcoin, do it in a drivechain, test that, put ARK on that, put Enigma, anything on that. And then if you have enough
peggings, enough people using that, and you can showcase to everybody, and it's retro compatibility, have retro
compatibility with the main chain code, we can push that later in 30 years of trying that. And with the free market showing
to us like a signal to everybody, with peggings and pegouts working.
That's a good signal, you know?
So then we could have like a good argument
against the progressive that want to have like
their own agenda to push code to the core.
We can have like, okay, so do it in a drivechain first.
If you have enough peggings and enough users,
and everything is okay, no wardrobes,
no other things that people are complaining right now,
we can push back to the code, to the reference code.
So that is the main reason that people are not getting.
And the other reason is like, I live in Brazil,
I live in a poor country, and it's impossible.
Like if you have like a third degree math,
it's impossible to have everybody using UTXOs.
So come on guys, it's impossible.
If you want to onboard Brazil,
it's impossible to have like important UTXOs.
So we need to have a way to split Satoshis into small pieces.
So it's divisibility that we want to, not inflation.
If you want to push like drivechain to a shitcoin,
oh, do it on Litecoin.
That was the main critique that I had.
Do it on Litecoin.
Why?
Why should it pump a scammer coin?
Why?
Because Litecoin is competing with the base layer.
Not the usability that Litecoins provide us,
but the Litecoin itself, the token, the fucking token.
I don't know why people are don't get in this.
Really, if you want to like every human on earth on Bitcoin,
we need to have like a way to divide a UTXO.
And for me, like I've been studying this bit for two years
and there's nothing else that we can do
like this in a trustless way, you know?
So thank God, man.
And anyways, it was just a rant
because I don't have to complain about anything.
If I have to, I am not a protocol designer.
The things that I maybe don't like is
maybe we can use like a Merkle tree or something
to don't push like the message with the weight.
I don't know.
I don't have any complaints, you know?
I don't know what to critique about the way that you did
because I've kind of agreed with everything.
So anyways, just a rant.
Sorry, man.
Well, I mean, that's how I feel as well.
I think that, you know, if you go to layer2labs.com
slash friends and you'd see that there's a lot
of very top people who also feel sort of, you know,
they're thinking along those lines,
like this is a good idea.
We should try this.
We need, somehow we need to get a billion UTXOs.
We don't want custodial.
That's, you know, that's admitting defeat.
So yeah, I agree with all that.
I think the reason it's unpopular
among a small number of loud people
is actually because it actually competes
with them in some way.
So some of them are like people who work on competing.
If you work on, if you really work hard on lightning
or RGB or even liquid or whatever, then it might.
So it might make you not look so great,
especially if you, a lot of people sell the infallibility,
like the whole sailor safety and kind of pipeline
of like just selling everyone on big, big wishful thinking
that everything's going to be perfect and,
which would be great if it was, that would be great.
You know what I mean?
And I wouldn't be complaining if that was the case.
But again, like they don't seem to really know.
They don't really know like the details.
So they say that, but then if we say, okay,
if we work really hard, we can improve this.
We can copy Zcash.
We can copy EVM.
We can copy Bitcoin Cash.
They just think, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
I've been telling everyone that Ethereum sucks.
I've been telling everyone Bitcoin Cash sucks.
I've been telling everyone that all these things suck.
So they've kind of just weirdly contradicts them,
which is bizarre because it means that those people
are really hurting Bitcoin for no reason
because the best way, you know,
to defeat those things would be,
it's like you have a cell phone and it has a camera in it.
You know, if you really want to,
you want to say phones are better than digital cameras.
Sorry, man, this is a wrong pitch, man,
because the right pitch is you don't need to throw away
all the infrastructure that we are building right now.
We can test it in a drivechain.
You don't have to throw anything away
because imagine if we have like 256 drivechains.
I think you're right.
I think they kind of feel like it is though.
I'm just trying to answer your question.
No, no, no, yeah, but you're right.
You're right.
You're completely right.
You're correct.
But you're getting the wrong marketing.
You know, you're looking to the wrong,
you have to convince them, not critique them.
That's the point.
That's the whole point.
You have to onboard everybody.
And if you like, for example, Bitcoin Core developers,
it's a huge responsibility for you guys
to push any soft fork.
I know that.
That's why B300 is going to prevent you
and okay, do it in a drivechain first,
and then we'll see that.
So it's going to relieve them
from the scene of doing anything wrong, you know?
So that's the pitch for them.
Yeah, I know.
Yeah, I think you're right.
That's good, I like that.
The pitch for the entrepreneurs is, come on,
you're going to have like 256 drivechains.
You're going to build a lot of bridges between them.
You're going to form the yield of six months
of having a UTXO locked in a space.
So come on, this,
you're, I think you're,
maybe you're just tired of having like that,
so much conversation and a lot of people pointing you,
like, oh, you're a shit coin, you're a big blocker,
or something like that,
because you're now doing to me,
that's really strange,
because if you see my records,
it's really weird, you know?
So people are complaining the usability of new tokens
to shit coinery, you know?
So they are not getting the divisibility part
and the inflation problem, you know?
That's the main thing here.
And when you pitch to a search user, you know,
it's hard to complain about them, you know?
So anyways, that's, maybe that's my own critique,
like the marketing team thing, you know?
Yeah, it's difficult, because I think-
Oh, another rant, man, sorry.
It's, well, it's kind of like,
I don't know, I think a lot of people are in bad faith,
so it's kind of like, no matter what we would say,
they would twist it, I kind of think,
is my suspicion.
So, but, you know, if we go like really carefully,
and we go through like all the risks,
and people say, oh, it sounds risky.
And then if I say, well, there really aren't any risks,
because it's just some opcode counting 13,000,
that we could just shut off,
we could have it go back to what it was doing before,
at any time, and so there's no risk,
and then people are like, oh, there's no risk.
Oh, it sounds like you're just making things up.
I think that a lot of people have trouble understanding
what is the benefit of this.
And I think that what Miguel said was really valuable,
where if you, obviously, to every different audience,
there's a different benefit, right?
If you talk to somebody that is interested
in experimenting on EVM,
you can show them that side of it.
Somebody like a Bitcoin Core developer,
you can, like Miguel said, you can show them the side of,
well, you guys can test on a drivechain.
To every audience, you got to find a benefit for it,
aside from the FUD that they give,
and showing how that's incorrect,
they're still not seeing a benefit,
but if they can see a benefit to it,
and obviously, every audience
will have their own benefit to it,
then maybe, if they see, all right,
there can be something positive from it,
now let's see if there's negatives.
I just found that really valuable, what Miguel said.
Yeah, well, I think you guys are right,
but I mean, at the same time, people ask,
and I say, well, Zcash privacy and immediate global scale,
people don't, people just don't pick it up for some reason,
but I think one thing that will help is,
we will, we're making the software easier and easier to use,
and I think at that point,
it will click for a lot of people.
I'm wondering if there's going to be
like a prolonged high fee environment,
I don't know, maybe like 100 cents per V-byte,
or even higher.
Yeah, some people think that, yeah.
They think that, they call that fee-pocalypse,
the idea here.
I think that might actually get people more open-minded.
What do you think?
Because I heard from, I don't know,
like, I want to ask you about this,
because I heard possibly-
Then we'll go to Flavor though,
but ask me about it.
Do you think it's possible that the fees
will be high for a long period of time?
I kind of don't.
I personally just don't see it.
I mean, maybe, I mean, define high,
like more than like $10 per 200 bytes or something?
Hundreds of dollars per transaction.
I mean, I just don't see that,
because I feel like a normal person
would be so annoyed by that,
and they would just say,
I'm not using this, so I'm not using it as frequently.
They just cut, they batch 10,
instead of transacting five times a week,
they just say, I'll get you at the end of the month.
Then they reduced it by a factor of 20.
If demand continues to rise,
there will be always like people
that will batch for $100 per transaction,
and there will always be demand for that.
And eventually there will be demand
for $200 per transaction.
Eventually there'll be demand for,
it's the idea of the Bitcoin banks,
of like just, it's gonna be used as a settlement layer
of like very economically dense transactions.
Well, I think that could only happen
if there was lots and lots of transacting happening
in some kind of second layer, custodial included.
So I don't know if,
I mean, because already it's quite a bit.
It's already like 2000 or so,
2500 maybe, for 10 minutes.
And there's 1000 blocks a week.
So it's open Sunday and Saturday,
unlike many banks.
So that is 2.5 million a week.
And that's a lot.
I just, that's terrible.
Because if you're comparing it to,
like a data availability layer,
that's just immutable data,
that's gonna be there forever.
And I think that the cost of that
is actually way higher than the current market realizes.
It's just, I think that not enough people really realize,
you know, like just the data availability of Bitcoin.
Once people start to realize that,
and like maybe other applications,
maybe other use cases, whatever it is,
and maybe just simple economic transactions,
maybe that too.
But I think as there's more demand for Bitcoin,
like just the fees are gonna continue to go up.
I could be wrong about that.
Obviously average users would not be paying for it.
But I think that there will always be demand
higher and higher eventually.
I don't know.
Yeah, but doesn't the, when the fees go up though,
doesn't that, I mean, there's a supply curve
and a demand curve.
So it's like, doesn't, when the fees go up,
more people start to look for alternatives, I think,
is my guess.
Eventually there'd be a demand.
It is because the fee is $100 per transaction
that people would be like,
I need to find a way to not use it.
This is a good argument because if the fees go up,
obviously people will just use other chains, right?
Like the average user,
they don't care that much to use the base layer.
Not enough, yeah.
Right, but then they don't care enough
to pay $100 per transaction on the base layer.
They could just use another chain.
Yeah.
If you lower your time preference,
you can earn a lot of satoshis
if you don't make the transaction when the fees are high.
That's the whole point.
Yeah, that's what I mean by the base load, right?
Like there's always gonna be people,
like as you can see from-
There's gonna be a demand to hold.
That's the point.
That's the whole point.
When the fees are high,
there's gonna be a demand to hold
because you're gonna earn-
Yeah, I just think that like eventually
people will value transacting on the base layer
and it will be more expensive.
They'll be okay with paying for it.
Not the average people, not the average people,
but like institutions and settlement layers
are going to value making their,
like if a nation state trades with another nation state,
they're gonna wanna do it on the base layer
and they might not wanna do it on any other chain
because that's just not good enough for them.
They want military grade technology,
like military grade security.
They want the best security as possible
and they'll be willing to pay for that.
I don't know.
That's kind of how I see it,
but I don't think it's anytime soon,
but it might be that that will happen.
I mean, in what other context do people pay?
Like what if someone said
every time you're going to refuel your car,
it's gonna switch from being like a certain amount
and it's gonna be like 10 or a hundred times more.
People would just be like,
well, I'm kind of annoyed at this.
And they'll think maybe I'll Uber,
maybe I'll take the bus,
maybe I'll move to someplace.
Yeah.
I'll move to Manhattan.
The way I see it is the demand is gonna be from,
you know, custodial services,
other layers of custodial services,
banks within each other,
you know, nation states within each other,
things like that.
But then they're paying like a hundred dollars
per transaction for 2.5 million transactions a week.
So they're paying like a hundred million dollars a week.
So won't they just vertically integrate yet again
and become custodial within their group?
You know, they'll just say,
well, we can save.
Why are we giving this money?
Why are we giving all this money to miners?
200 million dollars a week.
I think that kind of,
but anyway, that's what you asked the question.
I think it's possible, but yeah,
I think it's a very much an uphill battle.
And of course we see historically when the fees go up,
people tend to complain
and then they tend to fall right back down.
And so they don't really,
they don't really stay above like a dollar
per transaction ever,
but I mean, except in periods
where we're having this huge price bubble
and everyone's getting rich anyway.
And so it doesn't really make any difference,
but that's my thought.
I mean, you ask, so it's a course,
it's a tricky empirical question.
I give you my answer.
I say probably not, but it's possible.
A lot of people think that with that Alex K
and Moon Settler, they believe in the fee apocalypse also.
So maybe you can hang out with them.
Okay, we should go to Flavor though,
because he's been up here this whole time.
Flavor.
Hey, Paul, thanks.
My question is a little different
than what you've been talking about.
I wanna know if somebody asked you for advice,
like maybe a college kid had an idea for a bit
and they wanted advice about how to promote their bit,
what advice would you give somebody?
I would say it's actually at present,
I think it's hopeless.
I think you would want to get BIP300
and then just do the idea on the sidechain.
In fact, I would definitely say
if someone's a young college kid
and they have an idea that's significantly new,
I think that honestly they should just launch an altcoin
and they should give themselves a nice cut
and they should try to make some money off of it that way.
Because I think that the Bitcoin community
is in a state right now where it will just reject
all new ideas.
And so it won't want,
even if your idea is really, really great,
they won't want it anyway.
And if the idea is mediocre,
then it's sort of like a moot point.
And so I think that's it.
You know, throw your reputation on the floor,
like don't do that.
Just build on a sidechain, please.
Yeah.
Well, that's what I would do if they,
I mean, I think they should hope that BIP300 activates
and then they can build their thing
as a cool Bitcoin project.
I mean, that's what I would hope,
but I don't, someone today who has a BIP,
like I think it's not possible
because we already did all the things
that you're supposed to do,
like the mailing list conversation,
present at conferences,
get feedback,
like the miner centralization thing.
I invented blind merge mining because of that,
but it didn't matter one bit.
And similarly, the miners can steal.
I moved it from two weeks to three months,
but it didn't matter.
So I think it's not a good idea.
And in fact, you know, someone like Udi with,
or Casey with Ordinals,
where they just made,
they wrote it in a way,
they wrote it in a different way and just launched it.
That is, that obviously worked better.
So I would just launch something at this point.
I think it was, it would have been more interesting
if I had launched the prediction markets thing
as an altcoin.
It would be like in the Monero category
of like altcoins that are in a diminished state,
but have it like carved out a little niche.
And I think that the more important thing
is to be creative and to be able to actually get feedback
from real users of your idea.
So if you have an idea and you want to try it out,
then I would focus on doing that.
I would not focus on trying to persuade people in Bitcoin
that the idea is good,
because I think that is a misuse of valuable time.
I'm only doing it because I think this idea is so good
and Bitcoin, I already have, you know,
a lot of history with Bitcoin.
I own Bitcoin.
And so I'm a Bitcoiner.
It's too late for me to escape,
but I would not even recommend that someone else do that.
Well, I'm defending this idea
because I think it's the right thing
to ossify Bitcoin development
and also give scale to Bitcoin to-
Yeah, me too.
That's the whole point.
I'm not trying to scam anyone.
I'm trying to build the thing that I love Bitcoin,
but really, I don't want it to be my pet project.
I want it to be for everyone.
So that's the whole point.
Right, yes, exactly, yes.
I agree.
It's a good pitch, man.
Man, come on.
Well, you say it's bad for me.
The person asked like kind of a straightforward question
now.
So I think that they, I mean, I think you're right though,
but well, what is that person supposed to actually do though
between now and the activation of BIP300?
What is that college student supposed to do?
We are in the phase of a consensus,
of a break of a consensus thing.
So the point here is like to convince people.
Like that's the whole idea, right?
We have to convince people.
Like I think the miners should be the first one to convince.
I agree.
I think many of the miners,
well, many of the miners are very convinced,
but they feel awkward about the whole political reality.
But they don't have to feel awkward about it.
Yeah, I agree.
They have to be excited about it.
Come on.
We're going to board everyone.
That's the whole thing without changing the base layer.
Not without changing the base layer because,
oh, if there's a security problem,
you're not going to change it.
No, no, we're going to change Bitcoin.
Of course, it's a software.
We need updates.
That's okay.
But we're going to ossify the new consensus break
or the things that people are not complaining about
and are agreeing, you know?
So we're going to move that to another layer of discussion,
of a free market of idea, you know?
So there's no complaint.
There's nothing to shame to be pro drivechains.
That's the whole point.
Because it's the correct thing.
That's, at least for me, you know?
I saw a journalist in Brazil talking about your past, because you were a guy that, I don't know, he cherry-picked a few things on your LinkedIn and made a case that you're a big blocker.
I know, but that's the funny thing, is that I'm not at all. It's very funny.
I'm sorry to interrupt. Thanks, Miguel. And thanks, Flavor, for your question. I don't know if you want to follow up with that. And then after, I don't know if it's possible.
But if Chris Black would like to come up, because I know he's known in the space, maybe he can ask him some questions or share some thoughts, too. But Flavor, did you want to follow up?
He seems to have fallen down into the listener box, from what I can see. I don't know if that's on purpose or not, but maybe he'll come back up. I don't know.
But yeah, Miguel, I agree with you. But it's like, what exactly, specifically, do you think we should do differently? Because it's like, all that stuff is already out there. That information is already out there.
I think there's, and I also think that it is working slowly. So, I mean, you could just draw a line like, where was it two years ago? Where was it last year? Where is it now?
So, in a way, it's a very good thing that all they have to say is bringing shitcoins to Bitcoin, which is completely 100% untrue. And that I'm a large blocker, which is completely untrue.
So, you can even go at scaling three, the recording of October 2016, where I advocate shrinking the L1 block size, which I still do on my blog. So, those two things are like, flatly untrue, just completely.
And that's, they're scraping the bottom of the barrel, if they say, listen, when his career was, like, long before Michael Saylor had ever heard of Bitcoin, he was working at some, Paul was working for someone or someone was sponsoring technical work or something. It doesn't make any difference.
You know, what's also funny is that Blockstream has tried to hire me for many years. And I always say, if I refuse to work there, and in fact, this is publicly known, because I tweeted about it. I tweeted screenshots where I say, if I work for Blockstream, everyone will just think that my ideas are good, even if they suck.
Because this happens all the time with Blockstream, where they come out with some idea, and in any other context, it would suck. But because it came from Blockstream, everyone just thinks, wow, this idea is so great. And I'm just like, that's too lame for me. The satellite…
Do you ever wonder if your BIP300 would have, like, if it would have done better if you actually worked for Blockstream?
No, I think it definitely would have. But maybe the idea itself would have been worse. It's hard to say. But yeah, I think now if I could redo it, I would say, people are so dumb that they need that. They need that thing, because they don't think for themselves. So I would have taken it and gone in, and gone into Blockstream. And then I would have just hoped that I would still be able to make the idea good.
And so I think that if I could do it over, I would do that. Yeah, and I would have worked for different people, probably. Although I also think, like, being unplugged from the cult is enormously valuable. Like, if you're plugged into the cult, then you're dead. So you'll never have a good idea. It's impossible.
Because you have too much… Christopher Hitchens used to say he wouldn't go out to have dinner with someone because he knew he had to write about them later, or something. So he was a journalist, so he would, like… You know, you don't want to, like, become friends with them. Then it will corrupt the… So I don't know. Maybe it would have been a terrible… Maybe it would have been much worse. BIP300 and BIP301 would have been inferior quality if I had. I think that's very likely.
But I think I would still redo it, because I had no idea that people would be so, you know, so clueless. And I think also, I was kind of very slow and careful in developing it, which is also a mistake, because it has spread the… We have, like, the altcoins have gotten better, and there's more sour grapes now. And the cult problem has gotten worse every year. So those two problems have gotten worse and worse, and now it's not good.
This is almost the last lifeboat leaving the Titanic.
I think it might have been more fruitful if it came, like… You know, it still could have came from you, and you still could have made it all. But, like, if it was from the backing with blockchain, or the connection with blockchain, I definitely think it potentially could have been way more fruitful.
Right, I agree.
Anyway, we do have a Chris Buck here, but he is not coming up, I guess. So, Miguel, yes?
I just want to say, like, thank you for your work, man. Really appreciate, like, your…
Hey, thanks for your attention.
And the only critique that I have to you is maybe you're a little bit of training with your pitch, with the marketing. But everything else, man, thanks a lot, dude. Like, awesome work. Thanks a lot.
Hey, thanks. We'll try to get better at that.
I think eventually, it will pass. There will be a different type of person who… Like, you know what I mean? Maybe it has to be… Like, there's Satoshi, and then there's Hal Finney, and then there's Andrea Santanopoulos, and then there's different people, you know? Who's the right person.
Like, I think Nassim Taleb, something like, you want a… You want very optimistic flight attendants and a paranoid pilot, or something, you know? Like, the pilot has to be paranoid, because you don't want the… They're responsible for the decisions that cause the plane to crash.
But you want the… You don't want the flight attendants to be, like, paranoid, you know? Because then everyone's thinking, like, what? Like, the poor people in the cabin of the ship… In the cabin of the plane are like, what? Like, do we have to worry about all these things? And it's like, no, no, it's going to be fine.
So, I think maybe more people will get involved, and it will expand in that direction. And, you know, a lot of people have… Many, many people have reached out to interview me, or to ask about what I'm doing, or to invite me to come speak at the conference that they're doing. So, I have been getting a lot more attention.
So, I think that the… Especially if it's just things that are just, like, bringing shitcoins to Bitcoin, and Paul's a large blocker. Like, if that's all that we've got to fight through, then this will be over in, like, two more weeks, or something, because it's just not even close to the truth. So, then people will be like, what else have I been lied to about? And then it will kind of…
of... And then people will come up with some story.
They'll say, well, it was a great idea, but it was presented wrong, so that they have
some out for themselves.
They need to have some little story.
can't be, oh, I was wrong too.
So, but whatever it is, people will figure it out.
Anyway, we have a Tripto.
trypto a trypto person is now here hello.
Hi so I don't really have too many
questions on like drive trends or I'm still reading and studying all of that I think
it's
it's really cool work.
like on, you, you familiar with GOMO?
This hacker, his name is GOMO.
Apparently has seven and a half billion dollars of Bitcoin and...
Wow, that's cool.
No, I don't think so.
Maybe... of shadowy.
there's no other GOMO, that's the whole thing.
he follows me and like, he me the other day after I, it's interesting, followed me
after I had tweeted something about how DriveTrains interact with Layer2s and blah,
blah, blah. And apparently he has
like, you know, seven and half billion dollars worth of Bitcoin.
And he's had that since like, oh, nine, 2010.
I don't know.
I think he's a candidate for Satoshi Nakamoto.
was wondering what you guys think about this guy.
Well, unfortunately, I don't know a lot about but there are many such people who
because I've been around a while.
And there is a
lot of people who have a ton of Bitcoin, they do not, they don't tweet, don't, you
know, they don't, they're great ops -ec, and it's a well -kept secret.
And there's a lot of super, and they don't like moving their coins either.
They have the old coins, and then whenever they move them, they like drive up into the
Swiss mountains or something, sign
a bunch of transactions on like an air gap laptop and they have all the weird
ceremonies. So there's a couple of characters like this and they're very interesting
people. Yeah. He's been hacking like, mean, he's been hacking since the days where you,
you know, you use the whistle to hack long distance phone calls with AT &T and
then - Yeah, freaking.
yeah. Yeah, and then eventually, you know, building systems for the government,
building systems for networks like AT &T, IBM, all these, whatever they are, mean,
it's just an interesting character.
you know, that much Bitcoin, that long, uses a flip phone, doesn't use
smartphones,
like it's interesting.
But anyway, I can't stand that these smartphones don't have like a switch to disable
the camera. There's no like cover.
I just think that's an outrage.
webcam has one.
These things are pointed at where we are and our own face all the time.
Kind of annoying, that's my little pet peeve, among many of course, you know, as far as
the surveillance state.
It's so annoying,
this stupid thing and it's taking over everyone's life.
But anyway, yeah, I don't know a lot about that person, but I will look into that.
thanks. looking forward to tweeting about the QUIBIPS idea.
It's mostly fun, mostly theoretical, but looking forward to what LayerTwo Labs has to
say about QUIBIPS.
What is that, a quantum computer?
I have a theory about how the future of Bitcoin will kind of function once we're off of
classical computers. right.
So I just, know, quantum, AI, BIPs, quiet BIPs, I'm kind of structuring how that
would that would work if it would work and really necessary,
which it really isn't unless we're not mining
with classical computers.
think Bitcoin can still survive even in a quantum world with classical computation and
classical miners.
It's mostly for fun.
Yeah, that's a cool idea.
think I met a lot of people who are very worried about
imminent progress in quantum computing, which is interesting.
Yeah, mean, it's, I mean, it's complicated because well,
is susceptible to of
this immensely fast factoring from these quantum computers and it's
it's know signatures are
going to be
The quantum secure multi signatures would be nice.
Quantum enhanced mining would be cool.
then if Drivechains actually work, well they will work, but if they're implemented
rather and we can start implementing smart contracts
on Bitcoin.
think Quantum makes all of bit more complex and maybe less
feasible or more feasible.
don't know, it's mostly just a fun theory I'm working on.
Yeah, it's pretty cool, but we should make more space for anyone who has something
that's more on topic
hopefully, if someone has something else they want to say,
come on up.
But yeah, that's a neat idea.
I definitely think that that's
one of the wildcard scenarios for BTC, how
will it deal with I'd have heard for a long time that quantum computers were coming
along very slowly, and then recently in the last 18 months, it seems like they have
been going way, way further than people had originally
thought.
Yeah, I mean, the hardware will be there for the public, you know, within the next 5 or
10 years to just really move off of classical computers and maybe even classical mining
machines. But I tweeted recently that I liked Drivechains because they allow devs to
migrate off Ethereum L2s and
custodial liquid staking and off -chain governance so proof of work can prevail while
devs and traders continue practicing the few benefits ETH has left without sacrificing
decentralization. that's why I like that.
Yeah, that's what I like about Drivechains as far as I understand them now.
you know my
experience developing on other blockchains,
it's difficult because they're not necessarily decentralized, and proof of stake is
very inefficient in terms of decentralizing or decentralizing processes.
Yeah, I agree that proof of work, there is no
reason to move from proof of work to proof of stake.
I think it's smart though of Ethereum to try to be different than VTC and all these
ways they know about product differentiation, I think, so.
But yeah, I think actually that's their biggest mistake.
should...
Well, it's hard to say which mistake is the biggest, but my view is...
work is really ridiculous because...
whoever is writing what the POW needs...
Sorry, the proof of stake is ridiculous, rather, they're writing the protocols
on
the staking protocols.
that can change at any time.
The Core Devs, Batella can change that any time, essentially.
So how the staking protocols can change and the entire network doesn't necessarily have
to agree on those changes, unless I'm wrong, but I think
that's how it would work.
can build private or public LayerTwo networks and mint
your own token there, whether it's an ERC20 or a 721, but still Bitcoin
prevails in all of those scenarios because we need a consensus amongst all of the
miners and all of
network before a change is implemented.
proof of stake, a lot of that can occur after the fact.
Or a lot of the consensus, rather, can occur after the fact.
Yeah, proof of work has many cool things like you...
one is it's like half of a decentralized exchange out of the box.
So like you release Bitcoin and then if you can buy power anywhere in the world, then
you're converting electricity into coins, which is that's kind of cool because you know
what I mean?
It's like there's no one,
you know, like
like you have a market where you buy coins with electricity, but it's just everywhere.
it's, so that's kind of a neat feature of it.
yeah, do we have anyone who wants to come up?
Paul, someone earlier asked about your advice to
a college student, a developer, but what would your advice be
to a college student from the perspective of an investor?
Do you still see Bitcoin as the best investment?
I do, yeah.
for now,
although I think we're doing everything we can to destroy our lead.
I mean,
I can see it going eventually where like two years from now I would just tell people to
just buy like some Ethereum.
Also not because I even like Ethereum, but just because they
seem focused on growth, and I think that only one coin will win, and the
rest will go to zero.
it's kind of dangerous when BTC says we don't want adoption, which is
sort of what I'm hearing everyone in BTC say these days.
days.
Do you think it's possible that Bitcoin, any years from now, remains
like a kind of a niche thing?
you know, it's not completely mainstream, but it does, it maintains
maintains a much higher price than today.
I think that it could stay sort of where it
is. I think it's very difficult to have a coin be $30,000 if
something else has taken over the entire world.
so if there's some other thing it doesn't even have to be crypto it could be even CBDC
or so something that's just something that's just so dominant I think that would
be very difficult to imagine but just anything with like something with the fixed
supply so anything with the fixed supply that takes over the world,
then the main advantage of BTC is, you know, it's going to be what in that case,
know, privacy or like what, that you have keys and you
have your own UTXOs?
don't know. I think that'd be tough.
One
common response to that, well Bitcoin's different because it had the immaculate
conception.
But, yeah, it's definitely a, I'm of the opinion now that that's sadly kind of a
nonsense response, because obviously to the seven and a half billion people who don't
own Right. It mattered a
lot more in the past, like in 2009, when you just had Namecoin, and just had
Litecoin, you had these coins that were exact carbon copies of BTC,
then it kind of mattered a lot more.
Okay, this is the one that we started with.
This is the one that did not pre -mine.
if you fast
-forward, like imagine you fast -forward 200 years,
all the Bitcoin has been mined.
is it still gonna matter?
Someone's gonna say, okay, this coin was invented in, it wasn't invented in 2009, it
was invented in 2026.
someone at that point is not gonna matter.
So you can see that, at
least theoretically it does wear out
course there's for hardcore Bitcoiners to understand that from the perspective of
somebody That's completely that doesn't own anything any crypto asset today
coming into it there's no difference between
Bitcoin's Immaculate Conception and Ethereum's 70 % free mine because they
weren't privy to any of it.
So Bitcoin might as well have been a 70 % free mine.
For these people, there's no difference.
And that's almost all the people on earth.
Okay, we have a Dallas here,
Hey, Dallas, is a funny way to say it.
are you guys doing?
Good to see you, Paul.
I have a question for you.
haven't been on any, let's say, last few spaces since you guys may have done,
obviously, we've had a couple interactions before.
Do you
think, are there any, you know, let's say specific functions within how the current
proposal works, BIP300, that you, you know, that you've ever kind of considered,
thinking, okay, hey, maybe this could be a bit more like that, or this could be a bit
more just, or do you do think in its current state, it is like,
are there any parameters that you kind of second guessed yourself on in a way that it's
currently proposed at this moment?
I'd be generally curious.
Yeah, the overall design has not changed at all since 2015.
There is one slight detail that changed around 2017,
which is about like, but I think I would have always changed that detail as I got more
specific. the, but there's one, so that's the overall design is the same, but
we have actually been tweaking the underlying details the whole time.
And in fact, even just in the last three months, we
we switched around exactly the exact way it
counts deposits and
so to speak.
In the code, we changed some details in the code.
Part of that is also to make it easier to rebase and pull requests into the latest
version of Bitcoin
Core, which is changing all the time.
the ossificationists, they have a, it's not good right now if you like ossification,
because there's lots and lots of just refactoring and stuff changing in Bitcoin.
so that is something to keep in mind.
But there is one thing that I actually do
second guess, which is, changed the two week, it was two to four weeks,
and I changed it to three to six months, because people would, they wouldn't stop
complaining about the miners can steal, even though I explained why that is not the
right criterion.
Because the miners can steal from anything and they get the fees and
that's the security model.
I was thinking I'll make it longer and now I kind of think like
what was the point because I don't think those people understood it anyway and even
inventing blind merge mining at all.
You see I still get the effects mining incentives.
People like or whatever, Peter Todd
will still say oh miners are pressured to run this has never been true but I even with
blind merge mining it's ninety nine point nine nine nine percent less true than it was
before and but it doesn't make any difference so to the critics who in the case don't
know anything they never read the BIP they none of them have used the software Peter
Peter Todd didn't even know that there was software
as a Baltic Honey Badger this year.
It's been software for literally three or four years.
I don't... really, I reacted to what you might call
a peer review, but the peers didn't know anything about the idea.
that makes me, in retrospect,
back and say oh should I have listened to them at all because they clearly had like a
very very zero percent understanding of the idea so maybe I
shouldn't have but overall I think it's fine because I
was just saying the three to six month
thing is fine.
all the changes I made are fine.
Bip merge mining basically turns every sidechain node into like a perfectly
decentralized stratum V2 competing pool or whatever.
it's actually all this stuff is kind of cool, honestly.
So I guess I'm kind of glad that it exists, but I do second guess it
because the whole basis for creating it was the peer review, but the peers didn't know
anything.
one thing I guess, it's hard to correct because I've spoken to lot of people who are
supportive of what the BIP you guys are going put forward and then also that obviously
I just wonder if there
are ways to strengthen the existing design in a way
that could make it harder for miners to basically steal coins, right?
And maybe in your view, it's not easy for them to do that.
But one thing that I guess wasn't super clear to me,
even in like several discussions, kind of, let's say, you change the parameter that you
mentioned from two to four weeks to something like three to six months.
What is actually changed?
what that time frame is that a bad actor, essentially, does everyone gets to see the
attack coming now for three to six months?
Yeah, the first and
most of... It's an excellent question.
a couple of things changed.
The most important is that the responsibility
is more tightly focused on the miner.
So they can't say like, oh, it was some kind of mix up or misunderstanding.
you what I mean?
Because if it like happens, if it's only
going for five hours, it happens from 3am to 8am on Saturday
morning or something, you know?
And then everyone can be like, oh, well, we don't know what happened there.
How did that happen?
Whereas if it's really slow, then
then it's deliberate.
that's one thing that changes.
The other is that you have like plenty of time to figure out what the reply is going to
be. Like you have time to like talk things over.
You have time to like say, okay, who is doing this and why?
hear everyone's like reason
It's just more tightly controlled.
I often give an example of like they run into an Apple store and they just grab
something off the shelf and they run to get out the door and they're slowed down.
They're slow motion and can't take some three months to leave.
Well,
know, now it takes them three months to leave.
can you could call the police.
You can even call the police and tell them to just come tomorrow.
If they're busy, know, you can tell them to come next week.
you can. So it's more respectful of people's attention in general.
even if you don't, even if you can't call the police, could still you have plenty of
time to like
take their picture and you know, they have they have more.
It's just they have to just do the wrong thing like in public.
So what is the initial trigger at which people would say, hey, bad actors are trying to
do a bad thing?
Like what would you see that would indicate that something bad is happening?
The sidechain
is going to recalculate the next withdrawal hash automatically for everyone
at the same time.
it will automatically determine what the...
will... has a...
it's using the sidechain rules automatically, it will
say, okay, these number of people want to withdraw.
The last withdraw either just finished or just failed or something.
we're ready for the next one.
And it will click that over and it will have a new withdrawal hash.
And that withdrawal hash will be in the bottom ribbon of the GUI.
And it will also be in the block header of every sidechain block.
So it'll be
be maximally available the sidechain will be like it's like they're holding up a
gigantic sign that has this hash on it and they
will be screaming and it's going to be repeating it over and over again for the next
three months so they're this is the hash and now when
similarly on L1,
when the miners write this hash into the Coinbase on L1, they'll write it in for that
slot, sidechain and slot number 7.
They will do that.
then, so as soon as it doesn't match, every user of the sidechain will know
instantaneously what is wrong
and then what should be done about it.
then it appears as a matter of is this an innocent mistake, you
know, or is it deliberate?
so if it's deliberate,
are we doomed?
know,
like, we bugged?
So Paul, wasn't there some sort of real world example where one of these
Ethereum bridges had taken some things, definitely some inspiration from your design,
but they had changed it to the peg out being a matter of like an hour instead
of three months.
and
There was some kind of Open and notorious theft, but nobody figured it
out for like no, but nobody was paying attention until it would until you know six
seven hours later and Another thing to keep in mind is that there's really not
a lot of inconvenience by making it
slower because regular users will just swap out instantly and other users
will be like professionally patient people.
They'll be basically farming it for yield.
So they'll be buying up the sidechain coins for 99 cents on the dollar or whatever it
is, 98, 99.9, whatever it is.
And then they will be
The blockchain
software
automatically gives everyone the single correct hash.
So if anything else goes into
L1,
everyone will know the first instance that it's wrong.
But then there's many people who not using the sidechain, they won't know until someone
tells them. the software gives a hash as a single source of truth, I guess, that people
would look at and say, okay, honors whatever,
correct actions being compiled in the correct way.
And if there's even a single transaction, whether the amounts buried or to a different
address or any variation from that, then there would be a different hash and that would
be how people would recognize that there's some some fuckery afoot.
Is that simple way to know?
exactly.
Okay. Yeah, I mean, one of the things I guess I was saying to you on a different space,
like one of my concerns is still, and this may be a concern, I guess almost of almost
any or well, not any, but many other kind of, let's say sort of sidechain or maybe
some potential L2s is like, you know, who is issuing,
who is in charge of the current code that runs on that Drivechain?
And who can change that?
And are users required to, you know, essentially be brought along with the update
happening? No, they're not.
It's a very, good question.
Yeah. It's a very, very good question.
And actually the logic is the same.
It partially relies on the hash answer question.
what happens is when you claim the slot, you have an opportunity
and the slot is first assigned.
You label the slot like whatever ZCASH sidechain, but you also are able to put the hash
of the
node software.
There's no literal software being run or hosted anywhere, you can say, listen, this
is the software that you're supposed to run to figure out what the hash should be.
We're not going to run it, but this is what it is.
Now that's like the version 0.1
or whatever of the sidechain, right?
Now if they release newer versions of the sidechain software that
give the same, in all circumstances give the same withdrawal hash, then that is
basically a soft fork upgrade to the sidechain.
But you notice that they really can't do that
they give a version, if they update, which is basically a hard fork, they release a
version of the software that gives a different withdrawal hash.
And since the hashes have to be exactly the same, for anyone to know which withdrawal
is real,
that is not going to work.
So the
users of the sidechain, they inherit the protection of the software
inherently. This is a very important point because, of course, they're to have to be
updating the sidechain software all the time.
And as long as they do that in a way that an old node, if you ran the v0
.1 node, whose hash was when you
first claimed the slot,
as long as it's such that running that old node, or OG sidechain node software,
will give the same withdrawal hash, then you see it really doesn't matter, because the
same people who are leaving, if you want to leave and get to L1, it's the same in every
version of the software.
So you're never screwed
I have a question on If the sidechain wanted to update,
newer software, might not know later there might be incompatibility, but would the best
way be to
to claim the slot with the new hash of the software and get the 90 % vote?
to claim the new slot is 90 % not a new slot, but like to replace the slot,
right? Yeah, replacing the slot is a much is a very different process, which
intentionally requires 50 % over six
months. that basically is a withdrawal, and that has to be the case, because
it's a very severe thing.
It's basically stealing all the money and moving it a different...
stealing all the money from one sidechain and rolling it over to a new sidechain.
So that's why it has to be very slow.
So do you think that that would be the
best way to update software of the sidechain?
No, think should do softworks if it can.
And if it can't, should just release a new sidechain altogether.
It's being very different.
Tryptonomics, you know, handout, I
thought.
with BIP300, essentially, with blind merch mining, are we going to be
able to have Bitcoin as the native token and all these proof -of -work
blockchains, like, even on Ethereum, theoretically?
I the idea,
and so I keep trying to tell this to people and they get violence and it just makes me
more excited about this bit because well all their proof of stake is
going to be nothing because what they have staked is not even going to be their native
token on their own blockchain and so
so I'm just wondering how quick how quickly are do you think other
blockchains are going to adopt this BIP and try to absorb other blockchains the way
Bitcoin will I think one project is doing that I think it's doge.net or something like
that it's very funny
Yeah, yeah, they adopted your BIP and they're already inheriting or absorbing other
blockchains by making their native token, the native token, and other blockchains that
want to interact and transfer assets, etc.
I just want to make sure I had that accurate.
Yeah, now you have it accurate.
I
think one is enough, honestly, but maybe there'll be two.
know what mean?
if there's a rate to absorb them, it'll be kind of a funny situation.
So essentially we can calculate with a formula how quickly
other blockchain's native tokens will be devalued, and the rate at which they'll be
devalued if
BIP300 is enacted.
don't know about with a formula, I think something along those lines is possible where
you merge things and then there's network effects, Metcalfe's etc.
We have a Joe.
Hello, Mr.
Hey, Paul.
I was just thinking a little bit about the kinds of complaints you get
about Drivechain and could, I mean, this feels like a big
compromise, but I think a lot of the complaints go away if you just, if the BIP just
said
only 500 bitcoins can move to sidechain and it'd be enforceable
kind of voluntarily sort of, you know, it would just be part of uh, soft work.
but yeah, I was just wondering, maybe it's just a, uh, rhetorical kind of tactic,
but it seems to
I think possible.
I think you may be right about that, but I think it's more a problem with the
complainers. mean, if you think about it from this point of view, who's bearing the
risk of putting the 501st coin into the drivechain?
you
mostly it's the person, I mean, you could argue that, oh, okay, if too many coins go
over there and that's bad somehow for other people.
I don't think that makes any sense, but someone could say that, I suppose, but really
it's the person who's voluntarily putting the 501st coin in.
shouldn't they, don't we believe in freedom?
I shouldn't maybe be able to do that
or, you know.
Yeah, I agree.
Right. agree, of course.
But yeah, I mean, I guess in practice, it could just be the
presumption is that that coin gets stolen, you know, and that's all.
yeah, violates ideals of freedom and stuff,
but it might be a rhetorical point that's useful.
many people, as you know, I'm sure that you do, many people complain no one wants this
idea, and then they flip and they say this idea is going to be so big that it will
change and affect everything.
So they have it on both sides,
and this is the upper side.
saying with so many coins, this will be so popular.
mean just as a point of comparison, there's only less than 5000 or somewhere around
5000 BTC in the Lightning Network.
10 Drivechains of 500 each would be the entire
Lightning Network today.
don't know, it's an interesting idea.
think it's too weird.
What difference does it make if there's one Drivechain that has 10,000 or 20 that
each have 499 or
something.
Why would that matter?
Oh, totally. Yeah, yeah, totally.
But I mean, if you expose this contradiction, gets people to...
mean, it's kind of like you're arguing it step by step.
Here's an improvement.
Here's a little tweak.
Here's a tweak.
And now we have the full thing.
And they're all, you know, unarguable improvements along
the way, but maybe it doesn't actually work that way.
But yeah, just something to think about.
Hey Paul, can I ask you one more question because I gotta run for another call in just
a sec. So my understanding is that in the current proposal, there are
a limited number of drivechains that could exist.
That's correct, right?
Yes, but it's really limited practice because you get a drivechains of drivechains or
you could just Redo that you could just activate the 300 be the 300 see and just keep
adding spot if you want That's No, that's interesting.
Um, so one question I have is what essentially like
the minimum requirement for, like if I want to launch a Drivechain, how does mine be
considered one of the limited space of sort of that first layer of ones that could
exist? is that open to somebody spamming, essentially somehow inclusion with,
let's say, one miner allocating a little bit of hash power to it, and then clogging up
the available initial drivechains that are one layer removed from the
main chain. that make sense?
It does. There is, to avoid that problem, is a requirement that 90 %
of the hashrate act over two weeks.
So it's kind of like a...
It's very similar to what BIP9
software activation used to be a long time ago, it's sort of speedy trial, like a
really speedy trial today, where you do need 90 % very
high threshold over a short period of time.
anyone can, any miner can just propose this slot.
This is called message M1 in the BIP.
These are
M1 and M2.
There are six messages.
M1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
So M1, you just broadcast in a Coinbase and you just say, this is what I do.
I want the slot.
But then if you don't have enough M2 acts of that, it will just not claim
the slot.
yeah, there's like a DOS.
What was the first thing you said?
% of what?
90 % of the following 2016 blocks must have this
M2 to back it up.
So you need one M1 and then you need many M2s in
Could a miner's hash rate, is it sort of double counted?
Like if I've got whatever, just some amount of hash rate, and I want to somehow, you
know, let's say, support 10 different drivechains, can I bring an equivalent amount to
each of those, or am I splitting it and not able to carry a drivechain to drive
chains?
This is only to turn it on at the very beginning.
So you do the one M1, and then you have M2, you act at, you can do, you propose one,
you can do a, so like block three, 300,000, or whatever, whatever it is.
Block 900,000.
That one has an M1 to claim sidechains slide
3 to make a Zcash sidechain.
And then next block, 900001, you have an M2 message that
acts the previous M1, acknowledges, thumbs up.
And you can also then, you put an M1 that you say, want to claim sidechain slot 4 to
make the EVM sidechain.
And then in the next block, 900,002, you say,
okay, I have an M2 for each of those, and now you're claiming two at once.
So they're separable.
Does that make sense?
Yeah, I think that does.
Yeah, had
a bit more time with you guys.
you're going be on for a while, come back, but I got to jump on call.
thank you guys for your time.
I don't think I'll come back much later, there's always Twitter.
There's always next week.
Next week, should maybe do...
Next week, we can go 48 hours.
No, I'm just kidding.
Actually, think the people...
you and Shinobi fight with your
shirts off for survival.
Yeah, should be how activate.
It would be like whatever.
It would be like, what's the movie?
Black Panther? That's BIP activation.
BIP Panther.
Somebody make that meme.
Get on it.
cool see you thanks see
you Paul do you mind maybe talking about mining machines or is that bit too far off
topic but I mean if you connect them and relate them to drivechains maybe no one else
comes up and no one else wants to say anything then we can talk about whatever
it is. is it?
you to talk about the mining, the hasher machines themselves?
What do you want to know about that?
Just kind of where the state of the art is in terms of mining and if Drivechains will
change, will change rather hardware
and its relation to...
Oh, I don't think they will.
they do with the miners, their goal is to produce a -256 hash as
quickly and as possible.
And they don't necessarily have any interaction with the software.
The miners, it's very interesting about miners
as they are like a race and breed apart.
They are like this part of Bitcoin that is its own orbit.
And they all hang out with each other and then they rarely mix, very rarely mix with
the rest of Bitcoin.
And it's a very intriguing situation because the miners are the ones who have a huge
amount of skin in the game.
they are punished
The the transaction fees and the usage of the network goes down and they are
rewarded when it goes up and they're punished when the price goes down and they are
rewarded when the price goes up.
So they have all the skin in the game and yet there is an attitude
in Bitcoin that
is
a good example of
a
various drama and controversy for many years.
Absolutely since 2005, excuse me, 2015.
So yeah, but I think what would change is that miners would become responsible
collectively for the choosing which sidechains
are inside the Bitcoin portfolio, like you drop ad,
they are,
but they have an incentive to get that right.
Again, if they choose wisely,
the transaction fees will be maximized,
choose poorly, then they will be the ones who suffer.
But it shouldn't change the actual people designing ASICs and whatnot, and the people
who are designing mining facilities.
Their job is just to do this thermodynamic hashing as efficiently
as possible.
So is the solution to the controversy going to be some sort of automation?
What do you mean by controversy?
I guess a higher form of automation.
The controversy you referenced with miners not having, you said that miners have a lot
of skin in the game, right, and that they have too much power and they are not exercising
that power.
Yeah, miners culturally have decided that they want, weirdly they are, it's a paradox,
they are exercising the power because what they have decided is that a lot of developers
are working on Bitcoin, the developers don't want to be bothered by miners, so the miners
are not bothering them, the developers, so the miners are doing what they think maximizes
the value of Bitcoin.
And you know, on the whole, who can complain, of course, because on the whole, it has been
the best performing asset financially in the history of capitalism, but over the last five
years, or six years, five years I suppose, over the last five years it really has not
net as well as it did the previous eight years, to say the least.
So, and then of course the difficulty is adjusting every two weeks, and that has put miners in
a rough spot around now, and of course with the halving coming up, their revenue will
be cut in half.
And so, I think they are now, I also think like Taproot came out and it wasn't used at
all the way the developers intended, and Taproot Assets really has nothing to do, not
very much to do with Taproot, but it, it's more to do a SegWit, but the point of it being
this gave the miners a taste of what would happen when certain, like so you know what
I mean, like the Taproot Ordinals people, they, they are the real developers who are
working for the miners, because they give the miners more money.
So the miners are kind of like, slightly have been woke you could say, they're like
wait a minute, we had from August 2017 to present, we've only had Taproot, which has
not helped, and, but yet this Ordinals thing helped them make money.
So I think they are slightly more, they've been disturbed from their slumber, I think
is my guess.
It's very hard to say such things though.
So Paul, the history of SegWit adoption is pretty well documented or relatively well
documented, but why was it that in that whole time that Taproot was the, was the only BIP
to be merged?
What were the kind of the politics behind that?
I think in general people did not want to like propose any BIP or do anything, but Greg
Maxwell in January I think 2018, there was a lot of, like there was this mast idea, there
was Schnorr signatures, that was always very popular.
Weirdly, a weird thing was that Bitcoin Cash was adding Schnorr.
That's kind of a funny thing that they did it for first.
I don't think that was why, but I think this idea was more lightning focused.
Taproot was more lightning focused because it made a cooperative close.
It made lots of things look like a regular Bitcoin transaction, even if they weren't,
or at least that's its aspirational goal.
And so this was seen as further standardizing lightning, I think.
So it was still firing on all cylinders for lightning.
And I think that in general though, what happened was everyone was afraid to push any soft fork,
including this one.
And this just happened to be one that Greg Maxwell, Peter Weil, other people had worked
on, so it had enough prestige to very, very slowly, make it slowly from 2018, you know,
over three years to November, really four years, 46 months or so, slowly make it across
the finish line.
In general, I think the focus would definitely have been like the Bitcoin Cash people are gone.
We won.
We'll keep doing what we're doing.
I think part of it was, of course, that SegWit2x was resisting a change and that Ethereum was
being more experimental.
So everyone just made everyone want to be more conservative in BTC, is my guess.
We have Sheldon Deer.
Hello.
Hello.
Hey, how are you doing?
I'm doing pretty well.
I'm getting back to the South Florida area pretty soon, but I'm in Malaysia right now,
just staying up unreasonably late.
But I realized that I think I forgot to ask you this question, or if I asked you this
a while back, I forgot the answer.
Because I live in shitcoin land most of the time, I hear a lot of aspirational things
about three cryptographic values or five cryptographic values in a circuit and all of this proofs
stuff that's all like moderately young and untested.
I used to see that as sort of the path that I thought would be more acceptable for people
to store data on Bitcoin, because I love Bitcoin as a source of truth.
But I wonder, do you have like a sort of standard position when someone criticizes the use of
HTLCs or is more interested in things like abstraction or just like hash of hash kind
of silliness?
Is there a way that I can convince more people, because I do get folks on my side of the wall
looking at BIP300 and 301 frequently.
Is there something I can focus on that will help them understand the security value, the
integration value, instead of focusing on the next cool zero knowledge, whatever buzzword
kind of thing?
Like syscoin was my favorite comparison before I learned about drivechains.
Yes, syscoin is an interesting coin.
I think people do, they definitely want like a buzzword thing, which is tough because you
never know what percentage of the people in this food chain are even being honest.
You know what I mean?
Like, so there's sometimes there's a coin that's a complete scam and they just say,
we are going to be the X coin and we are going to do X.
And then the promoters know that that's false, but they show it anyway.
And then they are showing it.
And so then they dump on retail and then the scam is over.
But sometimes something's pretty real, like sort of like Monero being a privacy.
Monero is like we are going to be the privacy coin.
Bitcoin is not focused as much on doing this like quickly and rapidly.
Monero is willing to hard fork every six months.
So Monero is doing that XMR.
And so the promoters seem relatively honest also.
But there's a mix of everything in between.
And it's very tough when, as you say, someone has the buzzword, it's like, do they even
really like am I scamming myself by paying attention to this?
Am I scamming myself by researching it?
And then I'm going to write like a carefully worded response.
But really everyone knows that it's fake and I'm just the most gullible person in the room.
And so it's very treacherous out there.
Of course, we even do this in Bitcoin.
Of course, we have many things we say that aren't true.
It's like, do people know they're not true?
So I think it's probably the case with literally every industry, I'm sure.
I knew someone who was a home.
They were like a contractor that did like home repair, modeling energy efficiency stuff.
And constantly this guy and this guy was a very smart guy.
And he would constantly say, oh, this industry is the worst.
Everyone in this industry is dishonest.
Everyone's scamming everyone.
And I was like, oh, it's just like this.
It's just like the crypto Bitcoin industry.
And they're like, oh, OK, whatever.
So I don't know if that answers your question, but that's my first thought.
Does that help at all?
No, but it reminds me of me laughing at the acronym ZTNA because in IT security,
the idea that you could sell someone a product or a service based specifically on the implementation of best practices and software level security controls is very funny to me.
But no, to be less rambly and whining about it, is there any part of the BIPs that you would refer to if someone was sort of like, you know,
questioning the security value versus the performant values of the two BIPs that make up drivechains?
The security value versus the performant value.
Well, it's the security.
It has to be understood the right way, which is to my dismay, most people do not understand it.
But if you go into my tweet highlights, I reply to Tidwell.
And if you go also on drivechain.info, there's like an article section.
But there's this idea that it's an economic security where the miners are supposed to be comparing what is the transaction fees they're getting to how many coins they can steal.
And the cool thing is you can deposit like one bitcoin into a drivechain and then it can be circulating a ton.
And the whole bitcoin can be eaten up.
Like a million users use it a million times.
Each person is going to pay whatever that would come out to be, 100 sats or something.
Don't hold me to that math, but I think that's right.
And they're going to do that.
And then within 24 hours, the whole coin will be used up, which is to say it will have incrementally like grains of sand falling through an hourglass.
It will incrementally be owned by whoever's mining the sidechain blocks over there, which because of blind merge mining could be itself a user.
So the point I'm trying to make is you can have a desert island where there's $1, but the dollar can circulate so much that it can be used in every transaction.
And so $1 could have $1 a day of transaction fees or it could have $1 million a day or $10 billion a day of transaction fees.
So the security model is just that the fees that the miners are earning outweighs what they could steal.
And it could be any way that could happen.
That breakdown could be any way.
Someone could put 100,000 bitcoins into a sidechain that is never used and has zero fees.
And so it's a kind of a tricky thing. The security is unusual.
And apparently it's very, I mean, to me, it's not that weird at all.
It's really just like a this greater than that type of a thing, like net present value greater than some, like stock versus flow type of a thing.
It's not that weird, but apparently just judging by the reaction, this is like a mind-blowingly revolutionary type of security.
And so people have very strong opinions about it.
So that would be step one would be to frame the security the right way.
And if you go to my tweets and you go to highlights and you find the answer of the Tidwell, it's in there.
And I answer, I'll try to reply to all of the.
But yeah, like Ethereum has 7.2 million.
Back when I did the math to answer his question, it had $7 million of fees per day.
And that just comes out to like 100,000 or even a million coins, depending on some parameters.
It comes out to hundreds of thousands of coins could be safely stored where the fees would be greater than the coin amount.
So I don't know, that's sort of rambly, but hopefully that is closer to helping.
That helps a lot. Yeah, I'm very familiar with economic security from my side of the wall.
But it's a lot easier when you're linking to real numbers about active blocks being produced, blah, blah, blah.
Yeah, so you can probably look that up and hopefully it will help you.
Because the highlights are great and there's only about, I would say like 15, 16 of them.
So even though they're all long, I highly recommend anyone check out my Twitter highlights,
because a lot of these questions I've been asked many times before.
Yeah, sorry about that. I appreciate you saving me the time.
Maybe I'll see you around Bitcoin Brunch, but I'll go catch up again.
Oh, cool. Yeah, good to see you there.
Okay, Joe has a hand. Hello again, Joe.
Hey, yeah, just one thing to throw out there.
Whenever I hear people talking about security, I just, I get very, my ears perk up,
because I think the difficulty with advocating for drivechains is that nobody is willing to define it.
And I've pointed out before, and a lot of people pointed out before,
that like the subsidy doesn't obviously add to Bitcoin security.
On the other hand, like, you know, any miners at any time can just censor your coins.
And if they can coordinate well, they could, you know, it's hard.
Like, they could just basically, what would you call it, just ransom your coins.
So I was just thinking about applying that to, like, if people are okay with multi-sigs,
that are like federated sidechains,
then, you know, it seems like they're also vulnerable to miners coordinating to ransoming them
in the same way that they could with drivechains.
So it seems to help, the kind of argument.
So that's just one kind of point.
And then the other one is like, I'd love it if maybe you can write like a post describing security in blockchains.
Like I've tweeted some ideas about it, but it just seems so obviously confusing.
Like, you know, there's no fundamental security from somebody forking your coin,
like forking Bitcoin and taking your coins, right?
So with respect to that new blockchain they create, I have no security.
I have written two things.
One is the security budget, the two security budget articles, which are about,
because there's two different things.
There's the cost of, one I wrote in September 2015.
I wrote this post measuring decentralization, and that is about the cost of spinning up a new full node,
which is basically the cost of the cell dividing.
And it's like you have a full node, and how can you get a new full node?
And the lower this is, the easier it is for the network to just regenerate if like 90% of the nodes are destroyed
or if you are on the run and you need a new node.
So I wrote that, and then I wrote, that's the cost, that's like how decentralized the network is
and how easy it is to run node.
And that one has dollar amounts, and that one has, it's like what happened,
how do you handle like hard fork or whatever, things like that.
And then the second type of thing that I wrote is this about the security budget,
which is just the total amount of money paid to miners, which is that each transaction fee is added up.
It's like a strength in numbers thing where each one goes, all of that,
the sum total of that money is paid to miners, and the harder they work,
the more proof of work there is on each block header.
So if you have lots of transactions that pay a high fee, then all of the transactions,
the proof of work goes up on them all.
But if you only have a blockchain where there's only three transactions and they pay a tiny fee,
then all three of them have small proof of work.
And so the higher the security budget is, the more proof of work there is.
If the security budget falls to like zero, then there basically is no proof of work in the blockchain.
So those are some things that I have written about.
Yeah, I think the direction and the measuring decentralization one is really great.
And I think the more you think about it, the more obvious that becomes.
Like we want it cheap to coordinate on which is the right chain.
So that would be, you know, cost of running a node that makes a whole lot of sense.
The cost of checking the entire blockchain for errors, which is also key.
And I think it's helpful to reinterpret inflation as a small amount of theft happening continuously,
small amount of insecurity happening continuously.
Not just in this case, but everywhere.
It's the inflation that you tax on the holder of the currency.
That's right. And there's not a whole lot of, you know, if you're risk neutral,
there's not a whole lot of difference between losing 1% every year
and then having a 1% chance of losing everything every year.
So it would be nice to have a kind of a framework that we can all agree to on this.
And then to obviously point out, to push back against Peter Todd,
that the adding subsidy, you were talking about transaction fees before very correctly,
but the subsidy that's given to the miners, no matter what chain they mine.
Right. That wouldn't help if they wanted to censor, for example,
or if they wanted to just hold people hostage.
Exactly. And there are different types of tax.
I think he's just trying to be contrarian with his tail.
He's like, oh, I'm so edgy, I'll break even the 21 million coin limit.
I don't even think it, I'm not even sure it's a clear thing.
I don't, you know, I don't really know what you're talking about.
There's differential equations about it.
Like surprisingly, tail emission is not inflationary,
which is like an absurd abuse of the math,
which basically just says that it will be inflationary for like hundreds of years.
And then eventually, if some percentage of people lose it,
it's a very bizarre interpretation of whatever he's saying.
So I don't even know what he's doing. I think it's kind of a performance.
I want to add something to the way I understand the security of drivechains.
You can correct me if I'm wrong. I try to like zoom out a little bit.
And basically, if somebody sends me Bitcoin,
I'm at risk of those Bitcoin getting reorged with a 51 percent attack.
I have no idea if miners, for one reason or another,
will just reorg any Bitcoin that I'm receiving.
So I'm assuming that at least 50 percent are being honest.
And from my understanding, that's the assumption of the security of Bitcoin,
that more than 50 percent of the hash rate would be honest.
And there's an economic incentive for them to be honest.
I think the white paper talks about that, too.
So I think that drivechain is pretty much the exact same assumption
where you're assuming at least 50 percent of the network is going to be honest.
And as long as at least 50 percent is honest,
then they cannot steal from the drivechain then.
So the way I understand it, it's almost like the exact same security assumption
that Bitcoin already has.
It basically is.
The literal assumption is 50 percent is not conspiring to attack the network.
So that's the same assumption.
And then with drivechain, it's kind of like you have
slightly more of an ability to direct the funds.
But that's also why it's just limited to this extremely slow one check-in per three months.
So that has many important effects.
Someone asked about that earlier.
But one additional effect it has is that you have to pre-commit.
On day one, you have to say where you will send the funds.
But because of just variations in hash rate over the three months,
and, of course, people, the miners may leave the coalition and mine a different coin or something.
So what I'm trying to say is they declare the destination on day one,
but over three months, the pie chart can change as to whose hash rate is going where
or whether or not it's all being.
Bitcoin already can actually be more secure than just the base layer
because the base layer can get revealed in three blocks.
Whereas on a drivechain to get stolen from, it's way more than three blocks.
Yes, it's comparable to literally like a 13,000 block reorg.
Basically, yeah. That's the way I'm looking at it.
It's comparable to the 13,000 reorg on the base layer.
So on one sense, the miners do have an ability to direct the funds more directly,
even though this is also limited, as I've said,
because they have to kind of divide it amongst themselves.
And they don't really know exactly how
because they don't know what will happen over the three months that they're doing this.
New miners could show up. Some miners could quit.
So they have slightly more impact, but then they have all these downsides.
So I think it actually comes out to be a wash or better.
And then when you throw in the whole fees thing, then I think it looks just fine.
So that's why I've never been – that's why we make quantum.
I think the fees thing is the most important part
because that's the economic incentive that's keeping them honest, right?
Because if you were to say that they would steal from a drivechain,
then one can say, well, then good.
That drivechain, according to the free market, is not a good drivechain, right?
Right. And that's the other thing that people didn't really understand,
even though I tried to explain it in detail in 2016,
which is that since the chains can be very complicated
and they can have what we would today call cross-chain MEV,
but what had no name back then.
I called it destructive sidechain interference.
But since the sidechains could interfere with each other,
you wanted a way to pull the plug on some, in fact,
because it's theoretically possible to write one that was very mean-spirited.
And so you'd say, well, if this one is no good, we just want to pull the plug on it.
So I actually solved the problem of what today would be called cross-chain MEV
back in May 2016 with a presentation I did called sidechain privatization,
which basically says that miners, you know, they…
I watched those videos. By the way, they're really good videos on your YouTube.
The sidechain privatization and the miner risks as well.
Yeah. I'm glad you liked them. I enjoyed making them.
Anyway, it seems like you understand it very well.
Thank you. If I may ask, you should…
I know that in one of your videos you said you wanted to make videos on the blind merge mining,
but you didn't have time. Maybe if you do have time, you can make that series of blind merge mining.
You know, we got a great…
If you go to layer2levers.com, we have some infographics,
and the blind merge mining one, there's one if you click.
And that one came out really well. I think it did anyway.
So maybe we'll post it by itself as a tweet.
But that's a good one right there.
And then if you just… The BIP itself, the text is not so bad,
especially after I added this table.
I added this table of like what happens.
And I think the table was…
I think I understand it abstractly,
but I just really enjoyed the, like, you know, the several hour videos of you explaining the other parts.
That's why I thought if you were to explain that part in a similar way…
I kind of am vaguely remembering it now that I actually had the slides,
and I was like, this video is just too long.
And I kind of skipped through them all.
And they had slides with like pink transparent rectangles and stuff.
And I was like, I don't have time for this.
I just go back and just do those slides again.
That's kind of funny.
But that video ended up being like whatever, like five hours or something.
So that's kind of funny.
Yeah, thanks.
Just wanted to add my understanding of the security of drivechains.
Cool.
Okay, great.
I think I will have to go soon.
I have a busy day this particular day.
But I think next week we may be able to go for a bajillion hours if people are still interested in these spaces.
I hope they are.
I think they're going very well.
So I like that.
But if you really want to say something, then please come up now.
And then don't complain later like, oh.
Because here's your chance.
Yeah, I would say thank you for these spaces.
Have a good weekend.
But I really enjoy these spaces, especially last week.
I listened over.
I really enjoy new people coming up and just asking completely new questions.
Just like the base, base, base questions.
Completely newbie questions.
I think that helps a lot of people that might just join, even though they've been asked it a million times.
Sometimes to a certain person you might say it differently and it might resonate with others.
Yeah, I think that's good.
I mean, on the one hand, there is like the RTFM or whatever, and there's an FAQ, and there's a site, there's a project site.
But on the other hand, it's like, you know, it's a new idea.
Yeah, just being able to come over here and like to talk to people is just powerful, you know.
And to ask your regular simple question and have somebody here that will answer you.
That's good.
We don't seem to be having very many takers.
I will give it until 3 p.m. Eastern time.
But, yeah, I think the spaces have been going well.
They were sort of slow before, then dramatically ramped up.
And then, oh, we have a Greg.
Hello.
As this often happens, when the speaker comes up, they get delayed like 20 seconds.
So then I say they're up, but they're not really up until around now.
Greg, you're muted.
Maybe you can unmute yourself.
Yeah.
Okay.
Here I am.
Here I am.
Here I am.
I'm sorry.
Okay.
Now I'm okay.
It defaults to mute.
I didn't know that.
So I have two questions.
What I've heard described today is that there's a potential winner-take-all scenario whereby a drivechain, if successful and grows to mass adoption, could eat all of the execution activity on top of Ethereum.
Is that correct?
Yes, of course.
I think you understand it very well.
I remember you from last week.
Yeah, that's the whole idea.
This was always the plan from 2015.
This was considered an uncontroversial and very, very good thing back then.
Yeah.
So that's a very interesting concept.
And not that I advocate for it, but I don't want to bet against it.
I'm just – it's interesting to understand.
The other question I have is, if that were to happen, would drivechain activity somehow – well, first of all, if you make the assumption that there's a security budget dilemma as we go through multiple halvings and the issuance rewards continue to reduce and the price fails to double every halving and the fees don't go up,
then mathematically there's a security budget deficit, which is controversial, but just assuming that it's the case, can drivechains be a solution to that?
Yes, and in fact I've written in detail about this.
I have a post-security budget to low fees and merged mining, and I think the merged mining fees will be – I mean ultimately like in 10 or 20 years they could be 10,000 times or even higher the L1 fees, and all those are L1 miners.
So I have all of that in this giant post that I wrote that maybe I'll retweet or something.
But yeah, I wrote all about all of that, about the fees are not up, and I say even if the price of different reaches its highest possible value, that may not be enough.
It won't be. Ultimately it cannot double every four years indefinitely because in not too long a period of time it exceeds the global monetary supply.
Yeah, I know.
It just can't.
Not a lot of people have done that math.
It can't. It's not mathematically possible, and exponential growth increases obviously, doubles every – it's an astounding…
It doesn't have to be much, much higher than the GDP of the entire world of one week or something, which is like…
That's only 20 years from now.
What people don't realize is that exponential growth is much quicker than they envision.
It's the same thing as the growth of the price of Bitcoin.
It grew exponentially, and it's the same thing that would happen to a miner subsidy deficit.
It goes – well, I mean put it this way.
If it doesn't double every four years, but in the 2040s we're going to have a problem.
That's 20 years from now.
We're going to have a serious problem.
So the price has to double every four years, or fees have to go from 1 to 2 percent all the way up to 90 percent, or something else has to happen.
There are a number of solutions. There are a number of ideas, but the problem that I see is that the Bitcoin maxis, not to disparage them, but they resist all of it.
They just –
They do.
So I think if you search Truthcoin and then security budget in the long run, I think you should find my February 2019 post.
And then once you're on my site, you can probably find the other post, the archive. But the first post is a little shorter, and in that post I assume that it reaches the value of all M2 money immediately and then grows at that combined rate.
So I have it at like 20, 30, 40 million dollars a coin, and I do the math out about that. It's like a vanishingly small – even with the halvings, it's a vanishingly small percent of –
Right, right.
… but then I just write if we only absorbed – if we only had a payment sidechain that just did what Visa's numbers were and growing at the rate that Visa's numbers grow, it would actually be an ever-growing percentage of its own market cap. So it would be very large.
And it would make the miners whole. My main concern is can the miners stay in business?
Right.
Well, and it's also – it's not about hash rate. It's about the cost of attacking the network versus the market cap of the network. It's not the hash rate. It's the cost to reproduce 51 percent of the hash rate. It's not the number of hashes.
The hash rate unfortunately is conflated by changes in ASIC technology, which is a pretty straightforward point, but a lot of people just – they really – they like that whole thermodynamic angle, so they're very gung-ho about that.
Right, but will they stop thinking about it once they reach a rationalization or an answer that may not be deep enough?
Okay, so I'm asking these questions because I've been trying to see a future for the security budget for a long time, and I'm a Bitcoin investor.
I'm just trying to look at the long term of how is it going to survive if fees don't grow?
Yeah, so I think you should check out my cool – I wrote a huge – like in enormous depth. This first article is pretty short, and the second one is very long, and I go into enormous detail of graphs and everything, of numbers.
And what about centralization? Is drivechain – what's the short answer to – is it part of the controversy that it's considered to be too centralized? And if so…
I think this is a mistake. People have confused a lot of different things, but I happen to also have written an essay which was very, very popular with the mainstream back in 2015 when I wrote it called Measuring Decentralization, and that is about the cost of running an L1 full node.
But that is exactly what – 300 and 301 do not change that at all. In fact, they allow us to shrink the layer one block size, making it cheaper to run a full node, but that's besides the point.
The point is you don't have to run an L1 full node. You don't need to run any of the sidechains. That's the whole point.
And so it doesn't affect centralization at all, and then people have this invented category of decentralization, which turns out to mean a lot of different things at once depending on who you're talking to.
But I have – believe it or not, on truthcoin.info I have essays about all that as well in January 2017.
Okay, and how far away is this from going from a proposal to something that's being implemented?
We have the software already. In fact, we're going to release a new version of the software basically today.
But if you go to drivechain.info slash releases, you can see a lot of the software, but you won't even see all of it.
We have a new thing. We have this new thing that's like a Steam launcher, and it's like – so I've neglected even to put up the standalone.
So basically the short answer, though, is if we actually activated BIP300 tomorrow, which is not necessarily possible because of the way software rebasing and whatever.
But just hypothetically, if that were magically the case, we could turn on the large block payment sidechain and Zcash sidechain and the EVM emulating sidechain tomorrow.
And so with the EVM sidechain, any –
It's a copy of Ethereum.
It's a perfect copy of Ethereum, and using Bitcoin as the – to replace gas fees, you're paying Bitcoin.
Yeah, because basically instead of Gway or whatever, there's just –
Right, right.
And so – and also there's no proof of stake, of course. There's merge mining instead of – but other than that, it's exactly the same.
Yeah, well, you're not going to get a lot of Ethereum people supporting this.
Well, I kind of think some of them are the whatever, the anon FUD people.
Right.
I think some of them actually are Bitcoiners, and they just use Ethereum because it has a use case that Bitcoin doesn't have.
Right.
And they would love to be able to do it on Bitcoin, like for example me.
Yeah, when I say you're not going to get their support, I happen to be both, but I don't take a side.
I think it's like putting your head in the sand to take a side.
I continue to explore the negatives on both so that I can make a good long-term commitment.
So if I ignore it, it's still going to happen.
So whatever happens, it's still going to happen regardless of what I say or do.
So I just look at both sides, and that's why I'm asking these questions.
And I'm glad to hear all this.
I hope this starts to get more traction because, frankly, I've been rather concerned about Bitcoin being useful and Bitcoin having a security budget.
And this addresses both of those things.
So it's good.
Yeah, unfortunately, people have staked out various narratives, I think.
I mean it's hard to say, but some people have staked out narratives like Bitcoin doesn't need to be useful.
It's already going to win.
And now when we say, well, we can make it useful, it's kind of like a weird dissonance, some kind of weird.
Well, that may be true, but it's not useful for transactions.
It's obviously not winning as money in my opinion.
Well, how you define money, but as currency is for day-to-day transactions.
I don't see that. It's not winning that.
So store value maybe. I think I got cut off.
No, you're still here, but I was just thinking I have to go soon, so maybe we can go to John 13%.
That's it. What's that?
Everyone can hang out without me just because I have to leave, of course.
That's okay.
John 13% is up here. Okay, cool. Great. Thanks.
Thanks for your time.
Okay.
Hi, what's up, Paul? What's up, everybody?
So I have a question to know if I'm true on this statement or not.
I put down there in the comments that the thing is that UTXO on Bitcoin blockchain is going up absurdly.
I put there level half.
He says that it's going up to 4.5 gigabytes.
And in the past 10 years, it was only 1.68 gigabytes.
And this compromised the nodes because we need small size nodes.
And I want to know if drivechains actually solve this problem of making UTXOs not bloat.
Because I think the problem is the originals that's making this UTXOs going so bigger in size.
It's not easy for me to understand what you're asking about there.
I think I understand. He's saying the UTXO set is growing a lot because of these BRC20 and inscriptions.
They're doing a lot of dust 330 SAT outputs.
And I would say the drivechain does help solve this because you can actually reduce the block size then.
And you would have less UTXO creation.
Yes, small rate of growth. Exactly. Yes.
And we would move this activity to its own chain, which would be better for everyone.
Because they get their own chain that they like.
They can specialize it for having images and inscriptions and trading.
They can have their own stuff over there.
And then on L1, it can only be for settlement among these many chains.
It gets the graffiti out of there.
Well, I think the only thing that would really disincentivize them is actual cost.
So most likely you would just price them out with smaller blocks.
So I definitely think drivechains can help this because you can then reduce the block size,
which would hopefully then increase the cost to be able to do this.
And less people would do it.
Oh, nice. That was the doubt that I had if I was right on this statement.
So, yeah, thanks. That's it.
OK, Guy, I think I have to leave, but feel free to continue to hang out if you wish.
OK, take care, Paul. Have a good weekend. I'll hang out for a little bit.
Cool. Great. OK, thanks, everyone, for a great time. See you guys next time.
Anybody else that wants to come up and ask questions on drivechains or talk about drivechains,
even like basic questions are welcome.
Anybody can come up and ask about anything, any doubts that they have, any concerns that they have or,
you know, anything they want to talk about, about drivechains are welcome.
Yeah, thanks for bringing me up.
My question is around and I don't know, yeah, maybe if this question's already been asked,
but from a total outsider, noob perspective,
what how would you compare and contrast the drivechains versus RGB?
Oh, good question. So I'm not an expert on everything, but I can try to explain how I understand.
RGB is basically client side validation.
So what that means is I think that the limit there would be that Bitcoin can't really be traded on that side
because like it's basically it's locked in the UTXO.
So then if that UTXO gets unlocked, then how can you trade it on that other layer?
So I'm not sure if that can really help with this specific use case.
With drivechains would allow basically any any other chain or any type of protocol design
for Bitcoin, the asset to be used in that protocol design.
The way drivechains works is you can think of it as you're locking up Bitcoin on the base layer
and you would get issued those Bitcoin on another layer, on a different chain.
And that different chain can be literally anything you want, like Ethereum or any other basically design that's now or in the future.
And then to bring it back, you would need the miners to accept this withdrawal back to the base layer.
Over three months, three to six months, they would need to approve this.
And economically, they would want to approve this because they're generating fees on that sidechain.
So they would definitely be in the benefit to keep this sidechain alive because they're generating fees from it.
I think that's like a basic way to understand it.
But I'm not an expert on RGB, so maybe other people know a little bit better about RGB and can compare that with drivechains.
Yeah, I can't speak to it.
I've just been thinking about it from the perspective of, yeah, the thought process is if you can increase the demand for usefulness of Bitcoin,
then the more money may may accrue.
But I guess the key question is whether or not from a security budget perspective, it's a question of whether that that increased activity ends up with miners or not.
Right. And what you're saying is in the RGB solution or use case, you don't know if that those dollars or those Satoshis end up accruing to the miners.
I could be wrong, but I think that RGB, you're able to create these new assets and trade them within the RGB network with the scheme that it uses.
But I'm not sure if you can actually trade the Bitcoins within that network because of like you can't like what happens if you just unlock the Bitcoin on the base layer then?
Because it doesn't require any kind of software changes.
So if that if that Bitcoin is unlocked in a base layer, then how are you going to be trading it on the other, you know, on the other chain or the other layer of the client side validation?
I could be wrong. I might just not fully understand how that part works.
But as far as the fees, the fees with drivechains, the way it works is the miners would be there would be blind merge mining.
So they will be mining as well like the hash of a block of the sidechain of the drivechain.
They're going to include it. And by including it, they're going to be they're going to be getting paid a fee.
So like on the on the drivechain, if the fee for a block is a thousand dollars.
Right. Somebody will say to a miner on the base layer, hey, include the hash of this block and I will give you nine hundred and ninety five dollars and I'll keep five dollars of it.
And somebody else will say, well, I'll give you nine hundred and ninety six dollars.
Right. And eventually the equilibrium will be very, very close to whatever the fees are on that drivechain on the on the on the sidechain.
They're going to go to the base layer miner. So most likely all if not if not most, but most likely all of the fees of the drivechain would be going directly to the miners.
But by but because it's in sort of a reverse auction fashion, it's what you can think of it of it's just it's like a transaction on the base layer.
Right. Yep. So, yeah, you can just think of it like that. As far as the base layer miners, they're just they just see a transaction and whoever's paying the most.
That's the one that they're going to include. And as long as it's it's valid.
Right. Because if they include an invalid or a transaction, then either it will be just completely ignored because it's not going to be like going forward that sidechain because it's not anything to do with outside chain.
So then that person that paid the miner just like loses. So there's no point of that. So the only way that the sidechain has validity, from what I understand, is actually anchoring its hashes of its blocks to the base layer.
So you're just incentivized to actually give the proper blocks.
Got it. Yeah, thanks. Thanks for the thanks for the insight.
Sure. Yeah, I got kind of a hard question. If I have one Bitcoin and drivechain gets activated tomorrow, how many Lamborghinis would I have next week?
None. Well, I think that's an interesting question because it goes to like if these drivechains that are like other chains, would they actually eventually get market cap over those other chains?
So if you think of like, let's say Ethereum, if you create an Ethereum drivechain, like what is the incentive of people using this Ethereum drivechain? They can just continue to use Ethereum where it has network effect and it has already liquidity and, you know, it already has built up liquidity and built up network effect.
So why would they just move over to Bitcoin? Well, I think at least some people might move over to Bitcoin, at least some some amount of activity will start to bootstrap on Bitcoin.
And then eventually the activity on Bitcoin will continue to grow just because activity continues to grow on all chains if there's demand for it. Right.
And then eventually I think it will become where there's a certain point where a person will think, well, I can do the exact same thing on Bitcoin and maybe I'll have a little bit less liquidity.
But I could do pretty much the same thing or I can do it on Ethereum. And then they're going to look at either do it on Bitcoin or Ethereum. What's the difference then?
Once once the activity is enough and there's enough TVL and there's enough liquidity on the Bitcoin drivechain of Ethereum, then the only thing differentiating them then would just be the actual monetary policy of Bitcoin versus Ethereum.
And then they would most likely be like, well, Bitcoin's monetary policy is more more sound and more stable and more predicted.
So they would most likely choose the Bitcoin side. And then eventually the Bitcoin side drivechain would like overtake the market cap of the Ethereum.
That's kind of how I look at it. I think that that that that would that would eventually. I think that other people might look at it a similar way where eventually other chains would just not really need to exist because you can if once you could do it.
Once you could do it on Bitcoin and Bitcoin's growth continues to grow, then the only difference will will just be the monetary policy.
And everybody pretty much says that the monetary policy of Bitcoin is more, you know, predicted than any other chains. And, you know, so that that would be a no brainer to just use Bitcoin then.
Thank you.
So let me ask another question. To make a copy of Ethereum, for something to go to the drivechain, you have to peg Satoshis or Bitcoins to the drivechain.
But Ethereum make tokens out of nothing. So how would that play, for example, because.
So I think this this this like several questions is a good question. So, first of all, the idea of tokenization has been around for a very long time, even like 2013, 2014.
It was just a million different clones of Bitcoin. They changed a few parameters. They named they changed the name. But most of them didn't last. Maybe Litecoin lasted.
But most of them did not last. And then in 2017, the idea of tokenization and creating new assets has made a new like, you know, a new rise.
And people were very interested in it because people like to speculate. And then in 2021, even more so like meme coins like Shiba Inu and all this.
So people, for some reason, like to speculate on token creation. You can also think of token creation as just shares of a company.
You know, like anybody can make their own company and issue shares for it. Right. It might be bad and they might be lying.
They might be scamming. Most likely, 99 percent of them are just taking the money and leaving.
But that idea isn't necessarily bad because a person can create a company and create shares for it.
Just like on, you know, on the stock market, there's there's many, many, many companies, many, many different assets.
And a lot of them just don't do good because the company just fails. You know, like that happens.
So if you create an Ethereum style, you know, drivechain, sure, you can you can create any assets on that chain.
And that can be, you know, it's just that that can definitely happen.
But you can think of the other question that I have is what about these?
Somebody creates a drivechain where they will incentivize a new token on that drivechain.
Well, then you would you would the way I would understand it is most likely it's not going to benefit the miners because the miners are only going to really benefit if the base currency of the drivechain is Bitcoin, because if the base currency of the drivechain is Bitcoin, then they're receiving rewards in Bitcoin as there's transaction fees in that base currency.
So if you create a drivechain with a new token and you incentivize the block creation of that sidechain with a new token, I don't think miners would just be incentivized to keep that chain around, you know, like, why would they even do that if you could just copy it and make it with Bitcoin instead?
It would be way more profitable for them.
So I hope that answers your question and answers another question that I had that is similar.
Oh, aside from you can already make tokens, right?
Like on Bitcoin, you can make BRC 20s and like colored coins, like all this, like the Omni network and how Tether started, like the idea of token creation has been around forever.
I don't think drivechains necessarily like breaks that model or like incentivizes that model.
It's just that that has always been around and for some reason people really like it.
But at least the fees of the activity of that can go to the miners.
And also, Bitcoin can be the base layer asset for all that.
There used to be a time when if you wanted any kind of altcoin, you had to first buy Bitcoin and then you would go on an exchange and then buy whatever other coin you wanted.
But you needed Bitcoin and all these other coins they traded in Bitcoin.
So Bitcoin was the denominated asset for all of these other coins.
Nowadays, most of the coins can be bought on Ethereum with Ethereum the asset.
And most people don't even need it for Bitcoin.
They could just buy Ethereum and go on this chain and then use Uniswap or whatever and buy whatever token that they want.
All of this activity would be way better if it's done with Bitcoin the asset, because eventually people move like they might buy Shiba Inu or whatever asset on Ethereum.
But eventually they'll start learning about Ethereum and they'll realize that Ethereum is a little bit better for them than the high risk of whatever, you know, meme coin that they want.
So but this activity would be better on Bitcoin because, you know, somebody might buy, you know, like a meme coin that is nominated in Bitcoin.
But eventually they will realize that Bitcoin is really the new innovation here.
And that's just the speculation.
So the idea of all of that activity being done on Bitcoin with Bitcoin and paid to the Bitcoin miners is a benefit.
But you can't really stop that activity, that that activity can already be done on Bitcoin and it is already done every day.
I think the mempool is pretty much full because of these BRC20s right now.
Yeah, nice, thanks.
That's another doubt that I had.
Another doubt that I had and not myself that I have, but people used to like to say that it will bring regulatory oversight from the CAC and a lot of stuff.
But just like you said, there are ways to make new tokens on Bitcoin already.
So if they were to call Bitcoin a security or something, they could do this right now, right?
Because of this new token.
Yeah, but it's also right.
That's that's correct. But it's also important to know that the coins wouldn't actually be on Bitcoin.
They would just be on a sidechain of Bitcoin.
You can think of it like, for example, Ethereum has WBTC, right?
Like wrapped Bitcoin. And the idea that you can create assets on Ethereum, it's a different chain, right?
Or Liquid. On Liquid network, you can create assets, right?
That's not really to do with Bitcoin.
It's a different chain. BRC20s are actually assets being created on the Bitcoin chain in a way, right?
They're really not on chain, but they have some kind of connection with just the base layer of Bitcoin and no other chain.
So drivechains would enable that to be not really on the base layer.
It would actually be on a different chain, kind of like it's on Ethereum or kind of like it's on Liquid or tarot assets.
How, you know, taproot assets are wanting to create assets on Lightning.
So it would be similar where it's a different, it's not really on the base layer, you know, something like that.
But yeah, all this stuff can already be done and is being done anyways.
I also wanted to say that I'm not, I'm not, anything I say is not really connected with LayerTwo Labs or drivechains directly.
So if I say things incorrect or things that I don't know, you know, don't hold them responsible for that.
It's just I'm just sharing my thoughts and hopefully they are aligned or at least they're correct and helpful to others.
So you're not sure if what you're saying is accurate.
Is that what you're saying?
He's been very accurate so far.
I'm doing my best to be as accurate as possible, but you know, I am human and I know that.
Well, cause I think you've been really on, I think you've been pretty accurate so far.
Well, thank you. I just, you know, I know that I make mistakes and I know that I learn and I know that there's things that I say incorrect.
And the next day I realized that, hey, I was wrong.
So, you know, I just, just a preamble.
But, um, thank you.
So guys, thank you.
I'm going to.
So thank you for everything.
Have a nice weekend.
Bye bye.
Thanks.
Thanks for your questions.
And thanks for hanging out with us.
Have a good weekend.
Anybody else feel free to come up and ask questions.
Um, I also don't want to hog the, you know, the speaker too much.
Let other people talk as well and ask questions.
There's knowledgeable people here that can answer.
Thanks for your questions and thanks for hanging out with us.
Have a good weekend.
Anybody else feel free to come up and ask questions.
I also don't want to hug the
speaker too much.
Let other people talk as
well and ask questions.
There's knowledgeable people here that can answer.
All right, well, maybe I'll share some thoughts that while there's no other people that
want to come up and talk, I'll just say that I really enjoy the Drivechain talk because
I like it adds to
of Bitcoin and education of the ecosystem.
I've definitely seen a lot of people learning and I've learned a lot.
So I definitely enjoy people just the discussions because of Drivechain.
Drivechain has opened the door to a lot of discussions, a lot of people talking about
Bitcoin and understanding a little bit more about Bitcoin, hopefully.
So yeah, I really enjoy these things.
think that Drivechain is a great idea.
I'm not the most technical person.
Maybe other people that are extremely more technical, might have other ideas about
that. I personally think it's a good idea.
think that there's little downside.
It seems like to me so far.
And I think that the upside is just so tremendous, at least to me, it seems like the
upside is so tremendous that it's worth learning about and it's worth talking about.
And, you know, it's just it's just worth, you know, spending time on, at least for me,
because I just like that people can use Bitcoin for other purposes.
And I think that everybody is unique.
because everybody's unique,
everybody will have their own purpose.
And they'll have their own use case.
And I think that you can't just fit that all in one place.
People should be allowed to use it however they want.
I think Drivechains enables people to use Bitcoin however they want to use it.
It's going to
be more of a
nature than that I think.
may not be whether you have a choice or not.
If Bitcoin is replacing the native token on your blockchain,
then what
choice you really have but to build on Bitcoin and build with it.
Right what I mean by what I mean by choice is more of like currently right now you're
limited to what you can do with Bitcoin so if I wanted to do something like smart
contracts like an EVM style smart contracts I can't really do it with Bitcoin maybe I
can do it with wrapped Bitcoin on Ethereum you know but
there's still limit limits to what I can do with Bitcoin because of that.
You know, maybe I wanted to do things like Monero.
I can't really do that with Bitcoin currently.
So that's what I meant by people be able to use Bitcoin in other ways that they want.
But of course, you know, people can still use any other chain.
obviously,
Drivechain is
a
absorb and consume other blockchains while becoming the native token on these chains.
These other
chains will not be updated, they'll become antiquated.
They won't be developed on anymore,
etc. I mean, they're going to be useless.
That's a good question because you can think of that a lot of, right, you could first
say that like a lot
of, you know, the money on other chains is just, know, like just goes to VCs and you
know, just gets pocketed or like sold on retail and that's it, right, like 99 % of it,
you can make that case.
Okay. But you can also make the case that a lot of the, you know,
that goes into like the speculation that goes into these other assets actually gets
used towards
development. And then that development gets into creating, you know, protocols that
maybe most of them are not good, but at least one or two might have something
interesting that can be useful.
Right. So you can say, all right, well, that investment money, because there's a new
asset can actually be used for development.
can tell that in the drivechain world, all that investment,
all of that development will only be yielding results for Bitcoin.
Right, what I'm saying is you can still have raises for investment.
If you have an EVM style chain, something like that, you can still issue assets on it.
You can still issue assets on your
design that you want to create, you can still raise money and you can still use that
money towards development of making better Drivechains or whatever it is.
the way I saw that the question is it's a concern.
if all this money is, let's say most of it is being stolen, but least some of it is
being used good, will Drivechains eliminate
that actually, that sliver of the good being used for it, right?
So I think it wouldn't, because I think people can still issue assets and in through
enormous different kind of ways.
It doesn't have to be through drivechains.
And because they can issue assets, they can raise funds.
And because they can raise funds, they can use the funds towards development.
So I don't think drivechains itself would eliminate
innovation through raising funds for development.
On blockchains where Drivechains are
interoperable, excuse me, integrated with, and
where Bitcoin is now the native token on that blockchain, then any innovation
or any raising of funds for that blockchain would, well nobody would do that because
they would just be raising funds for Bitcoin and then you just move off that blockchain
and start building for Bitcoin.
So all these blockchains are going to disappear.
Right, so you want to say that there won't be an incentive to
raise money to innovate?
that basically what you're asking?
No.
I'm saying that with blockchains, with blockchains that
are now not using their own native token,
where Bitcoin is now the native token
on X blockchain or blockchain.
any innovation on that blockchain is not going to go towards their own native token.
any innovation that is invested in on that blockchain is not going
to benefit that native token.
will just benefit Bitcoin.
That's because there is no other native token, right?
can look at two ways, right?
That's right, DriveTrains you build on Bitcoin, for Bitcoin.
All these other blockchains are going to build for Bitcoin on Bitcoin
because they're going to see that, well, why would we continue
developing our blockchain when it's just going to Bitcoin?
It just doesn't make any it won't make any sense.
You can look at it two ways, right?
way you can look at it as well, anything that any other chain does, you can always just
make a drivechain of it.
If it's actually successful and useful and it has product market fit, there's demand
for it. Then you
could just make a copy of it and make a drivechain.
So that's one way to look at it.
But another way to look at it is, everybody will potentially be under the same
umbrella. In the early days, least from my experience, Bitcoin talk forums had an
altcoin forum. There was a whole section.
To this day, there still is a section for altcoins.
Altcoins was always
part of the discussion in Bitcoin from what I remember in the early days.
the idea was that experiment, try it out, try it out on a new coin.
And if it's useful, then we're to add it to Bitcoin eventually anyways.
So you might as well go and try it, learn about it, experiment with it.
always from my experience, it was always open to learning about it
and experimenting on it.
was like encouraged actually, from my experience.
It was encouraged to learn about other protocols and to even try them.
Because if they were good, we would add them to Bitcoin.
But here you can see that everybody would be under the same umbrella.
There would be no reason to ostracize somebody and tell them, go and build a separate
like chain and create your own
asset and just do something else like get away from Bitcoin.
You would have no reason for that.
would tell them no, come and do it on Bitcoin.
Come and build on Bitcoin and they would benefit because everybody benefits together.
If everybody's under the same umbrella working together, it's way more powerful.
Instead of people being divisive and like, you know, everybody creating their own
assets and building
their own things and competing with each other for money.
It would be a much better thing if everybody like wants one money and just continues to
build to make this one money have better use cases.
So two things.
One is you can just copy anybody and create a drivetrain.
The second thing is there will be no incentive to go and build something separate.
You might as well just do it with Bitcoin
anyways and be part of the same umbrella as everybody else.
You might even have more eyes.
might even have more people that are open to look at it, more people that are open to
reviewing it, more people that are open to helping you build it, right?
Because you're building it together as part of their ecosystem anyways.
So it might even be like a more powerful effect.
If you go and build a new asset and
think
that's
much what I'm saying.
yeah, I think that that will be what occurs.
Because you're gonna have all these funding rounds of Layer2s and
it's like, you're doing is benefiting Bitcoin.
You're not really building a blockchain independent of it,
one, protocols won't function as they used to.
secondly,
your native token is Bitcoin.
So I mean, I don't know how it's going to intersect with proof of stake, but all
these proof of stake protocols and whatever protocols are surrounding
proof of stake, well they're just all going to be useless and these blockchains won't
be utilized the way they were intended.
Perhaps if they change, I don't know how they would change necessarily to benefit
the old native token.
And people
can still use them, I suppose, but if Bitcoin is a native token on that blockchain,
can't use it to benefit anything else, anything other than Bitcoin or whatever you're
building on Bitcoin.
I think one thing it might do for sure is at least clean up the space a tiny bit,
because the biggest selling point to like, you know, whatever point it is,
oh, it's like Bitcoin, but it can do XYZ.
then by having that pitch, it's like Bitcoin, but it can do XYZ, they're able to create
a new asset.
And now with that new asset, whatever they do, either dump it on retail or maybe they
actually want to do something good with it, doesn't matter.
But they're able to create that new asset with this pitch, with this marketing.
I think that that marketing will be eliminated because you can't say well it's like
Bitcoin but it can do XYZ because you can do it on Bitcoin now right so it would at
least eliminate that specific misleading marketing pitch so it would help clean up the
space a little bit I Well I think.
But my family is calling me so I'm gonna drop
out of here.
I think you have some other people that can help moderate.
You guys have a good, great weekend.
I'm sorry to rush off right now.
Take care, guys.
Well, like I was saying, it'll do more than clean up the space.
it's going to wipe out a majority
the the the all coins and all the blockchains.
Let me know if you can hear me.
I've been having a pretty serious trouble this whole space so far,
so I'm not sure if I'll able to actually.
I think Greg has his mic on it.
It's causing a bunch of stuff.
Oh, yeah, I do.
I raised my hand I was wondering if there's anybody here who could address an
additional Question that came to my mind about running Ethereum,
an EVM chain on top of
Drivechain.
Because Ethereum has scaling problems and is choosing to go
with Layer2s to address that,
how does that play out on an EVM on top of Drivechain?
I'm going to assume.
me if my ...
How does that play out?
Do L2s run on
top of VEVM on Drivechain, the same L2s?
So anything that's going on on Ethereum, BPM today could also
be deployed on the Bitcoin, LayerTwo, Drivechain,
EVM.
Additionally,
Drivechains can have their own Drivechains.
Drivechains, so that could be an solution, another LayerTwo architecture
on top of it, even more so, all the roll -ups and the
bridges and what do we call it, Eejin chain or whatever, is kind of
like Drivechain on Ethereum, these can all
be deployed on the drivechain Okay, I just wanted to ask
because of that that's the problem that ethereum is facing But you wouldn't be scaling
ethereum no matter How you iterate that scenario it would be scoring bitcoin
Well,
the
through the bass chain so
I don't know, I don't see, I couldn't see, I don't know about if this would happen with
EVM, but you can imagine like large block or let's say sidechains that
are purely transactional focused.
So they'd likely be large block sidechains.
Well, because most
Most economic activity occurs with people who are somewhat similarly
located to you geographically.
It's likely that you could have geographically based large block sidechains,
you know, could have a North American, mean, not that there would be any like actual
borders or fences to keep those rules in place,
but it would probably just spontaneously, organically emerge that you would have
multiple
transactional sidechains that would likely be based on geography just
because
that's what kind of...
...the trend of actual activity in the real world is kind of based on.
Is this all...
I mean, is this all sharing one liquidity pool and fully composable, or are you talking
about a fragmented world?
Well, it would all be one liquidity pool because it would all be 21 million bitcoin.
Right. Right.
So it would all be linked together. And the other thing is that you can…
Payment channels between networks because as long as the sidechains are UTXO based and I would assume…
I mean it's almost certain that every single one of them would be or like the vast, vast majority, they can be linked with…
You could have payment channels between the sidechains as well.
So as long as you have a counterpart on the other side willing to swap the asset that's in that sidechain, you can do that.
Yeah, but that sounds like a temporary link. That sounds like a manual setup, temporary link. It's a one-to-one link rather than…
Well, it wouldn't be a temporary link. It would be just an arbitrage because at the end of the day, you can always withdraw to the main chain…
And then immediately deposit into any of the other sidechains. So there would be likely a robust market doing arbitrage.
And it would be a very – probably a very low, big arbitrage, but there would be some basically risk-free rate of return for anyone willing to put up their coin to cover the short-term supply and demand between the…
But you're describing this. I'm not disputing any of that, but you're describing what a sophisticated user would do.
I'm trying to imagine what an unsophisticated everyman would be able and willing to do.
It's just the same or even simpler than using Kraken or Coinbase today. It would likely be – well, probably Kraken, Coinbase, Binance would all have these services.
Oh, okay. Yeah.
Maybe the miners themselves would offer the services. There might be…
It would be front-ended. It would be front-ended.
It could be front-ended in many, many ways. It could be – and there already is a site that was kind of inspired by this called sideshift.ai.
So if you want to look at how somebody who built an exchange that was directly inspired by this idea of instant swap between sidechains…
On Drivechain or some other…
Yeah, exactly.
On Drivechain.
On the Drivechain, the site was inspired by the idea that a service provider would be needed to perform these short-term swaps between the sidechains.
And so there always will be somebody willing to take custody of the encumbered coins, the coins that are encumbered in the sidechain, and give you coins in a different sidechain or in the mainchain for some price.
Because they know to a certain very, very high level of confidence that they are going to receive – they can return their coins back to the basechain within three months or whatever the time is.
Because they can also kind of take custody of – these transactions would also occur with coins that are in process of being withdrawn as well.
So from a user experience standpoint, this sounds more complicated than the solutions that are being developed and talked about.
Not delivered today, but being developed and talked about on top of Ethereum.
Is that not necessarily true?
No, I think it's actually much simpler.
It's at least as simple as a user logging into the standard frontend for Uniswap.
Probably much simpler than that.
But also, there could be any number of services that basically act as a frontend for this same type of service.
Because what you're talking about is a very, very basic exchange service.
It's extremely basic because you're not even exchanging one asset for a different asset in a different blockchain.
You're exchanging assets in the same – so you don't even have to think about the pricing.
So it sounds – what seems to me to be a good user experience on the Ethereum narrative is Layer 2s are – they can easily, with ZK proofs, transfer assets between the different Layer 2s.
Without much problem because they're all trading on top of ETH or they're trading ETH or both.
And that's not the case between a bunch of alt L1s.
So the same argument could be made on this architecture.
Well, it's going to be as easy because that can be ported over directly as well onto the Layer 2 EDM.
It will at least be that easy because that will also be present in the ecosystem.
Right. So the only thing you're replacing is really the ETH as a settlement layer in that scenario.
You're just changing settlement layers.
The ETH would be the – well, there would be no ETH, but the…
I know. That's what I mean by replacing.
The ETH would be placed one level up and the ultimate settlement layer would then be the BTC base chain and all of the ETH as a settlement layer stuff right now would be in the second layer.
So it may be that when it's merged and then we have the benefit of some time, three years or whatever, that some basic fundamentals of how the ecosystem develops have changed.
But also from that perspective, from the perspective of the current ETH ecosystem, because maybe there'll be more specialized sidechains and some things like, I don't know, NFTs or something will be kind of all but absent from the EVM chain because they now are kind of intimately connected through the base chain to some other specialized sidechain.
That's kind of more focused on NFTs specifically or asset creation or whatever or maybe not.
Yeah. Okay. All right. Well, I was just curious to ask about scalability because that's an obvious barrier for…
Well, that's kind of one of the main, if not the main problem that drivechain solves is scalability because it allows for all the instances of the trade-off, all the spectrum of trade-offs between scalability and decentralization and all other trade-offs.
It allows for them all to exist on the network at once with the base chain making none of those trade-offs.
Yeah. While the base chain maintains as much decentralization as possible at the expense of base chain scalability, you can move that toggle to whatever point along the spectrum you want and create a chain on top of it that can make those trade-offs without risking the base chain.
When you say base chain, you mean the Bitcoin chain?
The Bitcoin network, yeah. So the Bitcoin network must remain as decentralized as possible.
The blocks must remain small. In fact, it's likely that in an ideal world, the blocks would be even smaller than they are today.
Really?
Which would obviously sacrifice scalability to a degree, but would make the network more robust from a decentralization perspective.
And if we had already had drivechain merge, the trade-off of lowering the block size, the scalability trade-off, would be a lot less risky to the security budget, to the usability of the network, to user acquisition, to the growth of the network, to the number go up of Bitcoin.
It would be a lot less risky than it would be today.
You mean if the block size was smaller?
Yeah. If we were to lower the block size today, sans drivechain, it's a pretty serious trade-off. It's a very serious scalability trade-off that's there.
Can I ask you why? I never understood this. I've been trying to understand. Why does a smaller block size make it less scalable?
Because there's less space in each block for users to transact.
So less transactions can make it into each block, which means less users can get a transaction into each block, which means eventually, perhaps, would mean a much more expensive transaction.
So very simply put, the trade-off with that is that it makes it much easier to run a node because you have much lower, mostly bandwidth, but also hardware.
Yeah, hardware, although that's kind of really not a bottleneck at this point.
But you can imagine with a smaller block size that the worst, the most adverse conditions, like you're in sub-Saharan Africa in the middle of a brutal civil war or something, and you're still able to tap into enough bandwidth to run your own node.
Which, in a hyper-Bitcoinized world, that is a scenario which maybe somebody somewhere is going to need to do.
Maybe they only have some very rudimentary internet connection, very low bandwidth, they're in the middle of a conflict zone, whatever you can think of as worst-case scenario.
But basically, it's easier to run a node, so you imagine there'll be more nodes running.
Yeah, so that's, I guess – I don't know if I articulated it the best, but that's basically the trade-off.
What about what Jack Dorsey's working on? Wouldn't it be easier with smaller block sizes, given what you just said?
Like an appliance, a home appliance that spits out Bitcoin, a heater, a home heater.
I think Jack Dorsey's working on a home heating device that mines Bitcoin.
I mean, is that relevant to what you're arguing?
Well, not exactly. Although there's a bunch of – I mean, there's plenty of discussion around that.
Because one of the – funny enough, one of the main arguments against drivechains is that it creates this kind of side business for that miners are going to then be required to engage in.
Thus increasing the cost of mining or whatever.
But it's kind of analogous to the mining being used to heat a house or heat a swimming pool or heat a greenhouse or do whatever, XYZ.
It kind of highlights how ridiculous that argument can get.
But anyway, that's kind of a distraction.
Or at least from the point we were talking about earlier, we can talk about anything you want.
No, it's okay. I don't want to distract. I just try to understand the block size argument.
It was never – everybody assumes it's understandable, but it's never been clear.
Well, that's the very basic thing is there's a tradeoff.
The larger block size allows for more transactions in every block but makes it more difficult to run your own validating node.
And the inverse is true of a smaller block size.
Okay. All right.
That's been the crux of a lot of – probably the most drama in the history of this industry is that tradeoff.
I've been reading a lot about that because there's some loud voices on Twitter about how that was just Bitcoin's biggest mistake and that core took it over.
Bitcoin Core took it over, and that it's going to ultimately be the demise of Bitcoin and all that stuff.
I mean the small blocks needed to win. I would say that if they're saying that that's Bitcoin's biggest mistake, that's not correct.
Small blocks are superior if you have that binary, if it has to be one or the other.
However, with drivechains, it doesn't have to be one or the other.
So in that whole argument, if it was presented as either small blocks or big blocks, then small blocks is superior but not without cost.
However, the real answer was, but why not both?
Because you can have an optional big block sidechain on top of a mandatory small block main chain, but you cannot have the inverse.
You cannot have a small block, more decentralized, more robust from the perspective of validation.
You can't have that on top of a less decentralized hard block main chain.
Because you can aggregate the small blocks into a big block, but you can't split up a big block into a bunch of small blocks.
Well, it's more so that you can have the base chain, which is mandatory for anybody running any sidechain.
You can have that be small block with more decentralized, more decentralization.
Like if you sacrifice the decentralization on the base chain, that sacrifice goes all the way up.
You can think of it as a check valve.
So the drivechain above the base chain, the attributes of the base chain can flow up, but they can't flow back down.
There's a firewall. It's more of a check valve because it's unidirectional.
So any drama or politics or even a complete blow up or centralization, whatever that happens on the sidechains, the base chain, because of the way the drivechains are constructed, the base chain is protected from any of that.
Right, right.
We have someone raising their hand.
Okay, thanks for your answers. Thanks for your help.
My pleasure. I hope it's somewhat insightful. I don't know.
No, it is. It is very helpful.
Well, thank you for participating.
Thank you.
Hello, how are you?
Is this Mr. Pseudonym?
Yes. How are you doing?
Doing very well. I can't really see when somebody's talking because my Twitter is buggy, but thank you for joining.
Thanks for answering the question.
I'm a little bit worried or curious about what kind of user experience and network effect is expected.
And I say that based on just using Lightning, there's lots of friction.
So we need to use another wallet and there's already been a sidechain from Blockstream, which has gained zero traction.
And so I'm wondering what's the most optimistic path to having enough demand for people to go through hoops to install another wallet and deal with something different.
And also another thing that worries me is that if there's a finality thing and each drive... I guess eventually...
Yeah, it seems like a complexity to tell people about the level of finality they can expect on a drivechain.
So I think maybe the finality is a strength versus altcoins because the sidechains are merge-mined on top of Bitcoin, which has by far the most finality guarantees.
Practically speaking, there's no checkpoint, there's no explicit finality guaranteed in the code.
The size of the network or the size of the security budget of the network of Bitcoin so far exceeds everything else that I'd say the de facto finality on Bitcoin dwarfs any other asset.
And the sidechains on top of that would inherit that finality to a very large degree.
Well, I'm not so sure of that because on Bitcoin miners have a capital expenditure in terms of owning miners and owning the data center.
As on the drivechain, it's more like whoever pays more to reverse the transaction. That's my understanding.
It is. However, the market would develop to the point where the size of the drivechain, the utilization of the drivechain would work its way up to, how would you say, giving as much money as possible to the basechain miners.
What were the other two questions? I think you had three.
That is my first thing because I've tried the liquid sidechain and one of my issues with it is that to take out, you basically have to go through a centralized entity.
Yeah, of course.
And that's as bad as almost using a KYC exchange.
I'm assuming that with drivechain, because it's more trustless de-pegging, there'll be more liquidity.
Yeah, so the comparison of liquid to drivechain is, I mean, you can see why it's made, but I think it's given much more weight than it should.
Well, one thing is what you just said. Basically, liquid is a centralized entity.
Now, people will come back and say, no, it's whatever. It's a 15 signature wallet, multi-sig or whatever.
However, we don't know who those 15 signatories are until extremely recently.
I don't remember exactly, but until basically sometime earlier this year, not that long ago, it was closed source.
It's basically kind of a very different thing than having the same kind of or the miners themselves process these withdrawals.
The ethos of Bitcoin, I would say, is not exactly the ethos of liquid.
I think liquid was kind of originally meant to kind of just do very rapid Bitcoin settlement between exchanges and the like.
But it never really fulfilled that promise for a number of reasons.
But I think one of the main reasons is that all the all the liquid exchanges, not the liquid exchanges being like exchanges that use liquid.
I mean, the exchanges that like matter in terms of price recovery, the big market makers on there.
They won. They have enough capital to have some in motion just on the base chain, just on an L1 L1 transfer between, let's say, like Bitfinex or Kraken.
But, too, they have like credit agreements and all sorts of arrangements with these exchanges so that should there be a large price shift and there actually be an arbitrage opportunity,
the they don't need to use a liquid because they already have something that's kind of like a stopgap for capital at these exchanges.
A stopgap that that is what will allow them to take advantage of those price movements, make those markets and then transfer the capital to get to rebalance their their, you know, their various accounts at the exchanges.
Without just using an L1 transaction, because, you know, they're only you know, they have the agreements with the exchanges in place so that they can wait the hour or two to be credited with more with a Bitcoin transaction on the exchanges.
Does that make sense?
So I was working at Kraken for many years and I worked I worked at Kraken for more than eight years before I kind of teamed up with Paul to work on LayerTwo Labs.
And I remember that Liquids, I remember when this was maybe five years ago or whatever, Liquid trying to, they had like a salesman from Blockstream trying to persuade Kraken and I'm sure that he was talking to every other major exchange to try to adopt Liquid.
And the main, I don't really know what they're doing today, but the main use case proposed back then was was Bitcoin settlement basically was so that users could move their Bitcoin from, you know, Kraken to Bitfinex and vice versa in seconds or minutes instead of having to wait for an hour or whatever or having to wait for one confirmation or whatever.
I don't know. I don't know what Kraken is doing today.
But back then, even for the biggest traders, we made every user wait for six confirmations.
But I know that Kraken was the only exchange to do that.
So already, I believe every other exchange for their big market makers was crediting in with one confirmation.
So basically, Liquid and I think Liquid only I think Liquid has like one minute block times.
It's not like 15 seconds.
So I believe basically what they were their value add was was taking for the most part was was was taking the confirmation through the crediting, the speed of crediting Bitcoin on an exchange down from 10 minutes to one minute.
And for that, the tradeoff is that it's encumbered not by not by the miners as in drivechain that's encumbered by this, like, you know, somewhat opaque federation.
And back then, it was even more ridiculous because they were trying.
They were. Let me try to get this all in order to get this all straight.
They were they were saying one of their security pillars of their security was that the Liquid network was only running.
The nodes would only run on these proprietary servers that had thermite.
So if they were tampered with, they would self-destruct.
I don't know if they're still if they're actually ever deployed that or.
Yeah, that's fine.
But I think we can agree that increased settlement time and only settlement that was not a good enough.
There was not enough demand for that because they already are very trustworthy entities.
You can't keep each other started.
It was one story.
But then, you know, whatever, six months or because that was, I believe, in 2016 or maybe moving to 2017.
But things changed so much between beginning of 2017 and the end, because in the beginning, the main the chief market makers like unifying the pricing throughout the market in this industry were.
I don't know.
You know, we're not amateurs by any means.
But by the end, it was like Sequoia and Jump Capital and all of these like major HFT traditional market participants were all beginning to deploy capital.
And they have absolutely no shortage of capital.
Of course, they want to get the most bang bang for their buck.
But, yeah, the whole promise of liquid was much less attractive.
And on the other end of things, the the the the venues changed a great deal.
So one thing about the 2017 bull market was that the chief price discovery venue was BitMEX.
And of course, at the time, I don't think so anymore.
But at the time, BitMEX was only Bitcoin, Bitcoin in, Bitcoin out, only Bitcoin.
Everything. You're only the only collateral you could have on your account with Bitcoin.
Of course, you could take positions to like hedge that.
You could just do like a neutral short or whatever, like a one X short or whatever.
But the base asset, the only thing you'd have in your account was Bitcoin.
So with all the liquidity in BitMEX and the market being so volatile, so like such a crazy bull market that year, there was a lot of demand for Bitcoin just for people to fund their BitMEX accounts.
That's not the case anymore. I mean, now there's all sorts of assets.
Ethereum has a non-trivial amount of of of volume and is and represents the cross like the currency on a non-trivial.
Not, you know, Bitcoin still has much more, but the amount like of markets and the size of the market that Ethereum is the currency for today is definitely not trivial.
And of course, now stable coins are, I believe, the vast majority of the currencies like in this market.
So things are completely different now.
But I think maybe that's gotten off the topic.
So my main question is what kind of like use case do you foresee as being the main driver of like demand or to go to basically borrow to learn a new trade off and learn a new wallet?
Because like just transacting is not it.
And there won't be any altcoins like issuance.
There might be some here in that it will be or it will be.
I don't know if it will be, but it could be very similar, almost the exact same user experience as today, where a user who wants to interact with all coins and Bitcoin and coins and whatever,
except for that there's one less extremely important variable they have to have to contend with, which is the, you know, the price variability between these assets and the like.
Whatever user interfaces or user experience is happening today on whatever asset they're using, whether they're using that, whether they're running their own node, their own Solana node, their own Binance Smart Chain node, which is a joke because obviously no one's running their own nodes for those things.
But even if they were, they could do that as well on the clones of the things on Bitcoin, or they could interact with it through whatever the whatever somebody will make.
I'm sure a clone of MetaMask for drivechains or they could interact with it through a centralized exchange as many, if not the majority of people who are crypto asset owners or crypto market participants do like probably the vast majority of people who are in the market have never even set up their own wallet, much less their own node.
They just go on to their favorite exchange and buy their favorite shit coin and log off and hope for gains.
And that's the extent of their participation.
So any experience that the user is experiencing today, that can be ported directly to drivechains and it could be improved because no longer do you need to worry about which asset to speculate in because Bitcoin swallows it all.
But in terms of like altcoin utility, what I noticed is that there's the centralized exchange and what is being traded on the centralized exchange, let's say I check Uniswap top pair.
Well, there's one that's like, yeah, there's like a volume.
There's Ethereum and stablecoin and rapidcoin, Lido, Pepe, DAI.
So this is basically just trading chain coin and stablecoin on Ethereum.
I'm guessing like speculating on the price of Bitcoin and maybe like synthetic stablecoin.
Well, if people want to give me space, like let's say like and it was so first of all, any of that token creation, like much to the dismay of some of the critics that can occur on drivechains as well.
If you want to spin up, you know, some asset that's tied to nothing and is just a meme coin based on a frog or whatever you want, you can do that on drivechains as well.
But there is, you know, they're likely to be some sacrifice in terms of speculation on.
Well, basically what it's come down to is you're saying like the main use case for all coins that you see is these decentralized gambling markets.
Well, that might be.
And there's a whole lot of composability within Ethereum where people use Ethereum to buy some Pepe or some other garbage.
And if there's no garbage on.
So there's already like a network effect of all the garbage is at the same place.
That's that's what I want to make a lot of garbage on top of Bitcoin.
There's there's a massive amount of room to make a lot of garbage on top of Bitcoin.
And if Bitcoin becomes, you know, the main or in time the only L1 speculative asset.
Well, you could always just kind of lever that up.
Right. You could have a you could.
I think like, you know, like this stuff that was on FTX, this like BTC 100 coin or whatever, which is like a hundred X.
I don't know if they ever had a hundred X, but they basically had like bull Bitcoin coin where it would like it was a separate coin created by FTX that would track the price of Bitcoin, but levered or something like that.
That basically all of that stuff, anything that exists on these all coins, unless, you know, you have some specific, really nuanced edge case example that I'm not thinking of.
All of that can and likely will exist on top of Bitcoin.
And likely very shortly after merging drivechains, because people can just copy and paste it, all the stuff that already exists today.
It's likely that everything of any note that is has, you know, a lot of users or has a lot of attention on Ethereum or other all coin, that stuff will likely exist on top of Bitcoin within weeks.
So the example of that are like kind of lead developer CryptAxe likes to say or likes to talk about, maybe he's here, but basically you have Zcash did like version five and they have, you know, the whatever is companies like electric coin company.
And they have like, I don't know, five or 10 PhD cryptographers under on their staff.
And it took them two years to create this version five, which was a huge upgrade.
It eliminated the trusted setup and it changed a lot of things.
And it was a lot of work, I'm sure, for all these people.
And then like 48 hours later, the Zcash version five had been copied onto the drivechain test net.
And it was like it wasn't like a hardcore 48 hours.
It was like a 48 hours with, you know, plenty of sleep and rest and plenty of time to relax in between sprints of work.
Because basically the engineer just took the code that was open source that was released the Zcash version five.
And in many instances, literally copy and pasted it.
And 48 hours later, it was deployed to the drivechain test net and ready to be used.
And so anything that's out there today could literally just be copy and pasted onto the drivechain EVM test net, which also already exists.
And already it is a perfect clone of the Ethereum EVM.
So much so that as a test, you know, many contracts have been copy and pasted onto the drivechain EVM test net and they function, they function.
Well, basically, one of the things that with drivechain, every shitcoin developer becomes a Bitcoin developer, whether they want to or not, whether they are happy about it or not.
Anything that comes to any shitcoin can be then deployed onto Bitcoin.
Most importantly, with no downside to the Bitcoin base chain, the Bitcoin base chain doesn't even know about it.
It doesn't even know that it's happened.
The Bitcoin base chain does not know that Zcash version five has been has been implemented on top of it.
Yeah.
Yeah, I guess there would be no shitcoin developer, but let's say someone wants to create a token that represents real world assets.
He could use that, let's say the volcano bond or something so people could trade it with Bitcoin.
But like each drivechain, it's its own bubble.
So I see like a composability issue where, like, let's say you have a stablecoin USDT on one drivechain and you want to transfer it to the other one.
You kind of need to wait or use a third party.
And it's like the shitcoin, they go where there's a lot of dumb money.
So that's why they go on Ethereum.
But that's also the case today on any network.
Like if you want to transfer USDT on Ethereum to USDT on Tron, you'll need some sort of intermediaries or some sort of counterpart to trade with or you need some sort of bridge or whatever.
But whatever it is, that can be built on top of the EVM on top of Bitcoin.
So you see what I'm saying?
Like whatever problem that you're addressing, that problem exists already on top of the EVM or whatever else we're trying to copy.
And the solutions that they come up with there can be copied on to.
The Bitcoin sidechain as well, but at the base of it, it's stronger because we have 21 million Bitcoin that will then be the foundation for all of these networks with all of their solutions.
And they all can be because there is always that option to deposit coins into one network and withdraw them from the network.
Perhaps that opens up more space for solutions than even exists today.
Well, it democratizes access to being a market maker on Niquid, where you have to be a federation member and like 80% of them are exchange, which I don't want to do.
So that's great, but I don't ascribe too much to the narrative of like to kill the shitcoin because I don't see like a clear network effect building up ever again in my mind.
I disagree with that a lot, because the network effect is already there. Because despite all of the advantages or whatever of all of these shitcoins, Bitcoin is still the strongest network, objectively speaking.
Bitcoin is still by far the highest market cap, which is the most important metric.
And so the network effect is already there.
So what we're talking about is taking what's already number one, what's already the strongest network with the strongest security guarantees and just porting over everything on top of that.
So the real question is, how will the network effect of these networks that are not in first place survive?
Right. It's not like Ethereum is not in first place.
Bitcoin, despite all its limited functionality and despite not being able to copy every single thing that Ethereum does, is still in first place.
So if you have Bitcoin with Ethereum and everything else combined versus Ethereum without Bitcoin and everything else combined, how is that a stronger network effect?
When it's already winning, Bitcoin is already winning for now, you know.
Well, it's a stronger effect because it has zero monetary value or it should not have any.
And people use it for gas because they want to trade the existing 5000 garbage.
And the 5000 garbage were created like some of them, like six, seven, eight years ago.
And I guess you can't compete with like six years of like garbage with like new garbage.
Like, I mean, you have to use RAP.
Why would that even be the case at all?
Of course you can compete.
It's not like what's it there today is the end all be all of innovation.
And I mean, what was like things that were there six years ago are likely not even used today.
You know, like what was the I don't know.
I'm trying to think of like like one of the first big things, the boom Ethereum was Auger.
Auger. No one uses Auger today.
Auger was never used in the only thing Auger was used for was people buying the ICO and speculating that by the time the network launched, nobody cared anymore.
And then there was what else?
All sorts of garbage like that.
That's gone down ninety nine point nine percent and is no longer used by anybody ever.
And then there was like CryptoKitties was the first of these like generative NFT things or whatever.
Nobody uses that anymore.
So, of course, it's complete nonsense.
Six years is nothing, especially when you're talking about Bitcoin's already number one.
You know, it's like to think that Bitcoin can't compete with Ethereum when it already does is already winning.
Of course they can.
And of course, like whatever you're using today in six years from now, you're going to it's probably going to be comical.
The idea that like whatever that Auger is going to hold any value or that Civic is going to hold any value or poet or whatever the ICOs.
I mean, what was that six years ago now?
Not quite, but oh, yeah.
So it was about six years ago.
None of these things have have have more than like a 98 percent drawdown.
If you have an ICO from from 2017 that's only had a 95 percent drawdown, you're like in the elite.
You know, it's like none of these things are relevant at all.
Yeah, so I think one of the the use case I see most for the drivechain is to convert Bitcoin to stablecoin and just be trade this in a decentralized way.
So because right now, people, there is demand for stablecoin, but you have to go to Ethereum to be able to go in and out instead of all you have to use wrapped Bitcoin, which you can never redraw.
Like, you know, trust this manner.
So, yeah, it's good.
I mean, thanks for answering my question.
It's just.
Right, right, because I see that's the demand that's like perfectly illustrates the demand in spite of all of its downsides.
That's much more illustrative of the demand for drivechains than liquid.
I think wrapped Bitcoin is a much better analogy to what drivechains actually are than than is liquid.
And the demand is is obviously huge there in spite of all of the risks and trade offs of like kind of instead of just, you know, handing your funds to BitGo and hoping that they do what's right by you with drivechains.
It has a much, much more secure architecture.
But yeah, sorry to interrupt you.
I think maybe there's like a slight lag.
Thank you for your question.
Thanks.
Yeah.
It's like, what kind of like architecture like do you see as the first drivechain?
Because there's the EVM and then there's Zcash and then maybe there's other kind of like consensus mechanism.
There's a few that are ready for like, so if just, you know, by chance that we let's say we put out the the final draft PR requests tomorrow, they were just like, you know, dropped out of nowhere and the miners on Sunday merged it and by Monday, drivechains was a done deal in Bitcoin.
I think right now there is maybe Henry can verify, but I think there's like seven ready for launch, I believe.
So there's like we said, there's the EVM sidechain, there's a Zcash sidechain, there's what's called Thunder, which is basically just a big block sidechain.
There's BitAssets, so that's like, kind of just an after generation specific sidechain that's not, it's like kind of its own, its own thing, it's not based on a, it's not a clone of any existing altcoin.
I guess that would be most similar to kind of like Namecoin or something, the BitAssets, but like more broad.
There, there's more to there's more of them, and likely likely Paul would release his, his prediction market sidechain in a month, you know, I'm not sure if it's ready for like immediate launch, but it's probably not infinitely fast.
It's not that far away. It's pretty close. Sorry, one second. I'm not sure. There's more to if you go to drivechain.info for slash releases, you can download a lot of this software already and run it on the run it on the on the testnet.
So it's, it's, it's out there already.
Nice.
And of course, like, once that actually happened, probably you'd have a number of enthusiasts who would just start getting to work copying and pasting. So there's like a, like a template to make it even easier for people to just copy altcoins.
And so using the sidechain template, I imagine within now the miners would have to like a lot the sidechain slots, but as far as just building them, I'm sure I'm sure there'd be, there'd probably be quite a few dozen more within, you know, just a few days as people kind of copy the whatever their favorite or maybe their least favorite shitcoin is.
Oh, there's also trainchain. I can't forget about trainchain. That's one that's like a, like an old meme coin made by the famous Mikeinspace, the Twitter personality Mikeinspace made this trainchain, which is basically just a copy of Bitcoin, but it's about trains. Like, I guess like, you know, Dogecoin is about Doge and trainchain is about trains.
I don't know if anybody else wants to, wants to come up and discuss anything. You don't even have to ask any question. Obviously, I can just stop talking and anyone else can just take the stage if they want to talk.
Thank you, I'll help them.
I want to come up with a good question.
I've seen so many by like feature and project and
it merge and it takes years to see actual
use cases use it.
Yes, of course, but the whole point of Drivechain is just that
we're not spinning it up from scratch, we're building it on top of Bitcoin,
thankfully still has some usage.
Although sadly, not as many paying customers for block space as
Ethereum, it seems.
Hi, guys.
Hello. Hi, Hristian.
Thank you. Thank you for coming.
Yeah, you're welcome.
I want to add something to it.
all the time what you were saying is great.
And thank you for explaining everything.
I wanted to compare something between why Drivechain is needed
now and I think it's a big mistake that it's not enabled even earlier on Bitcoin
because I even tweeted this that Ethereum, for example,
they try something else now to do and scale
scale and actually they,
you know, for me it's looking as a copy of the Drivechain concept, you know, if they
copied or took, don't know, it's like with their latest
kind of
EAP to kind
reduce the gas and increase the scalability with
using bundle transactions sending as one
and don't know you know about that Austin.
It's a
mean, it's a ERC, now it's ERC, it's
already proof dating, ERC 4337,
where the users sending transactions will be, between will
be a bundler.
And actually I recognize that as a you know,
the Drivechain node, bundles the transactions and as a
bundle in one hash is sent to the main Ethereum chain, which is like, you
know, kind of very interesting to see that the other
blockchains or old coins try
to, how did that the bundler is prevented
from stealing the money?
That's the question, because, know, I see that as a very centralized way of doing
things, because it's it's no kind of maybe is I didn't went
very deep in the,
but it's kind of probably like a relay or, you know,
somebody who will offer that kind of service to do.
you know, it's kind of like centralized way of doing things.
this is very, very also important to kind of compare
with Drivechains, that Drivechains are completely trustless and
respect the decentralization of Bitcoin, etc.
But also, I know you talked about from where
the adoption or the demand
for Drivechain will come, think besides everything what you said, agree.
I think that Drivechain will have demand from the businesses.
Why I'm saying this?
Because for a long time I follow what the businesses are doing and
how they approach blockchain technologies.
I know that many companies, even in the spaces, were talking that they try
to kind of use the Bitcoin for business
related stuff like digital infrastructure or
stuff like that.
that's a very, for me, kind of interesting niche
of maybe will be big, I believe will be big.
And Drivechain is a perfect solution for that because they can create Drivechain for
I believe that they can create it for anything,
even for supply chain, accounting,
all sorts of stuff.
So there will be a volume and, you know, we'll be on
Bitcoin, which is the most important to use at the centralized security.
I mean, it would make sense because if they're going to do, if anyone's going to build
any infrastructure on a public chain and drivechains
are available, then it would just make sense
to build on Drivechain because the security of the Bitcoin network is
superior. Yeah, but do you think they can do a private chain
or a chain that is kind of not
open for, I mean, sidechain?
I'm not the one to answer this exactly, because this is like a real edge case that I
don't think I've thought too much about.
I believe that technically that would be possible.
I mean, I guess you could just propose a chain where it kind
of, I guess the way
you would do that is would just basically limit the who can validate
and you could add all sorts of rules that you know there would be privileged
participants that can freeze funds and whatever else.
I think that difficulty would maybe would be in getting enough miners to
approve of allocating that chain a slot.
But I guess it might be possible.
Yeah. Yeah. Just, you know, from a technical standpoint, because probably they will
not use any kind of, you know, they will not try to do any
token or coin or stuff like that.
I'm looking at Drivechains as a, you know, I eliminate this
buzz of people saying, oh, there will be shitcoins and stuff like that, because it's
very incredible idea that, you know, will bring something
very valuable and opportunity for many many kind of innovation
to be done on Drivechains.
as you said and Paul said and everybody is saying that the
main chain is untouched.
It's a small block, it's sitting as it
is, that's a perfect match, I think.
Yeah, you know what, think now that I thought about it more, maybe it could happen if
the private, whoever wants this private chain basically
just pays enough.
but I don't know mean that's
that's, that's, it's, yeah, I'm not really sure.
But yeah, I agree with you on your, your other points.
Yeah.
Yeah, or maybe we'll be, we'll be a sidechain where, you know, we'll be created for
this kind of things, maybe, you know, so they can, they can
mean,
that's yeah, but when people hear private,
cannot have a public,
using public blockchain for data that is
sensitive, mean, that's obvious.
I mean, something maybe we should, it's something we can, I'll discuss and maybe
we can kind of bring this up intentionally on the next spaces or have someone
else discuss
I don't know if you follow, I follow another very similar concept of
Drivechain, is Altcoin, it's UTXO based blockchain.
You know, I don't want to mention any names here, but I'm I think there
was one of, what was the one, Qtome or Quantome or whatever?
No, it's It's Avalanche.
Oh, Avalanche, yeah, yeah.
That's it. and Avalanche came out exactly
after the block wars and they created, I think, Bitcoin, ABC, the
founder created later on Avalanche, contains the UTXO
-based settlement layer.
They're like a multi -chain.
They have a settlement layer, they have a staking
layer for validation and stuff, and another EVM.
But on top of that, they have code subnets which are similar to
sidechains. whoever wants to create their
blockchain, they can be public, private, customizable,
fully and stuff like that.
this kind of EVM based, they extend and can be connected to any
other chain, can be utilized any other VM or script.
So it's kind of I mean, what I'm trying to bring is
to bring this information so people realize that something is
happening around Bitcoin and if Drivechain is not enabled, know, the things
will go away from, you know, to other chains.
I will use a kind of metaphorical
comparison. if you buy something, know, and then
you discover something is better later on, you know, you say, oh, I bought now, I spend
my money, so I stay with this, you know, so it's kind of like a...
Yeah, think that would be called like the
cost fallacy.
Meaning like, so that's the idea like, let's say you, well, it's like perfectly in
crypto, bought some shit coin and then it went down 95 % and you thought, oh,
well, I've already lost this much.
was
the point? Meanwhile, you still could save 5 % of your money, but you think, or like
you've worked, you know, you worked on building a project for a year and then you
realize that it's not going to work or it's not going to come up to spec or whatever.
And you know, and then you say, well, I better just keep going
and finish it anyway, even though something like that.
Well, have here the basically the lead
sidechain builder, one of the co -founders
of the LayerTwo Labs company, CryptAxe.
He's basically
Basically the one who's built hip 300 and done the code uh to date And uh,
so you have any questions from him?
Yeah. Sorry. I just joined in I heard the end of a question But I didn't hear the whole
question if you want me to try to answer it
The most interesting one of the last few minutes would be can
is it possible to build a blockchain on top of
Bitcoin with BIP300?
Yeah, you could do that because the sidechain implementation is completely up to the
sidechain implementer. You could have like a Chase Bank sidechain that they have to
approve every transaction
on, have to approve the withdrawals, everything like that.
Yeah, actually, you want to say it can be customizable.
Yeah,
Yeah. Yeah, that's a very, very good point to, you know, to when,
we have even, you know, talking
with people to have that mind.
Yeah, and I think I agree.
you for the information.
The issue with that would be incentivizing miners to activate that and mine it.
And I heard a suggestion that they might just pay them to do it.
And I agree with that.
I think that that's how it would work.
Yeah, yeah, obviously.
because even if the transaction, let's say, I'm the miner who wants to mine that
sidechain and nobody wants to mine, and I can't mine the first block or second block, I
will mine on the third block or fourth block or whatever, Like, it will be longer, but
again, it will be mined.
Yeah, and I think there's some cool
ideas that could exist with private sidechains like that.
I'm personally more interested in the totally decentralized ones, with Drivechain,
everybody can get what they want at the same time without having to agree with each
other. And you don't have to use the private sidechain if you don't want to.
Like, I probably won't, but other people can.
Yeah, I was just talking about, let's say, don't know, accounting
or supply chain or something like that,
you know, the sensitive data, it's not kind of, you know, they can be private,
but again, they have the
decentralized security from Bitcoin itself.
it's kind of, you know.
Yeah. Yeah, I agree.
companies love to use Bitcoin's security because it's the most secure
chain. So they'd be able to say that they're using the power of Bitcoin for their
private sidechain.
So I think that that
would be a big, that'd be big for them and for Bitcoin.
So it's a mutually beneficial thing.
Yeah, exactly. just a few days ago, read that, let's
say, one stock exchange want to use blockchain for probably their
exchange settlement or,
know, so for example, they can create sidechain and if they can do private, it's a
perfect solution for them.
Yeah, could see blockchain.
Yeah, but Bitcoin will get volume transactions and I mean through Drivechain, but again
goes to Bitcoin.
Suudonim, did you have a question?
Yeah, there's a technical aspect of Drivechain, I don't understand yet, how do
miners on Bitcoin chain are incentivized not to reverse
like many blocks of the sidechain, is are the key that
they collect being withheld.
If they were to reorg many blocks, they lose the sum of
all these blocks?
does that work?
The sidechain reorganization is independent of mainchain reorganization.
It'd be possible for main chain miners to collect fees of a sidechain reorg
without even knowing that the reorg is happening.
Sorry for your detail.
Well, the main chain doesn't need to reorg in order for the sidechain
to reorg. So they can continue to collect transaction fees while the sidechain is
reorging.
But my issue is with finality because with Bitprint, have a
huge incentive to push the block as soon as possible and they have a capital invested
in my equipment.
But if I'm a regular participant on the sidechain and the
drivechain, and I want to make a big transaction, let's say, a million dollars,
like how am I supposed to assess that my one million dollar is not
big enough incentive to pay a on the site to reorg it, for example.
it's the same on Bitcoin mainchain.
The sidechain miners have to continue to extend the valid chain to collect fees.
There's a maturity for the
the payouts that they receive.
the end of the day, it a miner on the Bitcoin mainchain that
decides to reorg stuff?
The sidechain block creators can reorg the sidechain without the mainchain
cooperating.
But that just seems worse to me.
Because let's say, let's say send a
million dollar on a drivechain.
And then on a drivechain, have like 30 equivalent block of confirmation.
So to reorg, the sidechain 30 blocks would require 30 mainchain blocks also
committing to that sidechain chain.
in a reorganization, your transaction will not disappear or
anything, it will just move blocks.
if any time a mainstream reorganization has happened, the Bitcoin miners re -include the
transactions. The people's transactions aren't actually affected.
No, but that's assuming that there's another end of the transaction that is not
reversible.
It's not like there's like a
Financial incentive to To reverse a transaction.
Let's say I just gave away the car and I took took off with the car and now I The
Bitcoin go back in his wallet
Well, the miners on the sidechain can't take your money from you if like you still
control the coins with your keys
No, no, but let's say I sold my car I got the coins I gave my car and now the coin
also go back to the sender
So I to wait a long time for another I don't think you mean I can't
wrap my head yet around - The sidechains - How can I assist?
The sidechains can I assist the client?
In order for the sidechain to make blocks,
it has to include a special output in the Coinbase of a mainchain block.
So it's got a 10 -minute average block time just like the mainchain.
There can't be more than a one -block reorg without multiple mainchain blocks.
You can't pay somebody to reorg back 10 blocks or anything like that.
I guess I'm visual, I don't get it.
I'm like, what I think of like, finally, it's Bitcoin, I'm thinking
of all the miners that have equipment that they don't want to lose.
if they change the rule, would devalue the equipment.
And also, there's this much energy spent in one block, and then on two block, three
block. And then I know they can't reorg without losing all
the future fee.
but,
and risk like nobody's going to follow the block.
They have to have 51%.
Yeah, there are times where With Drivechain, Bitcoin miners, they don't care about
anything of like what is legit on the drivechain.
They don't need fee driven, so whoever pays
more fee and if I have a million dollars on the line on the Drivechain and they collude
with miners, then that could be like, maybe I would need to wait like three months to
have final, that's equivalent finality on
a Drivechain. don't know, depending on the amount.
Because there's no equipment, there's less at stake.
there's the Bitcoin mining equipment.
It's using Bitcoin mining proof of work to move the chain forward.
And they're also sacrificing all future BMM income and the withdrawal transaction fees.
Not to mention, it's likely they're sacrificing some
value of Bitcoin in and of itself because it's likely to have a negative market
reaction to any sort of shenanigans like that.
miners are actually the most exposed to the Bitcoin price because
they're the
most kind of capital put up,
is a liquid they're buying in very large quantities kind
of forward Bitcoin, like deliverable forwards.
the miners almost are usually the most exposed stakeholder to
the price of Bitcoin of all stakeholders, more so than even a Hodler,
microstrategies or whatever.
Yeah, so if I do transaction on this Drivechain, I guess I have a big incentive to also
be aware if there's any real work done by validating my own
chain, by running my own node.
You can easily check up Block Explorer if you don't want to do that.
I also think that you should come back and ask the question to Paul next time that he's
here,
next Friday. I'll do some more research on one.
I thought maybe I can chime in.
pseudonym, what happens if this happens on the base layer?
Let's say, you you are accepting a Bitcoin transaction and it gets reorg.
There's nothing you can really do if that happens, right, on the base chain.
But there's a reason why it
doesn't happen. So why do you think it does not happen on the base layer?
Because the miner did build on the largest chain.
But the miners want that right if the miners want they can reorg
any any receiving transaction that you
get. Yeah, but the main difference is that the electricity is
already expensed and the equipment is owned and exists.
if Bitcoin didn't have that,
so if someone paid them 20 million,
they would pay them 20 million.
It's not economically viable for them to do that.
But what if they were to send several thousand Bitcoins, let's say, to an exchange,
sell it and then reorg that transaction?
They could do that, right?
No, because they can just make up hashing par as with Drivechain.
can just pay more fee, apparently.
I'm not saying in Drivechain, just saying on the base layer right now.
Yeah, that's what I'm saying.
You can't just make up the hash power.
If miners have more than 50 % collusion, like let's say 70 % of
hashrate together, mining pools,
more than 50%.
If they wanted to, they can
send Bitcoins to an exchange, sell them, and then reorg that transaction.
Yeah, and then they will lose all the equipment.
Well, they're going to own their equipment.
They'll still own the Bitcoin because they reorg it.
And they'll potentially maybe even get the cash
out on the exchange.
Maybe not. Maybe that will be hard for exchange.
Yeah, but they own billions in hardware.
No exchange is going to accept one confirmation for a billion dollars if they're
aware that there's some centralization.
correct. But if you have more than 50 % of the hashrate, it doesn't matter how many
confirmations you can still reorg it.
you have, let's
let's say 70 % of the hashrate colluding, can reorg 10 blocks, you can reorg 50 blocks,
can really reorg 100 blocks.
It doesn't matter, it's arbitrary because you have more hashrate than anybody else.
So you can eventually reorg the whole chain as far, you know, it will take time to go
farther back. But eventually you can reorg, you know, even 100 blocks, a week worth of
blocks, right? As long as you have more majority of the chain,
right so they can do it No, but if this happened the Bitcoin does not exist
I'm asking why it doesn't happen.
Well, so I would say it doesn't happen happen is because economically They they're
they're not incentivized to do that because then they're hurting like Bitcoin and
they're hurting like you
their hardware.
They're hurting their future revenue.
I think that's similar to is kind of securing the Drivechain.
If the Drivechain is successful, they're getting future revenue from Most likely, if
it's successful, they're going to be getting way more future revenue
from a Drivechain than from the base layer.
Because the Drivechain can scale more and several Drivechains can scale even more.
can, you know, like if you think about it, it can be thousands of times more fees that
they're getting than on the base layer if Drivechains are successful.
Now, if they try to mess with Drivechains, either by stealing or reorging or whatever,
they're in a
way making The trust assumptions of drivechains lower now less people will trust them
most likely, you know Everybody will not trust it because you know, they're starting to
be shenanigans on that side So now they're losing all of that revenue and if they're
losing all that revenue Then they don't have an economic incentive to do that Just like
they don't have an economic incentive to mess with the base layer, which they can we're
which we
So, the same way, they can do it on Drivechain, wouldn't want to, because the fees that
they're generating from a Drivechain would actually be even more than they would be
getting on the base layer.
But it's a good question, and I definitely think you should ask about it when you see
it next week.
But they have to validate and run that 5 -chain node to even
be aware whether they are reordering or not.
this, because I've heard many times that they're going with whoever pays the most fees.
so a miner, if they only do that, they might reorg by accident.
Yes, if you can't really...
just one block wouldn't matter because then...
What happens is everybody's gonna be like, hey, that's
the incorrect hash, right?
Because everybody on the Drivechain, whoever is running it will know that that's
incorrect.
So they can't really say that it's by mistake.
You'll be like, nope, that's incorrect.
Everybody will know that's incorrect.
That's not the longest chain.
then, you know,
then you can hear them up and be like, hey, why'd you do this?
This is not the
longest chain. should build off this chain.
But it is a good question.
just thought I'd throw in my share.
I definitely don't have all the answers.
Yeah, I agree.
also just want to point out no matter how much fees they pay, they can only reorg back
one block at a time per main chain block.
and also when you're you're doing BMM you are paying the people who do have all that
hardware in order to do that and there would be mainchain miners who run do run the
sidechains and so they won't even use BMM they'll just validate the sidechain they'll
include the block hashes and they will know if there's a reorg and they won't want
to do that because of the same incentives that make them extend the main chain.
And also definitely ask Paul next Friday.
Cause this is more of an incentives question than a code question, and he could answer
that better. Very thanks, I've following for a while.
now. Yeah, cool.
I'll be there.
So, Cryptx, you speak to if
BIP300
was merged tomorrow,
what sidechains are available basically that you've already built
at launch? also can you describe after that how the
kind of sidechain template works and kind of easy or difficult it is to
about sidechains that we've talking about.
And we'll talk about the other sidechains that we've been talking about.
sidechains that we've been sidechains sidechains sidechains And then we'll talk the
other sidechains that about.
And then we'll talk about the other
sidechain, which you can use all the Zcash features on.
We also have an Ethereum sidechain.
You can use all the Ethereum's features, like can connect it to MetaMask and things
like that.
And we also are reviving bit names, and we have that working now.
and I think it's available to download right now on the website.
It was just uploaded a few hours ago.
And actually, if you go to drivechain.info forward slash releases,
you'll see the new updated software that just got posted.
We have something called the
DriveNet Launcher. If you've ever used Steam on your computer, it's supposed to be
similar to that, where you can install the Bitcoin mainchain, and then you can install
all the sidechains that we have working right now.
In addition to the sidechains I named already, we also have
a Bit Assets sidechain, which is used for NFTs and tokens and things like that.
it's not finished yet, but with a hive mind prediction market sidechain will also be
usable very soon.
definitely by the time BIP300 gets activated, it'll be ready.
So there's a lot of cool
I'm sure
what
hell the the the the the the the hell hell hell hell the the
the the hell
C++ sidechain template, it's a fork of Bitcoin Core, so it makes it pretty easy to
copy any altcoin that is a fork of Bitcoin Core like Zcash is.
And then for other coins like Ethereum, we have a Rust version of the sidechain
template, And that lets you add a library to
any altcoin that will convert it into a Bitcoin sidechain.
it is now limited to 21 million coins and you can deposit and withdraw from it.
So it's pretty cool.
Nikita, one of the developers, is working on the Rust version and I made the C++
version. Both of them are available to download at Drivechain.info.
if anybody out there is trying to fork any existing altcoin or has some kind of new
idea and they want help, we're always available in the telegram to help with debugging
and things like that.
And what are your thoughts on like maybe what other things
might be forked or obviously you only have so many hours in the day but
I assume almost certainly one Drivechain is merged into Bitcoin.
You can have a lot of eyes on it and a lot more awareness of the ability to clone
assets and do these things on top
of Bitcoin. what do you think might be some of the low hanging fruit that would
have some demand or be implemented?
We've been looking at things like See -A -Coin and Filecoin because some people like to
use the file storage on the blockchain.
More privacy chains besides
I think that RSK, which is currently one of the most successful merged mine sidechains,
would also become a drivechain pretty quickly.
They have an entire team of developers, and think that they'd be able to pull that off
really fast.
I personally think, I think there'd be like 10 successful sidechains.
Some people think that the 256 limit isn't nearly enough though, so
there's probably a lot of ideas I haven't thought of.
and so uh but there's nothing preventing
sidechains on top of the sidechains.
Nope, there's an infinite amount of sidechains possible.
There could be a sidechain created for creating more sidechains.
And how does, how does like interchain lightning
channels or bilateral payment channels work?
so other sidechains could have a lightning network that can connect back to the other
sidechains that also have lightning networks.
Like Thunder even could serve as like a hub between all of the sidechains.
And then there will be
exchanges like sideshift.ai is a great example that was actually created initially
because of Drivechain where people would be able to just instantly swap coins between
chains.
Well, think a tryptonomics has come up.
You have a question, tryptonomics?
sorry
what you guys come I just thought you had just come
up so I assumed that maybe you had a something to bring up
But it's a, nope, it's no problem, if not.
Hello, so any other questions for CryptAxe up
there?
Anyone in the chat want to join as a speaker?
I think another type of sidechain we might see is those Ordinals guys are very
creative, and they're having some issues working on the Bitcoin mainchain right now.
And I know that people like to have the images and other resources embedded on the
first layer
but for some things, it might actually be easier and better for them to develop more
creative software on a second layer.
So I'm really excited to see what the Ordinals group of people might do, because
there's a lot of creativity right there.
I just wanted to know
what your favorite Pokemon is and why.
Psyduck. Psyduck because he can copy everything that other Pokemon does.
That's very fitting.
I know my picture is Pikachu, so that might be a little confusing, but I do love
Psyduck.
I wanted to call Drivechain Psyduck, actually.
So is that like pilot Pikachu or flight attendant?
This is Tokyo Station Security Pikachu.
They're sold at the Tokyo train station
station one year.
Very collectible.
Hey, what's up guys?
Crypto X, are you familiar with
Bison Labs?
No, sorry. basically they've created zero -knowledge,
the roll -ups on Bitcoin.
so you could bridge over your ordinal, well right now it's only Bitmap, and then you
get a mirror token.
And on that token
could create liquidity pools eventually and solidity smart contracts, as well as
clarity.
So that's cool.
mean, terms of like, when you were saying like, if you can bridge ordinals over on
LayerTwo, it's pretty exciting.
Yeah, it is.
yeah, definitely check
them out. don't know the space, just like I'm responding to what I heard you say.
So I hope I didn't like.
Oh, no, I agree.
I'll check that out later.
sounds cool. Mr.
Ordos, I do think that doing things like that or putting ordinal and drivechains,
think that there's some sort of luxury or
scarcity value that people will want to pay just to have it on
the mainchain? Well, on the mainchain is different, right?
You can't really have full defile on the mainchain.
There's no way.
You can't write smart contracts.
You can't really create liquidity pools.
I'm talking about BRC20s.
And
just like what they're doing is really creating like an NFT trading pool like state a
pool In a way in a sense right liquidity pool and with automated like AMMs.
So
Can't really do like in a roll -up.
It's kind of cool.
Like it's really interesting.
So I'm they already have a bridge It's on the
testnet.
It's interesting, it's super simple to use too.
So I'll see how it develops and what it turns into.
I think it will turn into something big.
Yeah, that's pretty cool.
I'll check it out.
Yeah. I could see like the coolest ordinals staying on
LayerOne
and then LayerTwo ordinals stuff being for smaller collectibles or like a huge
issuance of them because like the board apes, there's a million of them.
Maybe you don't want all of them on the main chain.
Or maybe you can do the trading of them on the second layer instead of having to make
main chain transactions and spending a ton of
and waiting. Right, yeah, exactly.
I mean, that's one of the things that enables.
Yeah, that'd be cool.
Well, I mean, if I can also show myself, if I may, I don't know what the rules are
here, But
I've also created a small, very small advertising platform for Ordinals and any new
projects that are coming up on Ordinals, which is just completed and I'm going to be
launching it tomorrow.
I'll be making an announcement and there will be a space party, so everyone
here is welcome.
yeah
That's awesome
Yeah, cool, I think a lot of people that are
Pro drivechains are
Sympathetic to ordinals and vice
the thing right now ordinals numbering thing that's going on can can use that hand
from anywhere you know but hopefully it results soon
can you explain whatever drama or problems
are going on I'm not familiar
well ordinals are sequenced with inscription numbers which is basically
really immutable structure right like and indexers which
are not decentralized kind of centralized in specific entities like
like certain certain people run the indexers the
the protocol is written, there's something called cursed inscription.
Instead of inscribing on the first one, inscription got first set of each block, or
first set, it got inscribed on the second one, which causes discrepancy, which
basically caused the numbering scheme to not
be
sequenced properly with the satoshis in a way.
Indexers have to keep account of that.
As the numbers right now is 35 million or 33 million, as numbers get bigger
and bigger, it becomes a lot more expensive for indexers to run.
So they need to do something to fix
that sequencing and keep it that way, which will require a change, right?
that creates a little bit of complexity, but we'll see how it gets resolved.
What are options for the change?
Well, there's quite a few.
think Shizhik can talk about it in the audience better than me.
And there are many other people who
can. There's a bunch of proposals.
think one of them is just keep it the way it is.
The other one is to have two numbers, which no one really supports.
Have an inscription number and a real number.
The real number is what the indexers will run with.
And the inscription numbers will carry on like the way it is.
Again, I'm talking in broad generalities based on things
that I've heard so I don't know exactly concretely what the most prominent one is.
yeah, there's a bunch of them, but those were the ones that I heard
about.
But none of these require, mean, so this is like a ongoing kind of controversy
over the proposed solutions.
Correct. they're different opinions over what to do about this.
Yeah, we don't know what's gonna be what's gonna come to formation of this.
But
yeah, it's ongoing right now, I think.
until last night it was.
Still is.
other any?
This is very humble, but this is one of the top minds really in the industry.
If I might say so, Marcin.
no, I'd love, okay, so I've been layer 2 so so you guys are
making a LayerTwo on Bitcoin?
that like a Drivechain, right?
Yeah, it's a proposal for a soft fork of Bitcoin to add two BIPs, one
of them to create a hashrate escrow, which is a way that proof of work controls a
specific set of UTXOs that are used to deposit
BIP301, Blind Merge Mining, lets us merge mine the sidechains without mainchain miners
having to validate them if they don't want to.
But they also can if they want to.
I'm not very technical, know, so I just work with a lot of people, I, you know, I'm
like, like I come from a very different chain, I, I, Ethereum, and I'm still learning,
like, I don't know the technical side a lot, but I know that there were a lot of like
Bitcoin is what it
is based on a lot of efforts that were made and
I don't mean to interrupt but something interesting is coming from
like being in the big into helium and other things and not having had experience with
Bitcoin I assume then
the emergence or popularity of ordinals kind of got you more into Bitcoin?
Correct, yeah. I can tell you from data that there's 350,000 new
people that came into Bitcoin because of ordinals.
So yeah, I wouldn't be hearing like
like the way I am and the capacity I am if there weren't ordinals.
so now is this kind of your primary focus?
Yeah, I'm kind of, it is, and I'm looking into like Zika privacy right now,
like how to make
transactions private on the zero knowledge Like to provide the features on like kind of
trying to work with some people to make that feature.
So yeah That's kind of what I'm working on
Yeah, you said you came from aetherium one of the things drivechain lets us do is Copy
all of
the features of Ethereum into a Bitcoin sidechain.
the EVM won't be on mainchain.
A validation of smart contracts won't be on mainchain.
It all gets quarantined into one UTXO, essentially.
And so you can have a ZK sidechain.
can have an Ethereum sidechain, you can have all kinds of stuff like that.
You can have an Ordinal sidechain.
Yeah. Yeah, no, that sounds really cool.
know like so I'm in a startup.
A lot of people are doing this, although a lot of times it's just kind of like I'm
listening to them and they're like a lot of things go over my head because they go into
like the
technical details of it.
yeah, it's really interesting.
I think Bitcoin is going to absorb a lot of DeFi from other chains.
It's almost like they were the testing grounds in a way.
At least it feels that way.
how it's kind of...
We do have the ability to with the BIP300 proposal, and we're closer
to activating it than ever before.
Yeah, that's... So what was it about Ordinals that
interested you over, like, theorist that is, like,
on
focusing on Ethereum NFTs or what was the...
Well I never was in the Ethereum NFTs.
was really in the Ethereum DeFi side.
I dabbled a little bit.
I collected a couple of NFTs but they were more like oh it gives me access to AI which
was like long time ago even before AI trend came into being.
They had like these language models or whatnot which I thought was cool.
That's the
only NFT that I got apart from one more Samyam space cubes, because I know
they're, they were at some point like working with Tesla or something.
That's the only reason I got their NFT, but they're, they're, they're working on cool
technology in terms of biosens, the census and whatnot.
But the reason why I got into Ornals is because really because of the numbering
scheme I knew like I've been in so many different projects in out around defi I
you know I was there even before like metamask was there and I'm sure you guys were
here for way before but I was just trading those Coins defi learning was really
exciting to me when atarium was kind of coming into being their defi You know getting
what
So when Ordinals came out, it was really the numbering scheme that got me.
knew, even though I was working with a developer, he was like doing all these
minting for me, the Ordinals that I wanted, he was like, why are you doing this?
This is going to go to zero.
he was just
baffled like this was even happening.
He literally was like, you're stupid in a way.
You could kind of feel it.
But he was really nice, though.
not going to lie.
So it was interesting for me to see him do that.
you know, hit, Orno hit 10 million.
Now they're at 30 million.
There was just something about that numbering scheme that I think reeled in a lot more
people
than from the whole other ecosystems, right?
It was really the inscription numbers.
If there were no inscription numbers, I don't think ordinals would be around.
It's like a weird thing.
because it just, the market was in a state where everyone was just kind of like, and
then they were like ordinals with numbers and
NFTs, so the smaller one will be better.
they started and then BRC20 came around and then that was a little bit of a fad, but I
don't think it was completely that, you know what I mean?
I think there'll be something that'll come off of it.
And then, you know, now we're seeing like early kind of things of,
will the DeFi go if the liquidity from Bitcoin goes into DeFi like it did for Ethereum
and Ethereum DeFi kind of is at parity with Ethereum I think in terms of market
cap if that does probably not going to happen with Bitcoin but even you know absorbs 10
% then what will thrive right like that'll require a DeFi like some layer to some
something so we'll see how
that works or anything,
but if you're interested in the inscription in ordinals numbers, might find tonal
Bitcoin. That's -O -N -A -L Bitcoin.
Really interesting. It was one of first altcoins.
It was developed by Luke Jr.
And it's an altcoin in the sense that it's a different way of numbering the Bitcoin
amounts. And it's pretty cool.
But you should check it out if you like the Ordinal's Numbers.
Yeah, I'll definitely check it.
Tonal Bitcoin. Yeah, yeah.
Tonal Bitcoin. It's a fun thing in Bitcoin history for anybody to read about.
Gotcha. Yeah, for sure.
the was lovely and nice talking to you nice, yeah
hit the gym
CryptAxe is total Bitcoin well thank you for coming it was interesting to hear the
perspective
perspective, especially because it's interesting
in light of kind of current Bitcoin dogmatic narrative about
hearing your story and about 350,000 people who have come into Bitcoin
because of Ordinals.
Yeah, yeah,
So, that's really interesting to me too.
the thing is like those 350,000 people don't make a lot of transactions.
That's the thing.
think the transaction rate is like about like 3 -4,000.
So, we'll see how that goes per day.
It's a lot more than we had before.
To see if Bitcoin can use some more transactions, be honest, would say that,
you know, I've been very bullish for a long time, probably the most,
probably like, yeah, irresponsibly bullish honestly, probably
the most bearish thing in Bitcoin, least today, which is
some of the most bearish things I've seen is the kind of crypto fees.info to see how
much more fees
are generated on Ethereum versus Bitcoin.
It's not good.
getting our assets.
No, it makes me sad.
It's too bad.
We used to dominate by a lot.
It wasn't even a comparison.
And it was easy back then to say that Ethereum was a bullshit scam.
now it's kind of flipped the other way.
Yeah.
Yeah. Ordinals have made Bitcoin fun again lately, I feel like.
I welcome that.
Can you explain a little bit, Tonal Bitcoin?
know Luke Jr
Jr. into tonal numbering, which I don't really intend to.
Yeah, the tonal numbering system is what is used in music and things like
that. And it's more easy to convert it into hexadecimal.
essentially what Tonal Bitcoin does is divide
the Satoshi's further down into smaller units.
here I have the list actually.
It's we've got Tam Bitcoin, Bong Bitcoin, Mill Bitcoin,
Sand Bitcoin, Ton Bitcoin, Bitcoin is which is the normal not devised
unit.
Bitcoin Ton, Bitcoin San, Bitcoin Mill, and Bitcoin Bong.
It's a way of the satoshis more divisible.
It's a way of representing more units out of the unit on the chain, which kind of
reminds me of originals a little bit, but I also don't understand how either of these
things work totally.
think everyone should read about it though, it's really interesting.
And there's example code on the Bitcoin.IT wiki.
So you can even see how you would write like a client to validate these things outside
of Bitcoin,
which is a pretty interesting idea.
People should also read about a counterparty if they haven't heard of that before,
because that was another Bitcoin project that did a client validation outside of the
Bitcoin validation. I think that that's pretty cool.
the
user, but of course all my rare Pepe's I left them on some
Screen broke and yeah, then when they mooned I was out a few million
dollars. I'm Yeah, we're Pepe also tore apart the best Bitcoin podcast ever.
So I don't even like to hear about it
I'm big of
I'm I'm I'm Bitcoin, Bitcoin, Bitcoin, I'm fan I'm a fan of Bitcoin, of
Bitcoin,
uh definitely in those early days or I think they maybe they started late 2013
But it was I think by far the best Content it was the
original Scam busters as well and what's funny is that they were calling
shitcoins and altcoins scams before
everyone else, they also then were the first to kind of give warning
that it was getting too big and that it was going to get out of control like way before
ICOs. were saying, yeah, there's something happening here and you need to watch out
because this is not good for Bitcoin.
And then it was
very prophetic. Yeah, a lot of people don't know that there was a pre ICO altcoin
phase where people just posted these announcements on Bitcoin talk and then they would
privately sell altcoins to people and other shady stuff.
And then eventually the ICO became a thing.
Yes. In the day, people would post a new shit coin on to BitcoinTalk
and it was the most important part of the launch was your forum post
and there was a whole wave and it was very brazen
and very small cap back then,
small cap. yeah, I remember I was in a bunch of
groups that would like, they were like these very open pump and dump groups, but
basically they were dumping on you because they were already in before they even jumped
into the group.
back then everybody thought
like fair launch was the main thing like you know this is fair launch coin meaning that
they weren't keeping any for themselves right like it was fair launch coin
yeah so that was why
when in 2017 when they had the next kind
of big bull market, why I never got into ICOs or shitcoins despite back
then, actually, there was a few instances where I was offered like a lot of money to
get involved in some of these projects, which in hindsight, I probably should have done
it anyway because, but my thought was like, oh, that's very scammy.
It's not good for my
reputation and all that, but I didn't see like, I don't know, Bitcoin
becoming so, like the Bitcoin culture, at least online, becoming so intolerable.
Yeah,
but yeah, Twitter wasn't really a thing back then, there wasn't much, all
that much like relevant discussion It was like the reddit was really big until like the
block size war.
I think that was kind of the biggest thing after Bitcoin talk yeah, and but anyway,
yeah, I was involved I was a Whole heavy holder of all sorts of nonsense shit coins
back in 2013
had 42, which was a really interesting one, where there was only 42 coins.
Oh yeah. Like a bit of 21 million coins, there was 42 coins.
So each coin was worth like five Bitcoin or something.
Obviously super valuable.
Yeah, exactly. And then I actually had a ton of doge, which I lost
in, uh,
believe, in Cryptsy.
I remember that, yep.
That guy's in jail, I think.
No, he's not in jail.
He ran off to China.
Oh, okay. He got away scot free.
yeah, so this was one of the original exchange hacks for anybody listening.
It wasn't privy to getting
hacked in Cripsy.
Yeah, it was a self -hack.
It was like a self -hack.
But what they said was that one of the altcoins had
a software update and somebody had inserted a backdoor into
the node, into the node software, and that they were
hosting that node software on the same server that they were hosting their bitcoin
and a bunch of other altcoin nodes as well so that their their wallets I
mean to say so that their attacker was able through this altcoin node to
drain their bitcoin wallets
know, sounds very unbelievable.
Yeah. And it's almost for certain that what actually happened was the exchange owner
basically just rug pulled.
was like the original, one of the original rug pulls, at the time, like the largest
one. so they actually only issued a arrest warrant
for the guy like
two years ago, so I assume they had been investigating him whole time and actually
looking for him,
but... ...Bibburn was his name.
Yep.
Bibburn, so... Pretty much all Bitcoin services used to close by just disappearing with
everybody's money.
Yeah, God only knows how many
Doge I had over there, because Doge are literally worth absolutely nothing.
mean, they were worth like, you know, whatever,
one one one hundred thousandth of a penny or something like that.
And maybe you'll be lucky, like some of the Mt.
Gox people and get a portion of it back one day.
No, they had some process for claim finding a claim.
I never did it.
Okay, I didn't have any record of what was even in there I had lichen coin, which was
you know, they had these coins that were like there was like
vampire werewolf and whatever coin those were big for a while and so people don't
remember that maybe you remember Aurora
Coin. So Aurora Coin was the number two altcoin for a long, time.
And this was a coin that was,
the premise was that they were going to airdrop some allocation of
Aurora coin to every island of to try
prime the pump to catalyze this coin's
adoption in the Icelandic market.
That was a huge wave of altcoins back then that started with Aurora Coin.
Then they had these other ones, Dorado Coin,
was same thing for Spain.
sorts of like That was a huge wave at that time.
Speculators in Aurora Coin made out huge.
I don't know I can keep the
stamina of Paul and go 20 hours straight, but
If anyone anyone listening have any Desire to come up on the stage and ask a question
to the One of the most unsung geniuses of all of the crypto
industry up here
I want
to give you credit and congratulate you for the very nice drivechain
launcher. Oh, thank you.
So beautifully done.
it's like I downloaded the other one, the main chain with the full blockchain, but now
I just in five minutes,
download it and start the Drivechain.
now I wanted to suggest or encourage people to try it and
see themselves how it works.
And that's something.
Yeah, that has been developed by a new developer named Jacob, who is doing GUI stuff
for us. And he's done a
really awesome job already.
I just checked in our private group and there will be an update to that within the next
couple of days.
So check back again and it will be improved even more.
And thank you.
that's a great time.
Yeah, it's like even you can see the sidechains here and which one you want to kind
of support probably
with the nodes will be just a click download and will be
easy. Yeah, it's very nice.
I hope Bitcoin Core will improve.
Well,
if you have any issues with
it or any suggestions, send us a in our Drivechain chat telegram.
Oh yeah, I'm there also, there.
Yeah, yeah. What I want to say,
I just made a screenshot and tweeted the layout of the
launcher open
people can see on the Cool.
It's like, yeah, you're bringing the
old coins and all these scams.
Like, I lost money in Bitcoin game.
And it was like 2014 or 15.
yeah, there was so much stuff like that.
And everything lost, I mean, not the loss, everybody like discarded,
like throw away or don't care about Dogecoin, but we see
what happened in 2021, came to 70 cents.
People cannot predict the future of the market and Bitcoin needs to be able to be
adaptable without ruining the values of the main chain.
the few things about Bitcoin that we can all agree about
the supply,
the signatures, the block time, things like that.
But we can change other things on a sidechain.
Yeah, yeah, absolutely.
mean, the innovation need to go forward.
Why to do something from
scratch and bringing, know, kind of from the beginning
everything, this whole old coin chains, you know, when it can be done on Bitcoin.
Yeah, and with collaboration, we can make Bitcoin the strongest and actually be able to
stand up to future attacks, whereas right now it's in this
super weak position where people are scared to even do anything with it.
yeah, exactly. you was talking about Bitcoin heaters and stuff like that.
mean, they already exist, but you know, if drivechains is
enabled, I think we'll bring more and more kind of
new ways of utilizing Bitcoin.
mean, first of all, the blockchain because the blockchain needs to be utilized.
everything else. you know, I'm having a so sci
-fi idea even like not to build something, kind of thoughts
about using... Somebody will say that's not possible, but I think it's possible
with something like Drivechain or maybe something improved in the future.
Like even other networks to be on, you know, something like a sidechain
or so you have more decentralization,
electricity grids, internet grids or stuff like that, know.
But that's for the far future, probably.
Yeah, and I think all of that improvement to Bitcoin mining is also a net improvement
to humanity because working to develop more efficient ways
of harnessing helps everybody, not just people using Bitcoin.
So we really want to increase the hashrate for the good of everything, include Bitcoin
and everything else.
Yeah, I I agree.
That's, I mean, it's brilliant to tell you through when I first
saw a blog post, and I went from the beginning,
like 2013 or something like that, I was like, oh my god, why we don't know
more about this?
Because I don't know why, but I know
you are on conferences and stuff like that, but it was not much, much public
around the space.
it's good that you came, pushed more to
be more publicly available.
Yeah, thanks.
right, well,
did anybody else have a question?
Well, I encourage everybody to run the software because it will actually answer a lot
of questions anybody does have, and I think it's the best way to really
get the idea.
And
and also, CoinNews is really really good feature
which for some reason, know, Paul doesn't want to like discuss
or like, you he discusses it but it's like, you know,
the test software and it's kind of, I think,
like a hidden gem.
Yeah, it's a little bit of a hidden gem.
CoinNews lets everybody have a news feed with different topics.
Like for example, could have a news weekly, a US news weekly, cryptocurrency
news daily, and you can actually subscribe to different types of
opportune transactions that show up in the memory pool and in the chain that have
different types of news that you want to see or different types of messages that you
want to see.
And so it's a way for people to, in a totally decentralized way, subscribe to
different people's feeds or to different types of information
It's available already in our mainchain software.
So if you run the Drivechain Launcher and you install the mainchain, you'll see a
toolbar at the top and there's all kinds of extra stuff in there that lets
you use Bitcoin in the Bitcoin
And also, start with the CPU
mining.
So people can see how it was in the beginning of Bitcoin
mining.
I copied from old versions of Bitcoin that I have the old CPU mining code back into
Bitcoin so that you can mine again using your CPU just for fun.
And there's also a GUI tool so that you can see the visualization of how the mining
works. So you can actually see
the leading zeros increasing up until you get to the proof of work requirement.
So, it's kind of fun.
Of course, you're not going to be mining any mainchain Bitcoin.
Yeah, obviously, but it's fun, you know, just for, you know, to get back in time.
Yeah, one of Paul's,
one of the things that's really important to Paul and me is that people experiment with
the Bitcoin node and they actually use it.
And they really want a reason for it to be on their computer to encourage the network
to grow and for people to learn how it works, and to be excited by it, and to really
feel like there's something that they can do with it instead of just owning
So when is it going live?
a while ago and it's not completely finished yet but that
version might be, maybe that version will get merged in and have BIP9 signaling to
activate like previous Bitcoin softforks.
That's good. What's the timeline on that?
that?
I can't answer that question.
You would have to ask Bitcoin Core that question.
Yeah. You're tired of the gatekeepers?
Awesome. Hey, how can we work on doing some interoperable stuff
to do some other stuff with this Drivechain.
We can out to you on Telegram or...
Yeah, if you guys join the Drivechain Insiders Telegram...
Let's see if you go to...
If you go to the LayerTwo Labs Twitter account, it's a
link in the bio, the Telegram group.
There's a ton of people in there that can answer questions all the time.
I think there are 700 people in there.
So what are you guys going to do with that lockup mechanism that you guys currently
have
using
these drivechains have you guys I mean there's definitely a lot of people in the
Bitcoin community that are not necessarily fun but I don't know I think it's just a
lack of education I just pretty much went last night in troll dish shit out of
some Bitcoin people but wanted to get your
input. Yeah, the thing that is the most in common
with detractors of Drivechain is that they haven't read the BIPs, they haven't run the
software, they don't even want to try to understand how it works.
And they have this kind of weird prejudgment that it's bad before trying to understand
it.
I don't know.
can't force them to understand it, so I'm open to any suggestions, but I think people
like Paul and Henry have been doing a great job trying.
There's this other thing that I've seen that's pretty common.
It's like people have
an ossified mentality where they say Bitcoin's perfect.
Nothing needs to happen with it, but they don't want to ossify a LayerOne.
So they don't want to change anything and it's perfect.
It's just there's a lot of devil speak that comes out of people who are criticizing
Drivechain as well.
Contradictory arguments,
lot of concern trolling, a lot of people jumping on the wave because it's very popular
right now. It's a very easy way to get a little bit of a following.
In my opinion, Bitcoin Core makes changes that are way more significant and in my
opinion dangerous and controversial than Drivechain.
And they do that every day without
anybody talking about it because it just gets merged in.
They'll do things like change how random number generation works, they'll change the
cryptography libraries around, they'll change networking code, they'll change
validation code, and there's no BIP signaling for any of that.
It just happens.
And if certain people do it,
it gets merged right away.
And nobody even knows about it.
People see the laser eyes and the cultishness is
a virtue when it's really not.
It's really a huge amount of political influence.
And it puts a lot of pressure
on people who try to change things who aren't vetted.
Nobody really knows who these people are in any case.
They're mostly a bunch of anonymous accounts.
Yeah, it's actually a secret who has merge access to Bitcoin Core.
personally do not know.
I'm a contributor so I can see who's a
member, but you can't tell who actually has merge access.
Yeah, that's good stuff.
go ahead. No, go, go.
Now, I'm just saying, just noticed that the main reason why they want to use the drive
chains, let's see, you know, they're really isn't
anyone open to adding any additional application.
They say that it will destroy the base layer.
I try to argue with it, but sometimes it's just better to troll them.
The reality of it is that some people are more inclined to use the
Lightning Network and using swaps.
When I first heard about your guys' BIP300, and I know you guys have been talking about
this since the mid 2000s, and now it's became kind of mainstream
in Bitcoin talks.
But I just look at this
as an opportunity to be able to like, some people may not agree because they say, well,
we don't want shitcoiners over here on Bitcoin.
What I look at it as a mechanism to be able to transfer economic energy over
to Bitcoin, than opposed to you using any type of mainstream centralized exchange
swap
yeah exactly exactly as a decentralized mechanism because until then you'll have
the gatekeepers in these centralized systems that are requiring people to KYC AML which
takes away your privacy I've a firm component of privacy not necessarily meaning
that you're
doing something nefarious, but it means that practicing your sovereignty
by using mining as a way to be able to transfer assets from chain to chain.
Whether you agree if you're a shit -coiner or you're big -coiner, but I feel that this
is the only possible way
to do it trustlessly.
But most people can't even understand that.
I think the biggest thing that they're saying is by actually putting up your
assets, holding your Bitcoin, and then there's an opportunity where it
can be compromised, where the miners can be able to distill it maybe after three
months or so.
And that's just pretty much like the biggest argument that I've gotten from people.
Because I like try to go into spaces and try to understand the mindset of why people
are against it.
I feel that Drivechains or sidechains are necessary in order to migrate economic
energy, which is in correlation with
Satoshi, the reason why we have proof of work protocols in the first place.
Exactly. it's one thing for them to be against it for their own
use, but they're trying to control what other people do.
And I don't know how these control freaks got into Bitcoin
they want to tell everybody what they can do with their money, but it's very annoying
and it's holding us back.
exactly. know what, crypto X, the other thing is that it's very good that Drivechain
came,
this, this, like, conversations or debate about Drivechains, because now we,
see who they are and how much they know and what
they're planning to like, Drivechain actually expose the dirt in Bitcoin
community. you know, when you sweep and you bring the dust up,
it's kind of like now, you know, we see
kind of things much, much clearly because, I
believe that what I see from so many sources, mean, like
listening, watching, reading, stuff like that, I see that more and more is pushing like
centralization to Bitcoin.
the
I mean, I actually, I think
that they're not even really scared of the miners can steal thing.
think that they know better than to be worried about that.
And if you understand how Bitcoin works, you understand why miners won't steal from a
sidechain that provides a fee
I think what they're really scared of is the idea that people could activate new things
without their permission.
Even if that new thing is a sidechain that doesn't affect the mainchain, they really,
really want control over what people are doing on Bitcoin.
And I don't know why.
I don't know why they're so scared.
But they need to get over it or
I think I see also a gatekeeping around the, you know,
because on Bitcoin, you see the most of the kind of companies
or who came to use Bitcoin or any project that tried to do a LayerTwo,
it's not even Bitcoin, it's like completely everything centralized and I see this
kind of profit kind of incentive
from
central centralized. Some people said
that I'm drinking Kool -Aid, but explain to them why it is centralized and why you don't
agree with it instead of using a regular Bitcoin Core node.
first of all, that's off -chain stuff.
They can say you can run a Lightning node,
but it's offchain.
It's completely offchain and it doesn't relate to Bitcoin.
I said many times that this is very old and crypto X probably know about this, that you
can create your Bitcoin.
Yeah, about the technical, why it is with the channels.
For people to kind of understand, there's obviously like,
I don't know, I don't know, we all have a sense of different type of decentralization
and some people don't understand it I wanted to get your input.
Why people think it, know, because when we say decentralization first principles, Some
people have a
misunderstanding of what decentralization means.
yeah, yeah. like even the itself, the channel,
even I was researching and actually you cannot, you can do transaction but
you need to tie to a bigger one and all the
bigger ones are the centralized exchanges.
That brings the centralization.
It's many ways that bring centralization, that you need to be tied to that kind
of bigger network on Lightning Network.
Also, had not me but another
person, he said that he tried to run Lightning nodes and he lost Bitcoin
because I don't know the keys were not working and he tried to
reset and stuff like that.
is a mess.
Even I tried to download this a mess.
Lightning network is, I don't know, kind of
from a technical standpoint is a bit mess.
if anybody wants to run a Bitcoin channel, they can run,
they can use the normal node and we'll be off chain, but they utilizing node as a
server and they can create a
channel for if they need to do something like sending smaller
transactions. they can send those transactions and then broadcast as a one transaction
so they don't pay every time the fee.
it's kind of like this thing nobody tells them.
know,
somebody speaks, they speak like marketing stuff
or shilling stuff.
I'll say that Paul actually has a great tweet about this in his highlights where he
details the idea of why it would actually
be easier for somebody to steal from the Lightning Network than it would be from a
Drivechain. I wouldn't even pretend to understand it.
I also don't know why it's so important.
There's this entitlement in the mentality of lot of people who are Drivechain
detractors
that they have to have everything explained to them.
there's eight years of information out there for anybody who really wants to go at that
level. But oftentimes they don't.
I'm more attracted to Drivechain on the philosophical political level about how it
would upend to
current hierarchy of influence in the entire community.
That's very appealing to me.
Yeah, that's one of my favorite things about it as well.
Same.
It's definitely a big shift, politically speaking.
It empowers people to just start building.
right now, I think Paul said that in the beginning of the space,
you're someone young and bright eyed and you wanna
build a crypto project,
it's very limited what you can actually do on Bitcoin,
not just technically, but also sadly politically speaking.
have quite the entrenched gatekeepers.
And that's what
Yeah, Bitcoin Core are the biggest creator of shitcoins.
They're the reason that Ethereum exists.
They're the reason that Zcash exists.
They're the reason Monero exists.
A lot of these things where people initially wanted to do them on Bitcoin and
especially Vitalik Buterin was basically cast away onto his own chain.
and for the
longest time it was treated as a joke, but it has built up so much momentum that now
it's actually surpassed Bitcoin in transaction fees significantly.
And Bitcoin eventually will only be secured by transaction fees, but you can't forget
about that.
So we have to do something.
Yeah,
you're completely right and and this is confirmation you know i was saying the same in
a different way but the same what you are saying that you know all these moxies and the
gatekeepers are actually responsible for existing gold this uh coins evms
and stuff like that and you're completely right and i
would like to please you, CryptoX, you are contributing
to Bitcoin Core and stuff like that.
And this information needs to be set out, you know.
I think you need to kind of, I will please you to speak more about these things,
because people will
learn and educate themselves that, you know, it's not from now, it's not something,
a joke or small, you know?
Yeah, thank you.
I tried to, I've been trying to talk more, Paul and Henry and Austin and a lot of other
people are significantly better at communicating ideas than I am, but
That's good, let's get this going.
I'm ready for this thing to
Other people are creating protocols on Bitcoin, but yet no one's sitting there
like, you know, protesting, it's different.
projects don't have certain things going on, yet incentivizing miners,
that's a bad thing.
is Bitcoin is
not a deal.
So why not get you view?
I don't know everybody has their own philosophical view So people can agree
Another thing that Paul talks about a lot is how Drivechain would make Bitcoin much
more meritocratic again versus very politically influenced how it is now.
So what is it that we need to do in order to make this adopted?
We
gotta push the Bitcoin core developers to see if they can merge it in with this
merge mining, do we just make it happen and sell them the gold F off?
That is a very hard question to answer.
It's really complicated.
Right now, people can keep pushing for
more social consensus and teaching people about it.
I don't recommend spending a lot of time arguing with people on Twitter because it'll
drive you crazy, but...
You can at least try to tell people that are your friends about it and see if they like
it. You could go comment on the GitHub.
There's a poll request open by Luke Jr.
and you could comment on that if you want to you can test the software and you can tell
us what kind of bugs you find or if there's any improvements you want
yeah I joined in the spaces pretty
much pretty large money facility
I've been doing it for quite a long time.
So a lot of these guys I used to supply them for bitmain and in silicon.
You know, I used to live in there.
Some Bitcoin mining pools have published publicly said that they support Drivechain, so
more people doing that would be good.
Definitely if you're in mining, your pool know that you see this as a
way to generate more revenue.
Yeah.
Yeah, maybe this is you said, CryptoX,
about the
Luke Jr. poll request and stuff like that.
Maybe that one can be tweeted and we can retweet and ask people to retweeting and
if it's possible, putting comments or I don't know.
Yeah, the GitHub poll request, Luke Jr.
is asking for people to give concept
acts, which is just saying that you like how he is approaching the pull request.
So if you want to go on there and say that you concept act the pull request, that would
be helpful.
Yeah, that's correct.
We'll do that.
It's under the...
I'm just saying you got the miners supporting this more than the actual grifters are
coming in here making big noise.
I'm seeing that happen.
The people that don't let me.
Yeah, I think the idea sells itself to miners.
I don't think that it's hard to convince them at all.
Yeah, most of people that argue when they're not even miners, they don't even know how
to set up a damn ASIC or even connect.
I don't know if they have a, maybe they read too much Google articles and shit on
Bitcoin magazine.
The only Bitcoin miner I've seen criticize it is Pierre Richard who
operates the Riot Mining who gets paid by the government to not mine Bitcoin.
I don't He's not operating that by any means.
He's a like researcher or like, you know, head of research or something.
He's an employee.
really? When he walks around in the hardhat, he acts like he's running the police.
I don't know about him
in a hard hat but uh no he's not he's not running that
those who criticize drivetrain they they don't even uh run up between nodes it's
like so funny
yeah no they're engagement form to give followers here on x that's what
they're here to do.
And then convince everyone that this is not a good one.
Well, that's definitely a real thing.
Some people
there, you know, their career, Bitcoin influencer.
Yeah. Definitely a real thing.
Maybe they want to be the next speaker on Bitcoin You know the next Bitcoin conference
You know, that's what they're doing this for but I believe that look a lot of the stuff
that I hear When I run analytics is actually coming from America like
Hey, I got a news flash But
Bitcoin doesn't necessarily rely on the consensus of what America does.
Bitcoin is global.
So there's other mining farms around the world that are actually contributing cash
power to sustain the network.
you know, it seems like the guys here obviously have some alternative motives.
I don't know what the reason for,
but obviously we see a lot of these large corporations.
I don't want to sound like a tin half oil, but we also can see that these people have
some type of corporate interest.
Big corporations are moving in and they're trying to dictate and control the hashing of
mining power, and they don't want this to happen.
The reason why I think that they don't want it
happen. Because it actually takes away money that they develop from the service piece.
some of these centralized exchanges.
Whatever these bridges and So, I don't know what else to say.
Because when we look at hacks, like most people don't talk about cyber security.
When it comes down
to like bridges and that's the reason why in the EVM world, why you have a lot of these
scam projects, because a lot of these swaps and bridges end up getting exploited.
But if you have a proof of work concept using hashing, you necessarily
eliminate that risk.
And that's what I
feel that this the drivechains can do for the Bitcoin community by keeping
it trustless but teaches his own
and also will pump their pegs for sure
I'm supportive of you guys.
I just feel like if we can do more spaces on educating
people, think the biggest thing like they said is
you locking up your Bitcoin.
And if you guys can basically clarify and convey that
to kind of break it down for a lot of the newbies that call themselves OG Bitcoiners.
That would be great, you know, to kind of dumb it down a little bit, because I think
that sometimes they don't quite grasp the concept because they're not tech.
So I think education
is cheap and obviously we'll know who's the corporate
impetrators that come in because they just want to dismiss it.
They don't have a real informative
way to be able to refute it or to debate
it
because you basically already disclosed all the text of why this is not
Why this won't compromise or affect them of the base court You know the base layer
chain of Bitcoin, and I think that they think this is a hard fork But they don't
necessarily understand that it is not a hard
fork.
I don't know.
That's just my input.
Thank you for your.
Yeah, thank you.
It's definitely education is very important.
think, you know, still the vast, vast majority of
stakeholders, Bitcoiners,
they don't really know what this is and they don't know the promise.
yeah, think that more and more so miners are going to understand it
because they're the most the most incentivized
I'm looking forward to seeing how next few years play out because
I really think this is the most bullish thing possible for Bitcoin.
To just absorb
everything else
yeah you know when uh blockstream first announced that they were going to work on peer
-to -peer sidechains it caused a total crash of the altcoin market and we could do that
again i remember that was like the the the topic of discussion for weeks and weeks
oh yeah months
Maybe that is a good phrase, peer to peer, to be used more.
I think the most,
when they speak, say, oh, Drivechain will do changes.
It doesn't make any change to LayerOne.
Like, I mean, it's very simple to be understood, but...
Yeah, I agree.
Oh, just to mention this, I don't know if you're on LinkedIn, but also I saw there
some kind of post about
Drivechain comparing with not Ordinal says a protocol,
to BRC69 to BRC20 and stuff like
that. But they needed to educate them.
Yeah. One problem a lot of people have is understanding that Drivechain is a
way to implement peer -to -peer sidechains, a two -way peg in blind merge mining, for
abstract sidechain ideas.
It's not for one specific idea, it's for any idea.
It's not just to have a decentralized exchange or just to have ZK snarks or just to
have scaling. You can do all of these different things.
It's not a new soft fork for every change.
It's one change that lets us do all of these things and has a system to activate these
things and to incentivize them and to filter out the bad ones.
So I think it's really hard for people to understand that it's an idea that lets people
create new things instead of an idea that just
activates one thing.
Actually, Drivechain is a platform.
Yeah.
Yeah, and people say, oh, well, why don't you do it on Liquid?
And that's because Liquid is technically a sidechain, even though Blockstream have come
out and said it wasn't a sidechain.
now they say it's a sidechain again, but whatever.
It only does exchange to exchange transfers.
So you can't do Drivechain on that because it doesn't have all of the other things that
you need to propose new sidechains and to activate them and to deposit and withdraw
from them without the multisig approving it.
it's a totally different thing yeah yeah it's a platform it's a universal
platform for you know innovation on bitcoin maybe once
yeah well let's start doing
more of these spaces and i know youtube videos the ,
don't mean to undermine anyone, but I think we hosted this every Friday.
So please join us.
think it's Friday, 2 p.m.
Eastern time in the U.S.
Eastern time zone.
Yeah, 10 p.m.
or 10 a
Pacific, sorry.
Yeah, we sometimes do our spaces with
Punisher, and I hope he will activate and retweet more with
his bigger account.
But we speak about
Drivechains, you know, kind of a lot of time.
we are spreading the message.
I'll do some spaces, I'll break down the tech on it.
a lot of times you'll have like people that are, I don't know.
I just think that they already have alternative models.
They're not open for
like open debate.
But I think we can be respectful, but I love the, I don't know, love to go to
battle with like real engineers.
I don't want a front end developer, some guy that does like websites
we're living.
And then all of a
sudden we have like, we engage in some type of software development that doesn't
necessarily understand Bitcoin Core and BIPs and stuff like that.
I'll talk more about it on my main account and just get awareness
out there. I don't necessarily think that like if Bitcoin, like here it is from a
philosophical
represents freedom. If this thing does not affect
the base layer,
why are we so against it?
Why are people against the idea of using Drivechains,
but they want to continue
like Coinbase and all these other Binance Smartchains and they want to do KYC and AML.
I said what was the whole purpose of joining cryptocurrency?
If you want to go and do that, go stay your ass on Wall Street.
Go KYC, go do all that.
Fill out an accredited investor form.
But all we're doing is say, hey, have control of
your assets do it in the trustless mechanism where it doesn't affect
anyone you still have control over your assets by doing so and I think people
don't want to participate in these type of ecosystems because they don't necessarily
understand like true decentralization I I said Bitcoin was
meant to be autonomous but my hair I don't want to go
off the chain on this one but it was supposed to be autonomous it was not supposed to
be you know where we off -ramp it was supposed to be able to where we can actually trade
use Bitcoin to way to
settle payments, you know, that's That was Satoshi's vision.
But yet here we are with the centralized banking institutions They're coming in here
with their own ideas.
And Then they're trying to make this they're trying to centralize decentralization
I don't know.
I'm a I'm
decentralized maxi. Anything, any component that deals with centralization, I'm against
it. I believe in first principles of crypto and I feel that that's the
only way that you can actually gain sovereignty is by controlling your own assets and
being able to do it in a trusted layer which is proof of work.
And
so I'm for this.
And I would definitely like to have more conversations with like -minded individuals.
with that being said, yield back the floor.
Awesome, thank you.
Thank you. All right, I'm going to have to actually drop off now.
got something else booked
here in a few minutes, but it's been great to hang out here for the last four and half
hours. Yeah, I think this is a great time to end it.
It was really nice talking to you all, all you guys.
if you want to come back next Friday, Paul will be here, usually for the first several
hours.
We are always here.
bro. Maybe we can prepare some interview questions for
you next time, CryptX.
Oh yeah, if you want to, that's fine with me.
Alright, cool. yeah, I guess we can go ahead and end it.
Thank you everybody.
Yep, see you guys later.
See you.
Bye.