1
00:03:30,000 --> 00:03:48,400
Without enthusiastic support from users and miners, it wouldn't work anyway, so it
hinges on a little bit more than just maybe what 1.10 does, hence the desire to
demonstrate it with its own thing, I think.

2
00:03:48,400 --> 00:04:00,400
So maybe we could talk about that a little. So you proposed BIP 1.10 a while ago,
right? BIP 300 is a fizzle. BIP 300 is years old.

3
00:04:00,400 --> 00:04:03,400
It got the BIP number in maybe 2018, I think.

4
00:04:03,400 --> 00:04:06,400
And BIP 1.10 is fairly recent, right?

5
00:04:06,400 --> 00:04:18,400
Yeah, well, and we should also point out for the audience that BIP 300 is like a
complete redesign of all the incentives in the Bitcoin system, and it's like a
massive change, and BIP 1.10 is a tiny, surgical, totally common sense.

6
00:04:18,400 --> 00:04:26,400
Well, I don't agree with that. It's just taking an unused opcode and using it to
count to 13,000, basically. That's all it does under the hood.

7
00:04:26,400 --> 00:04:38,400
And as far as the miners, it asks them to basically accept more money for merge
mining, which is something that we've had since Namecoin in 2010, 2011.

8
00:04:38,400 --> 00:04:42,400
I am much closer to agreeing with Chris on this, just for the record.

9
00:04:43,400 --> 00:04:53,400
But I think we probably shouldn't talk too much about the details of what the forks
are, even though I know people want to, because we did sort of just have, you know,
you talked, and then you talked, and now we're all...

10
00:04:53,400 --> 00:04:57,400
So I think most of the people here are at least somewhat familiar from the talks.

11
00:04:57,400 --> 00:05:03,400
But I think the difference is, yeah, you're sort of saying, I'm going to do a hard
fork, right? Like, there is no...

12
00:05:03,400 --> 00:05:10,400
I think it's actually the polite thing to do under the circumstances. It's sort of
like people are not, they're not lapping it up, basically.

13
00:05:11,400 --> 00:05:15,400
But it did take, so, six or eight years.

14
00:05:15,400 --> 00:05:22,400
So for eight years, could you say just a little of like, okay, so for eight years,
were you sort of hoping it would be a soft fork and trying to pitch it?

15
00:05:22,400 --> 00:05:28,400
Well, I was very open-minded to like, I actually proposed the idea in form of
writing in 2015.

16
00:05:28,400 --> 00:05:33,400
So it's super old, and I was just kind of shrugged, like, whatever, maybe we won't
need this.

17
00:05:33,400 --> 00:05:39,400
Over the last ten years, what's really happened is I've seen how terrible everyone
else's, you know, how lightning has not worked,

18
00:05:39,400 --> 00:05:42,400
and it seems like actually everyone has no idea what they're doing.

19
00:05:42,400 --> 00:05:50,400
So my idea kind of stayed the same, and then all these other ideas collapsed, and I
thought, well, actually my idea is actually the best idea.

20
00:05:50,400 --> 00:05:52,400
And it's very, very misunderstood.

21
00:05:52,400 --> 00:05:59,400
There are basic things about it that are easy to understand that people have trouble
grasping.

22
00:05:59,400 --> 00:06:01,400
So I kind of just thought everything would be fine.

23
00:06:01,400 --> 00:06:04,400
You know, the price of Bitcoin has gone up a huge amount.

24
00:06:04,400 --> 00:06:07,400
So overall, there's been a lot of success for Bitcoin.

25
00:06:07,400 --> 00:06:13,400
But I think I worry about how do we go up from here, both in terms of adoption and
in terms of price.

26
00:06:13,400 --> 00:06:18,400
You've got multiple people fighting, chasing the customers away at the front door,

27
00:06:18,400 --> 00:06:23,400
where people are saying like, you know, we've got the treasury companies, we've got
110,

28
00:06:23,400 --> 00:06:28,400
we've got people saying, oh, we shouldn't, it's not a good thing to use Bitcoin.

29
00:06:28,400 --> 00:06:30,400
So we've got all kinds of weird stuff like that.

30
00:06:30,400 --> 00:06:36,400
Okay, so in this case, the 300, you have a hard fork, there's a difficulty
adjustment, there's all this stuff.

31
00:06:36,400 --> 00:06:39,400
It's going to run, and you're going to have a sustained chain.

32
00:06:39,400 --> 00:06:41,400
With the BIP-110, there's...

33
00:06:41,400 --> 00:06:42,400
Something will happen.

34
00:06:42,400 --> 00:06:49,400
Yeah, there's no, at least from my understanding, there's no plan for a hard fork or
difficulty adjustment at this time.

35
00:06:49,400 --> 00:06:52,400
Is that something people have talked about in BIP-110 at all?

36
00:06:52,400 --> 00:06:55,400
I mean, people always say like, well, what happens if the miners ignore it?

37
00:06:55,400 --> 00:06:57,400
And it's like, well, they're not going to ignore it.

38
00:06:57,400 --> 00:06:59,400
That would be an attack on Bitcoin.

39
00:06:59,400 --> 00:07:02,400
It would be an attack on the node network.

40
00:07:02,400 --> 00:07:04,400
There are other things we could do.

41
00:07:04,400 --> 00:07:08,400
What if they do, and then the response is they won't isn't really a response, right?

42
00:07:08,400 --> 00:07:09,400
Right, exactly.

43
00:07:09,400 --> 00:07:16,400
I mean, if the entire mining industry is malicious, we have to have some kind of
stronger escalation to that.

44
00:07:16,400 --> 00:07:20,400
And the only, like, the next move would be a proof-of-work change.

45
00:07:20,400 --> 00:07:23,400
Would you call the majority of the people in this room malicious?

46
00:07:23,400 --> 00:07:25,400
It's a little tricky when they're in the room with you, right?

47
00:07:25,400 --> 00:07:29,400
Yeah, because you only have three votes, really, four, right?

48
00:07:29,400 --> 00:07:30,400
Well, I mean, but so I wouldn't...

49
00:07:30,400 --> 00:07:33,400
But the people in this room are not running mining pools.

50
00:07:33,400 --> 00:07:35,400
I mean, maybe there's a couple of people running mining pools.

51
00:07:35,400 --> 00:07:37,400
Yeah, I mean, you know.

52
00:07:39,400 --> 00:07:40,400
We have Marathon over there.

53
00:07:40,400 --> 00:07:41,400
But yeah, I mean, well...

54
00:07:43,400 --> 00:07:45,400
I wouldn't say they're not malicious.

55
00:07:45,400 --> 00:07:49,400
It's just sort of, do you acknowledge that you might be in a minority position here?

56
00:07:49,400 --> 00:07:50,400
Or are you like, no, of course we're the majority.

57
00:07:50,400 --> 00:07:52,400
There's no way we could be a minority.

58
00:07:52,400 --> 00:07:56,400
But again, so VIP-148 had a minority position, too.

59
00:07:56,400 --> 00:08:01,400
And it still forced the activation of SegWit, and it still forced its own
activation.

60
00:08:01,400 --> 00:08:06,400
Some people will say, oh, well, VIP-91 made it do that, but, like, it was compliant
with VIP-148.

61
00:08:06,400 --> 00:08:08,400
And obviously that wouldn't have happened if VIP-148 hadn't happened.

62
00:08:08,400 --> 00:08:09,400
So I agree it's hard.

63
00:08:09,400 --> 00:08:10,400
You know, it is a hard question.

64
00:08:10,400 --> 00:08:12,400
How do you measure consensus?

65
00:08:12,400 --> 00:08:15,400
With the SegWit, though, it was sort of a basic...

66
00:08:15,400 --> 00:08:21,400
As far as I know, every developer working on Bitcoin Core was like, yes, SegWit.

67
00:08:21,400 --> 00:08:23,400
And much more than just developers.

68
00:08:23,400 --> 00:08:28,400
You know, in an equivalent conference like this, you would have had essentially
everyone saying SegWit's a great thing.

69
00:08:28,400 --> 00:08:31,400
Although there were some people, like, I remember in Hong Kong...

70
00:08:31,400 --> 00:08:35,400
Right, Core was on the good guy's side in the World Size War, and they're on the bad
guy's side this time.

71
00:08:35,400 --> 00:08:38,400
So, you know, we have to work with what we've got.

72
00:08:38,400 --> 00:08:41,400
I don't think we should do good-bad, but I do remember in Hong Kong,

73
00:08:41,400 --> 00:08:44,400
SIPA gave the sort of Mike Kropp talk of how you could do SegWit as a software.

74
00:08:44,400 --> 00:08:45,400
Everyone was clapping.

75
00:08:45,400 --> 00:08:48,400
I remember sitting next to... I was standing next to Joseph Poon, and he was like,
oh, great.

76
00:08:48,400 --> 00:08:49,400
I thought Luke came up with...

77
00:08:49,400 --> 00:08:51,400
He was like, oh, no, look. Look at Roger Ver over there.

78
00:08:51,400 --> 00:08:54,400
There were people who were not happy about that.

79
00:08:54,400 --> 00:08:57,400
And I sort of feel like that's when the sort of Bitcoin Cash stuff started.

80
00:08:57,400 --> 00:08:59,400
But anyway.

81
00:08:59,400 --> 00:09:03,400
But it is a hard thing to measure, but it does seem that, like...

82
00:09:03,400 --> 00:09:05,400
I don't want to say objectively, but it's like...

83
00:09:05,400 --> 00:09:10,400
If you're going to run BIP110, it seems like you should plan ahead of, like...

84
00:09:10,400 --> 00:09:12,400
Okay, what do we do if it is minority hashrate?

85
00:09:12,400 --> 00:09:13,400
I mean, basically, yeah.

86
00:09:13,400 --> 00:09:17,400
It's like, what do we do if actually the nodes are not in charge of Bitcoin

87
00:09:17,400 --> 00:09:19,400
and the miners are actually in charge?

88
00:09:19,400 --> 00:09:23,400
It's kind of like, okay, well, what do we do if Bitcoin is dead?

89
00:09:23,400 --> 00:09:27,400
You even said that it was wildly popular and had 17%?

90
00:09:27,400 --> 00:09:30,400
Yeah, 15% to 17% is the sort of...

91
00:09:30,400 --> 00:09:32,400
But that's a minority, right?

92
00:09:32,400 --> 00:09:35,400
So what do you mean the miners are in charge?

93
00:09:35,400 --> 00:09:39,400
That's the people who are, like, rabidly in favor of it.

94
00:09:39,400 --> 00:09:43,400
Maybe not rabidly, but enthusiastically in favor of it.

95
00:09:43,400 --> 00:09:45,400
In order to change Bitcoin's consensus rules,

96
00:09:45,400 --> 00:09:49,400
we don't need everyone to be enthusiastically in favor of the consensus rules.

97
00:09:49,400 --> 00:09:52,400
We just need a vocal minority that's really in favor of it

98
00:09:52,400 --> 00:09:54,400
and nobody that's willing to do a URSF.

99
00:09:54,400 --> 00:09:56,400
Which is how it works today.

100
00:09:56,400 --> 00:10:01,400
What if you're in a position where it is true that the majority of users

101
00:10:01,400 --> 00:10:03,400
actually disagree with you?

102
00:10:03,400 --> 00:10:06,400
They have to run a URSF or it doesn't matter.

103
00:10:06,400 --> 00:10:10,400
But isn't that actually not true because of the mandatory signaling?

104
00:10:10,400 --> 00:10:11,400
What?

105
00:10:11,400 --> 00:10:12,400
Isn't that actually not true?

106
00:10:12,400 --> 00:10:18,400
If they just don't signal, then they will automatically URSF?

107
00:10:18,400 --> 00:10:25,400
No, because there's very, very crushingly huge incentives to not do that

108
00:10:25,400 --> 00:10:27,400
because that's the legacy chain and it has wipeout risk.

109
00:10:27,400 --> 00:10:28,400
It might get wiped out.

110
00:10:28,400 --> 00:10:31,400
Look, you believe that, but if we wind up in a month

111
00:10:31,400 --> 00:10:35,400
and there's 1% hash power mining the Bitcoin 10 chain

112
00:10:35,400 --> 00:10:40,400
and, and I think this is true, the majority of Bitcoin nodes

113
00:10:40,400 --> 00:10:41,400
and Bitcoin users are going to say,

114
00:10:41,400 --> 00:10:43,400
well, we don't agree with the Bitcoin 10 chain either.

115
00:10:43,400 --> 00:10:45,400
I mean, then what do you do?

116
00:10:45,400 --> 00:10:47,400
Or another way to put it.

117
00:10:47,400 --> 00:10:51,400
Again, the incentives are for the miners to just converge on one chain.

118
00:10:51,400 --> 00:10:53,400
The miners need Bitcoin to be one thing.

119
00:10:53,400 --> 00:10:56,400
If Bitcoin is two things, the miners can't sell their coins and pay for their
electricity.

120
00:10:56,400 --> 00:10:58,400
If you're in a minority, that's bad for you

121
00:10:58,400 --> 00:11:00,400
because they're going to want to converge to one thing,

122
00:11:00,400 --> 00:11:02,400
which would be the non-Bitcoin 10 chain.

123
00:11:02,400 --> 00:11:06,400
It doesn't matter though, because if even a minority chain can catch up and win

124
00:11:06,400 --> 00:11:12,400
and if there's a non-zero chance that the minority chain will catch up and win,

125
00:11:12,400 --> 00:11:16,400
then the miners have a strong incentive to switch to the stricter chain.

126
00:11:16,400 --> 00:11:21,400
What if there was a minority of very vocal, zealous people

127
00:11:21,400 --> 00:11:23,400
who said, we need KYC in Bitcoin

128
00:11:23,400 --> 00:11:26,400
and said, you know, we're only 5% of the nodes, but we need this.

129
00:11:26,400 --> 00:11:28,400
Then there would be a URSF.

130
00:11:28,400 --> 00:11:29,400
It needs to be...

131
00:11:29,400 --> 00:11:30,400
A URSF.

132
00:11:30,400 --> 00:11:31,400
What if it's 1%?

133
00:11:31,400 --> 00:11:32,400
I'm running a node.

134
00:11:32,400 --> 00:11:34,400
I'm running, I don't know, core 31, whatever.

135
00:11:34,400 --> 00:11:35,400
I don't even pay attention.

136
00:11:35,400 --> 00:11:37,400
If you think that change is going to be harmful for Bitcoin,

137
00:11:37,400 --> 00:11:39,400
you have to do a URSF.

138
00:11:39,400 --> 00:11:42,400
So any minority, no matter how small,

139
00:11:42,400 --> 00:11:44,400
commands my attention to do something about it,

140
00:11:44,400 --> 00:11:45,400
or can I just ignore it?

141
00:11:45,400 --> 00:11:50,400
Well, any minority that's at least as big as BIP-148

142
00:11:50,400 --> 00:11:53,400
demands your attention because BIP-148 was successful.

143
00:11:53,400 --> 00:11:55,400
I know, but didn't we discuss, there was the SegWit2x,

144
00:11:55,400 --> 00:11:59,400
there was a table with people's opinions in SegWit

145
00:11:59,400 --> 00:12:02,400
and then SegWit had another quality where,

146
00:12:02,400 --> 00:12:04,400
other than the 4 megabyte block size increase,

147
00:12:04,400 --> 00:12:06,400
if you put that aside so we don't trip over that,

148
00:12:06,400 --> 00:12:09,400
but other than that, it basically just was like

149
00:12:09,400 --> 00:12:11,400
a Pareto improvement where it just said

150
00:12:11,400 --> 00:12:13,400
you can do everything you were doing before,

151
00:12:13,400 --> 00:12:15,400
plus you have this new option.

152
00:12:15,400 --> 00:12:19,400
So it would be kind of bizarre to go down the road

153
00:12:19,400 --> 00:12:21,400
of opposing something like that because you're just saying,

154
00:12:21,400 --> 00:12:23,400
oh, we're just giving someone another option

155
00:12:23,400 --> 00:12:24,400
for their transaction.

156
00:12:24,400 --> 00:12:27,400
So these were things that SegWit had.

157
00:12:27,400 --> 00:12:30,400
But you're saying restricting is the difference?

158
00:12:30,400 --> 00:12:32,400
Is a meaningful difference versus expanding?

159
00:12:32,400 --> 00:12:35,400
When you do the software to add a new opcode,

160
00:12:35,400 --> 00:12:37,400
you actually are adding something.

161
00:12:37,400 --> 00:12:39,400
You're adding functionality.

162
00:12:39,400 --> 00:12:42,400
So like, oh, check lock time verify, like Peter did.

163
00:12:42,400 --> 00:12:44,400
It theoretically invalidates,

164
00:12:44,400 --> 00:12:46,400
it theoretically shrinks some things,

165
00:12:46,400 --> 00:12:52,400
but it actually, since it takes the unused opnop2, I think.

166
00:12:52,400 --> 00:12:54,400
It would be a weird progression of like,

167
00:12:54,400 --> 00:12:56,400
SegWit was a big change, tons of people liked it,

168
00:12:56,400 --> 00:12:58,400
companies built on it.

169
00:12:58,400 --> 00:13:00,400
And then Taproot, people were talking today about Arc

170
00:13:00,400 --> 00:13:02,400
and all these Taproot things.

171
00:13:02,400 --> 00:13:03,400
And it takes forever, right?

172
00:13:03,400 --> 00:13:06,400
It's like SegWit 2016 and then Taproot 2021.

173
00:13:06,400 --> 00:13:08,400
And then the next one is BIP 110,

174
00:13:08,400 --> 00:13:11,400
which is like, well, it's pretty different, right?

175
00:13:11,400 --> 00:13:12,400
It doesn't enable as much.

176
00:13:12,400 --> 00:13:14,400
Yeah, it's different because it's the first time

177
00:13:14,400 --> 00:13:18,400
in a long time that we've done a sort of defensive software

178
00:13:18,400 --> 00:13:24,400
that is basically rectifying some unintended consequences

179
00:13:24,400 --> 00:13:27,400
from previous soft forks, namely SegWit and Taproot.

180
00:13:27,400 --> 00:13:29,400
There have been forks like this in the past, right?

181
00:13:29,400 --> 00:13:31,400
There was a soft fork to eliminate the,

182
00:13:31,400 --> 00:13:32,400
there was an emergency soft fork

183
00:13:32,400 --> 00:13:35,400
to eliminate the inflation bug in 2010.

184
00:13:35,400 --> 00:13:39,400
And there was also some hard fork and soft fork stuff

185
00:13:39,400 --> 00:13:42,400
around the 2013 accidental hard fork.

186
00:13:42,400 --> 00:13:45,400
So let's just skim through this for a second.

187
00:13:45,400 --> 00:13:49,400
So in this scenario where you have 1% hash power mining BIP 110,

188
00:13:49,400 --> 00:13:53,400
let's just say hypothetically that one day after that,

189
00:13:54,400 --> 00:13:59,400
we have one day worth of blocks on, we'll call it the core chain,

190
00:13:59,400 --> 00:14:02,400
which has 99% hash power at that point.

191
00:14:02,400 --> 00:14:06,400
And then miners, you know, quote, unquote, wake up.

192
00:14:06,400 --> 00:14:08,400
Now, hang on a second, hang on, hang on.

193
00:14:08,400 --> 00:14:09,400
Why would it ever get that far?

194
00:14:09,400 --> 00:14:10,400
Hang on a second.

195
00:14:10,400 --> 00:14:11,400
They'd have to be asleep.

196
00:14:11,400 --> 00:14:12,400
Hang on a second.

197
00:14:12,400 --> 00:14:14,400
Well, they can literally be asleep.

198
00:14:14,400 --> 00:14:15,400
I mean, this is not a...

199
00:14:15,400 --> 00:14:16,400
They're not sleeping.

200
00:14:16,400 --> 00:14:17,400
The miners are talking about it.

201
00:14:17,400 --> 00:14:19,400
If you see mining disrupt, they're all talking about it.

202
00:14:19,400 --> 00:14:20,400
Hang on, hang on.

203
00:14:20,400 --> 00:14:22,400
Just for the sake of argument, let's just say

204
00:14:22,400 --> 00:14:23,400
we wind up in that scenario.

205
00:14:23,400 --> 00:14:25,400
I would argue very strongly

206
00:14:25,400 --> 00:14:29,400
that the moment the core chain comes out ahead,

207
00:14:29,400 --> 00:14:32,400
there's very strong reasons for people to say,

208
00:14:32,400 --> 00:14:34,400
yeah, we're just going to keep mining this

209
00:14:34,400 --> 00:14:36,400
rather than have the PR disaster,

210
00:14:36,400 --> 00:14:39,400
which is, you know, 100 blocks get wiped out.

211
00:14:39,400 --> 00:14:40,400
That's crazy.

212
00:14:40,400 --> 00:14:41,400
But why would you keep mining a chain that might get wiped out?

213
00:14:41,400 --> 00:14:43,400
All of your earnings are going to go both ways.

214
00:14:43,400 --> 00:14:45,400
I mean, because you disagree with that direction,

215
00:14:45,400 --> 00:14:47,400
and then it looks like it doesn't get wiped out,

216
00:14:47,400 --> 00:14:49,400
and very quickly it's, well, shit, we're going to wipe this out.

217
00:14:49,400 --> 00:14:51,400
Yeah, but how do you trust that all the other miners

218
00:14:51,400 --> 00:14:52,400
are moving over because it's safer for them?

219
00:14:52,400 --> 00:14:54,400
Well, because you can go call them up and say,

220
00:14:54,400 --> 00:14:55,400
look at how they're signaling this one.

221
00:14:55,400 --> 00:14:57,400
So you can collude with the miners to go and attack the node network.

222
00:14:57,400 --> 00:14:59,400
Look, miners, like, I don't know, miners can go...

223
00:14:59,400 --> 00:15:00,400
You can get your centralized mining pool buddies...

224
00:15:00,400 --> 00:15:01,400
Well, hang on, hang on, hang on.

225
00:15:01,400 --> 00:15:03,400
You're saying miners colluding to attack nodes,

226
00:15:03,400 --> 00:15:04,400
but we've already established

227
00:15:04,400 --> 00:15:07,400
that it seems like the BIP-110 nodes are in the minority anyway.

228
00:15:07,400 --> 00:15:10,400
I mean, it seems like they're in the minority in the technical community.

229
00:15:10,400 --> 00:15:12,400
So, I mean, it is reasonable to say they're in the minority.

230
00:15:12,400 --> 00:15:14,400
Right, but again, the same situation happened with BIP-148.

231
00:15:14,400 --> 00:15:16,400
It was also a minority, and it also succeeded in the minority.

232
00:15:16,400 --> 00:15:17,400
But it wasn't a minority.

233
00:15:17,400 --> 00:15:20,400
BIP-148, I was in rooms where you could do hands.

234
00:15:20,400 --> 00:15:23,400
We didn't bother to do hands because every developer,

235
00:15:23,400 --> 00:15:26,400
other than, like, not every, there were people,

236
00:15:26,400 --> 00:15:28,400
and this was sort of the beginnings of Bitcoin Cash

237
00:15:28,400 --> 00:15:30,400
because that did come a year or two later.

238
00:15:30,400 --> 00:15:32,400
But it ended up being the same people who did Bitcoin Cash.

239
00:15:32,400 --> 00:15:35,400
But there were a few people who were like, no, I don't like this.

240
00:15:35,400 --> 00:15:38,400
But it was pretty small compared to...

241
00:15:38,400 --> 00:15:40,400
Yeah, there's very clear...

242
00:15:40,400 --> 00:15:42,400
I mean, if you don't like it, do a URSF.

243
00:15:42,400 --> 00:15:44,400
Again, there's a clear strategy for...

244
00:15:45,400 --> 00:15:49,400
Do you guys think that BIP-148 is going to harm Bitcoin?

245
00:15:49,400 --> 00:15:51,400
Do you guys think that BIP-148 is going to harm Bitcoin?

246
00:15:51,400 --> 00:15:53,400
Yes, I do, yeah.

247
00:15:53,400 --> 00:15:54,400
Why?

248
00:15:54,400 --> 00:15:58,400
Because I think it's bad to have nonsense affect Bitcoin.

249
00:15:58,400 --> 00:16:00,400
I don't know, wait, how about we do...

250
00:16:00,400 --> 00:16:02,400
These are the arguments that we're dealing with.

251
00:16:02,400 --> 00:16:03,400
This is our opposition.

252
00:16:03,400 --> 00:16:05,400
How about we start with, like, just a poll.

253
00:16:05,400 --> 00:16:09,400
Was Bitcoin Cash beneficial to sort of Bitcoin in the large sense?

254
00:16:09,400 --> 00:16:10,400
What do you think?

255
00:16:10,400 --> 00:16:12,400
I would actually say...

256
00:16:13,400 --> 00:16:14,400
What's the question?

257
00:16:14,400 --> 00:16:15,400
I missed the question.

258
00:16:15,400 --> 00:16:19,400
Was Bitcoin Cash, you know, being developed, splitting off from Bitcoin,

259
00:16:19,400 --> 00:16:22,400
or whatever we call it, beneficial for both sides?

260
00:16:22,400 --> 00:16:24,400
Well, can we say compared to what?

261
00:16:24,400 --> 00:16:25,400
Compared to not.

262
00:16:25,400 --> 00:16:26,400
Compared to they just didn't do it.

263
00:16:26,400 --> 00:16:29,400
Compared to just staying and continuing to advocate for...

264
00:16:29,400 --> 00:16:30,400
Sure, yeah.

265
00:16:30,400 --> 00:16:31,400
I would say that it is beneficial.

266
00:16:31,400 --> 00:16:32,400
I mean, it kind of makes sense, right?

267
00:16:32,400 --> 00:16:35,400
They wanted bigger blocks, but they rejected SegWit,

268
00:16:35,400 --> 00:16:37,400
which actually was bigger blocks,

269
00:16:37,400 --> 00:16:39,400
which was, like, just completely indefensible.

270
00:16:39,400 --> 00:16:42,400
So I guess what I will say is interesting about Bitcoin 10

271
00:16:42,400 --> 00:16:47,400
is that it is a potential minority hash rate soft fork,

272
00:16:47,400 --> 00:16:49,400
which has not been attempted yet, right?

273
00:16:49,400 --> 00:16:51,400
Because with Bitcoin Cash, they said,

274
00:16:51,400 --> 00:16:53,400
no, it's a soft fork mainly because...

275
00:16:53,400 --> 00:16:54,400
It's kind of weird.

276
00:16:54,400 --> 00:16:57,400
They took the SegWit SIG hashing stuff and put it into theirs.

277
00:16:57,400 --> 00:17:00,400
As the deadline approaches, I don't expect it to still be a minority.

278
00:17:00,400 --> 00:17:01,400
Okay, so...

279
00:17:01,400 --> 00:17:03,400
But that's, like, what, a couple weeks, right?

280
00:17:03,400 --> 00:17:04,400
So that's, like, real soon.

281
00:17:04,400 --> 00:17:07,400
Okay, so we'll see.

282
00:17:07,400 --> 00:17:08,400
So we won't have to wait long.

283
00:17:08,400 --> 00:17:12,400
But again, if there's a whole bunch of people who are really, really for it

284
00:17:12,400 --> 00:17:15,400
and nobody is strongly against it, that should activate.

285
00:17:15,400 --> 00:17:17,400
And that's actually how Bitcoin works.

286
00:17:17,400 --> 00:17:21,400
But isn't everyone strongly against it?

287
00:17:21,400 --> 00:17:22,400
And isn't all the...

288
00:17:22,400 --> 00:17:24,400
No, nobody is strongly against it.

289
00:17:24,400 --> 00:17:25,400
Right now, if people run...

290
00:17:25,400 --> 00:17:26,400
Then write a URSF.

291
00:17:26,400 --> 00:17:30,400
Right now, if people run a client that does not signal,

292
00:17:30,400 --> 00:17:33,400
they just won't signal on August 8th or whatever it is.

293
00:17:33,400 --> 00:17:34,400
So isn't that...

294
00:17:34,400 --> 00:17:37,400
You will fork off of that?

295
00:17:37,400 --> 00:17:40,400
If someone mines blocks on those networks, that will be the fork.

296
00:17:40,400 --> 00:17:41,400
So that is the URSF.

297
00:17:41,400 --> 00:17:43,400
If that has majority hash rate...

298
00:17:43,400 --> 00:17:44,400
That's not a URSF.

299
00:17:44,400 --> 00:17:50,400
So a URSF is different because you have to coordinate around how to reject the soft
fork.

300
00:17:50,400 --> 00:17:52,400
If you don't do that, the legacy chain becomes incoherent

301
00:17:52,400 --> 00:17:54,400
because it might just continue disappearing.

302
00:17:54,400 --> 00:17:56,400
It might get wiped out a bunch of times.

303
00:17:56,400 --> 00:17:58,400
One second, just for the audience.

304
00:17:58,400 --> 00:18:00,400
Let me just make sure people realize what the heck you're talking about.

305
00:18:00,400 --> 00:18:03,400
You are talking about a user-rejected soft fork

306
00:18:04,400 --> 00:18:08,400
where people decide to come up with some way of rejecting it.

307
00:18:08,400 --> 00:18:11,400
One of the simplest technical possibilities is simply

308
00:18:11,400 --> 00:18:14,400
miners and users, maybe some exchanges,

309
00:18:14,400 --> 00:18:17,400
just run the command and validate block on a block in the Bit.10 chain.

310
00:18:17,400 --> 00:18:18,400
Simple as that.

311
00:18:18,400 --> 00:18:21,400
Just to make sure that even if it somehow comes out ahead...

312
00:18:21,400 --> 00:18:25,400
Right, so a few large mining pools decide that the decentralized node network

313
00:18:25,400 --> 00:18:29,400
of Bit.10 runners, the 15,000 plebs out there

314
00:18:29,400 --> 00:18:31,400
that want to protect Bitcoin's monetary purpose,

315
00:18:31,400 --> 00:18:34,400
that they're wrong and those five large mining nodes

316
00:18:34,400 --> 00:18:35,400
are actually in control of the network.

317
00:18:35,400 --> 00:18:40,400
I hate to say this, but again, this bit about 15,000 agreeing with Bit.10,

318
00:18:40,400 --> 00:18:42,400
that sounds like minority to me.

319
00:18:42,400 --> 00:18:45,400
Everything I've seen going to conferences, all this,

320
00:18:45,400 --> 00:18:47,400
is they're actually minority users.

321
00:18:47,400 --> 00:18:49,400
If you have an enthusiastic minority that wants a change

322
00:18:49,400 --> 00:18:52,400
and you have no serious opposition, then the change should happen.

323
00:18:52,400 --> 00:18:54,400
There's clearly serious opposition.

324
00:18:54,400 --> 00:18:56,400
There isn't any serious opposition.

325
00:18:56,400 --> 00:18:57,400
There's no URSF.

326
00:18:57,400 --> 00:18:59,400
There is no meaningful attempt to resist this.

327
00:18:59,400 --> 00:19:03,400
It feels like Bitcoin Cash was an enthusiastic minority.

328
00:19:03,400 --> 00:19:07,400
It just feels a lot like 2017.

329
00:19:07,400 --> 00:19:09,400
It just feels a lot like that.

330
00:19:09,400 --> 00:19:11,400
What do you mean Bitcoin Cash was an enthusiastic...

331
00:19:11,400 --> 00:19:13,400
Oh, they were trying to hard fork Bitcoin.

332
00:19:13,400 --> 00:19:15,400
That is a completely different thing.

333
00:19:15,400 --> 00:19:17,400
What's the difference?

334
00:19:17,400 --> 00:19:18,400
Let me revise.

335
00:19:18,400 --> 00:19:22,400
If an enthusiastic minority wants to restrict Bitcoin's rules

336
00:19:22,400 --> 00:19:25,400
in a way that nobody actually thinks is going to harm Bitcoin,

337
00:19:25,400 --> 00:19:27,400
they should be able to do that.

338
00:19:27,400 --> 00:19:29,400
If somebody thinks it's going to harm Bitcoin,

339
00:19:29,400 --> 00:19:31,400
they have to URSF.

340
00:19:31,400 --> 00:19:33,400
Otherwise, there's no defense.

341
00:19:33,400 --> 00:19:37,400
If it's a hard fork, that's a completely different situation.

342
00:19:37,400 --> 00:19:41,400
Restricting Bitcoin's rules in a way that people don't think

343
00:19:41,400 --> 00:19:44,400
will seriously harm Bitcoin, but without a good reason,

344
00:19:44,400 --> 00:19:46,400
I think is a harm to Bitcoin.

345
00:19:46,400 --> 00:19:48,400
Especially for this kind of reason,

346
00:19:48,400 --> 00:19:52,400
it's a social precedent thing that itself is really ugly.

347
00:19:52,400 --> 00:19:54,400
We actually did rock, paper, scissors,

348
00:19:54,400 --> 00:19:56,400
and myself, the person next to me,

349
00:19:56,400 --> 00:19:58,400
I don't know who would ask the question.

350
00:19:58,400 --> 00:20:01,400
What I was going to ask you in the previous talk was,

351
00:20:01,400 --> 00:20:03,400
let's say that Bitcoin Core had, in fact,

352
00:20:03,400 --> 00:20:07,400
responded to inscriptions by trying to go filter them.

353
00:20:07,400 --> 00:20:09,400
Probably what inscriptions would have done

354
00:20:09,400 --> 00:20:11,400
is immediately tweaked the way they were publishing data

355
00:20:11,400 --> 00:20:13,400
to bypass the filter.

356
00:20:13,400 --> 00:20:15,400
Would you expect Bitcoin Core to just keep on...

357
00:20:15,400 --> 00:20:17,400
Spammers never did that.

358
00:20:17,400 --> 00:20:19,400
But we never went down that path.

359
00:20:19,400 --> 00:20:23,400
The reason why inscriptions became a phenomenon

360
00:20:23,400 --> 00:20:26,400
is because there was a shelling point that formed

361
00:20:26,400 --> 00:20:28,400
around that particular format.

362
00:20:28,400 --> 00:20:31,400
But they changed it multiple times for various reasons.

363
00:20:31,400 --> 00:20:33,400
There's a whole bunch of different variations.

364
00:20:33,400 --> 00:20:35,400
They have to form a new shelling point every time.

365
00:20:35,400 --> 00:20:38,400
They did this and made money off of it.

366
00:20:38,400 --> 00:20:41,400
There are multiple variants of inscriptions and things like it

367
00:20:41,400 --> 00:20:44,400
that was launched repeatedly to go make money off of it.

368
00:20:44,400 --> 00:20:46,400
But there was never a serious attempt by Core

369
00:20:46,400 --> 00:20:48,400
to actually counter it.

370
00:20:48,400 --> 00:20:50,400
But obviously, if Core had...

371
00:20:51,400 --> 00:20:57,400
We have historical precedent of Core being hostile to spam in 2014.

372
00:20:57,400 --> 00:20:59,400
The spammers were like, this is dumb.

373
00:20:59,400 --> 00:21:01,400
Bitcoiners are clearly hostile to us.

374
00:21:01,400 --> 00:21:04,400
We're going to go build Ethereum instead.

375
00:21:04,400 --> 00:21:06,400
I fundamentally disagree.

376
00:21:06,400 --> 00:21:09,400
The block size is a much better argument there.

377
00:21:09,400 --> 00:21:13,400
Secondly, Ethereum's pitch was a degree of programmable money

378
00:21:13,400 --> 00:21:16,400
that was just never suitable to go put on Bitcoin.

379
00:21:16,400 --> 00:21:18,400
Ethereum is a very different pitch.

380
00:21:18,400 --> 00:21:20,400
The spammers are trying it again.

381
00:21:20,400 --> 00:21:22,400
They're trying to put Ethereum on Bitcoin again.

382
00:21:22,400 --> 00:21:24,400
It keeps coming back. I don't know why.

383
00:21:24,400 --> 00:21:27,400
Inscriptions don't have programmability.

384
00:21:27,400 --> 00:21:29,400
They're just pure assets.

385
00:21:29,400 --> 00:21:31,400
They're pure collectible assets.

386
00:21:31,400 --> 00:21:33,400
Don't give them any ideas.

387
00:21:33,400 --> 00:21:35,400
It's a different problem.

388
00:21:35,400 --> 00:21:37,400
I haven't heard that.

389
00:21:37,400 --> 00:21:39,400
It seems like we all agree

390
00:21:39,400 --> 00:21:42,400
that if you don't end up with 51% hash rate,

391
00:21:42,400 --> 00:21:45,400
then that would be basically a loss for 1.10.

392
00:21:45,400 --> 00:21:47,400
You seem to be saying, they will come around.

393
00:21:47,400 --> 00:21:49,400
We don't have them now, but they'll come around.

394
00:21:49,400 --> 00:21:51,400
Is that right?

395
00:21:51,400 --> 00:21:53,400
It would be much more of a loss for the miners.

396
00:21:53,400 --> 00:21:55,400
Again, if there's a chain split,

397
00:21:55,400 --> 00:21:57,400
the miners need the chain to resolve to one chain.

398
00:21:57,400 --> 00:21:59,400
Bitcoin has to be one thing.

399
00:21:59,400 --> 00:22:01,400
If they can't sell their Bitcoin

400
00:22:01,400 --> 00:22:03,400
in order to pay for their energy...

401
00:22:03,400 --> 00:22:05,400
But if it splits and becomes two things,

402
00:22:05,400 --> 00:22:07,400
they can still sell their Bitcoin.

403
00:22:07,400 --> 00:22:09,400
We could sell Bitcoin Cash.

404
00:22:09,400 --> 00:22:11,400
If there's Bitcoin 1.10...

405
00:22:11,400 --> 00:22:13,400
There's chaos.

406
00:22:13,400 --> 00:22:15,400
There is no replay.

407
00:22:16,400 --> 00:22:18,400
There actually is now.

408
00:22:18,400 --> 00:22:20,400
By default, there isn't.

409
00:22:20,400 --> 00:22:22,400
Replay protection, I guess, in this scenario,

410
00:22:22,400 --> 00:22:24,400
if there is a split,

411
00:22:24,400 --> 00:22:26,400
would be on the core V30 side

412
00:22:26,400 --> 00:22:28,400
to put a big op return in every transaction

413
00:22:28,400 --> 00:22:30,400
because that won't get replayed on the Bitcoin 1.10 chain.

414
00:22:30,400 --> 00:22:32,400
Core 30 will follow the stricter chain.

415
00:22:32,400 --> 00:22:34,400
That's why a software core,

416
00:22:34,400 --> 00:22:36,400
because all of the old core nodes

417
00:22:36,400 --> 00:22:38,400
are just going to follow the Bitcoin 1.10 chain.

418
00:22:38,400 --> 00:22:40,400
But I'm saying, if it has majority hash rate.

419
00:22:40,400 --> 00:22:42,400
I'm saying, if there is a minority hash rate...

420
00:22:42,400 --> 00:22:44,400
That's what I was trying to say.

421
00:22:44,400 --> 00:22:46,400
There's very, very strong incentives for that.

422
00:22:46,400 --> 00:22:48,400
I'm just saying, though,

423
00:22:48,400 --> 00:22:50,400
everything hinges on that, though, right?

424
00:22:50,400 --> 00:22:52,400
Your entire argument hinges on that.

425
00:22:52,400 --> 00:22:54,400
It sort of becomes like a self-fulfilling proxy.

426
00:22:54,400 --> 00:22:56,400
You have a little bit of hash rate,

427
00:22:56,400 --> 00:22:58,400
so there's a little bit of...

428
00:22:58,400 --> 00:23:00,400
Why not have a signaling that requires 90%

429
00:23:00,400 --> 00:23:02,400
like all the other soft forks have?

430
00:23:02,400 --> 00:23:04,400
What's that?

431
00:23:04,400 --> 00:23:06,400
Like Taproot, right?

432
00:23:06,400 --> 00:23:08,400
I don't remember.

433
00:23:08,400 --> 00:23:10,400
95%, 90%, whatever it is.

434
00:23:10,400 --> 00:23:12,400
Those were minor vetoable forks.

435
00:23:13,400 --> 00:23:15,400
Sure.

436
00:23:15,400 --> 00:23:19,400
But yours is also minor vetoable, right?

437
00:23:19,400 --> 00:23:21,400
Isn't that what you just said a moment ago?

438
00:23:21,400 --> 00:23:23,400
Well, it's not, though,

439
00:23:23,400 --> 00:23:25,400
because it activates regardless of whether

440
00:23:25,400 --> 00:23:27,400
there is a percentage hash rate or not.

441
00:23:27,400 --> 00:23:29,400
With minority.

442
00:23:29,400 --> 00:23:31,400
From the people running the software, yeah.

443
00:23:31,400 --> 00:23:33,400
But again, it looks like Bitcoin 1.10

444
00:23:33,400 --> 00:23:35,400
is in the minority there in terms of people agreeing with it.

445
00:23:35,400 --> 00:23:37,400
But even if there were a difference

446
00:23:37,400 --> 00:23:39,400
and it was the majority hash rate

447
00:23:39,400 --> 00:23:41,400
that poses the majority for nodes...

448
00:23:41,400 --> 00:23:43,400
It's the same way that mandatory signaling

449
00:23:43,400 --> 00:23:45,400
in BIP-148 became the majority.

450
00:23:45,400 --> 00:23:47,400
It was 100% signaling after August 1st.

451
00:23:47,400 --> 00:23:49,400
Yeah, and the majority liked SegWit.

452
00:23:49,400 --> 00:23:51,400
They thought it was a great idea.

453
00:23:53,400 --> 00:23:55,400
No, the majority did not like SegWit

454
00:23:55,400 --> 00:23:57,400
and thought it was a great idea.

455
00:23:57,400 --> 00:23:59,400
That's just rewriting history.

456
00:23:59,400 --> 00:24:01,400
SegWit was really contentious.

457
00:24:01,400 --> 00:24:03,400
There was a whole hard fork of people

458
00:24:03,400 --> 00:24:05,400
that didn't like Bitcoin.

459
00:24:05,400 --> 00:24:07,400
When you say we're going to activate

460
00:24:07,400 --> 00:24:09,400
without majority mining support,

461
00:24:09,400 --> 00:24:11,400
of course they're saying

462
00:24:11,400 --> 00:24:13,400
we will activate with a minority hash rate.

463
00:24:13,400 --> 00:24:15,400
That's what those things mean.

464
00:24:15,400 --> 00:24:17,400
You're saying we hope we don't.

465
00:24:17,400 --> 00:24:19,400
Obviously, you're hoping that it is the majority hash rate.

466
00:24:19,400 --> 00:24:21,400
But you're saying,

467
00:24:21,400 --> 00:24:23,400
look, it's in the code.

468
00:24:23,400 --> 00:24:25,400
If we have minority hash rate,

469
00:24:25,400 --> 00:24:27,279
we still enforce this rule.

470
00:24:27,279 --> 00:24:33,279
You explicitly are saying we will still enforce this rule with minority hash rate.

471
00:24:33,279 --> 00:24:42,279
Right. The BIP-110 chain is Bitcoin. It's going to be the same as the SegWit chain
because it has the same mechanism.

472
00:24:42,279 --> 00:24:50,279
In order to avoid activating BIP-110, whoever is against it is going to have to fork
off and be the new Bitcoin.

473
00:24:51,279 --> 00:25:00,279
Let's just say hypothetically that SegWit had in fact ended up activating from the
perspective of people running SegWit nodes with minority hash rate.

474
00:25:00,279 --> 00:25:03,279
That is really the scenario I think we're trying to go get at here.

475
00:25:03,279 --> 00:25:05,279
Say that again?

476
00:25:05,279 --> 00:25:12,279
There is a scenario where SegWit could have activated with minority hash rate but
majority node support.

477
00:25:12,279 --> 00:25:14,279
But Core would not have followed that.

478
00:25:14,279 --> 00:25:17,279
SegWit had like 20 or 30% leading up to the UAS app.

479
00:25:17,279 --> 00:25:18,279
Core would not have.

480
00:25:18,279 --> 00:25:19,279
Core would not have followed that.

481
00:25:19,279 --> 00:25:21,279
There was a UAS app for Junior.

482
00:25:21,279 --> 00:25:22,279
Yeah, that's up.

483
00:25:22,279 --> 00:25:25,279
But yeah, I never ran any software that would have gone on.

484
00:25:25,279 --> 00:25:28,279
But okay, wait. So I want to talk about replay protection real quick.

485
00:25:28,279 --> 00:25:33,279
So in this case, you're saying, look, this is Bitcoin. There will be no fork. There
will be no split.

486
00:25:33,279 --> 00:25:35,279
So of course you don't need ‑‑ so there's no replay.

487
00:25:35,279 --> 00:25:38,279
Although two op returns, that's a good idea because that's smaller.

488
00:25:38,279 --> 00:25:45,279
In the BIP-300, there's a fork and there is sort of replay protection.

489
00:25:45,279 --> 00:25:48,279
You can opt into it, but by default, there is not.

490
00:25:48,279 --> 00:25:53,279
So by default, if you're indifferent, then I say, then you haven't picked a side,
which is fine,

491
00:25:53,279 --> 00:25:55,279
but your transaction will be on both chains.

492
00:25:55,279 --> 00:26:03,279
You may lose out on the e‑cache part if maybe that doesn't matter to people if
they're indifferent.

493
00:26:03,279 --> 00:26:08,279
But if you wish, you can make a special transaction that splits them permanently

494
00:26:08,279 --> 00:26:10,279
and then there are other ways of splitting.

495
00:26:10,279 --> 00:26:14,279
Paul, what is the simplest possible transaction that would achieve that?

496
00:26:14,279 --> 00:26:20,279
We changed it so the end lock time, if you do one less than the 500‑year one or
something,

497
00:26:20,279 --> 00:26:22,279
it's like maybe 1,000 years or something, I'm not sure.

498
00:26:22,279 --> 00:26:27,279
But that one will be mysteriously valid on e‑cache immediately.

499
00:26:27,279 --> 00:26:30,279
So that will just cut the rule and return true for that one.

500
00:26:30,279 --> 00:26:33,279
And so that is the way ‑‑ that is the easiest way.

501
00:26:33,279 --> 00:26:35,279
We have an arbitrary backdoor.

502
00:26:35,279 --> 00:26:41,279
So you've got to make a transaction on the e‑cache side that won't be replayed on
the Bitcoin side.

503
00:26:41,279 --> 00:26:44,279
Yeah, you could sign it and then ‑‑

504
00:26:44,279 --> 00:26:47,279
Okay, so you can't really make a Bitcoin one that won't be replayed on ‑‑

505
00:26:47,279 --> 00:26:51,279
I'm sure it must be theoretically possible, but I wouldn't say that would be the way
to go.

506
00:26:51,279 --> 00:26:55,279
And so you would anticipate then there's going to be trading between these different
things.

507
00:26:55,279 --> 00:26:57,279
Absolutely, of course, yes.

508
00:26:57,279 --> 00:26:59,279
But it's still SHOT2.

509
00:26:59,279 --> 00:27:01,279
SHOT256D, yes.

510
00:27:01,279 --> 00:27:03,279
I have a question for you guys.

511
00:27:03,279 --> 00:27:09,279
So if BIP110, if and when BIP110 gets 100% signaling and it looks like it's
definitely going to succeed,

512
00:27:09,279 --> 00:27:14,279
will you hard fork like the B‑cachers to reject BIP110?

513
00:27:14,279 --> 00:27:17,279
No, it's temporary, right? So it's all good.

514
00:27:17,279 --> 00:27:20,279
Right?

515
00:27:20,279 --> 00:27:22,279
I don't understand.

516
00:27:22,279 --> 00:27:24,279
Totally common sense and harmless.

517
00:27:24,279 --> 00:27:27,279
If it actually got 100%, that would be an interesting discussion.

518
00:27:27,279 --> 00:27:34,279
If, however, it gets, say, 50%, then this is a curious thing.

519
00:27:34,279 --> 00:27:36,279
And if it gets, say, 5% ‑‑

520
00:27:36,279 --> 00:27:38,279
But why would it do that?

521
00:27:38,279 --> 00:27:40,279
Hang on, hang on.

522
00:27:40,279 --> 00:27:44,279
So if it gets less, then maybe there's some discussion.

523
00:27:44,279 --> 00:27:49,279
But I suspect if it gets 100, yeah, it would say, yeah, yeah, you guys won.

524
00:27:49,279 --> 00:27:56,279
I mean, I personally would not change any of my transactions, because I don't make
inscriptions or operators.

525
00:27:56,279 --> 00:28:03,279
But the tree depth, that's kind of like, ooh, I don't want that.

526
00:28:03,279 --> 00:28:06,279
Okay, but you can have it once BIP110 expires.

527
00:28:06,279 --> 00:28:10,279
If that happens, I would be a lot less interested in working on Bitcoin further,

528
00:28:10,279 --> 00:28:15,279
because what this would go tell me is that the Bitcoin community and miners are
fucking crazy

529
00:28:15,279 --> 00:28:18,279
and are willing to go and do things that are a bad idea.

530
00:28:18,279 --> 00:28:23,279
No, but if Bitcoin Core just does its job and filters spam, then none of this has to
happen.

531
00:28:23,279 --> 00:28:27,279
Well, look, we fundamentally disagree on how technically feasible that is.

532
00:28:27,279 --> 00:28:29,279
He said it in his talk.

533
00:28:29,279 --> 00:28:34,279
He said it in his talk that you said it, that there's no way to stop the spam.

534
00:28:35,279 --> 00:28:38,279
No, you can't stop spam.

535
00:28:38,279 --> 00:28:42,279
They constantly equivocate on this basic point that is at the heart of the matter.

536
00:28:42,279 --> 00:28:44,279
They say, oh, sure, we can't do it.

537
00:28:44,279 --> 00:28:46,279
We are completely powerless to stop spam.

538
00:28:46,279 --> 00:28:48,279
I didn't say completely powerless.

539
00:28:48,279 --> 00:28:49,279
You're just making that up.

540
00:28:49,279 --> 00:28:52,279
It's like saying, can you stop people from breaking into your house?

541
00:28:52,279 --> 00:28:53,279
Well, of course not.

542
00:28:53,279 --> 00:28:55,279
But are you just going to get rid of your door and your fence?

543
00:28:55,279 --> 00:28:57,279
In practice, I have stopped people.

544
00:28:57,279 --> 00:28:59,279
No one has broken into my house.

545
00:28:59,279 --> 00:29:02,279
Okay, but you just get rid of your door and your fence because somebody got in one
time?

546
00:29:02,279 --> 00:29:06,279
Well, if they didn't work at all, this is the heart of the matter.

547
00:29:06,279 --> 00:29:07,279
You keep dancing around.

548
00:29:07,279 --> 00:29:08,279
You want to have it both ways.

549
00:29:08,279 --> 00:29:12,279
You want to say, yeah, sure, it's just a serialized set of bytes.

550
00:29:12,279 --> 00:29:17,279
It's interpreted as an image later by whatever reads those bytes.

551
00:29:17,279 --> 00:29:19,279
These are fundamental.

552
00:29:19,279 --> 00:29:22,279
This is like a knife to the heart of your argument and kills it instantly.

553
00:29:22,279 --> 00:29:24,279
It's a bullet to the head of your argument.

554
00:29:24,279 --> 00:29:27,279
And then you say, well, sure, that's true, but we can do it.

555
00:29:27,279 --> 00:29:29,279
And I wrote down some of these comments.

556
00:29:29,279 --> 00:29:31,279
Not that it should be like a quote-off or whatever.

557
00:29:31,279 --> 00:29:34,279
But basically saying it's not possible to stop spam.

558
00:29:34,279 --> 00:29:35,279
More hidden, better.

559
00:29:35,279 --> 00:29:37,279
Hostility is the deterrent.

560
00:29:37,279 --> 00:29:41,279
Then some other guy, that guy over there, he said, like, hey, is it code or is it
hostility?

561
00:29:41,279 --> 00:29:43,279
And then you get more equivocation on that.

562
00:29:43,279 --> 00:29:45,279
You just constantly go back and forth on what this is really about.

563
00:29:45,279 --> 00:29:46,279
It's code as hostility.

564
00:29:46,279 --> 00:29:48,279
Filters, it's like your immune system, right?

565
00:29:48,279 --> 00:29:52,279
You can't prevent all pathogens forever, but you can put up a defense against them.

566
00:29:52,279 --> 00:29:54,279
So is relay policy enough hostility?

567
00:29:54,279 --> 00:29:58,279
What if Core said, you know, version 33, we revert back to 80-byte max data carrier,

568
00:29:59,279 --> 00:30:02,279
would that remove the impetus for VIC-110?

569
00:30:02,279 --> 00:30:04,279
Or is it like, no, we're on this track?

570
00:30:04,279 --> 00:30:06,279
They'd also have to filter inscriptions.

571
00:30:06,279 --> 00:30:08,279
They'd also have to filter inscriptions.

572
00:30:08,279 --> 00:30:09,279
Okay.

573
00:30:09,279 --> 00:30:10,279
And that...

574
00:30:10,279 --> 00:30:12,279
But, like, why is this happening now?

575
00:30:12,279 --> 00:30:14,279
Because inscriptions sort of are dead.

576
00:30:14,279 --> 00:30:17,279
I mean, they're not dead, but, like, 2023, it was like, whoa, inscriptions.

577
00:30:17,279 --> 00:30:24,279
But there's still a kind of
could-be-argued-that-they-are-an-officially-supported-way-of-storing-large-files-on-Bitcoin.

578
00:30:24,279 --> 00:30:26,279
And that's the problem.

579
00:30:26,279 --> 00:30:27,279
People did it, and then...

580
00:30:27,279 --> 00:30:28,279
Well, they're still doing it.

581
00:30:28,279 --> 00:30:29,279
Well, can I ask you this?

582
00:30:29,279 --> 00:30:30,279
I actually don't know how common they are now.

583
00:30:30,279 --> 00:30:32,279
I think runes are more popular or whatever.

584
00:30:32,279 --> 00:30:34,279
Isn't a transaction a file?

585
00:30:35,279 --> 00:30:36,279
Is what?

586
00:30:36,279 --> 00:30:37,279
Is a transaction a file?

587
00:30:37,279 --> 00:30:38,279
Is a Bitcoin transaction a file?

588
00:30:38,279 --> 00:30:39,279
I mean, technically, no.

589
00:30:39,279 --> 00:30:40,279
The blocks are...

590
00:30:40,279 --> 00:30:41,279
There's block files.

591
00:30:41,279 --> 00:30:42,279
There's .dat files.

592
00:30:42,279 --> 00:30:43,279
Technically, no.

593
00:30:43,279 --> 00:30:44,279
You can say, you know, in Electrum, you can go to...

594
00:30:44,279 --> 00:30:45,279
You can export it to a file.

595
00:30:45,279 --> 00:30:46,279
As file, yeah.

596
00:30:46,279 --> 00:30:52,279
So you just say, then, it's the exporting that changes the set of bytes into a file.

597
00:30:53,279 --> 00:30:58,279
I mean, you could interpret arbitrary data as a file, and that's what they're doing,
right?

598
00:30:58,279 --> 00:31:03,279
They're saying, you know, this is a format, and if you just read it as a common file
type...

599
00:31:03,279 --> 00:31:04,279
I don't know.

600
00:31:04,279 --> 00:31:05,279
...then it is a file.

601
00:31:05,279 --> 00:31:06,279
Wait, wait.

602
00:31:06,279 --> 00:31:07,279
We're speaking a different language here.

603
00:31:07,279 --> 00:31:08,279
It's impossible.

604
00:31:08,279 --> 00:31:09,279
This is a very interesting question.

605
00:31:09,279 --> 00:31:13,279
Let's just say, hypothetically, Core went and added all the filtering rules that you
want,

606
00:31:13,279 --> 00:31:14,279
and so on and so forth.

607
00:31:14,279 --> 00:31:20,279
What would happen if a tiny minority continued to run LibreRelay, and basically it
just ended

608
00:31:20,279 --> 00:31:23,279
up being, like, all of the stuff you don't like went through LibreRelay, and blocks
were

609
00:31:23,279 --> 00:31:24,279
still full of it?

610
00:31:24,279 --> 00:31:27,279
I mean, there's more technical defenses that we can keep escalating.

611
00:31:27,279 --> 00:31:28,279
Wait, wait, wait.

612
00:31:28,279 --> 00:31:29,279
Remember.

613
00:31:29,279 --> 00:31:30,279
Like, in terms of mempool pause, right?

614
00:31:30,279 --> 00:31:31,279
Yeah, what would those...

615
00:31:31,279 --> 00:31:33,279
Like, would you say, no, we have to do a consensus change?

616
00:31:33,279 --> 00:31:36,279
What I'm saying is, at that point, especially...

617
00:31:36,279 --> 00:31:39,279
Well, you're saying after bit.10 activates, or...

618
00:31:39,279 --> 00:31:40,279
No, no, no.

619
00:31:40,279 --> 00:31:41,279
If Core puts in filters...

620
00:31:41,279 --> 00:31:42,279
No, no.

621
00:31:42,279 --> 00:31:46,279
I'm saying, in the scenario where we say, let's just say Core had implemented all of

622
00:31:46,279 --> 00:31:47,279
these filters on...

623
00:31:48,279 --> 00:31:49,279
Mempool filters.

624
00:31:49,279 --> 00:31:50,279
All the mempool filters.

625
00:31:50,279 --> 00:31:51,279
Yeah.

626
00:31:51,279 --> 00:31:55,279
Now, in a scenario like that, where, let's just say, hypothetically, 90% of nodes
are

627
00:31:55,279 --> 00:32:00,279
running Core, they filter all this stuff, but the small minority running LibreRelay
go

628
00:32:00,279 --> 00:32:03,279
and mean that blocks are still full of this stuff, what would you say?

629
00:32:03,279 --> 00:32:07,279
Yeah, so the miners that are working with LibreRelay are malicious, and they're
attacking

630
00:32:07,279 --> 00:32:08,279
the network.

631
00:32:08,279 --> 00:32:10,279
They're doing something that the nodes consider to be antisocial.

632
00:32:10,279 --> 00:32:11,279
So do you want to fork them off?

633
00:32:11,279 --> 00:32:12,279
Okay.

634
00:32:12,279 --> 00:32:15,279
Like, would you say, in that scenario, that we should do some kind of consensus
change

635
00:32:15,279 --> 00:32:17,279
to force off the miners that are doing that?

636
00:32:17,279 --> 00:32:19,279
Like, do you just get back to consensus change?

637
00:32:19,279 --> 00:32:21,279
It depends on how much damage is possible, right?

638
00:32:21,279 --> 00:32:22,279
So, the thing about intentional...

639
00:32:22,279 --> 00:32:24,279
Let's say 25% of blocks are this.

640
00:32:24,279 --> 00:32:25,279
What?

641
00:32:25,279 --> 00:32:27,279
Let's say 25% of blocks are by miners who...

642
00:32:27,279 --> 00:32:31,279
I mean, the biggest factor is the toxic data factor, right?

643
00:32:31,279 --> 00:32:35,279
Like, does Bitcoin look like it intentionally stores large files or not?

644
00:32:35,279 --> 00:32:36,279
Well...

645
00:32:36,279 --> 00:32:37,279
That is the vector.

646
00:32:37,279 --> 00:32:41,279
Here, like, 90% of nodes don't, you know, quote, unquote, don't allow this, et
cetera,

647
00:32:41,279 --> 00:32:42,279
et cetera.

648
00:32:42,279 --> 00:32:44,279
Like, do you just allow this situation to go on indefinitely?

649
00:32:45,279 --> 00:32:47,279
It depends on how much damage is being caused.

650
00:32:47,279 --> 00:32:51,279
I would say, like, the UTXO set went from 4 gigabytes to 12 gigabytes pretty fast.

651
00:32:51,279 --> 00:32:53,279
And if it had kept going to 50 gigabytes or 100 gigabytes...

652
00:32:53,279 --> 00:32:57,279
Well, I mean, that's not related to putting data in transactions, though.

653
00:32:57,279 --> 00:32:58,279
What?

654
00:32:58,279 --> 00:33:01,279
In fact, the operaturns, those don't bloat the UTXO set.

655
00:33:01,279 --> 00:33:03,279
So it's actually helping the nodes.

656
00:33:03,279 --> 00:33:06,279
See, this is the sort of technical argument that you get from core people, where
they

657
00:33:06,279 --> 00:33:07,279
look at the...

658
00:33:07,279 --> 00:33:08,279
They say a statement.

659
00:33:08,279 --> 00:33:11,279
Oh, the operaturn causes less bloat than...

660
00:33:12,279 --> 00:33:14,279
So we're actually helping with UTXO set bloat.

661
00:33:14,279 --> 00:33:18,279
It's like, no, but you're removing all of the context from that.

662
00:33:18,279 --> 00:33:23,279
The context is that being friendly to spam is what causes spam, and spam is what
causes

663
00:33:23,279 --> 00:33:24,279
UTXO set bloat.

664
00:33:24,279 --> 00:33:25,279
If we're hostile to spam, there will be...

665
00:33:25,279 --> 00:33:29,279
But spam, according to you, does not cause UTXO bloat.

666
00:33:29,279 --> 00:33:30,279
Yes, it does.

667
00:33:30,279 --> 00:33:31,279
No, it does not, because...

668
00:33:31,279 --> 00:33:34,279
BRC20 is spam, and that was the main cause of UTXO set bloat.

669
00:33:34,279 --> 00:33:36,279
You defined it as operaturn as spam.

670
00:33:36,279 --> 00:33:37,279
After you said...

671
00:33:37,279 --> 00:33:39,279
In your talk, you said it's not possible to define spam.

672
00:33:39,279 --> 00:33:45,279
But then you said it's really clear that some things are, but operaturn does not...

673
00:33:45,279 --> 00:33:48,279
Just because it's impossible to draw a line between...

674
00:33:48,279 --> 00:33:52,279
An objective line between spam and non-spam does not mean that the categories of
spam

675
00:33:52,279 --> 00:33:54,279
and non-spam don't exist.

676
00:33:54,279 --> 00:33:55,279
Would you...

677
00:33:55,279 --> 00:33:58,279
Okay, so it sounds like there's mempool policy versus consensus.

678
00:33:58,279 --> 00:34:03,279
In a BIP110, let's say BIP110 succeeds, or even if it forks off some way, and
there's

679
00:34:03,279 --> 00:34:11,279
its own implementation, would the idea be let's make consensus and mempool relay
policy

680
00:34:11,279 --> 00:34:13,279
as close as possible, or just, you know...

681
00:34:13,279 --> 00:34:14,279
No.

682
00:34:14,279 --> 00:34:15,279
You want them to be different.

683
00:34:15,279 --> 00:34:20,279
Yeah, no, Satoshi clearly designed the consensus rules to be really, really loose so
that we

684
00:34:20,279 --> 00:34:24,279
don't have to hard fork in new functionality, and he clearly designed policy to be
robust

685
00:34:24,279 --> 00:34:27,279
to prevent people from doing crazy stuff on the network that harms the network.

686
00:34:27,279 --> 00:34:29,279
What if there's a LibreRelay 110?

687
00:34:29,279 --> 00:34:30,279
What?

688
00:34:30,279 --> 00:34:33,279
This guy might make a LibreRelay 110, right?

689
00:34:33,279 --> 00:34:34,279
Well, of course.

690
00:34:34,279 --> 00:34:35,279
I'm sure he will.

691
00:34:35,279 --> 00:34:36,279
He probably will.

692
00:34:36,279 --> 00:34:37,279
He definitely will.

693
00:34:37,279 --> 00:34:40,279
So then you have to keep making consensus changes sort of reactively?

694
00:34:40,279 --> 00:34:41,279
Well, no.

695
00:34:41,279 --> 00:34:43,279
This is exactly why it's different from SegWit.

696
00:34:43,279 --> 00:34:48,279
The situation right now is that Bitcoin is not hostile towards spam because Bitcoin
Core

697
00:34:48,279 --> 00:34:50,279
is not hostile to spam.

698
00:34:50,279 --> 00:34:51,279
This is a new situation.

699
00:34:51,279 --> 00:34:54,279
Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin were always hostile to spam in the past.

700
00:34:54,279 --> 00:34:58,279
Even if Core were, there's a guy with a hat, and it's like 110.

701
00:34:58,279 --> 00:35:01,279
Right, but what I'm saying is he's an attacker, right?

702
00:35:01,279 --> 00:35:05,279
He's a malicious actor, and we have technical defenses against that.

703
00:35:05,279 --> 00:35:07,279
Are we supposed to be doing questions or something?

704
00:35:07,279 --> 00:35:08,279
Is that what's happening?

705
00:35:08,279 --> 00:35:09,279
Do we want to leave 10 minutes for questions?

706
00:35:09,279 --> 00:35:10,279
Okay, sure.

707
00:35:10,279 --> 00:35:11,279
Sure, sure.

708
00:35:11,279 --> 00:35:12,279
Oh, it says three minutes there.

709
00:35:12,279 --> 00:35:13,279
All right.

710
00:35:13,279 --> 00:35:14,279
Yeah.

711
00:35:14,279 --> 00:35:15,279
I think we did that pretty far.

712
00:35:15,279 --> 00:35:17,279
Any questions from the audience?

713
00:35:17,279 --> 00:35:18,279
Yeah.

714
00:35:22,279 --> 00:35:23,279
Thank you.

715
00:35:23,279 --> 00:35:30,279
To the fork authors, what are your plans following up the activation of your
respective forks

716
00:35:30,279 --> 00:35:32,279
in different contingencies?

717
00:35:32,279 --> 00:35:36,279
Wow, that's a wildly abstract wording of that question.

718
00:35:36,279 --> 00:35:40,279
But it's funny because, of course, he was just saying a moment ago, like, we don't
need

719
00:35:40,279 --> 00:35:42,279
any contingency plans because we're always...

720
00:35:42,279 --> 00:35:46,279
So, yeah, I think, like, you know, with mine, it's a little bit easier because we
deliberately

721
00:35:46,279 --> 00:35:47,279
hard fork off to a different thing.

722
00:35:47,279 --> 00:35:49,279
We cut the difficulty down.

723
00:35:49,279 --> 00:35:50,279
So something will exist.

724
00:35:50,279 --> 00:35:52,279
There will be some blocks mined.

725
00:35:52,279 --> 00:35:55,279
There may be crazy difficulty adjustments or something.

726
00:35:55,279 --> 00:35:57,279
The chain may stall out.

727
00:35:57,279 --> 00:35:58,279
There may be people renting.

728
00:35:58,279 --> 00:35:59,279
Who knows?

729
00:35:59,279 --> 00:36:02,279
But something will happen, and we'll probably learn from the experiment.

730
00:36:02,279 --> 00:36:07,279
So even if it isn't successful, we would all gain at least some information.

731
00:36:07,279 --> 00:36:12,279
And then, of course, if it could have limited success, it could be cool as a demo.

732
00:36:12,279 --> 00:36:15,279
It could have, like, outrageous extra success.

733
00:36:15,279 --> 00:36:18,279
It could be more successful than other famous projects.

734
00:36:18,279 --> 00:36:19,279
It would be fun.

735
00:36:19,279 --> 00:36:21,279
So I think that's, like, the...

736
00:36:21,279 --> 00:36:23,279
You know, that's where it goes for me.

737
00:36:23,279 --> 00:36:25,279
And then BIP300 is the soft fork.

738
00:36:25,279 --> 00:36:26,279
You know, that's...

739
00:36:26,279 --> 00:36:27,279
Anyone could use that at any time.

740
00:36:27,279 --> 00:36:32,279
And, in fact, I'm pretty sure that Litecoin, they have plans to make use of the
enforcer.

741
00:36:32,279 --> 00:36:35,279
And so that will probably happen also.

742
00:36:35,279 --> 00:36:37,279
What was the question again?

743
00:36:37,279 --> 00:36:38,279
Sorry.

744
00:36:38,279 --> 00:36:42,279
Basically, what are you going to do in the follow-up after the activation of your
fork,

745
00:36:42,279 --> 00:36:45,279
in the different realities where things might play out?

746
00:36:45,279 --> 00:36:47,279
In the follow-up of the activation?

747
00:36:48,279 --> 00:36:50,279
So it expires after a year.

748
00:36:50,279 --> 00:37:03,279
And the BIP says that we should plan to activate some other better permanent
solution to this.

749
00:37:03,279 --> 00:37:09,279
And I can't speak for the BIP authors, but my opinion is that covenants...

750
00:37:09,279 --> 00:37:11,279
This would be a good time to do covenants.

751
00:37:11,279 --> 00:37:14,279
So that would be a good follow-up, I think.

752
00:37:14,279 --> 00:37:20,279
Something that prevents large contiguous data, larger than 256 bytes.

753
00:37:20,279 --> 00:37:23,279
And, yeah, covenants is what I would say.

754
00:37:23,279 --> 00:37:25,279
But that's just my personal opinion.

755
00:37:25,279 --> 00:37:27,279
I can't speak for the actual BIP authors.

756
00:37:27,279 --> 00:37:29,279
Another question?

757
00:37:32,279 --> 00:37:33,279
Any other?

758
00:37:33,279 --> 00:37:34,279
Don't be shy.

759
00:37:36,279 --> 00:37:37,279
Thanks so much.

760
00:37:37,279 --> 00:37:40,279
This question is to Paul.

761
00:37:40,279 --> 00:37:48,279
You're hard-forking to e-cash, which seems to me like you want e-cash to be a lot
more expressive,

762
00:37:48,279 --> 00:37:53,279
kind of like, you know, programmable, or just express whatever you want with it,
right?

763
00:37:53,279 --> 00:37:55,279
I'm just kind of curious.

764
00:37:55,279 --> 00:38:01,279
Have you considered just building this on something like Bitcoin Cash first, instead
of just doing a hard fork?

765
00:38:01,279 --> 00:38:04,279
No, because I don't think that would really help.

766
00:38:04,279 --> 00:38:09,279
Layer 1 in e-cash is just exactly the same as Bitcoin Core.

767
00:38:09,279 --> 00:38:12,279
So the idea is to try to keep as much of what people already like.

768
00:38:12,279 --> 00:38:15,279
The thing is, so the Bitcoin Cash, it could be interesting.

769
00:38:15,279 --> 00:38:18,279
I mean, nothing's stopping Bitcoin Cash from using the activator.

770
00:38:18,279 --> 00:38:22,279
So that's part of the advantage of the Q-SYS, the core and touch software.

771
00:38:22,279 --> 00:38:29,279
So you could, but having large, optional large block L2 over a smaller block L1,

772
00:38:29,279 --> 00:38:35,279
that is sort of just more efficient than, like, it wouldn't even, you wouldn't even
really be.

773
00:38:35,279 --> 00:38:37,279
So I haven't really thought about that.

774
00:38:37,279 --> 00:38:46,279
But as I mentioned, I'm pretty sure Litecoin will try to use the Q-SYS 30031
activator.

775
00:38:46,279 --> 00:38:50,279
So it's certainly possible that Bitcoin Cash could do it as well.

776
00:38:50,279 --> 00:38:55,279
And I know that at some point there was some telegram group about Bitcoin Cash drive
chain or whatever.

777
00:38:55,279 --> 00:38:59,279
So I think nothing's really stopping.

778
00:39:00,279 --> 00:39:07,279
To just maybe re-explain this part, all the L2 software that we build,

779
00:39:07,279 --> 00:39:13,279
that could be, that works with the 30031 activator and that could kind of work with
almost any block chain.

780
00:39:13,279 --> 00:39:20,279
So actually it should be possible to just take the entire stack of stuff if anyone
likes it.

781
00:39:20,279 --> 00:39:25,279
And it would be mostly independent of the L1.

782
00:39:26,279 --> 00:39:29,279
So I think that we probably will see some people do that.

783
00:39:32,279 --> 00:39:38,279
For, I guess, all four of you, preferably one at a time,

784
00:39:38,279 --> 00:39:48,279
how confident are you in your thoughts on the forks and why?

785
00:39:49,279 --> 00:39:53,279
So you can go first.

786
00:39:53,279 --> 00:39:59,279
Well, I can't believe I'm on a panel where Paul Sztorc, of all people, is a
reasonable one.

787
00:40:01,279 --> 00:40:08,279
And I guess, yeah, I'm actually pretty confident that Paul Sztorc's drive chain's
badly named e-cash thing

788
00:40:08,279 --> 00:40:12,279
will, you know, become its own super currency and do whatever and it might die
eventually, whatever.

789
00:40:12,279 --> 00:40:22,279
As for the BIP 110 thing, I think, at the moment, I think it's more likely than not

790
00:40:22,279 --> 00:40:28,279
it gets sufficiently little hash power that it just dies out and doesn't even really
become a separate currency.

791
00:40:28,279 --> 00:40:32,279
But, you know, I think it's a pretty high chance in the double digits

792
00:40:32,279 --> 00:40:37,279
that it does get a minority hash power and then ultimately becomes a separate
currency.

793
00:40:37,279 --> 00:40:40,279
That may at some point die out, but that'll be a little ugly.

794
00:40:40,279 --> 00:40:46,279
And I'd say it has a very low chance, but not zero, that somehow it actually does
get majority hash power,

795
00:40:46,279 --> 00:40:49,279
which will be very interesting.

796
00:40:49,279 --> 00:40:55,279
I could say, yeah, the drive chain, hard fork, that seems like it'll just happen,
right?

797
00:40:55,279 --> 00:40:57,279
You can do that.

798
00:40:57,279 --> 00:40:58,279
It'll be a lot of fun.

799
00:40:58,279 --> 00:41:00,279
I'm pretty confident you can do that.

800
00:41:00,279 --> 00:41:05,279
I'm not advocating for doing that, but, you know, it'll happen.

801
00:41:06,279 --> 00:41:12,279
Because I think there are some innovations, like the sort of one-way replay,

802
00:41:12,279 --> 00:41:16,279
which people probably like, and then taking the old coins.

803
00:41:16,279 --> 00:41:22,279
And so you might see research, because back in a few years ago, we had a lot of
different hard forks,

804
00:41:22,279 --> 00:41:25,279
forking off from Bitcoin with Bitcoin Diamond, Bitcoin Gold, whatever.

805
00:41:25,279 --> 00:41:29,279
So, like, hey, maybe people get into that stuff again with new rules.

806
00:41:29,279 --> 00:41:33,279
With the BIP110 one, yeah, I don't know.

807
00:41:33,279 --> 00:41:36,279
It might be minority.

808
00:41:36,279 --> 00:41:38,279
It'll be interesting in the next two weeks, because it might be like,

809
00:41:38,279 --> 00:41:41,279
oh, well, actually, we realized that we don't have enough support,

810
00:41:41,279 --> 00:41:46,279
so we need to change something or tweak something or push it off.

811
00:41:46,279 --> 00:41:47,279
I don't know. We'll see what happens.

812
00:41:47,279 --> 00:41:51,279
If it does end up being minority, it sounds like the people running it,

813
00:41:51,279 --> 00:41:56,279
if you're a representative of them, don't want to have a minority split side, right?

814
00:41:56,279 --> 00:42:00,279
And so that would sort of be, like, not a good outcome for BIP110 people.

815
00:42:00,279 --> 00:42:02,279
So hopefully we can avoid that.

816
00:42:02,279 --> 00:42:07,279
Yeah, I mean, like, all I know, I mean, I'm very confident, like I said,

817
00:42:07,279 --> 00:42:11,279
because of the precedent of BIP148.

818
00:42:11,279 --> 00:42:15,279
But, like, if something crazy happens and, you know, the miners collude

819
00:42:15,279 --> 00:42:19,279
to not activate BIP110 against the wishes of the nodes,

820
00:42:19,279 --> 00:42:23,279
which are the soul of Bitcoin, which is crying out to limit spam,

821
00:42:23,279 --> 00:42:26,279
you know, all I know is, like, activating it, if it activates,

822
00:42:26,279 --> 00:42:28,279
that's how Bitcoin is supposed to work.

823
00:42:28,279 --> 00:42:31,279
And if it doesn't activate, that's not how Bitcoin is supposed to work.

824
00:42:31,279 --> 00:42:37,279
And we have much bigger problems if BIP110 doesn't activate, you know.

825
00:42:37,279 --> 00:42:39,279
Okay, let me give you, like, a metaphor, because the question was,

826
00:42:39,279 --> 00:42:40,279
how confident are you?

827
00:42:40,279 --> 00:42:42,279
And the metaphor is this.

828
00:42:42,279 --> 00:42:45,279
We're on the Titanic, and we're headed maybe for an iceberg.

829
00:42:45,279 --> 00:42:47,279
We don't know, because it could be, like, a parallel universe or something.

830
00:42:47,279 --> 00:42:51,279
But I'm, like, grabbing all the dining room tables,

831
00:42:51,279 --> 00:42:54,279
and I'm, like, sawing them apart, and, like, trying to make, like, life rafts,

832
00:42:54,279 --> 00:42:56,279
like, as quickly as possible.

833
00:42:56,279 --> 00:42:59,279
And I hope that we miss the iceberg, and that everything's fine,

834
00:42:59,279 --> 00:43:01,279
and that lightning works out really well,

835
00:43:01,279 --> 00:43:03,279
and all the other stuff we do works great,

836
00:43:03,279 --> 00:43:06,279
and everyone adopts Bitcoin, and everything's fine.

837
00:43:06,279 --> 00:43:08,279
And I think that would be wonderful.

838
00:43:08,279 --> 00:43:10,279
If we miss the iceberg, that would be great.

839
00:43:10,279 --> 00:43:13,279
Now, do I think these life rafts are going necessarily to save us all?

840
00:43:13,279 --> 00:43:15,279
Probably not also.

841
00:43:15,279 --> 00:43:18,279
So I just think, but, like, what else would you do in this situation?

842
00:43:18,279 --> 00:43:22,279
To me, it kind of blows my mind we even spend so much time talking about 1.10.

843
00:43:22,279 --> 00:43:26,279
That was low on my list of derangements that I alluded to in my talk.

844
00:43:26,279 --> 00:43:28,279
I had this long, long list of problems with Bitcoin.

845
00:43:28,279 --> 00:43:32,279
The problem with 1.10 is not just that we have it,

846
00:43:32,279 --> 00:43:36,279
but that it's somehow monopolized so much of the conversation for, like, a year and
a half.

847
00:43:36,279 --> 00:43:37,279
I think that's very bizarre.

848
00:43:37,279 --> 00:43:38,279
Because it's really important.

849
00:43:38,279 --> 00:43:39,279
People running nodes actually care.

850
00:43:39,279 --> 00:43:44,279
With respect to 1.10, currently my expectation is that on August 9th,

851
00:43:44,279 --> 00:43:46,279
it will just, like, not have blocks.

852
00:43:46,279 --> 00:43:48,279
I agree with Peter.

853
00:43:48,279 --> 00:43:50,279
Again, it's funny that we sometimes do agree.

854
00:43:50,279 --> 00:43:55,279
Where, like, if it somehow got 100% hash rate, I would just think, like,

855
00:43:55,279 --> 00:43:58,279
wow, I guess for some reason I'm not looking at the world.

856
00:43:58,279 --> 00:43:59,279
Like, I see something.

857
00:43:59,279 --> 00:44:01,279
I'm not seeing something about the world.

858
00:44:01,279 --> 00:44:04,279
I would almost then think, though, we're about to hit an even bigger iceberg

859
00:44:04,279 --> 00:44:07,279
or some other that we're even more screwed than we were before.

860
00:44:07,279 --> 00:44:10,279
So I don't know exactly what I would conclude from that.

861
00:44:10,279 --> 00:44:12,279
But those are my thoughts on that, too.

862
00:44:12,279 --> 00:44:14,279
Can I do an article analogy, too?

863
00:44:15,279 --> 00:44:20,279
I think we're on a nuclear submarine, and, like, we're the best top of the line

864
00:44:20,279 --> 00:44:23,279
U.S. nuclear submarine, and no one's going to fucking touch us

865
00:44:23,279 --> 00:44:25,279
because we're on such an awesome boat.

866
00:44:25,279 --> 00:44:28,279
But with tail emission, you know, I do think we're probably going to run out

867
00:44:28,279 --> 00:44:30,279
of reactor fuel in 20 years.

868
00:44:30,279 --> 00:44:33,279
And we should think ahead 20 years to, like, how we're going to make that work.

869
00:44:33,279 --> 00:44:36,279
These guys, on the other hand, seem really pissed off that someone forgot

870
00:44:36,279 --> 00:44:39,279
to go and, like, load all of the frozen pizzas in, and, you know,

871
00:44:39,279 --> 00:44:41,279
we're missing that one nice thing.

872
00:44:41,279 --> 00:44:43,279
But, you know, we'll survive without frozen pizzas.

873
00:44:43,279 --> 00:44:45,279
We'll get some more in, you know, 90 days when we restock.

874
00:44:45,279 --> 00:44:47,279
I think the analogy is more like this.

875
00:44:47,279 --> 00:44:51,279
The iceberg is this arbitrary data thing that's coming at Bitcoin,

876
00:44:51,279 --> 00:44:56,279
and it's basically going to kill any hope of Bitcoin being used as money,

877
00:44:56,279 --> 00:44:59,279
like, for the foreseeable future, and maybe forever,

878
00:44:59,279 --> 00:45:02,279
because if Bitcoin's culture forgets that Bitcoin is supposed to be money,

879
00:45:02,279 --> 00:45:05,279
then at that point it just becomes Ethereum, and nobody cares where it goes.

880
00:45:05,279 --> 00:45:12,279
And there's a little button that all the miners have that just zaps the iceberg

881
00:45:12,279 --> 00:45:16,279
and makes it go away, and that's flipping the bit to activate Bitcoin.

882
00:45:16,279 --> 00:45:20,279
I think the nuclear submarine goes under the iceberg, just to be clear.

883
00:45:20,279 --> 00:45:23,279
I mean, why is it so important to you that this – it's so important that it's –

884
00:45:23,279 --> 00:45:27,279
like, I'm talking about, like, having 8 billion users and Zcash privacy.

885
00:45:27,279 --> 00:45:30,279
It seems like this is, like, a completely different realm of, like, significance

886
00:45:30,279 --> 00:45:34,279
to, like, whether or not some people sometimes put large op returns.

887
00:45:34,279 --> 00:45:37,279
I just – I'm honestly – I'm honest to God curious.

888
00:45:37,279 --> 00:45:38,279
Because –

889
00:45:38,279 --> 00:45:42,279
Why is it so – this is your iceberg. Why is it so important?

890
00:45:42,279 --> 00:45:50,279
I just told you, if we allow arbitrary data storage as an officially accepted use
case,

891
00:45:50,279 --> 00:45:53,279
then it outcompetes the monetary use case,

892
00:45:53,279 --> 00:45:56,279
and it makes everyone forget that Bitcoin is supposed to be money.

893
00:45:56,279 --> 00:45:58,279
And you're actually seeing this with Michael Saylor.

894
00:45:58,279 --> 00:45:59,279
He's saying Bitcoin isn't money.

895
00:45:59,279 --> 00:46:03,279
He's saying my STRC derivative is going to be digital money,

896
00:46:03,279 --> 00:46:04,279
and Bitcoin is digital capital.

897
00:46:05,279 --> 00:46:07,279
It's like turning into this thing that isn't money.

898
00:46:07,279 --> 00:46:10,279
So you're forking Bitcoin because of Saylor.

899
00:46:10,279 --> 00:46:12,279
I know, and it's – because Saylor does say –

900
00:46:12,279 --> 00:46:13,279
No.

901
00:46:13,279 --> 00:46:14,279
He literally says everything both ways.

902
00:46:14,279 --> 00:46:16,279
I almost have, like, a list where he said Bitcoin is money.

903
00:46:16,279 --> 00:46:18,279
He has, like, tweets where he says Bitcoin is money.

904
00:46:18,279 --> 00:46:20,279
Then he says Bitcoin is capital.

905
00:46:20,279 --> 00:46:21,279
Bitcoin is real estate.

906
00:46:21,279 --> 00:46:23,279
I don't think he said Bitcoin is money for a while.

907
00:46:23,279 --> 00:46:26,279
He used to say it back in the old days, back when he was ingratiating himself

908
00:46:26,279 --> 00:46:28,279
to the Bitcoin community.

909
00:46:28,279 --> 00:46:31,279
But he's not into ordinals and runes, right, or yet.

910
00:46:32,279 --> 00:46:35,279
He wanted to use inscriptions for his, like, digital ID thing.

911
00:46:35,279 --> 00:46:38,279
Originally, he had, like, some kind of ordinals company thing.

912
00:46:38,279 --> 00:46:40,279
But he just does everything every way.

913
00:46:40,279 --> 00:46:42,279
I don't think he has any idea what he's actually talking about.

914
00:46:42,279 --> 00:46:43,279
I agree.

915
00:46:43,279 --> 00:46:45,279
Guys, we have a last question here.

916
00:46:45,279 --> 00:46:46,279
Okay.

917
00:46:47,279 --> 00:46:48,279
Well, thank you for the panel.

918
00:46:48,279 --> 00:46:49,279
It's very entertaining.

919
00:46:50,279 --> 00:46:51,279
That's for sure.

920
00:46:52,279 --> 00:46:57,279
So I think all of the people on the panel seem to be in agreement

921
00:46:57,279 --> 00:47:04,279
that Bitcoin at the minimum has some small realistic chance of activating

922
00:47:04,279 --> 00:47:07,279
and there's some chance of a giant split.

923
00:47:08,279 --> 00:47:13,279
So given that, I guess I wanted to ask the opinion of everybody on the panel.

924
00:47:14,279 --> 00:47:22,279
How do we think centralized exchanges should react at that point of activation

925
00:47:23,279 --> 00:47:27,279
given there is some uncertainty on what will happen

926
00:47:27,279 --> 00:47:33,279
and following a losing chain for a centralized exchange could be pretty bad?

927
00:47:33,279 --> 00:47:36,279
I mean, I don't think there's going to be any uncertainty leading up to the fork.

928
00:47:36,279 --> 00:47:40,279
Like, a few days before the deadline, the miners are all just going to turn it on

929
00:47:40,279 --> 00:47:41,279
and everything is going to be fine.

930
00:47:41,279 --> 00:47:42,279
Maybe.

931
00:47:42,279 --> 00:47:43,279
So bizarre.

932
00:47:43,279 --> 00:47:44,279
I mean, like, yeah.

933
00:47:44,279 --> 00:47:47,279
And, like, I agonize over every detail of, like, oh, like, what if maybe this would
happen?

934
00:47:47,279 --> 00:47:49,279
It's like you're piloting the nuclear sub and then someone's like,

935
00:47:49,279 --> 00:47:52,279
hey, what if we, like, just, like, we're not, like, looking where we're going.

936
00:47:52,279 --> 00:47:53,279
What if we just hit something?

937
00:47:53,279 --> 00:47:55,279
No, we're definitely not going to hit anything.

938
00:47:55,279 --> 00:47:56,279
It's going to be fine.

939
00:47:56,279 --> 00:47:58,279
That's what Core did with ripping out the opportunity.

940
00:47:58,279 --> 00:48:01,279
I think it's funny that if you do launch something that may split the chain,

941
00:48:01,279 --> 00:48:05,279
you kind of are screwing over the exchanges, which I think is kind of funny

942
00:48:05,279 --> 00:48:07,279
because the exchanges, you know, they made so much money

943
00:48:07,279 --> 00:48:09,279
and they kind of had the run of the place, you know.

944
00:48:09,279 --> 00:48:13,279
And I just honestly, I think, given how much money the exchange make

945
00:48:13,279 --> 00:48:17,279
and I think it'd probably be the right thing to try to, if there is a chain split,

946
00:48:17,279 --> 00:48:22,279
just split it, like, under the hood, especially because it's like Bitcoin Core is
the node

947
00:48:22,279 --> 00:48:25,279
and just split it and make it, like, the two things

948
00:48:25,279 --> 00:48:28,279
and if the 110 people won't give it a name, call it Bitcoin 110

949
00:48:28,279 --> 00:48:30,279
and then just credit everyone with it.

950
00:48:30,279 --> 00:48:33,279
I think that's what they should do.

951
00:48:33,279 --> 00:48:36,279
And so will they actually do that?

952
00:48:36,279 --> 00:48:37,279
I don't know.

953
00:48:37,279 --> 00:48:39,279
And if they don't do that, will it just be total chaos

954
00:48:39,279 --> 00:48:41,279
as their, like, transactions are replayed and drained from them?

955
00:48:41,279 --> 00:48:44,279
Or is it a bad precedent for them to set

956
00:48:44,279 --> 00:48:48,279
and say, any random Yahoo who does a hard fork,

957
00:48:48,279 --> 00:48:51,279
now they have to have this build, this infrastructure?

958
00:48:51,279 --> 00:48:55,279
I don't know, but I'm saying, in terms of August 2026,

959
00:48:55,279 --> 00:49:00,279
I would just say, just, you know, just credit everyone's coins

960
00:49:00,279 --> 00:49:03,279
and kind of let them trade because they make more money trading.

961
00:49:03,279 --> 00:49:05,279
So that's my actual answer.

962
00:49:05,279 --> 00:49:07,279
As to what they will really do, I have no idea.

963
00:49:07,279 --> 00:49:12,279
I think it will be really interesting as the days approach

964
00:49:12,279 --> 00:49:15,279
because exchanges failing to go put up the press releases

965
00:49:15,279 --> 00:49:18,279
saying what they're going to do will be a very strong sign

966
00:49:18,279 --> 00:49:22,279
that what I think is the most realistic outcome is going to happen,

967
00:49:22,279 --> 00:49:26,279
which is BIP 110 basically just fails.

968
00:49:26,279 --> 00:49:29,279
I think that's the least likely outcome.

969
00:49:29,279 --> 00:49:32,279
Most likely outcome is the miners are going to be like,

970
00:49:32,279 --> 00:49:34,279
wait, so you're telling me there's a bunch of people

971
00:49:34,279 --> 00:49:35,279
who really, really want to activate this

972
00:49:35,279 --> 00:49:37,279
and they're going to start throwing away our blocks

973
00:49:37,279 --> 00:49:39,279
and there's absolutely no reason to oppose it?

974
00:49:39,279 --> 00:49:40,279
Let's just turn it on.

975
00:49:40,279 --> 00:49:42,279
The legacy chain is going to have a bunch of vulnerabilities

976
00:49:42,279 --> 00:49:43,279
that the new chain doesn't have.

977
00:49:43,279 --> 00:49:45,279
Let me answer this poor guy's question.

978
00:49:45,279 --> 00:49:50,279
So if exchanges do start putting up those press releases,

979
00:49:50,279 --> 00:49:53,279
then I agree with Paul there, which is the obvious thing to do

980
00:49:53,279 --> 00:49:56,279
is just credit both sides and then start letting people trade.

981
00:49:56,279 --> 00:49:58,279
From a technical level, it's a bit of a nuisance

982
00:49:58,279 --> 00:50:01,279
because you have to do a few extra steps

983
00:50:01,279 --> 00:50:05,279
to make sure you do BIP 110 noncompliant transactions

984
00:50:05,279 --> 00:50:07,279
to cleanly separate both sides.

985
00:50:07,279 --> 00:50:11,279
But fortunately, putting two up returns in one is enough to do that.

986
00:50:11,279 --> 00:50:15,279
It's not terrible, but certainly with cold storage,

987
00:50:15,279 --> 00:50:18,279
the nature of cold storage is often the systems

988
00:50:18,279 --> 00:50:21,279
that actually handle those coins are really locked down

989
00:50:21,279 --> 00:50:23,279
and touching them is something no one ever wants to do.

990
00:50:23,279 --> 00:50:26,279
So it might be the case that some of these cold storage systems,

991
00:50:26,279 --> 00:50:28,279
it's going to be a pain in the ass to change them

992
00:50:28,279 --> 00:50:30,279
to let the coins get split.

993
00:50:30,279 --> 00:50:31,279
But we'll see.

994
00:50:31,279 --> 00:50:34,279
I think maybe what we maybe all agree on

995
00:50:34,279 --> 00:50:37,279
is that since exchanges are trusted third parties

996
00:50:37,279 --> 00:50:39,279
and we don't know what they're going to do,

997
00:50:39,279 --> 00:50:41,279
it's always better, no matter what the case is,

998
00:50:41,279 --> 00:50:43,279
to have your own keys and have your own coins

999
00:50:43,279 --> 00:50:46,279
and then whatever happens, you'll have everything.

1000
00:50:46,279 --> 00:50:48,279
Do people agree with that?

1001
00:50:48,279 --> 00:50:51,279
I hate to say this, but one catch with this

1002
00:50:51,279 --> 00:50:53,279
is a lot of wallets are not going to give you a way

1003
00:50:53,279 --> 00:50:55,279
to cleanly split things.

1004
00:50:55,279 --> 00:50:57,279
If you had your money on an exchange, you would.

1005
00:50:57,279 --> 00:51:00,279
But at least you're free to do it if you can figure out how to do it.

1006
00:51:00,279 --> 00:51:03,279
I don't think it's worth it to even talk about a chain split

1007
00:51:03,279 --> 00:51:06,279
because the historical precedent is that there won't be a chain split.

1008
00:51:06,279 --> 00:51:08,279
All of the miners will just figure it out

1009
00:51:08,279 --> 00:51:10,279
in the days leading up to the deadline.

1010
00:51:10,279 --> 00:51:12,279
But yeah, withdraw from exchanges.

1011
00:51:12,279 --> 00:51:14,279
Not your keys, not your coins.

1012
00:51:14,279 --> 00:51:17,279
Not your keys, not your coins.

1013
00:51:17,279 --> 00:51:20,279
One super last question.

1014
00:51:20,279 --> 00:51:22,279
I was just going to say apologies.

1015
00:51:22,279 --> 00:51:24,279
I'll go for like eight hours, whatever, I don't care.

1016
00:51:24,279 --> 00:51:27,279
Would you just quickly TLDR why you decided to hard fork specifically

1017
00:51:27,279 --> 00:51:30,279
and is it because to use Taj's language

1018
00:51:30,279 --> 00:51:33,279
you just want this to actually happen?

1019
00:51:33,279 --> 00:51:35,279
We haven't had enough competition.

1020
00:51:35,279 --> 00:51:38,279
I think things have actually been really boring over the last ten years.

1021
00:51:38,279 --> 00:51:40,279
And the fact that we're talking about 1.10,

1022
00:51:40,279 --> 00:51:42,279
I think Peter was clearly right.

1023
00:51:42,279 --> 00:51:45,279
I was waiting to get rid of the op return limit

1024
00:51:45,279 --> 00:51:47,279
for a really, really long time.

1025
00:51:47,279 --> 00:51:52,279
I always thought these standardness limits were misleading, mostly.

1026
00:51:52,279 --> 00:51:56,279
And I just can't believe that the fact that this is what we're talking about

1027
00:51:56,279 --> 00:52:00,279
is 1.10 and we're not talking about how to add privacy to Bitcoin

1028
00:52:00,279 --> 00:52:02,279
or how to do anything cool.

1029
00:52:02,279 --> 00:52:04,279
We're just talking about all this nonsense.

1030
00:52:04,279 --> 00:52:07,279
We need to have some other thing to do.

1031
00:52:07,279 --> 00:52:11,279
And I think that obviously all the alt coins people really don't like

1032
00:52:11,279 --> 00:52:14,279
and most 99% of them are terrible.

1033
00:52:14,279 --> 00:52:17,279
We don't really want to give Ethereum any...

1034
00:52:17,279 --> 00:52:19,279
So I thought this would be a cool thing.

1035
00:52:19,279 --> 00:52:21,279
Everyone will get coins.

1036
00:52:21,279 --> 00:52:24,279
If you have people who are very interested in doing something

1037
00:52:24,279 --> 00:52:26,279
with whatever opcat or whatever,

1038
00:52:26,279 --> 00:52:28,279
they want to do some kind of near-Bitcoin thing,

1039
00:52:28,279 --> 00:52:30,279
we have some other flavor.

1040
00:52:30,279 --> 00:52:33,279
So I just say, well, give us some other thing to do.

1041
00:52:33,279 --> 00:52:35,279
I think things have been very boring for the last ten years.

1042
00:52:35,279 --> 00:52:37,279
Of course, saving Bitcoin from existential threats

1043
00:52:37,279 --> 00:52:40,279
is not the most glamorous or sexy thing.

1044
00:52:40,279 --> 00:52:43,279
I definitely agree with that, but that doesn't mean it's not important.

1045
00:52:45,279 --> 00:52:47,279
Okay, thank you to our panelists.

1046
00:52:47,279 --> 00:52:49,279
A huge applause, please.

1047
00:52:54,279 --> 00:52:54,539
Thank you.