1
00:00:00,993 --> 00:00:03,173
Hello and welcome, everyone.

2
00:00:05,593 --> 00:00:06,633
Happy Friday.

3
00:00:09,173 --> 00:00:10,913
Today we have a very special guest,

4
00:00:10,913 --> 00:00:13,133
Pete Rizzo of Bitcoin Magazine.

5
00:00:14,553 --> 00:00:16,453
We're thrilled to have you here, Pete.

6
00:00:18,793 --> 00:00:20,232
Come on up when you're ready.

7
00:00:27,373 --> 00:00:28,873
Welcome everyone to the room.

8
00:00:31,353 --> 00:00:32,472
Hi, Pete, are you there?

9
00:00:33,393 --> 00:00:34,353
Hey, can you guys hear me?

10
00:00:35,112 --> 00:00:36,033
Yes, we can.

11
00:00:38,073 --> 00:00:38,873
Very cool.

12
00:00:39,272 --> 00:00:40,873
Yeah, excited to be here.

13
00:00:40,873 --> 00:00:43,193
I guess we'll wait for some people to roll in.

14
00:00:43,673 --> 00:00:44,272
Sounds good.

15
00:00:46,433 --> 00:00:49,753
Who's the host of these Friday sessions?

16
00:00:50,433 --> 00:00:51,673
So I'm Henry.

17
00:00:51,952 --> 00:00:53,792
I work for Paul at LayerTwo Labs.

18
00:00:54,673 --> 00:00:55,272
Gotcha.

19
00:00:55,713 --> 00:00:57,433
I saw you at the conference in Miami.

20
00:00:57,433 --> 00:01:03,952
I saw you at the conference in Miami, but I don't think we got a chance to talk, but...

21
00:01:03,952 --> 00:01:05,632
Yeah, it was a fun booth.

22
00:01:05,632 --> 00:01:06,232
I was there.

23
00:01:06,952 --> 00:01:11,912
Yeah, we had the pinatas and it was a lot of fun.

24
00:01:14,272 --> 00:01:21,592
So Paul is currently, I think, about to debate Peter Todd today at TabConf, so he won't be here.

25
00:01:21,753 --> 00:01:27,113
However, his co-founder Austin, I think, will be able to be here for part of this chat.

26
00:01:28,433 --> 00:01:40,632
Well, I've talked to Paul about this over the years, so I'm not sure if we've got some new stuff to say, but excited at any rate.

27
00:01:41,753 --> 00:01:42,433
Awesome.

28
00:01:43,632 --> 00:01:49,113
I really love that article of yours in Bitcoin Magazine a few months ago about maximalism.

29
00:01:49,872 --> 00:01:51,673
Very thoughtful and detailed.

30
00:01:52,793 --> 00:01:53,272
Thanks.

31
00:01:53,272 --> 00:01:55,272
Yeah, definitely can get into that.

32
00:01:55,312 --> 00:02:02,192
I mean, I spend a lot of time trying to think about the various sociological ideas around Bitcoin.

33
00:02:02,192 --> 00:02:04,272
I mean, certainly I think Paul and I have that in common.

34
00:02:04,552 --> 00:02:16,032
We share a certain interest in people observations, and history of Bitcoin as well, since, you know, Paul was there for a lot of it.

35
00:02:16,992 --> 00:02:21,153
Yeah, absolutely.

36
00:02:22,552 --> 00:02:24,752
It would be really great to hear your perspective today.

37
00:02:25,272 --> 00:02:41,472
On drivechain and how it's evolved over the years, and what you just mentioned, the sociological dimension, such as the nature of the sidechain community in Bitcoin being one that sadly suffers from a high rate of attrition.

38
00:02:42,313 --> 00:02:59,593
So many people really passionate about developing new technology, who might have stayed in Bitcoin if we had peer-to-peer sidechains of some sort, have moved to found or develop projects in Ethereum or elsewhere.

39
00:03:00,272 --> 00:03:07,272
So that leaves the sidechain community in Bitcoin with a smaller number of advocates.

40
00:03:07,272 --> 00:03:18,793
And, you know, people who would be advocating for it here have no incentive really to advocate it once they've begun an Ethereum project, for example.

41
00:03:19,272 --> 00:03:23,353
And then it's now in their interest that we don't do drivechain.

42
00:03:23,392 --> 00:03:33,272
So there's all kinds of people who would actually be worse off if drivechain were activated, specifically altcoiners, those who've left Bitcoin.

43
00:03:33,873 --> 00:03:39,073
And then, of course, the exchanges who would like there to be lots of altcoin trading.

44
00:03:41,272 --> 00:03:43,353
So there's that sociological dimension.

45
00:03:44,073 --> 00:03:46,233
One, certainly one theory.

46
00:03:46,713 --> 00:03:51,713
But yeah, I mean, in terms of the history of sidechains, like, happy to speak on that.

47
00:03:51,713 --> 00:03:57,992
I mean, I'm sure many people here, it sounds like, you know, we're mostly going to be drivechain supporters in the audience.

48
00:03:58,272 --> 00:04:12,513
You know, I will say for as much as I've talked to Paul over the years, you know, I decided to try to come into this conversation a little bit more uneducated on the recent developments, you know, just to kind of even test myself.

49
00:04:12,513 --> 00:04:30,353
But yeah, I mean, I imagine that I'm not sure if you guys saw this tweet, but I was mentioned in a kind of larger tweet thread by Mike Tidwell last week as having a, you know, sort of existing objection, I guess, or existing stance on drivechain.

50
00:04:30,353 --> 00:04:31,953
So happy to dive into that.

51
00:04:32,353 --> 00:04:37,152
You know, not sure where you guys have really started these things, these conversations for this is my first one attending.

52
00:04:37,152 --> 00:04:41,113
So, you know, happy to happy to jump in whenever you guys are ready.

53
00:04:41,752 --> 00:04:42,872
I think we're ready now.

54
00:04:42,912 --> 00:04:46,953
So we usually have kind of like a very free form conversation.

55
00:04:47,312 --> 00:04:50,833
Typically, Paul has a key role in the conversations.

56
00:04:50,872 --> 00:04:57,592
But since he's not here today, unusually, it'll be it'll be me.

57
00:04:57,833 --> 00:05:00,192
And then I hope Austin can.

58
00:05:00,192 --> 00:05:01,152
Oh, here he comes.

59
00:05:01,152 --> 00:05:01,673
Great.

60
00:05:02,032 --> 00:05:06,353
I think Austin's available for part of this chat.

61
00:05:07,073 --> 00:05:07,752
Hi, Austin.

62
00:05:08,113 --> 00:05:08,953
Thanks for joining.

63
00:05:12,113 --> 00:05:13,113
Yeah, hello.

64
00:05:13,113 --> 00:05:13,632
Thank you.

65
00:05:15,032 --> 00:05:22,073
Yeah, I was a I would like to hear, I guess, the the Rizzo objection.

66
00:05:22,073 --> 00:05:39,993
But also, I've always been very interested in kind of your analysis of the Bitcoin culture and what potential I remember you telling me, like, must be more than two years ago now that you first saw maybe a forthcoming.

67
00:05:41,233 --> 00:05:48,632
Schism that you didn't know what the catalyst might be, but that the lines are already developing.

68
00:05:50,592 --> 00:05:51,353
Yeah, that's a good one.

69
00:05:51,353 --> 00:05:54,993
Maybe I'll hop in there since that's a good genesis for the conversation.

70
00:05:55,233 --> 00:06:03,073
Yeah, I did write it, write a piece for Forbes maybe about a year ago was one of my was lesser read articles, but it was called Bitcoin after 2140.

71
00:06:03,472 --> 00:06:06,472
And it was about like the different types of Bitcoin maximalism.

72
00:06:06,632 --> 00:06:24,152
I was really on this train toward the end of 2021, because really what I noticed was that and I think what we're seeing coming to fruition was that, you know, Bitcoin maximalism, you know, at least during the upmarket and the bull run was kind of seen as this, you know, kind of monolithic culture, right?

73
00:06:24,152 --> 00:06:34,472
That was most of the altcoiners sort of viewed average Bitcoin maximalist as being, you know, pretty unsophisticated pro Bitcoin and just kind of all having the same stance.

74
00:06:34,513 --> 00:06:46,273
And, you know, the more as I was trying to define Bitcoin maximalism, because that's, you know, essentially was the primary like lens of my writing for Forbes at that time was, you know, I was trying to nail down the definition.

75
00:06:46,273 --> 00:06:50,233
And the more that I tried to nail down the definition, the more elusive that it seemed.

76
00:06:50,233 --> 00:06:59,833
And essentially, I ended up coming up with this, you know, I guess, framework where essentially, I labeled that there were three types of maximalism.

77
00:07:00,353 --> 00:07:02,833
I'm not quite as convinced as that on that model.

78
00:07:02,833 --> 00:07:09,513
But I'm 100% sure at this point that I think there are three attitudes towards Bitcoin's like fee subsidy problem.

79
00:07:09,513 --> 00:07:26,192
And I like to start here, because I think if people are out there advocating for drivechains, or like, you know, they want to get this out in the community, I think it's important that they understand that, like, it might take a while for people to even get to that point where they're like, ready to even interface with that idea.

80
00:07:26,192 --> 00:07:29,752
And I think there's some pretty, like, clear reasons why.

81
00:07:29,752 --> 00:07:46,712
So when I was trying to figure out this, this schism, essentially, what I what I, the way that I would phrase it now, with like more hindsight is essentially, Bitcoin maximalism, you know, as it existed in like the 2021-2022 market, it really had two distinct flavors.

82
00:07:46,712 --> 00:07:58,673
And they were kind of combined at the time, this is like Unite's kind of the Nick and Udi and Eric's and the, you know, the people that they were friends with, like, you know, the Safedians and Tiers and those people, right.

83
00:07:58,673 --> 00:08:04,993
So these people in the up market, like when things were going, well, they were all friends, and then now they're not, they're just fighting all the time.

84
00:08:05,752 --> 00:08:06,632
So why is that?

85
00:08:06,632 --> 00:08:12,592
And I think the reason is that, you know, the Bitcoin maximals at that time really was like, a co-mingling of two things.

86
00:08:12,592 --> 00:08:25,233
So one was a group who thought that Satoshi invented Bitcoin, you know, Bitcoin was the only instantiation of that invention, right, we didn't need other cryptocurrencies, you know, they were Bitcoin only.

87
00:08:25,752 --> 00:08:31,912
But they believed that we need to improve Bitcoin or like unlock Satoshi's invention to its full potential.

88
00:08:31,912 --> 00:08:36,952
So that's the group that I would put the drivechains group and I would probably put the Ordinals people in there as well.

89
00:08:37,392 --> 00:08:48,152
The view is essentially Satoshi had an invention, that invention is alone enough to, you know, unlock everything that we can do with cryptocurrencies, we don't need, you know, the cryptocurrency ecosystem.

90
00:08:49,152 --> 00:08:53,553
But for all intents and purposes, like we the users need to improve and fulfill Satoshi's vision.

91
00:08:53,553 --> 00:08:54,512
So that's like camp one.

92
00:08:55,353 --> 00:09:01,793
And the other camp was essentially saying, you know, Bitcoin is the only invention, we don't need other cryptocurrencies, Bitcoin only.

93
00:09:02,433 --> 00:09:05,873
But we don't have to improve Satoshi's invention, he's already invented it.

94
00:09:06,472 --> 00:09:13,313
And because he's already invented it and exists as it is, there's no need to ever further improve upon it.

95
00:09:14,152 --> 00:09:15,592
And that's actually the schism.

96
00:09:15,993 --> 00:09:22,993
That is the current schism I think that we're seeing playing out right now, which is essentially those two groups are realizing.

97
00:09:23,433 --> 00:09:30,433
And again, during the upmarket when like El Salvador was happening, everybody was excited about the all time highs, these groups were kind of obscured.

98
00:09:30,793 --> 00:09:36,313
Like now that things are going negatively and the price is down, these groups have realized that they have this disagreement.

99
00:09:37,753 --> 00:09:45,633
And then I think you can get into that disagreement some more, like there is some like cultural, historic and like technical reasons for that.

100
00:09:45,633 --> 00:09:50,553
But essentially, you have these two camps, one that thinks we need to kind of fulfill Satoshi's vision.

101
00:09:51,433 --> 00:09:55,793
Again, I would put the drivechains kind of thesis as like, you know, in that camp.

102
00:09:55,832 --> 00:10:01,952
And then the other group that says, you know, leave it as is, you know, you could call this the laser eye version of it.

103
00:10:03,032 --> 00:10:08,712
But yeah, the Forbes piece was essentially it went into that there was three different views of the long term security budget.

104
00:10:10,272 --> 00:10:12,433
And that two of them were opposing.

105
00:10:12,433 --> 00:10:17,392
And I think that those two camps that I just described also have a different view on the on the fee market.

106
00:10:17,392 --> 00:10:25,832
So that's a component piece of, you know, these two ideologies, which I think are just starting to articulate themselves.

107
00:10:25,832 --> 00:10:28,873
And, you know, my view is that this is a healthy process.

108
00:10:29,873 --> 00:10:37,952
You know, the nature of Bitcoin cycles is that, you know, during up markets, we tend to have an ideological monoculture.

109
00:10:38,072 --> 00:10:44,912
Like we tend to have, you know, one way that we speak to external communities and we tend to kind of minimize dissent.

110
00:10:45,433 --> 00:10:47,753
And then during down markets that reverses, right.

111
00:10:47,753 --> 00:10:56,553
So you see periods where, like, you know, the community engages in dissent because it needs to figure out, like, you know, key things about the ideology.

112
00:10:56,993 --> 00:10:58,753
So I see that as like pretty natural.

113
00:10:58,873 --> 00:11:02,113
There was a conference in Texas, the Bitblock boom.

114
00:11:02,152 --> 00:11:09,993
I gave a keynote about this, which is essentially like, you know, I think that people should have a pretty open mind about Bitcoin cultures.

115
00:11:09,993 --> 00:11:21,512
I think the people who come in, you know, and the most dangerous group, I think, is the people who have only been in one Bitcoin cycle because they're sort of told Bitcoin is a certain way and they can't really envision Bitcoin being another way.

116
00:11:21,993 --> 00:11:35,952
But history of Bitcoin is that, you know, that view of Bitcoin has changed and almost like every cycle, you know, there are there is a new idea of what Bitcoin is and that this is that this has actually just been the process.

117
00:11:35,952 --> 00:11:39,433
So the way that I would sum that up is like the history of Bitcoin is the history of change.

118
00:11:39,472 --> 00:11:41,193
Right. Like Bitcoin has always changed.

119
00:11:41,233 --> 00:11:45,472
It's been changing and we're evolving towards understanding Bitcoin more.

120
00:11:47,152 --> 00:11:56,633
But, yeah, we're currently at a impasse and that impasse is basically there are two groups within the Bitcoin only camp because otherwise it's nonsensical.

121
00:11:56,832 --> 00:11:58,072
Right. I was talking to somebody.

122
00:11:58,912 --> 00:12:08,633
Well, I don't mean to interrupt you, but can you just briefly go back just for a second and describe what might be that third group, just so we see the whole picture?

123
00:12:09,072 --> 00:12:12,152
Oh, right. Well, so that was like only like in regards to the fee market.

124
00:12:12,193 --> 00:12:13,993
So that's like a more specific sub argument.

125
00:12:15,032 --> 00:12:22,353
That's why I was sort of saying, like, I think there's three attitudes towards the fee market, but then there's just two warring camps within Bitcoin right now.

126
00:12:23,313 --> 00:12:27,993
So one of them, you know, again, as I described, they want to improve Bitcoin and unlock the full potential.

127
00:12:28,072 --> 00:12:29,873
And the other one is like they want to keep it as is.

128
00:12:30,512 --> 00:12:36,912
The three views on the fee market, you know, I think are basically I'll sum it up as this.

129
00:12:37,472 --> 00:12:43,072
So the people who want to keep Bitcoin as is, they think that Bitcoin, you know, is the invention.

130
00:12:44,113 --> 00:12:49,272
Their view is that the, quote, security budget doesn't exist.

131
00:12:49,313 --> 00:12:57,993
That there is no such thing, that there is not a need for transaction fees to rise to a level where they replace the subsidy.

132
00:12:58,592 --> 00:13:00,993
It is, in fact, two things that secure Bitcoin.

133
00:13:01,032 --> 00:13:10,152
One, the ability of the user to attach any arbitrary size fee to a transaction to bid, you know, on that transaction.

134
00:13:10,193 --> 00:13:16,952
And then the ability of any miner to permissionlessly join the network and then accept that fee.

135
00:13:17,553 --> 00:13:19,113
That is the security model.

136
00:13:19,113 --> 00:13:24,113
So this has been defined by Pierre Richard's, you know, cost of counter censorship is what he calls it.

137
00:13:24,152 --> 00:13:25,233
That's that's his view.

138
00:13:25,272 --> 00:13:31,793
I think Dylan Leclerc expressed like a pretty similar view to that yesterday where he kind of outlined this vision.

139
00:13:32,673 --> 00:13:35,912
I think they've done a really poor job of like advocating for this.

140
00:13:36,032 --> 00:13:37,912
They haven't really written much about it.

141
00:13:38,472 --> 00:13:39,832
They seem to sort of believe it.

142
00:13:41,313 --> 00:13:44,952
You know, we can sort of get into like that theory, but it's at least coherent.

143
00:13:44,993 --> 00:13:49,512
Like, it's what that group believes, whether they know it or not, or to describe it.

144
00:13:50,392 --> 00:13:56,912
On the other side, I think like, you know, completely opposed to that camp, you know, I think you would have a group of people.

145
00:13:57,272 --> 00:14:06,553
Again, I'd probably say this is like the drivechains view that we, the Bitcoin users, need to proactively ensure that Bitcoin block space is used.

146
00:14:06,592 --> 00:14:13,233
We need to generate new use cases to generate fees and that fees, that fee pressure needs to be high enough to secure Bitcoin.

147
00:14:13,233 --> 00:14:21,873
So, you know, that's a historical view that I would argue is like been around for a long time, probably to like since like 2013, 2014.

148
00:14:22,313 --> 00:14:32,233
You know, this is the historical crypto economics view that Bitcoin, you know, is only as secure as it is, you know, crypto economically able to incentivize participants.

149
00:14:32,993 --> 00:14:35,592
There are potential future situations where that might break down.

150
00:14:35,592 --> 00:14:41,113
Paul, I think, has done, you know, a pretty great job of like outlining this view.

151
00:14:41,113 --> 00:14:44,313
And, you know, you can go to Truthcoin and like read all of his stuff about it.

152
00:14:45,233 --> 00:14:49,592
And I think to the extent that like this view is like more defined, it's much more defined.

153
00:14:50,353 --> 00:14:56,233
And then there's a third camp, which I would say like is like the Bitcoin developer group, and they just think fees are going to be high in the future.

154
00:14:56,272 --> 00:15:05,113
So their view is like, OK, well, you know, really what we should be doing is trying to minimize the like on-chain footprint of transactions.

155
00:15:05,113 --> 00:15:06,553
And so that's what we're going to do.

156
00:15:06,553 --> 00:15:15,873
We're just going to assume that fees will one day be high and we're just going to build on top layers and not really assume that we need to actively increase the fee market.

157
00:15:16,392 --> 00:15:17,592
So there's basically three views.

158
00:15:17,592 --> 00:15:21,712
One of them just like kind of assumes in the future that the fee problem will be solved.

159
00:15:22,313 --> 00:15:25,592
One of them doesn't think they'll ever will be a fee problem.

160
00:15:26,592 --> 00:15:39,592
And the last group is, you know, I guess what I think is like describes the drivechains group is basically we need to proactively boost the fee market and then work towards, you know, reaching some sort of subsidy equilibrium.

161
00:15:40,472 --> 00:15:47,952
So anyway, I hope that wasn't all that wasn't too messy, but that's my rough mental picture of the situation, if that's useful to anyone.

162
00:15:48,952 --> 00:16:03,592
Isn't it quite interesting that two of the vocal supporters for the view that fees might not be high enough are Paul and Peter, Paul Sztorc and Peter Todd, who have totally different solutions.

163
00:16:03,592 --> 00:16:09,553
But on the question of whether these need to be higher, they agree.

164
00:16:09,553 --> 00:16:12,912
So they both fit into the same one of those three categories you mentioned.

165
00:16:12,912 --> 00:16:13,753
Isn't that interesting?

166
00:16:14,633 --> 00:16:16,113
I do think it's interesting.

167
00:16:16,152 --> 00:16:18,873
Yeah, but I think that Peter would be a bit more of like a light.

168
00:16:18,873 --> 00:16:20,433
He thinks something needs to be done.

169
00:16:20,433 --> 00:16:25,353
But that thing that he would accept is just like a light increase to the senior edge.

170
00:16:25,353 --> 00:16:34,712
Right. So like, that's just a difference of, I don't know, it's like an alignment on directional view, but then a disagreement about the right solution, which I do think is interesting.

171
00:16:34,712 --> 00:16:42,193
But, yeah, the real disagreement is like, I think the average Bitcoin developer, they're kind of in that, you know, we just assume fees will be high group.

172
00:16:42,193 --> 00:16:43,072
So we don't really care.

173
00:16:44,032 --> 00:16:46,433
That was my, you know, and I went around talking to people about this.

174
00:16:46,433 --> 00:16:53,673
That was kind of what they said, even like people like Andrew Polstrom and those people, you know, sort of admitted that that was like the dominant view.

175
00:16:53,673 --> 00:17:05,113
And then really the two groups that are opposed on the fee budget security budget model are, you know, the sort of, again, I'm using broad classifications here that we can debate.

176
00:17:05,113 --> 00:17:13,633
Like I'd say the Ordinal's drivechains, people largely kind of united in this idea that like we need to proactively boost the fee market in order to secure Bitcoin.

177
00:17:14,393 --> 00:17:17,393
Thus, any activity that we take to do that is good.

178
00:17:17,913 --> 00:17:21,233
And then there's the other group that basically just says Bitcoin works.

179
00:17:21,233 --> 00:17:27,353
It's fine. The security model will work as it currently does, you know, forever.

180
00:17:27,353 --> 00:17:32,472
It's like when we want to pay a transaction fee and a miner will accept it, Bitcoin will be secure.

181
00:17:32,472 --> 00:17:33,353
That's that's their view.

182
00:17:33,592 --> 00:17:38,153
My real worry, I will tell you, is that both of these views are essentially unfalsifiable.

183
00:17:38,353 --> 00:17:42,472
They're both belief systems at the at the core.

184
00:17:42,472 --> 00:17:48,552
And my question to both participants has been, how would you test like one of these scenarios?

185
00:17:49,113 --> 00:17:51,712
Because they're both plausible.

186
00:17:51,712 --> 00:17:57,312
Right. So as somebody who's a bit, you know, again, like I'm not a deep weeds technical expert.

187
00:17:57,312 --> 00:17:59,753
I'm more of like a social humanities type person.

188
00:17:59,913 --> 00:18:07,192
So I can tell you that these two groups exist and I can define to you why I think they disagree with each other.

189
00:18:07,552 --> 00:18:12,472
And I think to the extent that I can draw a mental picture for you of why that disagreement exists, that's helpful.

190
00:18:12,472 --> 00:18:14,552
But then I can't mediate that disagreement.

191
00:18:14,552 --> 00:18:22,393
So I don't have any ability to say, OK, this group is right and this other group is wrong, because like on what basis would I do that?

192
00:18:22,672 --> 00:18:24,753
You know, on what ability do I have to do that?

193
00:18:24,792 --> 00:18:32,873
Because there is no current cryptocurrency system that doesn't have a subsidy and is secured only by user fees like that.

194
00:18:32,873 --> 00:18:33,913
That doesn't exist.

195
00:18:34,792 --> 00:18:40,753
Neither is there any cryptocurrency out there in which, you know, you know, it could have failed.

196
00:18:40,753 --> 00:18:47,033
But then the users sort of generated a free market and that secured that system into the future.

197
00:18:47,033 --> 00:18:54,072
So in both cases, like the future scenario that the group is proposing, like neither of them exist or have ever existed.

198
00:18:54,552 --> 00:18:59,113
So what can I say about it other than define the circumstance?

199
00:18:59,113 --> 00:19:01,153
And then you sort of have to agree on the timeline, right?

200
00:19:01,153 --> 00:19:05,832
Because like now the problem is also, you know, a hundred years off, right?

201
00:19:05,832 --> 00:19:16,753
Like so if you're assuming a full subsidy decline, obviously, I know that Paul argues that, you know, kind of the window where like the Bitcoin is attackable is a lot sooner, maybe within the next few epochs.

202
00:19:17,033 --> 00:19:21,472
But then you have to sort of use on the line on like, you know, to what extent that they all agree on this.

203
00:19:21,472 --> 00:19:25,233
Does everyone within Bitcoin agree on the severity of the problem?

204
00:19:25,233 --> 00:19:39,393
So I've always sort of seen like, you know, maybe this can back up and, you know, into the drivechains argument a bit more like, you know, and this is what I think about when it comes to drivechains, which is like, what would I have to do in order to convince somebody that drivechains was logical, right?

205
00:19:39,393 --> 00:19:50,233
And I think I've tried to do this to Paul in like side conversations and just try to get, you know, across the immensity of like where you need to get somebody because I think like.

206
00:19:50,897 --> 00:20:13,897
The problem is if like if you're going to go about advocating for drivechains on the basis that it's like necessary for Bitcoin's security in the future, which again, I don't even necessarily think is the only way that you could do that, but that seems to be like what is currently happening, then you still need to get the user or the end person if you're giving this argument to believe a bunch of different things.

207
00:20:13,897 --> 00:20:42,897
You have to get them to believe that this other group that like, you know, has a plausible theory is wrong. And then you have to get them to believe that the urgency of the problem like is high. And then you have to get them to believe that you're, you know, in the case of like Peter Todd versus Paul, your specific solution to it is like more correct than the others. And then even worse than that with drivechains, it's like you have to convince them that it's so imperative that we do this, that we change the blockchain today.

208
00:20:43,897 --> 00:21:10,897
Or like in the in the near future to the point that we're advocating for a consensus change. So like you're in you're into like four layers of complexity. And the primary motivation that you're using to get people to those like levels of complexity is largely like a negative sentiment. It's like a fear based incentive. You're saying like, okay, you should believe all these four things and want all these four things. Because if you don't like something bad might happen.

209
00:21:11,897 --> 00:21:35,897
And I think like, that's the thing where it's like the group that is saying we shouldn't change anything like the, you know, the peer sort of Dylan cost of counter ship counter censorship model people, you know, where Bitcoin fees secure the the blockchain and the ability of the user to do that. Like they're not asking the end user to do anything, they're just asking the end user to just keep using Bitcoin as it currently is. So their ask is like a lot lower.

210
00:21:35,897 --> 00:21:58,897
So if I'm a consumer, a lot like walking down the checkout aisle, and it's like, I look at the drivechains, you know, can the drivechains can says, you know, you sort of have to believe these four things in some order, with some degree of urgency. And then the other people are just saying, like, you know, don't worry about a status quo. So like, it's even like, it's even harder, because then you have to, they have to reject that solution.

211
00:21:59,897 --> 00:22:17,897
So again, like, even if drivechains was, you know, the only way for us to go forward and solve these problems, my point, I guess, you guys as an interesting like example is like, you know, this is what the average like person on Twitter is like kind of dealing with, right, they're looking at multiple arguments, and then they're sort of weighing them.

212
00:22:17,897 --> 00:22:40,897
And again, I think the thing with drivechains is like the ask is very high. It's like very, you're asking a lot of the end user, in order for them to accept a number of different like nuanced views on Bitcoin. And so like, well, even I, as someone who can articulate Paul's views, and I can like, sound out the reasoning of why he believes those four things.

213
00:22:41,897 --> 00:23:05,897
I still have to acknowledge that, like, you know, it's an idea within a marketplace of ideas that are competing, right. And like, those ideas may just be easier for people to accept. And I think that's probably the best description of the status quo is that, you know, and I think the conversation about drivechains has been great in terms of like, you know, look, personally, I'm glad we're not talking about, you know, random macro financial stuff anymore.

214
00:23:05,897 --> 00:23:11,897
I think that's been horrible. I mean, I'd rather be talking about, you know, Bitcoin technicals and how it works and stuff like this.

215
00:23:11,897 --> 00:23:16,897
So I appreciate what, you know, you guys in the community has brought to the conversation.

216
00:23:16,897 --> 00:23:25,897
But I would say like, you know, maybe something we can talk about is like your perception of it, because I just see the perception of changing people's mind on this issue. It's just like a high hurdle.

217
00:23:26,430 --> 00:23:30,430
Yeah, that was very well said.

218
00:23:30,430 --> 00:23:34,830
One thing you mentioned was that it seems sometimes that the fundamental case for Drivechain

219
00:23:34,830 --> 00:23:38,390
is the security budget problem, but that's not what we believe.

220
00:23:38,390 --> 00:23:44,190
So we don't think that the security budget problem is the primary case for Drivechain.

221
00:23:44,190 --> 00:23:50,750
The security budget problem is a symptom or a subset of a more important, more fundamental

222
00:23:50,750 --> 00:23:51,150
issue.

223
00:23:51,678 --> 00:23:59,838
So, the fundamental issue is that there will always be legitimate disagreements about what

224
00:23:59,838 --> 00:24:00,838
the blockchain should

225
00:24:01,897 --> 00:24:11,897
And because there will always be legitimate disagreements about what the blockchain should contain, such as privacy technology, scaling technology, and other kinds of technology.

226
00:24:11,897 --> 00:24:40,897
The blockchain that wins in the very long run, will be the one that has a highly ossified layer one, and a multitude of layer twos that offer opt in features for the people who want them, instead of a blockchain, which judges people's values and preferences, and offers only one feature set.

227
00:24:42,897 --> 00:24:46,897
So the drivechain vision is that Bitcoin should become multi chain.

228
00:24:48,897 --> 00:24:56,897
And this multi chain design would have across all of the chains, a single monetary policy and a single set of miners.

229
00:24:57,897 --> 00:25:06,897
So across the main chain and all of its sidechains, there's only one monetary policy, 21 million, and there's only one set of miners.

230
00:25:07,897 --> 00:25:14,897
So by using Satoshi's merge mining, all of the sidechains and the main chain share the same hash rate.

231
00:25:15,897 --> 00:25:24,897
And by having all of these different blockchains share the resources of the hash rate and the monetary policy, network effect is achieved.

232
00:25:25,897 --> 00:25:27,897
Network effect is extremely powerful in economics.

233
00:25:28,897 --> 00:25:40,897
So when you have multiple sets of users, all sharing the same monetary policy and miners, that becomes a very powerful value proposition, where everyone is better off.

234
00:25:41,897 --> 00:25:47,897
So in long term equilibrium, there isn't going to be a multitude of different blockchains.

235
00:25:47,897 --> 00:26:00,897
Instead, there will be one that absorbs all of the others, because it offers that set of options and network effect and resource sharing.

236
00:26:01,897 --> 00:26:14,897
So, for example, in long term equilibrium, and of course, there's no guarantee this will occur, but there's reason to think that in long term equilibrium, there isn't going to be a privacy blockchain, which is an independent altcoin.

237
00:26:15,897 --> 00:26:22,897
In other words, Monero will eventually merge into Bitcoin or some other blockchain.

238
00:26:24,897 --> 00:26:28,897
And the goal of drivechain is to have Bitcoin be the base layer for everything.

239
00:26:28,897 --> 00:26:32,897
So this is why the fee problem is not the fundamental case for drivechain.

240
00:26:33,897 --> 00:26:44,897
And the worry, the concern about fees being too low is just a symptom of the fact that Bitcoin isn't offering every kind of blockchain user all of the features they might want.

241
00:26:45,897 --> 00:26:55,897
So we don't have like a flourishing privacy sidechain for those who want that, or a flourishing large block sidechain for those who want, you know, very low fees and high throughput.

242
00:26:56,897 --> 00:26:58,897
Some of those things. Yeah, go ahead.

243
00:26:59,897 --> 00:27:04,897
I appreciate you outlining that because I think it's a good articulation, I think of where you guys are at today.

244
00:27:05,897 --> 00:27:15,897
Yeah, I mean, I would say that, you know, in terms of getting the community to see a more positive vision for drivechains, you know, in terms of, you know, as you outlined, kind of providing some of these features.

245
00:27:16,897 --> 00:27:22,897
I mean, again, it's sort of still comes at the cost of, you know, as the average Bitcoin user, right?

246
00:27:23,897 --> 00:27:29,897
It's like you still have to feel like, you know, a change would be making a Bitcoin, you know, was in the best interest of the security, right?

247
00:27:30,897 --> 00:27:42,897
And I think this is where, you know, I'll say this, like, even as someone who spends a lot of my time, you know, researching and trying to understand Bitcoin, it would be, you'd still have to get me as a user to making a choice.

248
00:27:42,897 --> 00:27:53,897
And that choice is essentially like, I believe that this model is so beneficial for Bitcoin, and that the risks are so low, that I'm willing to kind of support something like this.

249
00:27:54,897 --> 00:27:57,897
But the issue would be, you know, again, it's like a risk reward, right?

250
00:27:58,897 --> 00:28:00,897
I think the reward with drivechains, you know, is like pretty well understood, right?

251
00:28:01,897 --> 00:28:07,897
It's that going back to sidechains, as you said, it's sort of like uniting, you know, the miners, it's sort of uniting the network effect.

252
00:28:07,897 --> 00:28:14,897
It's, you know, all these other kind of coins that exist, or have existed, you know, can get assimilated into the Bitcoin network.

253
00:28:15,897 --> 00:28:19,897
But I still have to then sort of as the end user be willing to do that, right?

254
00:28:20,897 --> 00:28:24,897
I have to think that that risk outweighs the reward, or sorry, the reward outweighs the risk.

255
00:28:25,897 --> 00:28:30,897
And the risk still is that, you know, it just fails or compromises the security of Bitcoin, right?

256
00:28:31,897 --> 00:28:42,897
And then I think, so I think even if you get to the reward, like, right, you develop a reward proposition for arguing drivechains, and you can articulate that very succinctly, and elevate that in the conversation.

257
00:28:43,897 --> 00:28:53,897
You know, ultimately, as someone who's participated in consensus and like runs a node, you know, I have to, I have to think that this will actually be good for Bitcoin long term and have no negatives.

258
00:28:53,897 --> 00:29:02,897
And so one example I'd like to bring for that, of like how challenging that is, is I think that, you know, people forget, like during the SegWit activation, where it's like SegWit was a very small change to Bitcoin.

259
00:29:03,897 --> 00:29:07,897
But you still had sort of two emerging groups at that time that were counter signaling each other, right?

260
00:29:08,897 --> 00:29:12,897
So there was, for people who don't know, there was like a big block and small block camp.

261
00:29:13,897 --> 00:29:16,897
And they both had like different researchers and developers working for them.

262
00:29:17,897 --> 00:29:25,897
And they were engaged in sort of like, you know, a year long memetic warfare, where they were sort of writing papers and sort of making arguments and trying to debunk each other.

263
00:29:26,897 --> 00:29:30,897
And, you know, some of that literature is lost, because we no longer care about it.

264
00:29:31,897 --> 00:29:38,897
But there were people like Peter Risen, and I can't remember the other guy's name who was with him, Andrew something or other, right?

265
00:29:38,897 --> 00:29:49,897
And they were sort of engaged in a similar process, right, where they were putting forward proposals of why big blocks were the solution for Bitcoin, why SegWit didn't work or was even fundamentally broken.

266
00:29:50,897 --> 00:29:59,897
So you have the situation where it's like even around SegWit, which is like a fairly miner change, you have this community process in which multiple groups were counter signaling each other.

267
00:30:00,897 --> 00:30:07,897
And like for someone who's non-technical, it became almost impossible to have like a nuanced opinion about like what was the right course, right?

268
00:30:08,897 --> 00:30:10,897
Because the bulk of the community was just inaction, right?

269
00:30:11,897 --> 00:30:16,897
People didn't feel comfortable making a choice, even though there are plenty of vocal, you know, supporters of SegWit.

270
00:30:17,897 --> 00:30:31,897
My personal view is that it actually took SegWit activating on another chain, but it was actually Litecoin's activation of SegWit that made it abundantly clear that like some of the FUD, you know, from the big block camp was FUD, right?

271
00:30:31,897 --> 00:30:42,897
It was actually like it demonstrated like once you had it live on some other chain and people saw that that chain benefited economically, you know, the price of Litecoin like 4x after that.

272
00:30:43,897 --> 00:30:47,897
There was like a solid economic case that the reward was higher than the risk.

273
00:30:47,897 --> 00:31:11,897
So going back to like where I started at this, you know, in the thread of Mike Tidwell, you know, my view, I think, is that this point that, you know, as long as drivechains, the, you know, sort of discussion is rooted in trying to convince me the user, you know, to believe, you know, something about this risk reward calculus, it's gonna be hard for me to think anything, unless there's something demonstrable, right?

274
00:31:11,897 --> 00:31:27,897
I mean, I can sit here and listen to arguments for drivechains and against drivechains all day, but I'm not even technical enough to feel confident like you ultimately have to convince me that I would risk Bitcoin's future in order to make this upgrade, right? And that was the challenge.

275
00:31:28,897 --> 00:31:42,897
If you think that, I mean, here your argument that adding SegWit to Litecoin was was instrumental in getting it in Bitcoin, but SegWit, I mean, Litecoin also added like the Mimblewimble.

276
00:31:42,897 --> 00:32:05,897
100%. And that's, and that's a great example of why that that goes both ways, right? And they added Mimblewimble, and the market didn't react, and then the users didn't want it, right? So there was a, there's actually an example where Litecoin has served that function on two levels, both in helping, you know, prove that one proposal was good. And then, you know, and the other case showing that why there was no market demand for this and for the other one.

277
00:32:05,897 --> 00:32:34,897
So maybe we can just move it, the conversation like one degree. And I was very interested in hearing your kind of historical take on the schisms forming in Bitcoin and all that. But could you give us maybe the brief rundown as you know, a lot of people in the Twitter space, probably, and in the community in general, only been around a few years, maybe a brief rundown from your perspective.

278
00:32:35,897 --> 00:33:03,897
Yeah, that's a great question.

279
00:33:03,897 --> 00:33:33,897
That's a great question. So that's something I think about a lot. There's a great Jameson Lopp article on this called has Bitcoin ever hard forked? That kind of goes into the specifics. Yeah, I think that, look, Bitcoin's consensus and governance process is, you know, a very confusing and opaque thing. And that's, I think, by design, right? I think at some point, in Bitcoin's history, it was decided that if there was ever any, you

280
00:33:33,897 --> 00:34:03,857
know, coordinated technical development process, and if that coordinated technical development process could be described, such as its functioning, you know, looked like some sort of organization, right, you could say that upgrades happen in a certain way, that was an attack vector for Bitcoin. So we have ended up in this situation now. And again, I think this is like another example of the schism between like the two groups in Bitcoin, where, you know, there's a certain group that believes that the current system is working.

281
00:34:03,897 --> 00:34:31,376
They believe that right now, what we have is, quote, crypto anarchy, right? It's a group of people and software users who, you know, have to debate ideas. Ultimately, they have to come to the near unanimous consensus that some idea, you know, is the right way to go. And then even once they come to that consensus, it's it should be prohibitively difficult for them to make that change, even up to the point of that change being poorly defined.

282
00:34:31,376 --> 00:34:48,537
So like an example would be people who are newer may remember the Taproot upgrade to Bitcoin in 2021. You know, I watched that process very closely for a number of months. You know, there was a number of proposals about how Taproot should activate whether via historical models or something different.

283
00:34:48,537 --> 00:35:13,737
And ultimately, you know, what was chosen was a one-off activation model where miners were sort of asked within three months to kind of signal whether they wanted something. And again, this was a completely unique model used for Taproot that was never used previously. They did so and then the Taproot upgrade happened. But, you know, that was a case where the entire Bitcoin technical community believed that this upgrade was positive.

284
00:35:14,737 --> 00:35:33,576
They disagreed on the active on how they should activate it. And the user, I think, at that point was given a pretty direct ask, right? It was sort of help the developers activate something that they think is good, but they don't want to take responsibility for activating or they don't want to kind of form a process around for activating.

285
00:35:33,576 --> 00:35:57,576
But I think you're sort of now getting into like, you know, what some people think is the broken part of Bitcoin, right? The counter arguments is that this process where, you know, it is prohibitively difficult to change Bitcoin, you know, including that there's no process for doing so is a problem and that there should be a structured process for doing this.

286
00:35:57,576 --> 00:36:09,576
Obviously, I know that the drivechain's position is, you know, we could make this one last change and we never have to deal with this process again, which, you know, I personally find, you know, pretty appealing having gone through the process.

287
00:36:09,576 --> 00:36:31,576
But yeah, I mean, essentially, I would sum it up as saying, you know, Bitcoin has a history of upgrades. Those upgrades tend to be, you know, pretty divisive, because when you make an upgrade to Bitcoin, you know, it's possible to do it in ways where some software users might be kicked off the network or told that a certain software is Bitcoin.

288
00:36:31,576 --> 00:36:51,576
Bitcoin has generally kind of come to an upgrade process where, you know, we're able to do that with a high degree of confidence, right? Like we're not imposing changes on anyone or rescinding anyone's rights to, you know, call whatever Bitcoin software they want Bitcoin.

289
00:36:51,576 --> 00:37:17,577
But in order to have that attribute for Bitcoin, right, in order to avoid the sort of hard fork process that other other coins go through, the trade off is that our, you know, upgrade process is like, very convoluted and very slow. And, you know, deeply confusing, even the people who I argue have like a high degree of subject matter expertise about how that happens.

290
00:37:18,577 --> 00:37:28,577
And prior to SegWit and the block size war, was there any sort of history of any semblance of controversy? And as far as you remember?

291
00:37:29,577 --> 00:37:55,577
So I have a whole article about the upgrade for P2SH. It's called the battle for P2SH. You know, it's basically a history of the first Bitcoin software. And yeah, I mean, there was there was plenty of their division about it. I mean, you know, up in Satoshi, it's true, like did move rather unilaterally to make software changes. And then he sort of, you know, just a carte blanche, like approved, you know, push them to the users, right.

292
00:37:55,577 --> 00:38:20,577
So the way that I articulate this is essentially like Bitcoin inherited a problem from open source development. And so if you read books like the Cathedral and the Bazaar about open source development, what you find is that, you know, within open source development culture, there was really kind of only two governance models for for those types of software projects, there was one like the sort of benevolent dictator model.

293
00:38:20,577 --> 00:38:49,577
So this is like Linus Torvalds and Linux, like the software is named after the guy, the guy makes all the decisions. And if he doesn't like something that you do, he just gets rid of you, right, the benevolent dictator process. And then two is sort of like a more equitable system of that, like you can think of a project where, you know, there might be a, you know, loose maintainer, but then, you know, a bunch of other portions of the software system are, you know, they are their own maintainers, right?

294
00:38:49,577 --> 00:39:15,577
So somebody might own, there might be like 10 or 12 different repositories of the software. And then, you know, there's just a group of people who own it. Maybe they still kind of, you know, answer to this one guy. But there's a division of governance that looks something like a constitutional monarchy, right? Like there's still some guy who can veto everybody. But there's more kind of participants who own certain subsystems. And so Bitcoin sort of inherits this problem where it's like under Satoshi.

295
00:39:15,577 --> 00:39:32,577
You know, we have a benevolent dictator, you know, whatever you think of his actions, like he took them alone, he justified them. And often cases like, you know, didn't even really write that much about them, even when he made fairly major changes, like instituting a block size, right? So he just sort of unilaterally made these changes.

296
00:39:32,577 --> 00:39:41,577
You know, ultimately, Bitcoin had to then wrestle with, you know, solving, I think, what was its inherent contradiction here, which is that

297
00:39:42,344 --> 00:39:49,384
you know, could you have a non-government money that was essentially, you know, subject to some

298
00:39:49,384 --> 00:39:56,024
sort of developer dictator? And so, you know, when Satoshi leaves and he hands it over to Gavin,

299
00:39:56,024 --> 00:40:00,504
I mean, Gavin Andresen, who is the, you know, person who then led the software development for

300
00:40:00,504 --> 00:40:05,944
the next four or five years, he operated as a benevolent dictator. You know, he thought or

301
00:40:05,944 --> 00:40:10,983
expected to make decisions for Bitcoin and then that those decisions would be, you know, sort of

302
00:40:10,983 --> 00:40:16,663
ratified or accepted by the users. That was, you know, sort of his impression. The users sort of

303
00:40:16,663 --> 00:40:22,184
rebelled against that to some extent. But again, I think it was to answer the fundamental question,

304
00:40:22,184 --> 00:40:27,143
which is like, you know, how do you govern a software project? Because essentially, you need

305
00:40:27,143 --> 00:40:31,224
to govern the project, the project needs some sort of management, right? That is what being

306
00:40:31,224 --> 00:40:38,584
a maintainer is. So how do you have a non-government currency without recreating some sort of software

307
00:40:38,584 --> 00:40:42,024
governance, right? So the people who have problems with Ethereum, I mean, it's pretty obvious their

308
00:40:42,024 --> 00:40:46,263
software development process resembles some sort of pseudo-government thing, right? There's

309
00:40:46,263 --> 00:40:52,104
like people with established positions, they have someone whose job it is to coordinate

310
00:40:52,104 --> 00:40:57,303
forks, like it's, you know, it's like documented, there's different places that fund it, you know,

311
00:40:57,303 --> 00:41:01,863
and it works at a reliable cadence. So the question that is like, is Ethereum a non-government money

312
00:41:01,863 --> 00:41:06,903
really? Or did it just sort of end up, you know, recreating governance in another way? And it's like,

313
00:41:06,903 --> 00:41:13,863
maybe there's a digital money there, but it just has even worse than a government-operated

314
00:41:13,863 --> 00:41:20,583
money and that there's no, you know, democratic social contract around, you know, enforcing who

315
00:41:20,583 --> 00:41:26,583
operates that. So yeah, my view is that the upgrade process has always been constrained. I mean,

316
00:41:27,543 --> 00:41:32,504
you know, Gavin dealt with people who didn't want to do what he wanted to do, even the idea that,

317
00:41:33,064 --> 00:41:36,024
you know, some plurality of miners would upgrade Bitcoin was like pretty

318
00:41:36,663 --> 00:41:39,863
controversial when it happened. It's just that they were controversial with like less people

319
00:41:39,863 --> 00:41:43,784
using Bitcoin, right? There was only like a couple thousand people maybe at the time,

320
00:41:43,784 --> 00:41:49,863
but still most of the developers disagreed about the best way to upgrade Bitcoin. Anyway,

321
00:41:49,863 --> 00:41:53,863
I'm not sure how much you want to get into that, but, you know, here we are.

322
00:41:55,624 --> 00:42:00,344
Well, I find it very interesting. And I think in the context of what we're talking about here, it's

323
00:42:00,503 --> 00:42:10,503
probably relevant, but you can go ahead and discuss as deep as you're willing to. I think,

324
00:42:10,503 --> 00:42:17,783
you know, it is interesting having you here as kind of probably the foremost expert on all these

325
00:42:17,783 --> 00:42:26,264
things from a high level. Could I ask you to elaborate on what you said about, you compared

326
00:42:26,264 --> 00:42:34,423
Bitcoin to Ethereum and fiat, and it seemed like you were creating a continuum where Bitcoin is at

327
00:42:34,423 --> 00:42:41,303
one end and Ethereum is at one end and fiat money is in the middle. I think that that's a...

328
00:42:42,024 --> 00:42:44,663
Yeah, I'm not sure about that. I mean, I guess my view is that...

329
00:42:45,544 --> 00:42:52,663
Just to finish my question real quick, I feel like drive chainers, drivechain supporters see

330
00:42:52,663 --> 00:43:01,544
it differently than that, where Ethereum is, from the view of the ordinary person not in crypto yet,

331
00:43:02,904 --> 00:43:10,984
Ethereum is quite similar to Bitcoin. And that's important. And therefore, it's important that

332
00:43:10,984 --> 00:43:17,143
Bitcoin have some of the narratives and the potential value accrual that will occur in

333
00:43:17,143 --> 00:43:22,503
Ethereum. It would be better for Bitcoin to have Ethereum as a sidechain, to have those users,

334
00:43:22,503 --> 00:43:28,744
all that value, all those fees, narratives and technology. So I think that's one of Paul's key

335
00:43:28,744 --> 00:43:34,423
ideas, is that it's a threat to Bitcoin, that there is something which has $200 billion of value

336
00:43:35,223 --> 00:43:44,104
and is a peer to peer digital ecosystem. And it's growing. If they have a killer app or two

337
00:43:44,104 --> 00:43:50,824
tomorrow, then they could flip Bitcoin and then there would be a loss to Bitcoin's primacy,

338
00:43:50,824 --> 00:43:59,143
its significance and its singular stature as the original and biggest and best and most important

339
00:43:59,143 --> 00:44:03,224
project in the space. So that's one thing drive chainers have that the rest of the Bitcoin

340
00:44:03,224 --> 00:44:09,863
community doesn't have. They have a dismissive perspective on the competitors, whereas we view

341
00:44:09,863 --> 00:44:14,583
them, we have like more of a pro market view, which is the consumer is going to want a lot of

342
00:44:14,583 --> 00:44:22,263
things. We shouldn't enable those to be happening on Bitcoin. Yeah, look, I would say that if I would

343
00:44:22,263 --> 00:44:26,184
say I, you know, I'm not sure I agree with everything you said there. But I would say that

344
00:44:27,464 --> 00:44:33,224
if I do have a sympathy with the drivechains group, right, it is that I do think that there

345
00:44:33,224 --> 00:44:39,543
are working, you know, they're working use cases for cryptocurrency outside of Bitcoin currently

346
00:44:39,543 --> 00:44:45,064
that are not described by Bitcoin. Right. So, you know, part of what I think has attracted me to

347
00:44:45,064 --> 00:44:48,583
try to understand the kind of people who are interested in things like drivechains and

348
00:44:48,583 --> 00:44:54,664
ordinals is that, yeah, I mean, look, I do think that we're at the stage 15 years into this market

349
00:44:54,664 --> 00:45:00,103
where there are other markets outside of Bitcoin and the larger cryptocurrency sphere that have

350
00:45:00,103 --> 00:45:04,664
demonstrated market fit. So a great example of that would be stable coins, like whatever you

351
00:45:04,664 --> 00:45:10,263
think of them. It's currently true that like one of the major humanitarian use cases for

352
00:45:10,263 --> 00:45:16,664
cryptocurrencies, you know, is primarily settled on Tron, right. And to a lesser extent Ethereum.

353
00:45:17,303 --> 00:45:22,664
So, you know, even just taking that one kind of example, it's like we have to acknowledge that

354
00:45:22,664 --> 00:45:26,344
there's, you know, something else, there's something valuable going on in the crypto space.

355
00:45:26,344 --> 00:45:30,904
And then the debate is sort of like, well, what's valuable? Right. So now I think you're back into

356
00:45:30,904 --> 00:45:37,064
sort of, you know, these different groups that I outlined at the beginning, like with their

357
00:45:37,064 --> 00:45:43,143
different kind of philosophies on Bitcoin. And I think it's certainly become like very heretical,

358
00:45:43,143 --> 00:45:49,383
like in Bitcoin today to acknowledge that there are other cryptocurrencies with valid use cases

359
00:45:49,383 --> 00:45:56,423
and other use cases that currently use other cryptocurrencies that are valid, but that could

360
00:45:56,423 --> 00:46:03,863
also use Bitcoin. And so I appreciate that the drivechains, you know, kind of push has put some

361
00:46:03,863 --> 00:46:10,504
necessary stress on that, because I do think that personally, like my view on Bitcoin maximalism is

362
00:46:10,504 --> 00:46:16,344
that, you know, if we are not trying to erase or remove these other cryptocurrencies from existence,

363
00:46:16,344 --> 00:46:22,103
then we allow them to exist. And again, this is now we're talking about personally my personal

364
00:46:22,103 --> 00:46:29,543
view. I think that maximalism, you know, if it is to exist, you know, it has to then be geared in a

365
00:46:29,543 --> 00:46:35,143
way where it is actively competing against the other chains, and then, you know, taking market

366
00:46:35,143 --> 00:46:38,423
share from them. That's what I particularly thought was very exciting about, you know,

367
00:46:38,423 --> 00:46:42,904
the Ordinal's push earlier this year, the idea that, you know, someone could come up with an

368
00:46:42,904 --> 00:46:49,224
idea to permissionlessly serve a market on Bitcoin, and then compete against an existing market on

369
00:46:49,784 --> 00:46:55,944
another cryptocurrency, you know, in order to do that. Personally, I thought that was an exciting

370
00:46:55,944 --> 00:47:01,464
forward vision for Bitcoin, and one that I, you know, would like to see more of personally.

371
00:47:01,464 --> 00:47:05,383
The debate, though, then is then what is the right technical construct for how these things

372
00:47:05,383 --> 00:47:11,703
should be developed? Because, you know, it is true that, you know, their drivechains is a current

373
00:47:11,703 --> 00:47:16,184
proposal for this, but there was the sidechains proposal before that. I think that you're going

374
00:47:16,184 --> 00:47:21,703
to see a reality going forward, where there are more proposals for how to do things like

375
00:47:21,703 --> 00:47:26,823
sidechains that are not even drivechains. Like there are, I think, a number of people who have

376
00:47:26,823 --> 00:47:33,224
since the Ordinal's, you know, protocol launched, who are in like the Ethereum, DeFi sort of world,

377
00:47:33,224 --> 00:47:37,703
who are now moving over to Bitcoin, and then trying to figure out how to do these things,

378
00:47:37,703 --> 00:47:42,983
because they now see that they are sort of built on sand, and that they would like to move some of

379
00:47:42,983 --> 00:47:46,423
the things they're doing over to Bitcoin, right? I think ultimately, everybody will converge

380
00:47:46,423 --> 00:47:54,504
on using Bitcoin. The question then is, you know, which, you know, how do we achieve that result?

381
00:47:54,504 --> 00:47:59,464
Does it happen naturally? Do we have to do something, you know, adversarial in order for

382
00:47:59,464 --> 00:48:04,504
that to happen? So this is sort of where you get into like, we can both want the same thing,

383
00:48:04,504 --> 00:48:11,863
right? I can agree with you that there are some useful things happening within the larger

384
00:48:11,863 --> 00:48:17,063
cryptocurrency sphere. I can agree with you that I would like for those to occur on Bitcoin.

385
00:48:17,063 --> 00:48:23,143
I think that the end user would have a higher degree, you know, and a better product experience,

386
00:48:23,143 --> 00:48:27,864
and, you know, just have a more secure experience, if that was to be the case.

387
00:48:29,063 --> 00:48:34,263
But then I would still have to agree with you that drivechains are the best possible way to do that,

388
00:48:34,263 --> 00:48:39,383
and I would still have to then support whatever activation model you might propose for drive

389
00:48:39,383 --> 00:48:44,583
chains. So, you know, this is a good example, again, where it's like, I think I can agree with

390
00:48:44,583 --> 00:48:49,224
you on a couple levels, you know, that can be sort of high up and directional, but then like, now you

391
00:48:49,224 --> 00:48:55,063
still have to convince me to, you know, specifically support drivechains as the specific solution to

392
00:48:55,063 --> 00:49:01,464
this. When I would just say like, the long arc of Bitcoin is that, you know, there is no limit.

393
00:49:01,464 --> 00:49:07,224
So use one of Paul's favorite expressions. There's no limit on how good of an idea you can have,

394
00:49:07,224 --> 00:49:13,544
right? So to use Paul's own words against him a little bit, it's, you know, maybe there isn't a

395
00:49:13,544 --> 00:49:19,143
limit on how good an idea that someone can have to put a sidechain on Bitcoin, and that drive

396
00:49:19,143 --> 00:49:24,104
chains isn't the best idea, and that pushing for its activation now might not be the best idea,

397
00:49:24,664 --> 00:49:28,583
because that's always possible for someone to do that. So, you know, I don't know, I'd still have

398
00:49:28,583 --> 00:49:33,143
to then kind of weigh those positions, and then you'd have to put me in a position where it's like,

399
00:49:33,143 --> 00:49:38,344
I need to weigh those positions today, like, and I need to, as a user, like, make some decision now,

400
00:49:39,224 --> 00:49:45,063
right? And I think there's only so many ways that you can force someone into a decision point,

401
00:49:45,063 --> 00:49:49,943
right? You can only use, this is like classic sales tactics, right? You can only use fear

402
00:49:50,984 --> 00:49:57,063
or greed, or like, you have to sort of connect some emotion to it. And that's why I said earlier

403
00:49:57,063 --> 00:50:01,703
that it, you know, most of the time when I see the drivechains conversation, I know that you guys

404
00:50:02,664 --> 00:50:07,703
want to put forward a vision of like unification and sort of, you know, bringing all this innovation

405
00:50:07,703 --> 00:50:11,224
to Bitcoin, but like, a lot of times the conversation does rely on some sort of fear,

406
00:50:11,224 --> 00:50:16,024
right? Like you are kind of, you know, trying to destabilize my current view of Bitcoin,

407
00:50:16,984 --> 00:50:21,623
and get me to think that there's a possibility that, you know, even like the words that you

408
00:50:21,623 --> 00:50:26,344
just said about Bitcoin being like supplanted as like the number one cryptocurrency, like,

409
00:50:26,344 --> 00:50:30,743
personally, I would, I don't feel like that would be a negative. I feel like my personal mental

410
00:50:30,743 --> 00:50:37,623
model of Bitcoin is strong enough to withstand it being the number two cryptocurrency. But I see

411
00:50:37,623 --> 00:50:42,104
why it would be your benefit to describe it that way. You know, I just question like,

412
00:50:42,104 --> 00:50:46,344
how effective that would be. So I don't know, we can get into like all sorts of things here. But

413
00:50:46,344 --> 00:50:50,743
I think that there's, you know, there's levels of which I think I agree with a lot of things

414
00:50:50,743 --> 00:50:57,224
that are being said, but then, you know, this and this is the real test of any Bitcoin consensus

415
00:50:57,224 --> 00:51:03,304
changes that you you have to get me to come to a decision making point. And the only thing I can

416
00:51:03,304 --> 00:51:08,743
say to that is that, you know, above all, I think like, if there's something that unites all Bitcoin

417
00:51:08,743 --> 00:51:16,664
maximalists is that we want to maximally secure Bitcoin of the future, right? And I even lack

418
00:51:16,664 --> 00:51:21,544
the technical expertise to tell you that drivechains, you know, wouldn't negatively impact

419
00:51:21,544 --> 00:51:26,904
Bitcoin. And anyway, and so because I can't do that, how would I how would I ever make a decision

420
00:51:26,904 --> 00:51:30,904
there? And how could you ever get me to a to that point? I don't know, that was that would be the

421
00:51:30,904 --> 00:51:38,104
open question I would have. I agree with everything you said. That was so interesting. Except where you

422
00:51:38,104 --> 00:51:46,583
mentioned that the being number two might be okay. In your view, I feel like the problem with being

423
00:51:46,583 --> 00:51:54,823
number two in crypto is that network effect is very powerful in money. So in economic theory,

424
00:51:54,823 --> 00:51:59,943
network effect is most prevalent in the market for money more than any other kind of market for any

425
00:51:59,943 --> 00:52:07,143
other good. So if you're number two, then in long term equilibrium, you're going to not succeed,

426
00:52:07,943 --> 00:52:14,104
because people will go to the network that has the most users, because that's going to be the

427
00:52:14,104 --> 00:52:20,823
better money, strictly speaking. So if you had, for example, if Satoshi had created two projects,

428
00:52:21,623 --> 00:52:31,143
simultaneously, Bitcoin one and Bitcoin two. And if for some reason, Bitcoin and they were identical

429
00:52:31,143 --> 00:52:38,344
in every way, hypothetically, but if the first one had one more user than the second one, then in

430
00:52:38,344 --> 00:52:44,263
long term equilibrium, everyone would end up on the first one. So this is just a hypothetical,

431
00:52:44,823 --> 00:52:50,664
unrealistic, and not realistic hypothetical. But my point is, it's not good to be number two.

432
00:52:51,544 --> 00:52:56,263
So, of course, there's many other differences between, you know, the top two cryptos,

433
00:52:57,063 --> 00:53:03,784
many differences. So it's, there's many variables and complexities, but it is not good to be number

434
00:53:03,784 --> 00:53:10,424
two, Bitcoin should aim to stay number one, and in fact, absorb and conquer all of the others,

435
00:53:11,143 --> 00:53:16,424
sending their tokens to zero by absorbing their technology, by copying their open source tech

436
00:53:16,984 --> 00:53:23,063
into Bitcoin sidechains, and then potentially, their users would migrate after Bitcoiners

437
00:53:23,063 --> 00:53:28,344
start to use those sidechains. As a simple example, if we had a privacy sidechain, if 1%,

438
00:53:29,304 --> 00:53:34,984
just 1% of all Bitcoiners sent their Bitcoin to that privacy sidechain,

439
00:53:36,503 --> 00:53:42,664
that privacy sidechain would have $4 billion of market cap, which is bigger than Monero and

440
00:53:42,664 --> 00:53:49,464
Zcash combined. And the network effect and security of that privacy sidechain might,

441
00:53:50,344 --> 00:53:58,904
because of its robust, you know, size, and potential fee revenue might be better in every

442
00:53:58,904 --> 00:54:04,823
way than the privacy altcoins. Therefore, if the users migrate, if just some of the altcoin users

443
00:54:04,823 --> 00:54:11,224
migrate to the Bitcoin privacy sidechain, already, the balance is even further made,

444
00:54:11,224 --> 00:54:16,344
the imbalance where the Bitcoin sidechain is growing, providing value and fees to Bitcoin

445
00:54:16,344 --> 00:54:22,424
mainchain. And the altcoiners are shrinking, and as they shrink more and more, the flip,

446
00:54:22,424 --> 00:54:27,063
the seesaw rocks even further, and then the imbalance is even greater. And eventually,

447
00:54:27,063 --> 00:54:32,024
the only people left holding the altcoin tokens who haven't sold are loyalists who don't care

448
00:54:32,024 --> 00:54:38,263
about utility, and simply are speculating to pump their bag, which is their right to do so,

449
00:54:38,263 --> 00:54:42,344
nothing wrong with that, but they're going to lose. So if that's the drivechain theory,

450
00:54:42,344 --> 00:54:48,183
the optimistic case for drivechain is that it absorbs the privacy users, all of them. And

451
00:54:50,183 --> 00:54:54,743
then this could happen with every other altcoin that has genuine utility,

452
00:54:54,743 --> 00:55:02,424
like the privacy altcoins, such as the Oracle focused blockchain users, and the large block

453
00:55:02,424 --> 00:55:06,503
blockchain users. So those are all legitimate technologies, large blocks,

454
00:55:06,503 --> 00:55:13,623
oracles, privacy tech, they're legitimate on sidechains of Bitcoin, which means that Bitcoin

455
00:55:13,623 --> 00:55:18,984
mainchain would be able to be more conservative, more stable, more digital gold, because it would

456
00:55:18,984 --> 00:55:25,784
be the base layer to all of these experimental and innovative, totally optional venues for blockchain

457
00:55:25,784 --> 00:55:32,024
use. And those uses would share Bitcoin's monetary policy and miners. So you get all of that. But the

458
00:55:32,024 --> 00:55:36,344
one thing we disagreed on in your beautiful statement was when you said it's okay to be

459
00:55:37,304 --> 00:55:43,784
number two, you don't want to be number two, right? You want to stay number one. And it's funny that

460
00:55:44,583 --> 00:55:49,623
you talked about things being sometimes too negative in drivechain discourse, like, you know,

461
00:55:49,623 --> 00:55:56,743
security budget concern, or flipping concern. But I sometimes hear the opposite. When we had Bob

462
00:55:56,743 --> 00:56:02,984
McElrath here, who I really enjoyed his his comments. One thing we you know, he sometimes

463
00:56:02,984 --> 00:56:08,823
disagrees with us is that he says, Oh, you guys shouldn't be talking about number go up. It's not

464
00:56:09,623 --> 00:56:14,664
the right kind of way to think about Bitcoin. This is a project for things other than just get rich

465
00:56:14,664 --> 00:56:23,224
quick. So stop talking about NGU. That's offensive to, you know, in his view, to his, you know,

466
00:56:23,224 --> 00:56:28,503
values. So some people say that we shouldn't be so bullish on drivechain as a mechanism for

467
00:56:28,503 --> 00:56:34,904
Bitcoin to accrue value and get more users. Instead, they would prefer what, you know, Lopp

468
00:56:34,904 --> 00:56:40,024
called like the puritanical approach, which is that this is about purity, you know,

469
00:56:40,823 --> 00:56:46,024
Bitcoin, not blockchain. We don't want to, as Jimmy Song would say, we don't want to validate

470
00:56:46,024 --> 00:56:51,143
the shit coins by, you know, creating all these sidechains for all these different

471
00:56:51,143 --> 00:56:57,383
dubious experiments. So some people have kind of like, they condemn when we go positive,

472
00:56:58,024 --> 00:57:02,983
and then others would condemn when we go negative. So it's tough to

473
00:57:02,983 --> 00:57:07,544
Well, because ultimately, you're, you know, you're proposing a change to Bitcoin, and you have to

474
00:57:07,544 --> 00:57:13,623
convince the body populace that it's the, you know, not not only, you know, good idea, but it's

475
00:57:13,623 --> 00:57:17,544
the best possible idea that they need to do it now. And yeah, you know, look, I think your

476
00:57:18,343 --> 00:57:23,863
description of like, you know, nobody ever said like the drivechains, you know, model for the

477
00:57:23,863 --> 00:57:28,024
future, like doesn't sound good, right? I mean, the idea that we could, you know, get useful

478
00:57:28,983 --> 00:57:34,343
clients to migrate and accrue network effects, you know, is great, right? I don't think anybody

479
00:57:34,343 --> 00:57:38,343
ever had a problem with that. I mean, I think, you know, personally, I think that, you know,

480
00:57:39,304 --> 00:57:44,503
the sidechains idea, you know, for Bitcoin, to me, that's the genesis of maximalism is

481
00:57:44,503 --> 00:57:49,784
maximalism doesn't really even start until, you know, the sidechains idea was born.

482
00:57:51,143 --> 00:57:55,143
And I've always found it to be a pretty compelling theory. But you know, to your point, I mean,

483
00:57:55,784 --> 00:58:02,024
look, there's large, different sentiments about what could happen, right? Many people think that,

484
00:58:03,064 --> 00:58:05,784
you know, we could go through the whole process of putting these things on

485
00:58:06,983 --> 00:58:10,263
Bitcoin, and then they just still exist as altcoins, right? Like there's, you know,

486
00:58:10,424 --> 00:58:14,263
now you've just added more options to the market. And so ultimately, you know,

487
00:58:14,263 --> 00:58:19,544
because the end user can feel any number of ways about, you know, this future,

488
00:58:21,544 --> 00:58:25,623
you know, again, like, I would say, like, you know, it's kind of the onus is on you guys,

489
00:58:25,623 --> 00:58:29,383
though, right? Because you're the ones proposing the consensus change to Bitcoin, right? Like,

490
00:58:29,383 --> 00:58:34,263
you're asking for a specific change. Well, maybe not yet, because there is there's no proposed

491
00:58:34,263 --> 00:58:38,424
code. But like, you know, that's that's strongly the narrative direction, right? Is that like,

492
00:58:38,424 --> 00:58:43,784
want the group of, you know, Bitcoin software users to change Bitcoin in this way.

493
00:58:45,304 --> 00:58:49,383
So yeah, I mean, look, I to the extent that you guys have a challenge in sort of convincing people,

494
00:58:49,383 --> 00:58:53,704
I would say that that's largely a good thing. This is the system that's been engineered.

495
00:58:53,704 --> 00:58:58,584
This is like why it exists. And I imagine you're going to continue to find that challenging,

496
00:58:58,584 --> 00:59:04,184
because, yes, it is true that at any point, people can just choose to feel however they

497
00:59:04,983 --> 00:59:09,784
want and not support drivechains. But you know, that was the case for pretty much every other

498
00:59:10,664 --> 00:59:13,944
Bitcoin upgrade that happened as well, right? There was never really,

499
00:59:13,944 --> 00:59:17,223
you know, at the end of the day, it's like the Bitcoin users didn't have to adopt SegWit.

500
00:59:17,223 --> 00:59:23,544
There wasn't really anything, you know, that, you know, at least that we, you know, know today,

501
00:59:23,544 --> 00:59:27,944
it's like, you know, would Bitcoin have been, you know, destroyed, if that didn't happen, like,

502
00:59:27,944 --> 00:59:32,263
now it would still be around, right, in some way. So again, I don't know, this is sort of

503
00:59:33,143 --> 00:59:37,704
where we are in the conversation, you know, I don't, I'm sympathetic to your,

504
00:59:37,704 --> 00:59:41,704
you know, you're feeling like you can't win with some people, but

505
00:59:43,427 --> 00:59:46,787
you know, that's the model for consensus upgrades right now.

506
00:59:48,627 --> 00:59:54,307
Well said. Pete, we've been going for an hour now. I just want to thank you for the time you spent

507
00:59:54,307 --> 01:00:00,146
with us so far. And I hope that you'll have time in your in your busy schedule to come back again,

508
01:00:00,867 --> 01:00:05,826
when Paul's here right now, or at some point today, Paul is debating with Peter Todd, so he

509
01:00:05,826 --> 01:00:10,387
couldn't make it to today's space. But usually he's here, and it would have been awesome to hear

510
01:00:10,387 --> 01:00:16,067
you guys talk about drivechain at length. So if you're free to stay another half hour or hour,

511
01:00:16,067 --> 01:00:21,826
please do. And also, I'm sure you're busy. So, you know, let us know anytime you want to drop

512
01:00:21,826 --> 01:00:26,227
Yeah, I'm happy to hang out and take questions, you know, or whatever, whatever you guys want.

513
01:00:26,227 --> 01:00:31,507
I mean, obviously, I have I have the time book that you guys allotted for, you know, I do think

514
01:00:31,507 --> 01:00:35,986
there's a lot to go into. You know, I think we've covered sort of high level how I look at the

515
01:00:35,986 --> 01:00:41,106
space. I think we've covered sort of my, you know, views towards drivechains as a proposal.

516
01:00:41,907 --> 01:00:45,027
You know, I think to the extent that hopefully that was valuable to you guys, I think I've tried

517
01:00:45,027 --> 01:00:49,746
to articulate from like, you know, a user acquisition standpoint. I mean, look, I mean,

518
01:00:49,746 --> 01:00:54,947
a consensus upgrade is like you're marketing something, right? And it's, you know, ultimately,

519
01:00:54,947 --> 01:00:59,746
you're going to have to get people to, you know, buy that marketing message, right, to get the

520
01:00:59,746 --> 01:01:04,227
change across. So, you know, if I can be helpful in illustrating, like, you know, why I think that

521
01:01:04,227 --> 01:01:09,187
there's a number of steps to that, I'm like, what particular pain points I think you could

522
01:01:09,907 --> 01:01:15,746
address, right? I think like, you know, maybe that could be helpful. But you know, right now,

523
01:01:15,746 --> 01:01:19,987
I do see it as like, you know, there are a number of steps to get people, you know,

524
01:01:19,987 --> 01:01:25,106
on board with something like drivechains. And, you know, I still personally feel like,

525
01:01:27,746 --> 01:01:31,987
you know, I again, like to push for like, you know, personally, where I'm at on this is like,

526
01:01:31,987 --> 01:01:36,786
you know, I think that it would be prudent for the drivechains community to activate

527
01:01:36,786 --> 01:01:42,706
drivechains on some other chain, because I think that demonstrating that this has utility

528
01:01:42,706 --> 01:01:49,426
and market fit, and that there aren't negatives to it, conclusively, is probably the only way

529
01:01:49,426 --> 01:01:54,946
that you're going to be able to convince enough people that this makes sense. Because as I think

530
01:01:54,946 --> 01:02:00,866
I've said, like, you know, again, like in a box, like I'm not even myself, it's like I'm not enough

531
01:02:00,866 --> 01:02:05,427
of a technical expert to tell you that this won't have any negative repercussions. And I think you're

532
01:02:05,427 --> 01:02:10,547
going to find that most Bitcoin users, unless they feel, you know, 100% convinced that something's

533
01:02:10,547 --> 01:02:15,347
not going to negatively affect Bitcoin, it's gonna be very hard for them to feel comfortable

534
01:02:15,347 --> 01:02:21,267
doing anything. And yeah, you know, the activation route for drivechains, if there is going to be

535
01:02:21,267 --> 01:02:27,267
one that exists, like, you know, it's I personally don't think that it's going to be you guys

536
01:02:27,267 --> 01:02:33,507
circulating this conversation, everybody thinking about it critically, and then coming back with,

537
01:02:33,507 --> 01:02:37,907
you know, a unanimous consensus that this should happen. I just I don't think that's a logical,

538
01:02:38,787 --> 01:02:43,826
you know, a road right in the case of tap for them. And there was like an eight year old proposal that

539
01:02:43,826 --> 01:02:47,586
like, you know, was finally everybody was so exhausted arguing about it, there was no more

540
01:02:48,787 --> 01:02:54,707
dissent, right? That's how it was activated. So, you know, I don't know, it's, I think it's

541
01:02:54,707 --> 01:02:59,507
gonna be a long road either way. But I just think that, like, you know, I'd probably encourage you

542
01:02:59,507 --> 01:03:07,187
guys to work towards positive incentive. Or maybe, maybe I wouldn't say positive, like proof based,

543
01:03:07,187 --> 01:03:12,787
like, you know, methods of convincing people, right? Because it's, it's one thing to talk

544
01:03:12,787 --> 01:03:17,187
theoretics, and it's another thing to see something live somewhere and see that it works. And it's

545
01:03:17,187 --> 01:03:21,427
like, it becomes very obvious that something functions that way. And that's why I brought up

546
01:03:21,427 --> 01:03:26,787
the SegWit example, because it was an example where, you know, there was debate, there was all

547
01:03:26,787 --> 01:03:31,666
this theoretics, but like, at the end of the day, it was very easy to see that like SegWit, like,

548
01:03:31,666 --> 01:03:37,427
you know, activated on Litecoin, the Litecoin price went up. And everybody was very happy with that

549
01:03:37,987 --> 01:03:42,866
over in Litecoin lands, and the Bitcoiners were, you know, mostly upset about it, right? So there's

550
01:03:42,866 --> 01:03:49,026
very, that's a very powerful argument that like, isn't theoretical. And, you know, it's my personal

551
01:03:49,026 --> 01:03:54,946
belief that a large, you know, reason that, that SegWit ultimately activated, you know, was because

552
01:03:54,946 --> 01:04:00,466
of that, I mean, people forget that the timeline is, you know, SegWit activated on Litecoin before

553
01:04:00,466 --> 01:04:06,546
UASF was even a thing, right, that you're talking about, like, March 2007, UASF wasn't even around

554
01:04:06,546 --> 01:04:14,627
until April and May. You know, there was a good bit of time there where, you know, things were

555
01:04:14,706 --> 01:04:20,627
at a gridlock. And, you know, ultimately, there needed to be some sort of demonstration of the

556
01:04:20,627 --> 01:04:26,146
tech, right? I mean, again, I can't, I don't know how you're gonna convince people to make a change

557
01:04:26,146 --> 01:04:29,827
to Bitcoin, unless you can demonstrate that there isn't the negatives, especially when right now,

558
01:04:29,827 --> 01:04:34,306
it's like, you know, you go on Twitter. And every time there's a post, you know, there's a bunch of

559
01:04:34,306 --> 01:04:38,627
other people commenting technical concerns, right? It's like, I'm not enough of an expert to

560
01:04:39,266 --> 01:04:44,866
falsify those claims. So, you know, I don't know how that you're going to sway my opinion there.

561
01:04:44,866 --> 01:04:49,586
Let's focus then on the less technical, more sociological thing that you mentioned at the

562
01:04:49,586 --> 01:04:54,947
very earliest part of this conversation. So if, and then we'll go to questions. And

563
01:04:54,947 --> 01:04:58,627
thanks to those who've joined. Thank you very much. We'll get to your questions very soon.

564
01:04:59,986 --> 01:05:04,706
You mentioned at the very beginning, some sociological stuff about drivechain. And

565
01:05:04,706 --> 01:05:13,347
when I mentioned the attrition within Bitcoin's sidechain community, you didn't seem to...

566
01:05:13,347 --> 01:05:16,306
I don't really know what you mean by that. What do you mean by that?

567
01:05:16,306 --> 01:05:20,306
Sure. Yeah. Thanks for asking. So this is something Paul's talked about where

568
01:05:20,306 --> 01:05:26,067
the people who are technical, as well as just fans of Bitcoin, who like sidechains,

569
01:05:26,706 --> 01:05:36,466
those are inherently the kinds of people who have a less negative attitude towards altcoins

570
01:05:36,466 --> 01:05:41,426
as a category, because these are people who are interested in experimentation and innovation.

571
01:05:42,947 --> 01:05:50,067
And therefore, the Bitcoin sidechain community suffers from a high rate of attrition.

572
01:05:51,026 --> 01:05:56,466
People who would have been in Bitcoin and advocated for better sidechains

573
01:05:57,507 --> 01:06:04,866
have, many of them, simply gotten frustrated with the pace and the low prospect of better

574
01:06:04,866 --> 01:06:11,507
sidechains coming. And therefore, they left to develop and contribute to altcoins. That's the

575
01:06:11,507 --> 01:06:17,986
theory that I'm suggesting. That's what I mean when I say attrition. So what do you think about

576
01:06:17,986 --> 01:06:22,706
that? That people who like innovation and experimentation, which is a certain kind of

577
01:06:22,706 --> 01:06:26,706
person. Some people aren't so into innovation and experimentation. They enjoy tradition and

578
01:06:26,706 --> 01:06:34,787
simplicity and conservatism. But the kind of person who likes innovation and experimentation

579
01:06:35,746 --> 01:06:41,426
is a natural fit to advocate for better sidechains on Bitcoin. Those people, many of them, have left

580
01:06:41,426 --> 01:06:47,026
and built in the altcoin space, in some cases with great success, like Ethereum. So what are

581
01:06:47,026 --> 01:06:52,227
your thoughts on that? They would be here if only Bitcoin existed. They would be here pushing

582
01:06:52,227 --> 01:06:59,107
for drivechain activation. But instead, they're in Ethereum, where they don't benefit at all

583
01:06:59,107 --> 01:07:05,187
from Bitcoin activating drivechain. And in fact, of course, you would understand our view, which

584
01:07:05,187 --> 01:07:10,466
is that if Bitcoin activates drivechain, that would be a major threat to Ethereum's narratives.

585
01:07:11,266 --> 01:07:19,187
Oh, boy. Yeah. Let me see. Where can I start with that? Yeah, I mean, look, I think that there's

586
01:07:19,187 --> 01:07:24,706
nothing preventing people from building on other cryptocurrencies from participating in Bitcoin's

587
01:07:24,706 --> 01:07:33,026
consensus. So that's kind of a weird thing to throw out there. I think that the idea that,

588
01:07:33,026 --> 01:07:37,507
I mean, again, like, you know, the idea that we can have all the people who are working on

589
01:07:38,466 --> 01:07:43,986
other cryptocurrencies furthering Bitcoin is still a great idea. But you're still

590
01:07:45,667 --> 01:07:49,986
dealing with the fundamental tension point, which is that there has to be an acknowledgement that

591
01:07:49,986 --> 01:07:55,667
there are things outside of Bitcoin that have value. In order for anyone to think that drivechains

592
01:07:55,667 --> 01:08:00,787
is a good idea, they first have to think that something happening outside of Bitcoin

593
01:08:01,426 --> 01:08:06,627
is working or that it has value. And so the problem with that is that the culture

594
01:08:06,706 --> 01:08:12,546
has spent most of the last three or four years attempting to invalidate that. So the large

595
01:08:12,546 --> 01:08:17,027
majority of Bitcoin culture has been focused on this idea, you know, you can call it sort of the

596
01:08:17,027 --> 01:08:22,467
immaculate conception theory of Bitcoin, that Bitcoin is, you know, the only blockchain that's

597
01:08:22,467 --> 01:08:29,827
going to occur long term monetary value anyway, without making any changes, that is already better

598
01:08:29,827 --> 01:08:35,346
than all these other things. And then, you know, to the extent that, you know, some people believe

599
01:08:35,346 --> 01:08:40,627
this, that eventually all that innovation will come to Bitcoin anyway, they'll just need to

600
01:08:40,627 --> 01:08:45,346
figure out a way to do it. And a great example of that would be, you know, from the detractor

601
01:08:45,346 --> 01:08:50,707
standpoint, you know, somebody figured out how to put NFTs on Bitcoin with ordinals. And, you know,

602
01:08:50,707 --> 01:08:57,187
the market for those ordinals has still gone down, and still trended negatively in the direction of

603
01:08:57,746 --> 01:09:03,986
that market anyway. So again, if I was a steel man, like an argument from the perspective of

604
01:09:03,986 --> 01:09:09,507
someone who didn't want Bitcoin to change that they thought, you know, the Bitcoin that Satoshi

605
01:09:09,507 --> 01:09:14,546
invented was perfect forever, how I would invalidate or argue to invalidate what you just

606
01:09:14,546 --> 01:09:19,507
said was I would I would point out to you that when somebody did finally figure out a way to

607
01:09:19,507 --> 01:09:24,707
bring NFTs to Bitcoin's base layer, and finally had the ingenuity to do that, the market collapsed

608
01:09:24,707 --> 01:09:30,947
anyway, thus proving that it was perhaps foolish to do so originally. So I mean, again, I think you

609
01:09:30,947 --> 01:09:37,106
still sort of end up having to fight a larger battle. So like, you know, if there was an

610
01:09:37,106 --> 01:09:41,986
argument that, you know, cryptocurrencies outside of Bitcoin have utility, well, then now you have

611
01:09:41,986 --> 01:09:46,306
to go convince the culture that that's true. But then the culture has spent the last three years,

612
01:09:47,187 --> 01:09:52,387
convincing itself that it's not true. So you sort of have a larger battle there. And then it's like,

613
01:09:52,387 --> 01:09:56,467
well, to what extent does that move the needle on drivechains, now you're just sort of,

614
01:09:57,106 --> 01:09:59,587
you know, you're in a whole other subject of argumentation.

615
01:10:01,187 --> 01:10:05,027
Which means that, like, again, there's something that people have to think inherently in order for

616
01:10:05,027 --> 01:10:09,746
them to think the drivechains is the right solution for that. But then if a natural and

617
01:10:09,746 --> 01:10:14,306
sort of like objective view on like, how that conversation has developed, would be like,

618
01:10:14,306 --> 01:10:18,786
it was very unlikely for people to get to that point, because they've spent the last three years

619
01:10:18,786 --> 01:10:21,986
invalidating that. To your point, I guess, you know, your argument is that people have left

620
01:10:21,986 --> 01:10:27,827
Bitcoin, you know, who would take that view. But I don't really I don't understand how that

621
01:10:27,827 --> 01:10:33,187
changes the conversation. I mean, again, like, you know, Udi had Vitalik on his faces talking

622
01:10:33,187 --> 01:10:37,827
about Bitcoin stuff. I mean, it's not like these people disappeared. And it's not like just because

623
01:10:37,827 --> 01:10:41,906
you build stuff for them to build on Bitcoin, they're just going to come running back. I mean,

624
01:10:41,906 --> 01:10:46,627
they have vested incentives to continue their current projects. I mean, I don't know. I mean,

625
01:10:46,627 --> 01:10:51,666
do you think that like, even if drivechains activated, there wouldn't be some fairly long

626
01:10:51,666 --> 01:10:55,267
period like where most of the other altcoins were still active? I mean, that just seems

627
01:10:56,147 --> 01:11:01,346
that would seem shocking to me. I would say like, you know, I would probably expect anywhere from

628
01:11:01,346 --> 01:11:07,346
like five to 10 years or at least these things were overlapping. Yeah, I agree. That's your

629
01:11:07,346 --> 01:11:12,226
point about vested interest just now. That's exactly my point. That was what I'm trying to

630
01:11:12,226 --> 01:11:19,346
say about the attrition. So the point is simply that one thing to have in mind about the drive

631
01:11:19,346 --> 01:11:23,106
chain movement is that some of the people who would have been advocating for it now,

632
01:11:23,746 --> 01:11:28,707
as you say, have a vested interest because they chose to leave and chose to try to build

633
01:11:28,707 --> 01:11:33,906
a competitor, some other project with different features, and therefore they have a vested

634
01:11:33,906 --> 01:11:38,387
interest, as you say. So they're not going to spend time trying to promote something here

635
01:11:38,947 --> 01:11:45,346
that would enable more competition against their project. Like if you built Chainlink,

636
01:11:45,346 --> 01:11:48,866
then you're not going to try to have Paul's hive mind launching.

637
01:11:48,866 --> 01:11:53,507
Yeah. And you saw that with Ordinals, right? With Ordinals, there was some lower level projects that

638
01:11:53,507 --> 01:11:57,986
were built on Ethereum that flipped over to Bitcoin because they saw the initial, you know,

639
01:11:57,986 --> 01:12:02,707
advantage of diversifying to a new market. But in a large part, like most of the entrenched incumbents

640
01:12:03,267 --> 01:12:08,147
are still long ETH, they're still long Solana, and they're still, you know, trapped within the

641
01:12:08,147 --> 01:12:12,707
social mindset of their communities where, you know, they can't diversify the other direction.

642
01:12:12,707 --> 01:12:16,546
So like, even though someone came up with some solution that accommodated them on Bitcoin,

643
01:12:17,267 --> 01:12:23,986
there's still an inherent cultural motivation for them to not make that move, even though,

644
01:12:23,986 --> 01:12:27,346
like potentially, they could have had an economic incentive to change. So like,

645
01:12:27,346 --> 01:12:31,267
I feel like that's just like a perfect example of, you know, what you're talking about, where it's

646
01:12:31,267 --> 01:12:35,986
like, even if you launch the drivechain technologies, it's like, you know, these things

647
01:12:35,986 --> 01:12:40,226
are still going to be around and there's still going to be, you know, these vested interests

648
01:12:40,226 --> 01:12:43,906
on the other side who like, you know, could use this stuff, but just won't for whatever reason,

649
01:12:43,906 --> 01:12:45,746
right. So that just makes the argument even more difficult.

650
01:12:46,546 --> 01:12:51,187
Yeah. Yeah, I mean, there's, there's the founders, and then there's the users

651
01:12:51,187 --> 01:12:55,507
who might be more indifferent and just want the best value. So they might come over,

652
01:12:55,507 --> 01:13:01,267
and then the founder were just left without the users in theory. But we have, we've had some

653
01:13:01,267 --> 01:13:06,786
great people join the stage. I see some familiar faces, let's just enable like anyone on stage,

654
01:13:06,786 --> 01:13:09,106
if you have questions, go right ahead with your questions.

655
01:13:09,346 --> 01:13:13,666
I've got, I've got some comments and some questions here. I mean, I think generally,

656
01:13:13,666 --> 01:13:20,306
the problem isn't that specifically about drivechains or consensus, it's about the fact that in

657
01:13:20,306 --> 01:13:26,226
order to make a change in Bitcoin, you have to get approval from a very small, very specific group of

658
01:13:26,226 --> 01:13:34,627
people to enable that change. And ultimately, the reality is that it's not necessarily specifically

659
01:13:34,627 --> 01:13:40,067
about drivechains or sidechains. It's about the ability to innovate on top of Bitcoin and

660
01:13:40,067 --> 01:13:45,746
essentially make it free to do whatever you want to do with this massive...

661
01:13:46,387 --> 01:13:50,467
Well, I mean, the word innovation is like a very loaded term, right? Like it doesn't really have

662
01:13:50,467 --> 01:13:55,666
any specific definition. And, you know, I appreciate your frustrations with the development

663
01:13:55,666 --> 01:13:59,587
process. I mean, it's just emphatically not true that a small group of people, you know,

664
01:13:59,587 --> 01:14:03,906
determine what happens with Bitcoin. You know, it's a fairly, I would agree with you that it's

665
01:14:03,906 --> 01:14:08,627
an opaque process. But, you know, what we're looking for, what that group is looking for

666
01:14:09,346 --> 01:14:14,707
is that there isn't any vocal dissent against the idea. Like, so they're not looking for some

667
01:14:14,707 --> 01:14:19,827
small group of people to be for the idea. I think like this is vastly misinterpreted. It's like,

668
01:14:19,827 --> 01:14:25,746
they're actually looking for there to be a large or like plurality of people who aren't against it.

669
01:14:26,147 --> 01:14:32,707
This was actually the argument, you know, back in the day when, you know, Bitcoin was trying

670
01:14:32,707 --> 01:14:37,827
to upgrade with SegWit. It was, you know, that there was never an interest in merging anything

671
01:14:37,827 --> 01:14:42,226
that was contentious, right? So that a lot of these proposals were never even discussed because

672
01:14:42,226 --> 01:14:46,467
they were contentious. So I think, you know, this is like a misinterpretation thing here. But,

673
01:14:47,507 --> 01:14:51,267
you know, the Bitcoin development culture largely has a long term view. They want to have Bitcoin

674
01:14:51,267 --> 01:14:55,746
operate for hundreds of years. So therefore, to them, anything that is contentious,

675
01:14:56,866 --> 01:15:01,426
in terms of a, you know, proposed upgrade, is like a non starter. So what they're looking for,

676
01:15:01,426 --> 01:15:05,267
and a great example where you can tell this is true, and I would actually encourage you to look

677
01:15:05,267 --> 01:15:10,226
at this with like, a fresh perspective is that, look what happened with CTV, right? So with BIP

678
01:15:10,226 --> 01:15:17,187
119, Jeremy Rubin came out and he did a couple things. He one proposed, you know, a model for,

679
01:15:17,746 --> 01:15:25,187
you know, how we could have, you know, cost to the solutions on Bitcoin via covenants, right?

680
01:15:25,187 --> 01:15:29,426
Like, so there's a specific technical change to Bitcoin that he proposed. And then he proposed

681
01:15:29,426 --> 01:15:33,746
like a governance change on top of that, where he was like publishing all the different softwares

682
01:15:33,746 --> 01:15:38,147
for the users to run directly, you know, in terms of like, so they could activate it,

683
01:15:38,147 --> 01:15:46,226
the users want to activate it, they could. So what was rejected when Jeremy did this was not CTV,

684
01:15:47,507 --> 01:15:52,546
what was rejected was his, you know, weird governance proposal thing around it. And what

685
01:15:52,546 --> 01:15:56,387
you'll find now is that the conversation about CTV is still continuing, the conversations about

686
01:15:56,387 --> 01:16:02,306
covenants still continued. And it's actually trending, where CTV is less controversial,

687
01:16:02,306 --> 01:16:06,226
this is a year and a half removed with him pushing on this, and that most people who

688
01:16:06,226 --> 01:16:11,507
were originally against it, because of how he was advocating for it, you know, you saw this

689
01:16:11,507 --> 01:16:16,387
recently with Giacomo Zucco and Francis Puglio, you know, basically saying that they would support,

690
01:16:16,387 --> 01:16:22,546
you know, software activation of CTV, that they now view it as non controversial, and therefore

691
01:16:22,546 --> 01:16:27,346
they support it. So again, I think that some of those social signaling you're talking about is a

692
01:16:27,346 --> 01:16:31,346
little bit misinterpreted. It's like, the Bitcoin development process right now is designed to

693
01:16:31,346 --> 01:16:36,067
basically just block anything that is seen as contentious. And the CTV one is a great example

694
01:16:36,067 --> 01:16:41,267
of something that was very contentious, but is like slowly becoming non contentious. And it

695
01:16:41,267 --> 01:16:45,906
actually might evolve all the way to the point where it's so non contentious, it gets activated,

696
01:16:45,906 --> 01:16:49,026
that just that might be the plausible reality that we're currently living in.

697
01:16:49,827 --> 01:16:52,467
And it could be that that's one of well, one of the next upgrades.

698
01:16:53,827 --> 01:16:56,707
I agree with that. Um, I want to say,

699
01:16:58,146 --> 01:17:03,187
Okay, but when you say that what they are looking for, who specifically are you talking about? And

700
01:17:03,187 --> 01:17:08,306
how many people is that? Yeah, but the governance of Bitcoin is just anybody who runs a node. I

701
01:17:08,306 --> 01:17:12,467
mean, like everybody who's an economic actor within Bitcoin. Well, it's not true. Because

702
01:17:12,546 --> 01:17:15,906
if stock chains were enabled, and anyone who runs a node can make a decision,

703
01:17:15,906 --> 01:17:20,306
they would be able to do that. Right. But you can't get the proposal.

704
01:17:20,306 --> 01:17:22,626
Who's talking right now? I don't see. I don't know who's who's talking.

705
01:17:22,626 --> 01:17:24,306
It's Randy from Ordinal's Wallet.

706
01:17:25,506 --> 01:17:29,906
Randy, I don't agree with you either. Because I think that what you're missing is if the majority

707
01:17:29,906 --> 01:17:35,827
of Bitcoin users do want a proposal, and that you have to get on it without any consent,

708
01:17:35,827 --> 01:17:40,227
the development proposal to pass in order for nodes to vote on this thing, correct?

709
01:17:40,227 --> 01:17:44,786
Completely not. If the majority of users run the node, you don't need any approval from

710
01:17:44,786 --> 01:17:46,867
from the core devs at all. 100%.

711
01:17:48,227 --> 01:17:51,666
Like, I don't understand, like how the Ordinal's people are arguing that like, you need

712
01:17:53,506 --> 01:17:57,906
like this belief that they have against like, core devs controlling everything.

713
01:17:58,546 --> 01:18:02,306
Well, I'm just saying that, like, you know, what I've said about this is Casey's greatest

714
01:18:02,306 --> 01:18:06,386
contribution with Ordinal's is that he didn't ask anybody for permission. Like that was emphatically

715
01:18:06,386 --> 01:18:10,146
that was actually what was good about the Ordinal's proposal is that he didn't ask for

716
01:18:10,146 --> 01:18:15,187
anyone's permission, and that he didn't need that. Because of the way his proposal was designed. So

717
01:18:16,146 --> 01:18:19,426
how does that I don't understand how that doesn't invalidate the point that you just made that like

718
01:18:19,426 --> 01:18:23,827
a small group of people control things, because if they controlled things, then Casey would have

719
01:18:23,827 --> 01:18:27,506
had to go for them to approval, which he didn't. And so like, how are we even still having this

720
01:18:27,506 --> 01:18:32,227
conversation? Because it seems so overwhelmingly obvious that we exist at a time right now where

721
01:18:32,855 --> 01:18:39,495
yeah, like maybe it does take 10 years for somebody to figure out how to put NFTs on Bitcoin without making consensus change.

722
01:18:39,495 --> 01:18:46,775
But lo and behold, like here we are, and someone did that just means that there's a sufficiently high bar for someone doing that.

723
01:18:46,775 --> 01:18:55,255
And then even if he does that, when the market doesn't maybe doesn't necessarily have to care about that. I mean, you know, yeah, I'm positive on Ordinal's.

724
01:18:55,255 --> 01:19:00,055
I mean, the other example is also from SegWit activation that the the node software was not from core.

725
01:19:00,695 --> 01:19:05,415
It was just like from a random dev that was anonymous that everybody started to run for a user activated.

726
01:19:05,415 --> 01:19:12,614
And that's another proof that activation for even consensus changes doesn't have to come from core at all.

727
01:19:12,614 --> 01:19:14,055
So I agree with that 100%.

728
01:19:14,055 --> 01:19:20,215
I don't even think a core wants it. I mean, one of the problems is the core doesn't want doesn't want any activation attempts to come from them.

729
01:19:20,215 --> 01:19:21,335
Yeah, that's true.

730
01:19:21,335 --> 01:19:22,935
Criticism of Jeremy.

731
01:19:23,015 --> 01:19:26,055
Yeah, so that point is just completely false.

732
01:19:26,055 --> 01:19:29,974
But I want to say something from what we talked about previously.

733
01:19:29,974 --> 01:19:36,454
I think that it's really nice how you categorize like to basically gain a user or not gain a user.

734
01:19:36,454 --> 01:19:39,734
You have to basically convince them of all these points that you pointed out.

735
01:19:39,734 --> 01:19:43,414
And then you'll see, all right, well, this is going to be a lot harder to convince them on all of these points.

736
01:19:43,414 --> 01:19:45,895
So you have to find what can you convince them on.

737
01:19:45,895 --> 01:19:52,054
And you mentioned that the rewards for Drivechain is like greatly known and things like this.

738
01:19:52,054 --> 01:19:57,255
And I think that that is actually not correct because of what you guys talked about after that.

739
01:19:57,895 --> 01:20:01,975
The general, well, from my experience, the majority of Bitcoin users,

740
01:20:01,975 --> 01:20:06,535
they look at any other chain or any other coin as being completely valueless.

741
01:20:06,535 --> 01:20:09,255
And there's no value at all from anything else.

742
01:20:09,255 --> 01:20:14,374
And I think because, like you mentioned, the culture has conditioned them to believe that

743
01:20:14,374 --> 01:20:18,374
after a period of time, now that is their belief.

744
01:20:18,774 --> 01:20:22,694
So anything like they don't see any kind of reward from Drivechain.

745
01:20:22,694 --> 01:20:24,855
So I think that the reward for Drivechain.

746
01:20:24,855 --> 01:20:29,814
Yeah, that's sort of why I said, like, to me, that seems like a bigger problem.

747
01:20:29,814 --> 01:20:34,855
Because you have, so in marketing, like, you know, this means like you have upstream problems, right?

748
01:20:34,855 --> 01:20:39,895
So like, so for example, like, I don't know, like the Segway, right?

749
01:20:39,895 --> 01:20:42,935
Like that came to market, they had to convince people to like use this thing.

750
01:20:42,935 --> 01:20:45,095
And then they have to not walk different places, right?

751
01:20:45,175 --> 01:20:48,534
So you always have like, or like, you know, the iPhone, right?

752
01:20:48,534 --> 01:20:50,935
Like it comes out, you have to get rid of your landline.

753
01:20:50,935 --> 01:20:53,254
There's all sorts of different things with like user adoption,

754
01:20:53,254 --> 01:20:56,935
where it's like there could be some higher level argument that you have to make.

755
01:20:56,935 --> 01:20:59,414
And it's like, you know, the thing I see with Drivechain is like,

756
01:21:00,295 --> 01:21:04,855
yes, the culture has to broadly believe that these other chains have value

757
01:21:04,855 --> 01:21:06,774
and that they can bring value to Bitcoin.

758
01:21:06,774 --> 01:21:11,575
And because that's so antithetical to all the recent conversation around Bitcoin,

759
01:21:12,455 --> 01:21:14,534
I don't know how you achieve that, right?

760
01:21:14,534 --> 01:21:18,134
And that's why I said, because I don't think that that's achievable.

761
01:21:18,134 --> 01:21:20,935
I think you have to demonstrate, you have to demonstrate it.

762
01:21:20,935 --> 01:21:24,295
There has to be some showcase that that's possible.

763
01:21:24,295 --> 01:21:25,015
Well, I think that-

764
01:21:25,015 --> 01:21:27,254
Because I think that, hold on, let me just say one thing.

765
01:21:28,694 --> 01:21:32,375
So like, S2F, stock to flow, is like a great example of this.

766
01:21:32,375 --> 01:21:33,894
I want to introduce this argument to you guys,

767
01:21:33,894 --> 01:21:36,134
because no one fucking understood stock to flow.

768
01:21:36,134 --> 01:21:37,894
It was a completely stupid theory.

769
01:21:37,894 --> 01:21:40,295
Like everybody thought that it was good for their bags.

770
01:21:40,295 --> 01:21:43,735
And so they thought very positively of it, right?

771
01:21:43,894 --> 01:21:49,254
So I think like the Bitcoin, the average Bitcoin user is actually,

772
01:21:49,254 --> 01:21:52,614
it's actually incredibly easy to convince them that an idea is good

773
01:21:52,614 --> 01:21:53,974
if they think it's good for their bags.

774
01:21:54,614 --> 01:21:58,054
Like most Bitcoin users currently are convinced that like the SEC

775
01:21:58,054 --> 01:22:00,774
should intervene and like block people from using altcoins

776
01:22:00,774 --> 01:22:02,134
because it's good for their bags.

777
01:22:02,134 --> 01:22:06,295
It's actually very easy to convince someone in Bitcoin of something.

778
01:22:06,295 --> 01:22:09,655
If you can convince them it's good for Bitcoin's, you know, long term price.

779
01:22:09,655 --> 01:22:12,855
And I would say that like, you know, stock to flow is just an example

780
01:22:12,855 --> 01:22:14,295
because it's so ridiculous.

781
01:22:14,295 --> 01:22:16,774
Like it, you know, it was always a very ridiculous model.

782
01:22:16,774 --> 01:22:19,334
Paul's initial criticism, I think of stock to flow

783
01:22:19,334 --> 01:22:22,694
as something like, you know, to even critique this, you know,

784
01:22:23,414 --> 01:22:25,655
like it would be actually like lowering himself

785
01:22:25,655 --> 01:22:27,575
or it wouldn't be worth it to even critique this.

786
01:22:27,575 --> 01:22:29,334
It's like so stupid, right?

787
01:22:29,334 --> 01:22:31,894
But the impact on the culture was still broadly,

788
01:22:31,894 --> 01:22:34,935
most people supported it because it was seen as good for Bitcoin's price.

789
01:22:34,935 --> 01:22:38,134
So like there is this, I'm just introducing this paradox

790
01:22:38,134 --> 01:22:39,575
because I want you to understand this

791
01:22:39,575 --> 01:22:42,215
because I think it's obvious the more I think about it.

792
01:22:42,215 --> 01:22:45,575
It's like most people, they're given an example of something

793
01:22:45,575 --> 01:22:47,575
that's good for Bitcoin, even like El Salvador.

794
01:22:47,575 --> 01:22:50,455
It's like we convinced ourselves that a government, you know,

795
01:22:50,455 --> 01:22:54,214
basically pushing Bitcoin adoption was good, right?

796
01:22:54,214 --> 01:22:55,895
Like the culture convinced itself of that

797
01:22:56,615 --> 01:22:59,254
because like El Salvador brought a lot of attention

798
01:22:59,254 --> 01:23:00,694
and positive narratives to Bitcoin.

799
01:23:01,735 --> 01:23:05,254
So the culture is really easily able to convince itself

800
01:23:05,254 --> 01:23:08,934
that things that are good for, you know, their bags are good for Bitcoin.

801
01:23:09,895 --> 01:23:11,735
And I think that that's generally very true.

802
01:23:12,295 --> 01:23:14,855
So then the question is, though, is like how do you demonstrate that, right?

803
01:23:14,855 --> 01:23:17,175
Because and I think this is the tension point

804
01:23:17,735 --> 01:23:20,775
is that, you know, people don't currently think that,

805
01:23:20,775 --> 01:23:22,295
you know, these other cryptocurrencies move.

806
01:23:22,295 --> 01:23:24,134
They either don't think that these other cryptocurrencies

807
01:23:24,134 --> 01:23:25,735
will actually come to Bitcoin.

808
01:23:25,735 --> 01:23:27,654
They don't think those founders will give up their projects.

809
01:23:27,654 --> 01:23:29,575
Those users will give up on their projects

810
01:23:29,575 --> 01:23:31,414
or they just don't think they think they're worthless.

811
01:23:32,295 --> 01:23:34,775
And it's like that's the larger problem.

812
01:23:34,775 --> 01:23:36,934
But if people thought that that was true,

813
01:23:37,735 --> 01:23:39,254
then I think it would be very easy for them

814
01:23:39,254 --> 01:23:40,374
to think that drive change was good

815
01:23:40,374 --> 01:23:43,094
because, again, like the average user, you know, anyway.

816
01:23:43,094 --> 01:23:47,895
Yeah, I agree with you 100% that the majority is just looking

817
01:23:47,895 --> 01:23:49,735
that if it's beneficial for their bags,

818
01:23:49,735 --> 01:23:51,495
then it's the easiest conversation to have.

819
01:23:52,534 --> 01:23:53,814
So two things on that.

820
01:23:53,814 --> 01:23:56,214
One is I think that the majority believe

821
01:23:56,214 --> 01:23:58,775
that there's no value at all in any other coins.

822
01:23:58,775 --> 01:24:01,335
And I think that that's a much easier conversation to have

823
01:24:01,335 --> 01:24:03,974
because you can clearly see demand for other networks.

824
01:24:03,974 --> 01:24:05,414
You can see that, like, for example,

825
01:24:05,414 --> 01:24:07,974
the fee demand on other networks is higher than on Bitcoin.

826
01:24:07,974 --> 01:24:09,575
So you can see that there's more demand

827
01:24:09,575 --> 01:24:10,534
on those other networks.

828
01:24:10,534 --> 01:24:11,974
So you can see that if there's more demand

829
01:24:11,974 --> 01:24:13,254
for those other networks,

830
01:24:13,254 --> 01:24:17,654
even a minority of some of that demand coming over to Bitcoin

831
01:24:17,654 --> 01:24:18,934
will pump your bags of Bitcoin.

832
01:24:18,934 --> 01:24:21,495
So I think that's a much easier approach.

833
01:24:21,495 --> 01:24:23,735
But then I think you're dealing with, like, you know, again,

834
01:24:24,775 --> 01:24:26,055
that argument why I say it's like

835
01:24:26,055 --> 01:24:27,974
even if you were to develop a very sophisticated...

836
01:24:28,534 --> 01:24:31,974
Let's just say you came out with a drivechains to flow model.

837
01:24:31,974 --> 01:24:35,335
Let's just let's take a DTF2F model, right?

838
01:24:35,335 --> 01:24:36,295
Drivechains to flow.

839
01:24:36,295 --> 01:24:39,094
There was some sort of stupid chart that says, like,

840
01:24:39,094 --> 01:24:41,974
okay, here's how much drive...

841
01:24:41,974 --> 01:24:43,895
If all these chains came over to Bitcoin,

842
01:24:43,895 --> 01:24:45,414
all their fee revenues coming to Bitcoin,

843
01:24:45,414 --> 01:24:47,895
here's the drivechains to flow model.

844
01:24:47,895 --> 01:24:49,335
And then you predict it out,

845
01:24:49,335 --> 01:24:51,895
like X number of chains, like, you know, equals this much value.

846
01:24:51,895 --> 01:24:53,735
I don't think that'll work because there's no...

847
01:24:53,735 --> 01:24:55,814
No, no, I'm just, I'm strawmanning.

848
01:24:55,814 --> 01:24:56,855
I'm strawmanning something.

849
01:24:57,974 --> 01:24:59,654
I think even if you did that,

850
01:24:59,654 --> 01:25:01,414
you would still then have to convince people

851
01:25:01,414 --> 01:25:03,654
because you're advocating for a consensus change

852
01:25:03,654 --> 01:25:04,694
that it was safe, right?

853
01:25:05,495 --> 01:25:08,214
Like stock to flow didn't require anyone

854
01:25:08,214 --> 01:25:09,254
to think that it was safe.

855
01:25:09,254 --> 01:25:09,495
Yeah.

856
01:25:09,495 --> 01:25:11,414
Like it was just an idea that existed.

857
01:25:11,414 --> 01:25:14,775
Yeah, but the current issue is that

858
01:25:14,775 --> 01:25:16,374
they don't see any positive from it.

859
01:25:16,374 --> 01:25:18,134
So because they don't see any positive from it,

860
01:25:18,134 --> 01:25:20,134
then any potential negative is just like,

861
01:25:20,134 --> 01:25:21,254
well, there's no positive.

862
01:25:21,254 --> 01:25:22,134
Look at all the potential.

863
01:25:22,134 --> 01:25:23,654
Well, that's why my argument is that

864
01:25:23,654 --> 01:25:24,855
you have to go and demonstrate that.

865
01:25:24,855 --> 01:25:27,094
You have to demonstrate the potential positive.

866
01:25:27,094 --> 01:25:30,295
But the argument of doing it on another chain,

867
01:25:30,295 --> 01:25:31,495
I don't think it's too strong.

868
01:25:31,895 --> 01:25:33,335
But the reason why is because

869
01:25:34,855 --> 01:25:37,175
for money to be like a good property of money,

870
01:25:37,175 --> 01:25:38,374
you want the saleability, right?

871
01:25:38,374 --> 01:25:39,414
The highest saleability.

872
01:25:39,414 --> 01:25:41,575
So if you do create this on another chain,

873
01:25:41,575 --> 01:25:43,495
like for example, on a Litecoin,

874
01:25:44,134 --> 01:25:45,254
I don't think that, first of all,

875
01:25:45,254 --> 01:25:47,814
there's no 100% that there'll even be demand

876
01:25:47,814 --> 01:25:49,735
for drivechains, even if it's on Bitcoin, right?

877
01:25:49,735 --> 01:25:50,615
It's all hypothetical.

878
01:25:51,575 --> 01:25:53,094
Even if drivechains was activated,

879
01:25:53,094 --> 01:25:55,335
like maybe there's no demand for it

880
01:25:55,335 --> 01:25:56,855
and maybe nobody wants it, right?

881
01:25:56,855 --> 01:25:59,654
So how much more so would that link over to

882
01:25:59,654 --> 01:26:01,414
if you were to activate it on another chain?

883
01:26:02,055 --> 01:26:03,974
Less demand, I believe, would be for-

884
01:26:03,974 --> 01:26:07,335
Well, I think you're pointing out

885
01:26:07,335 --> 01:26:10,295
what the inherent risk is of activating on another chain

886
01:26:10,295 --> 01:26:12,615
and why the reward of it is strong.

887
01:26:12,615 --> 01:26:15,175
Because if you activate on another chain and it works,

888
01:26:15,175 --> 01:26:17,974
then it's pretty obvious and it's unfalsifiable

889
01:26:17,974 --> 01:26:19,495
that your viewpoint is correct.

890
01:26:20,134 --> 01:26:21,895
But then you have to be willing

891
01:26:21,895 --> 01:26:23,414
to take the step of doing that.

892
01:26:23,414 --> 01:26:24,775
And this is like my worry a bit

893
01:26:24,775 --> 01:26:26,055
about like the drivechain stuff

894
01:26:26,055 --> 01:26:27,575
where it's like, sometimes I worry,

895
01:26:27,654 --> 01:26:30,694
it's like, are the proponents of this,

896
01:26:30,694 --> 01:26:33,974
are we so convinced that you want to be right about this

897
01:26:33,974 --> 01:26:35,654
that you're not going to take the risk, right?

898
01:26:35,654 --> 01:26:36,694
Because if you really thought

899
01:26:36,694 --> 01:26:37,735
you were going to be able to,

900
01:26:38,295 --> 01:26:40,615
it's sort of like, I almost see people like,

901
01:26:41,654 --> 01:26:43,335
okay, let's maybe take this model

902
01:26:43,335 --> 01:26:45,175
where it's like, if you thought

903
01:26:45,175 --> 01:26:47,814
you had a great product idea within a company

904
01:26:47,814 --> 01:26:49,335
and the company didn't want to launch it,

905
01:26:49,974 --> 01:26:52,934
and then you also don't go and start your own startup,

906
01:26:53,575 --> 01:26:55,575
then what's the company going to do about it?

907
01:26:56,214 --> 01:26:57,895
You're still working your day job,

908
01:26:57,895 --> 01:26:59,735
but you haven't gone and started that startup

909
01:26:59,735 --> 01:27:00,534
you were talking about.

910
01:27:01,414 --> 01:27:03,495
So how serious are you about the startup?

911
01:27:03,495 --> 01:27:05,094
It's like, if you were that serious about it

912
01:27:05,094 --> 01:27:06,055
and you thought it was going to work.

913
01:27:06,055 --> 01:27:07,175
What I'm thinking is,

914
01:27:07,175 --> 01:27:08,615
if it's activated on another chain

915
01:27:08,615 --> 01:27:09,974
and there's just no volume for it,

916
01:27:10,695 --> 01:27:12,454
then that would be like a great against it

917
01:27:12,454 --> 01:27:14,214
and be like, oh, you see what nobody wants.

918
01:27:14,214 --> 01:27:16,454
Yes, because then you've done something real

919
01:27:16,454 --> 01:27:18,774
and it either has to exist or it doesn't.

920
01:27:18,774 --> 01:27:22,055
And my worry is that like, that's one of the reasons.

921
01:27:22,055 --> 01:27:23,815
But if there's no demand for it on Litecoin,

922
01:27:23,815 --> 01:27:25,175
it doesn't mean that there will be no demand

923
01:27:25,175 --> 01:27:26,375
for it on Bitcoin, right?

924
01:27:27,815 --> 01:27:28,855
I mean, how do you know?

925
01:27:28,855 --> 01:27:29,894
Why would you say that?

926
01:27:29,894 --> 01:27:31,815
The reason why is because more people

927
01:27:31,815 --> 01:27:34,135
will be incentivized to use Bitcoin

928
01:27:34,135 --> 01:27:36,615
for its like base money properties

929
01:27:36,615 --> 01:27:38,454
of the most salability, the most liquid,

930
01:27:38,454 --> 01:27:39,574
the highest market cap.

931
01:27:39,574 --> 01:27:42,135
So if somebody was creating things on Ethereum

932
01:27:42,135 --> 01:27:43,175
or another chain,

933
01:27:43,175 --> 01:27:45,175
they would have at least some incentive

934
01:27:45,175 --> 01:27:46,135
to move over to Bitcoin.

935
01:27:47,574 --> 01:27:49,735
Even if we talked about all their incentives to not

936
01:27:49,735 --> 01:27:51,175
because they have their own token

937
01:27:51,175 --> 01:27:52,774
or they already have their own community,

938
01:27:52,774 --> 01:27:53,974
so they don't want to switch over.

939
01:27:53,974 --> 01:27:55,334
But they still have at least a little bit

940
01:27:55,334 --> 01:27:56,454
of an incentive to switch over

941
01:27:56,454 --> 01:27:57,735
because of Bitcoin's properties.

942
01:27:57,735 --> 01:27:59,815
But they have less of those incentives to switch over

943
01:27:59,815 --> 01:28:01,574
or even test out things on Litecoin

944
01:28:01,574 --> 01:28:04,135
because there's less market cap,

945
01:28:04,135 --> 01:28:05,974
less liquidity, less network effect.

946
01:28:05,974 --> 01:28:07,414
So there's less reason for them to...

947
01:28:10,534 --> 01:28:11,894
Why did that work for SegWit then?

948
01:28:11,894 --> 01:28:13,974
And why would it not work for Drivechains?

949
01:28:13,974 --> 01:28:16,375
So I think for SegWit, it was more about...

950
01:28:16,375 --> 01:28:17,654
So it would work for Drivechains

951
01:28:17,654 --> 01:28:20,534
if you're trying to prove any potential negatives

952
01:28:20,534 --> 01:28:22,055
that are not true, right?

953
01:28:22,055 --> 01:28:23,094
If you want to show that,

954
01:28:23,094 --> 01:28:24,214
all right, Drivechains is safe,

955
01:28:25,014 --> 01:28:27,175
then you can launch it on Litecoin.

956
01:28:27,175 --> 01:28:29,495
And I think for that reason,

957
01:28:29,495 --> 01:28:31,334
SegWit on Litecoin was successful

958
01:28:31,334 --> 01:28:32,855
to show that there's no negatives from it.

959
01:28:35,094 --> 01:28:35,815
Yes, I agree.

960
01:28:37,815 --> 01:28:41,334
But I feel like the biggest schism,

961
01:28:41,334 --> 01:28:42,295
like you're saying,

962
01:28:42,295 --> 01:28:45,094
is that Bitcoiners do not see any value

963
01:28:45,094 --> 01:28:46,695
from anything other than Bitcoin.

964
01:28:46,695 --> 01:28:48,214
And I think that that's more important

965
01:28:48,214 --> 01:28:49,255
because if you can show them

966
01:28:49,255 --> 01:28:50,935
that there is potential value

967
01:28:50,935 --> 01:28:52,454
from something other than Bitcoin,

968
01:28:52,454 --> 01:28:54,295
then they would even be open to discussing,

969
01:28:54,295 --> 01:28:55,334
oh, okay, well, let's see,

970
01:28:56,055 --> 01:28:58,135
can this actually be beneficial for Bitcoin?

971
01:28:58,135 --> 01:29:00,695
But I think that that's where the hard line stops

972
01:29:00,695 --> 01:29:02,774
because the culture has been conditioned

973
01:29:02,774 --> 01:29:04,695
that there absolutely is no value

974
01:29:04,695 --> 01:29:05,815
in anything other than Bitcoin.

975
01:29:08,855 --> 01:29:10,295
I think we agree about a lot of stuff.

976
01:29:11,175 --> 01:29:13,334
I'm not sure what we are disagreeing.

977
01:29:13,334 --> 01:29:14,774
Yeah, I just wanted to point out

978
01:29:14,774 --> 01:29:16,935
that that's probably a better direction

979
01:29:16,935 --> 01:29:18,375
for our Drivechainers to show

980
01:29:19,175 --> 01:29:21,894
that there actually can be value

981
01:29:21,894 --> 01:29:23,175
that's not on Bitcoin.

982
01:29:23,175 --> 01:29:24,375
And if we bring that over,

983
01:29:24,375 --> 01:29:26,695
then, but I think that's a very, very hard part.

984
01:29:26,695 --> 01:29:28,055
But again, my question though,

985
01:29:28,055 --> 01:29:29,894
is if Ordinals didn't convince them of that,

986
01:29:29,894 --> 01:29:31,334
then what's the thing that convinced them?

987
01:29:31,334 --> 01:29:33,334
I think slowly more people came around to Ordinals.

988
01:29:33,334 --> 01:29:34,935
They started to see the fees go up.

989
01:29:34,935 --> 01:29:35,574
They started to see, well,

990
01:29:35,574 --> 01:29:36,774
it's really not that harmful.

991
01:29:36,774 --> 01:29:38,375
They started to see more people running nodes.

992
01:29:38,375 --> 01:29:41,414
They started to see more activity on the base layer.

993
01:29:41,414 --> 01:29:43,334
Even if it's like buying and selling Ordinals,

994
01:29:43,334 --> 01:29:44,774
they're denominated in Bitcoin.

995
01:29:44,774 --> 01:29:45,894
So that's good for Bitcoin

996
01:29:45,894 --> 01:29:48,055
because that makes the salability of Bitcoin higher.

997
01:29:48,135 --> 01:29:48,615
I agree.

998
01:29:48,615 --> 01:29:50,295
I thought that was incredibly obvious,

999
01:29:50,295 --> 01:29:52,214
but then I spent three or four months

1000
01:29:52,214 --> 01:29:53,815
watching people fight about it for no reason.

1001
01:29:53,815 --> 01:29:55,574
I think more people have come around.

1002
01:29:55,574 --> 01:29:56,774
I mean, I've seen people that are like,

1003
01:29:56,774 --> 01:29:58,935
you know, influencers or whatever host spaces.

1004
01:29:58,935 --> 01:30:01,094
They were very, very against it originally,

1005
01:30:01,094 --> 01:30:02,055
but then they became more-

1006
01:30:02,055 --> 01:30:03,574
That's only because the price is down.

1007
01:30:03,574 --> 01:30:05,495
And when the price is up again for Ordinals,

1008
01:30:05,495 --> 01:30:06,695
there'll be the same bullshit again.

1009
01:30:06,695 --> 01:30:07,654
It'll just all come back

1010
01:30:07,654 --> 01:30:08,774
because ultimately those people

1011
01:30:08,774 --> 01:30:09,894
just don't want people to make money.

1012
01:30:09,894 --> 01:30:11,654
Like that's their real objection.

1013
01:30:11,654 --> 01:30:13,094
There's a good face to it too,

1014
01:30:13,094 --> 01:30:16,055
because a majority of it is speculation of an asset

1015
01:30:16,055 --> 01:30:17,815
that has no reason to have any value.

1016
01:30:17,815 --> 01:30:19,894
So they kind of want to like protect people from it

1017
01:30:19,894 --> 01:30:23,094
and take the higher moral high ground for that reason.

1018
01:30:23,094 --> 01:30:24,695
So I think that there's a good reason for them.

1019
01:30:24,695 --> 01:30:26,055
Well, but that's the other problem.

1020
01:30:26,055 --> 01:30:27,334
And I think like this is,

1021
01:30:27,334 --> 01:30:29,495
and if I were to point out one more problem,

1022
01:30:29,495 --> 01:30:31,014
because again, I think the drivechain,

1023
01:30:31,014 --> 01:30:32,295
you know, you have a lot of problems,

1024
01:30:32,295 --> 01:30:34,774
but one of them is that I think a good number of people

1025
01:30:35,654 --> 01:30:38,855
who adopted Bitcoin in 2021 and 2022,

1026
01:30:39,815 --> 01:30:41,495
they came here for number go up

1027
01:30:41,495 --> 01:30:42,855
and then they stayed here

1028
01:30:42,855 --> 01:30:45,495
to feel morally superior to the altcoiners.

1029
01:30:45,495 --> 01:30:46,695
And I actually really think

1030
01:30:46,695 --> 01:30:49,334
this is a deep cultural problem in Bitcoin right now,

1031
01:30:49,894 --> 01:30:53,414
where, you know, you can't talk about other cryptocurrencies.

1032
01:30:53,974 --> 01:30:56,214
You can't talk about things that are happening on them

1033
01:30:56,214 --> 01:30:57,574
in a positive light

1034
01:30:57,574 --> 01:31:00,055
because the people who stayed here in Bitcoin,

1035
01:31:01,014 --> 01:31:03,255
they stayed because they wanted to feel better

1036
01:31:03,815 --> 01:31:05,414
about themselves and the other people

1037
01:31:05,414 --> 01:31:06,214
than these other groups.

1038
01:31:06,214 --> 01:31:08,135
They have the ability to say,

1039
01:31:08,135 --> 01:31:10,935
we're not them, we're morally better than these people.

1040
01:31:10,935 --> 01:31:12,295
And this is why you see the rise

1041
01:31:12,295 --> 01:31:14,375
of like this kind of great Bitcoin moralism.

1042
01:31:15,894 --> 01:31:18,774
And I think like this, that moralism coupled with,

1043
01:31:18,774 --> 01:31:20,454
you know, that just exaggerates the problem

1044
01:31:20,454 --> 01:31:22,055
that we just discussed before,

1045
01:31:22,055 --> 01:31:23,654
because it's like, you know,

1046
01:31:23,654 --> 01:31:25,255
if you talk about something like stable coins,

1047
01:31:25,255 --> 01:31:26,534
like, I mean, it should be fairly obvious

1048
01:31:26,534 --> 01:31:27,654
to convince somebody that like,

1049
01:31:27,654 --> 01:31:29,735
you know, stable coins are a legitimate market, right?

1050
01:31:29,735 --> 01:31:31,255
That they exist outside of Bitcoin.

1051
01:31:31,894 --> 01:31:33,334
And, you know, as a community,

1052
01:31:33,334 --> 01:31:36,534
we're not really doing anything to address that problem,

1053
01:31:36,534 --> 01:31:39,334
you know, other than hopefully tabaroot assets will come out

1054
01:31:39,334 --> 01:31:40,855
and maybe something will happen there.

1055
01:31:42,055 --> 01:31:44,454
But, you know, like there's a pretty,

1056
01:31:44,454 --> 01:31:46,534
I mean, it's pretty easy to look at the market cap

1057
01:31:46,534 --> 01:31:48,214
of like Monero and Zcash

1058
01:31:48,214 --> 01:31:49,815
and see these things like exist, right?

1059
01:31:49,815 --> 01:31:52,055
Like, yeah, so there's pretty obvious reasons,

1060
01:31:52,774 --> 01:31:54,375
you know, where people should be able to look at data

1061
01:31:54,375 --> 01:31:55,574
and make inclusion, but they don't

1062
01:31:55,574 --> 01:31:57,574
because their emotional conclusion is,

1063
01:31:57,574 --> 01:31:59,014
you know, not only do they not think

1064
01:31:59,014 --> 01:32:00,214
cryptocurrencies are valuable,

1065
01:32:00,214 --> 01:32:02,454
but like their whole like identity

1066
01:32:02,454 --> 01:32:03,974
around adopting Bitcoin

1067
01:32:03,974 --> 01:32:05,495
is that they're against this other group,

1068
01:32:06,135 --> 01:32:07,495
you know, and I think like that's another,

1069
01:32:07,495 --> 01:32:09,974
like just adds another like emotional complexity layer

1070
01:32:09,974 --> 01:32:12,534
because I think that group is only getting more vocal.

1071
01:32:12,534 --> 01:32:13,334
And that was the group,

1072
01:32:13,334 --> 01:32:15,735
I think that was like particularly enraged around ordinals

1073
01:32:16,295 --> 01:32:19,094
because to even talk about like doing something

1074
01:32:19,094 --> 01:32:20,615
that another cryptocurrency was doing

1075
01:32:20,615 --> 01:32:21,815
and that that might be good for Bitcoin

1076
01:32:21,815 --> 01:32:23,014
was unpalatable to them.

1077
01:32:23,654 --> 01:32:25,654
So I don't know, uphill battle.

1078
01:32:25,654 --> 01:32:26,375
Yeah, I agree with that.

1079
01:32:26,375 --> 01:32:29,175
I think the easiest fight is to show them

1080
01:32:29,175 --> 01:32:31,094
that there's a use case that,

1081
01:32:31,094 --> 01:32:33,815
because that simplifies everything

1082
01:32:33,815 --> 01:32:35,495
because they obviously have a use case for Bitcoin

1083
01:32:35,495 --> 01:32:36,055
and you'd be like, all right,

1084
01:32:36,055 --> 01:32:37,894
well, there's a use case for Bitcoin, sure.

1085
01:32:37,894 --> 01:32:39,255
But what about this use case?

1086
01:32:39,255 --> 01:32:40,855
A person has a legitimate use case

1087
01:32:40,855 --> 01:32:41,974
and it cannot be done on Bitcoin.

1088
01:32:41,974 --> 01:32:44,534
Are you going to tell them not to use any other coin,

1089
01:32:44,534 --> 01:32:46,295
but they still need to solve their use case, right?

1090
01:32:46,295 --> 01:32:48,135
Well, that's why Bitcoin maximalism exists

1091
01:32:48,135 --> 01:32:49,094
in like this, you know,

1092
01:32:49,094 --> 01:32:51,574
kind of this weird dichotomy right now,

1093
01:32:51,574 --> 01:32:53,974
where it's like, this is why I said,

1094
01:32:53,974 --> 01:32:54,855
like to me, it's like,

1095
01:32:54,855 --> 01:32:57,175
if I think about the term Bitcoin maximalism,

1096
01:32:57,175 --> 01:32:57,815
it's sort of like,

1097
01:32:58,774 --> 01:33:00,454
you can't have Bitcoin maximalism

1098
01:33:00,454 --> 01:33:02,534
if your view is just that,

1099
01:33:02,534 --> 01:33:04,695
you know, Bitcoin exists as it is

1100
01:33:04,695 --> 01:33:06,295
and then all the other cryptocurrencies

1101
01:33:06,295 --> 01:33:07,495
will go to zero over time.

1102
01:33:07,495 --> 01:33:09,574
That like really doesn't make sense.

1103
01:33:09,654 --> 01:33:12,055
Like Bitcoin maximalism comes from this idea

1104
01:33:12,615 --> 01:33:14,135
that we wanted to assimilate

1105
01:33:14,135 --> 01:33:15,815
all the other features from other chains.

1106
01:33:15,815 --> 01:33:18,214
Like this was our cultural desire.

1107
01:33:18,214 --> 01:33:20,855
There was a cultural desire within Bitcoin to do that.

1108
01:33:22,375 --> 01:33:24,615
And we wanted to be adversarial

1109
01:33:24,615 --> 01:33:25,735
against this other group.

1110
01:33:25,735 --> 01:33:27,974
Like we wanted to be proactively adversarial

1111
01:33:28,534 --> 01:33:29,574
in order to, you know,

1112
01:33:29,574 --> 01:33:32,615
kind of take all this activity back on the Bitcoin.

1113
01:33:34,214 --> 01:33:35,014
You know, and I have sympathy

1114
01:33:35,014 --> 01:33:35,974
for people who are around then.

1115
01:33:35,974 --> 01:33:36,375
I'm like, you know,

1116
01:33:36,375 --> 01:33:37,894
I still feel sympathetic to that vision,

1117
01:33:37,894 --> 01:33:40,214
but, you know, for the people who don't,

1118
01:33:42,534 --> 01:33:43,574
you know, I'm not sure what to say.

1119
01:33:43,574 --> 01:33:44,855
I agree because you can see from,

1120
01:33:45,894 --> 01:33:47,654
I assume you've been around for a long time.

1121
01:33:47,654 --> 01:33:48,774
On Bitcoin talk forums,

1122
01:33:48,774 --> 01:33:50,615
there's a whole section called altcoins

1123
01:33:50,615 --> 01:33:52,695
and they have always been discussed

1124
01:33:52,695 --> 01:33:54,214
in Bitcoin discussions.

1125
01:33:54,935 --> 01:33:55,815
They weren't shunned upon.

1126
01:33:55,815 --> 01:33:56,935
It was actually encouraged for you

1127
01:33:56,935 --> 01:33:58,695
to learn about other coins,

1128
01:33:58,695 --> 01:34:00,375
learn about their protocol design.

1129
01:34:00,375 --> 01:34:01,255
And if it's good,

1130
01:34:01,255 --> 01:34:02,534
maybe it will be added to Bitcoin,

1131
01:34:02,534 --> 01:34:03,974
but let them go and try it.

1132
01:34:03,974 --> 01:34:04,935
Was always, you know,

1133
01:34:04,935 --> 01:34:06,534
and learn about it and try it out yourself.

1134
01:34:06,534 --> 01:34:07,654
Was always encouraged,

1135
01:34:07,654 --> 01:34:09,255
you know, back in the day where now,

1136
01:34:09,255 --> 01:34:11,894
nowadays it's discouraged to try anything out

1137
01:34:11,894 --> 01:34:13,974
or definitely not even talk about anything,

1138
01:34:13,974 --> 01:34:16,055
you know, but I still think that the simple use case

1139
01:34:16,055 --> 01:34:17,334
is probably the easiest conversation

1140
01:34:17,334 --> 01:34:20,055
because if you can show somebody there's a use case,

1141
01:34:20,055 --> 01:34:21,334
well, he can't use Bitcoin

1142
01:34:21,334 --> 01:34:22,615
because it doesn't solve that use case.

1143
01:34:23,334 --> 01:34:25,974
Like, are you telling him not to use any other coin?

1144
01:34:25,974 --> 01:34:27,255
And then they can clearly see,

1145
01:34:27,255 --> 01:34:29,334
all right, well, there is a use case for another coin.

1146
01:34:29,334 --> 01:34:31,574
And then once that conversation can be opened,

1147
01:34:31,574 --> 01:34:32,375
then you can see, all right,

1148
01:34:32,375 --> 01:34:35,175
well, if there is actually use case or other coins,

1149
01:34:35,175 --> 01:34:38,615
then all their previous beliefs are now shot down.

1150
01:34:38,615 --> 01:34:41,255
And now they might be open to,

1151
01:34:41,255 --> 01:34:43,735
all right, drivechains can have a benefit.

1152
01:34:43,735 --> 01:34:45,735
But I think that drivechains can have a benefit

1153
01:34:45,735 --> 01:34:46,855
is like the hardest thing

1154
01:34:46,855 --> 01:34:48,214
because they don't see any benefits

1155
01:34:48,214 --> 01:34:49,135
to anything other than Bitcoin.

1156
01:34:49,135 --> 01:34:52,135
Yep.

1157
01:34:52,135 --> 01:34:55,654
I think it's a tricky spot right now.

1158
01:34:57,334 --> 01:34:59,495
Does anybody have any other questions or?

1159
01:35:00,135 --> 01:35:08,935
Yeah, I want to add some things that I think like what you said,

1160
01:35:08,935 --> 01:35:12,935
like, if we showed to those Bitcoiners

1161
01:35:12,935 --> 01:35:16,534
that their banks will be pumped or stuff like that,

1162
01:35:16,534 --> 01:35:20,534
I think drivechain is a perfect example of that.

1163
01:35:21,574 --> 01:35:25,255
So, and by the way, I want to say that I'm advocating

1164
01:35:26,135 --> 01:35:30,774
for mass adoption of Bitcoin blockchain,

1165
01:35:30,774 --> 01:35:33,094
not using only BTC,

1166
01:35:33,094 --> 01:35:35,735
because if you have adoption of Bitcoin blockchain,

1167
01:35:35,735 --> 01:35:39,334
it's obvious that you have adoption of BTC.

1168
01:35:40,454 --> 01:35:43,574
But, and another thing is that I wanted to add

1169
01:35:43,574 --> 01:35:46,135
about your conversation that you said

1170
01:35:47,174 --> 01:35:51,415
related to drivechain launching on other chains.

1171
01:35:51,415 --> 01:35:53,655
I think it's not good, first of all,

1172
01:35:53,655 --> 01:35:59,094
because no other chain is that much decentralized like Bitcoin.

1173
01:35:59,094 --> 01:36:03,255
And I think drivechains are intended to be for Bitcoin

1174
01:36:03,255 --> 01:36:04,694
because the idea is not from now.

1175
01:36:04,694 --> 01:36:06,375
It's very, very old.

1176
01:36:06,375 --> 01:36:09,094
And another thing I want to add about ordinals.

1177
01:36:11,255 --> 01:36:13,174
Without Taproot,

1178
01:36:14,214 --> 01:36:17,255
Casey would not be able to do very easy.

1179
01:36:17,814 --> 01:36:23,334
But because of Taproot enabled protocol,

1180
01:36:23,334 --> 01:36:27,255
then, yeah, the ordinals are possibly,

1181
01:36:28,694 --> 01:36:30,054
they came in existence.

1182
01:36:30,054 --> 01:36:33,974
But I want to say that Casey used a concept

1183
01:36:33,974 --> 01:36:36,454
that is from 2012.

1184
01:36:37,015 --> 01:36:38,454
He didn't invent it.

1185
01:36:38,454 --> 01:36:40,535
And this is on his live stream.

1186
01:36:40,535 --> 01:36:42,054
I'm not inventing anything.

1187
01:36:42,054 --> 01:36:43,094
You can check on YouTube.

1188
01:36:44,775 --> 01:36:49,974
Is used concept that is from 2012,

1189
01:36:49,974 --> 01:36:53,415
which means that the original Bitcoiners,

1190
01:36:53,415 --> 01:36:55,495
the original Bitcoin developers,

1191
01:36:55,495 --> 01:36:57,974
they are open and I agree with Satoshi

1192
01:36:58,535 --> 01:37:01,094
about what he said before.

1193
01:37:01,094 --> 01:37:07,415
And this culture of BTC and nothing else

1194
01:37:07,415 --> 01:37:09,655
and mass adoption of BTC,

1195
01:37:10,855 --> 01:37:12,135
in my opinion, is wrong

1196
01:37:12,135 --> 01:37:15,415
because first of all, you need to rely on third parties

1197
01:37:15,415 --> 01:37:18,454
to use BTC outside in the real world.

1198
01:37:19,174 --> 01:37:21,974
But if anybody outside in the real world

1199
01:37:21,974 --> 01:37:25,174
uses the Bitcoin blockchain as their infrastructure,

1200
01:37:25,174 --> 01:37:27,574
and these sidechains can enable this,

1201
01:37:28,454 --> 01:37:29,415
it's a very good thing

1202
01:37:29,415 --> 01:37:34,694
because you will have so much transactional data,

1203
01:37:34,694 --> 01:37:37,015
so much on drivechains.

1204
01:37:37,015 --> 01:37:39,495
And then obviously, they need to be validated

1205
01:37:39,495 --> 01:37:41,174
on Bitcoin blockchain.

1206
01:37:41,895 --> 01:37:43,495
But and another thing,

1207
01:37:43,735 --> 01:37:48,135
also, I have experience with another

1208
01:37:49,094 --> 01:37:52,454
kind of similar concept as drivechains,

1209
01:37:53,574 --> 01:37:57,174
which are on another UTXO blockchain,

1210
01:37:58,054 --> 01:38:01,574
and they attracting so much users,

1211
01:38:01,574 --> 01:38:04,375
like so big players coming to them

1212
01:38:04,375 --> 01:38:07,895
with 100 million users with even more.

1213
01:38:07,895 --> 01:38:13,334
So, people who want to learn about drivechains,

1214
01:38:13,334 --> 01:38:17,174
they can compare from other chains or other platforms.

1215
01:38:17,174 --> 01:38:20,535
And also, drivechain is already on Bitcoin testnet.

1216
01:38:20,535 --> 01:38:23,415
So, they can download the drivechain version

1217
01:38:23,415 --> 01:38:25,255
of Bitcoin Core, run a note.

1218
01:38:26,294 --> 01:38:30,135
If they want, they can develop a sidechain or...

1219
01:38:30,943 --> 01:38:37,263
copy any other blockchain and put on the testnet. So, they can see how it works.

1220
01:38:37,543 --> 01:38:44,303
Okay, Bitcoin, thank you. That was very interesting. Thank you. Pete, did you have any comments on that?

1221
01:38:47,143 --> 01:38:57,543
Yeah, I mean, the only thing I would say about Casey is like, yeah, I mean, the idea was from 2012, sort of, but I mean, he was working on it. And I think he just found an old idea and then gave credit to it.

1222
01:38:57,543 --> 01:39:13,463
So, I'm not sure that completely explains the creation of Ordinals, though, I get where you're coming from. But yeah, I don't know, I'm not really sure what to add to that, other than I think that, you know, again, like, to the extent that there is a drivechain movement, right?

1223
01:39:13,463 --> 01:39:21,143
Like, what are we talking about? Like, to the extent that there is a movement within Bitcoin to activate drivechains, then that movement has to advocate for certain things.

1224
01:39:21,143 --> 01:39:35,303
And it has to convince a large plurality of the Bitcoin community that, you know, overwhelmingly, it's for the benefit of the users that this gets activated, and that there are no, that there are limited downsides, right?

1225
01:39:35,303 --> 01:39:44,703
That's, those are kind of the two things that you would need to go about doing. So, I don't know, I think that person said that there were some examples of other things.

1226
01:39:44,703 --> 01:39:57,983
I mean, you know, I don't know of any of, I don't know that I've seen any other sidechains that are activated on UTXO side blockchains. So, you know, again, I don't know, I think you have to figure out a way to convince people of that.

1227
01:39:57,983 --> 01:40:12,582
Otherwise, you know, the status quo will be the status quo. And like, you know, the status quo is that Bitcoin has been going up in price for 15 years, and that's only becoming more adopted, and that we've mostly seen other altcoins trying to zero over time.

1228
01:40:13,303 --> 01:40:21,142
You know, that's, that's the status quo, like, you're looking at like a 10,000 year view. So, you also have to figure out how to generate some urgency around it.

1229
01:40:22,743 --> 01:40:26,703
So, yeah, happy to kick around, you know, thoughts on that. But I still think it's a high hurdle.

1230
01:40:28,943 --> 01:40:34,423
Well said. Hi, Johnseth. Thanks for being here. Do you have any questions for Pete?

1231
01:40:36,703 --> 01:40:42,982
Yo, Johnseth. What's up, bud? He fell asleep, I bet.

1232
01:40:43,062 --> 01:40:56,543
Yeah. I have that. I have that ability, the magical power I have. Pete, regarding, what are your thoughts on the following question?

1233
01:40:57,982 --> 01:41:13,263
Some blockchains aim for a monolithic design, where there's just one blockchain. Other blockchains aim for a multi chain design, where there's a base layer. And then there's a number of layer twos that are optional.

1234
01:41:14,622 --> 01:41:25,903
And they have their own set of nodes. And they share resources with the base layer. They share the miners, they share the monetary policy. But they have different features.

1235
01:41:26,903 --> 01:41:50,502
If Bitcoin were to have protocol development that orients Bitcoin toward the multi chain design, such as drivechain activation, Bitcoin would be a more complex ecosystem. But the base layer, you know, from the drive chainers view, the base layer would be actually simpler in the sense that it would be more ossified.

1236
01:41:50,502 --> 01:42:08,422
There would be less pressure to change it. There would be less arguing over how frequently and how it should change. Because the extensibility enabled by the sidechains would be the outlet for the creativity and the experimentation that some people desire.

1237
01:42:08,422 --> 01:42:36,263
So what are your thoughts on the difference between Bitcoin being simpler and more monolithic, versus Bitcoin having this multi layer design, where the whole ecosystem is more diverse and complicated, but arguably, the base layer is actually strengthened, and its conservatism is enhanced through that multi layered design? What do you think about that, like, people who like...

1238
01:42:37,222 --> 01:42:49,383
It's a nice idea. I guess I would ask the question, though, if you saw a sidechain, you know, with some sort of experimental feature gain a significant amount of value. I mean, wouldn't that put pressure on Bitcoin to change the base layer to accommodate that?

1239
01:42:49,943 --> 01:43:10,663
Yeah, exactly. So that's a great point, which is that there's always going to be occasionally really good ideas that brilliant people have to change the base layer. And those changes perhaps should be made so that the world can have a better Bitcoin and the desires of consumers can be met.

1240
01:43:11,143 --> 01:43:32,583
So what drivechain would do if it's very successful, if it's activated and very successful, the most optimistic view is that it would change the way that the base layer development occurs instead of deliberation, being the sole or primary activity that leads to the changes.

1241
01:43:33,543 --> 01:43:59,543
Deliberation would be complemented by competition. So we would have a marketplace of development on the sidechains. And if one of them were to accrue substantial value, demonstrating stability and the satisfaction of demand, the consumer's demand, then that sidechain would be a candidate for, you know, as they say, bringing the tech down to the base layer.

1242
01:44:00,103 --> 01:44:22,902
So people who say, well, what if there is a drivechain sidechain that's so successful that it threatens the base layer? Well, that would be not a threat. It would be a market signal that maybe the base layer should have that feature. And that way, the base layer can benefit and the system can benefit from that.

1243
01:44:23,462 --> 01:44:38,502
And not necessarily. Maybe we could just have like a successful sidechain that, you know, the tech isn't brought down to the base layer. But the whole idea of what I'm trying to share is that there is this compelling idea that instead of deliberation, we have competition for development.

1244
01:44:38,502 --> 01:44:55,543
And this would enable market signals and market forces, which are so vital to the way that humanity progresses, to be operating within Bitcoin in a more manifest way. Does that make any sense at all, in your view?

1245
01:44:57,583 --> 01:44:58,923
explain ordinals then.

1246
01:44:59,143 --> 01:45:04,383
Explain what market incentives drove KC to launch ordinals and

1247
01:45:04,383 --> 01:45:09,203
why in absence of market incentives for such a change something happened.

1248
01:45:10,603 --> 01:45:11,203
You know, That's

1249
01:45:11,236 --> 01:45:15,556
kind of the problem, I think, with this idea as well as the sidechains idea as aged.

1250
01:45:18,696 --> 01:45:22,956
We have seen people, I mean, look, I think you're gonna see people figure out, try to

1251
01:45:22,956 --> 01:45:25,596
figure out how to do more complicated things.

1252
01:45:26,929 --> 01:45:30,009
know I wouldn't be surprised as the result of having these conversations over the last

1253
01:45:30,009 --> 01:45:35,969
couple months there are just new proposals that come out about how we could even do

1254
01:45:35,969 --> 01:45:41,069
other types of solutions like this that aren't even drivechain so I don't know man I

1255
01:45:41,069 --> 01:45:42,622
think that you

1256
01:45:42,622 --> 01:46:06,812
You got a nice, you put things out with a nice tempo, you got your stuff lined up, but I mean, again, it's like, as the Bitcoin hodler, it's just like, I have an immensity of ability to be patient and just, you know, ignore any change, like, you know, it's like, you have to create urgency in me to make a change. And that's just like such a high bar, you know, I don't know.

1257
01:46:07,094 --> 01:46:10,554
It's kind of a nice aspect of Bitcoin in some way, right?

1258
01:46:13,234 --> 01:46:17,194
There's no... you have to convince me to make a change and everyone else to make a

1259
01:46:17,194 --> 01:46:17,514
change.

1260
01:46:19,074 --> 01:46:19,874
So I don't know.

1261
01:46:20,094 --> 01:46:20,954
I think it's going to tough.

1262
01:46:24,435 --> 01:46:26,015
to create Ordinals.

1263
01:46:27,095 --> 01:46:32,855
I haven't really looked into that, but was it perhaps the enormous

1264
01:46:32,855 --> 01:46:38,595
value and level of activity with regard to NFTs in the altcoin space?

1265
01:46:39,135 --> 01:46:40,515
that inspired him to...

1266
01:46:41,495 --> 01:46:42,015
Right. My

1267
01:46:42,177 --> 01:46:46,237
point is that eventually he built something that was compatible with Bitcoin's

1268
01:46:46,237 --> 01:46:47,557
consensus rules to satisfy that.

1269
01:46:48,057 --> 01:46:53,017
again, he didn't need a consensus change in order to deliver what he wanted.

1270
01:46:53,317 --> 01:46:54,137
think that...

1271
01:46:56,937 --> 01:46:59,678
you're saying the market signal, just to understand your

1272
01:46:59,738 --> 01:47:02,678
point, because I made a point about how it would be better.

1273
01:47:03,198 --> 01:47:09,038
OK, so between deliberation and competition, are you saying that

1274
01:47:09,038 --> 01:47:10,238
the competition,

1275
01:47:11,498 --> 01:47:12,518
like the value accrual?

1276
01:47:13,058 --> 01:47:17,299
Well, what you're purporting is that that market signal has to be in some way links to

1277
01:47:17,359 --> 01:47:21,379
Bitcoin. So again, the way that you constructed that argument was essentially like,

1278
01:47:21,399 --> 01:47:24,739
know, okay, in order for this market signal to be valid, you'd have the sidechain that

1279
01:47:24,739 --> 01:47:27,939
would be kind of signaling if you want some sort of feature to Bitcoin.

1280
01:47:29,019 --> 01:47:33,559
But my point was that like, if that was inherently true, like what explains something

1281
01:47:33,559 --> 01:47:34,921
like ordinals? Because in that

1282
01:47:34,961 --> 01:47:39,201
case there was just an existing market activity outside of Bitcoin, and then someone

1283
01:47:39,201 --> 01:47:43,321
just designed something that worked within Bitcoin to enable that market activity on

1284
01:47:43,321 --> 01:47:46,001
Bitcoin, and therefore he solved the problem.

1285
01:47:47,421 --> 01:47:51,461
And all I posited was that like there might be other like, know,

1286
01:47:52,542 --> 01:47:56,542
Like, it took maybe 10 years for somebody to figure out how to do that.

1287
01:47:56,542 --> 01:48:00,542
So, you know, like, one of the things that Drivechains has to sort of convince people of

1288
01:48:00,542 --> 01:48:05,982
is also that, like, you know, even if time goes on, like, that this is the best of all possible

1289
01:48:05,982 --> 01:48:09,742
solutions for this, right? Like, you'd have, because, again, like, at the point that we

1290
01:48:09,742 --> 01:48:16,382
activate a consensus change and enable Drivechains, I mean, that code is then within Bitcoin forever.

1291
01:48:16,382 --> 01:48:20,542
So you then have to convince us that this is not even just a plausibly good idea.

1292
01:48:20,542 --> 01:48:27,622
And I think like one of the interesting things is that Ordinals kind of, I think like a bit

1293
01:48:27,622 --> 01:48:32,582
undermines that claim, because I mean, essentially, it foreshadows a world where people don't

1294
01:48:32,582 --> 01:48:39,182
need consensus changes for, you know, bringing that market activity to Bitcoin.

1295
01:48:39,182 --> 01:48:41,062
And those changes aren't needed even.

1296
01:48:41,630 --> 01:48:43,630
Even for those types of things.

1297
01:48:43,630 --> 01:48:45,830
So, I mean, look, maybe that's not possible in all cases.

1298
01:48:45,830 --> 01:48:51,230
I'm just saying that, you know, as I was listening to your specific example,

1299
01:48:51,230 --> 01:48:54,830
I was struck by, you know, the fact that that has already happened,

1300
01:48:55,830 --> 01:48:58,430
and that someone pushed a protocol live that, you know,

1301
01:48:58,430 --> 01:49:00,630
satisfied the conditions that you were talking about

1302
01:49:00,630 --> 01:49:02,630
without, you know, any of the consensus changes

1303
01:49:02,630 --> 01:49:04,630
that we're currently discussing.

1304
01:49:04,630 --> 01:49:07,630
And I don't know, I think that's an interesting...

1305
01:49:08,062 --> 01:49:16,362
That is an interesting thing, and I don't know that the market has really assimilated that yet, right?

1306
01:49:16,362 --> 01:49:23,562
I do think that there are going to be a large amount of people from the other cryptocurrency camps that, you know, saw that,

1307
01:49:23,562 --> 01:49:25,562
and I don't think that we have...

1308
01:49:26,122 --> 01:49:29,102
seen the end of those people launching things on Bitcoin.

1309
01:49:29,862 --> 01:49:35,562
think that, and I don't know, I wonder how that stands in contrast to what Drivechains

1310
01:49:35,562 --> 01:49:41,322
offers. And I'm very interested to see what we should be seeing in the next six to

1311
01:49:41,322 --> 01:49:43,022
12 months as, know,

1312
01:49:43,454 --> 01:49:46,774
I mean, there's just been such a huge uptick in like late proposals for LayerTwo's,

1313
01:49:46,814 --> 01:49:48,234
know, since Ordinals went live.

1314
01:49:49,054 --> 01:49:51,474
And I think you're just going to see some of these startups starting to trickle the

1315
01:49:51,474 --> 01:49:54,914
market. And I think they're going to have, you know, some of the things that they're

1316
01:49:54,914 --> 01:49:58,014
going to be proposing, I think are going to look similar to Drivechains, right?

1317
01:49:58,414 --> 01:50:00,154
So I don't know.

1318
01:50:00,354 --> 01:50:00,926
I mean, I'm,

1319
01:50:01,166 --> 01:50:02,986
interested to see the conversation.

1320
01:50:03,386 --> 01:50:06,126
I've always been a huge fan of Paul's.

1321
01:50:06,406 --> 01:50:09,706
I guess if I was to say at some point in summation, I've always encouraged people to

1322
01:50:09,706 --> 01:50:12,826
read Truthcoin and to engage with Paul's work.

1323
01:50:13,046 --> 01:50:17,446
I do think it's some of the best developed stuff in terms of if you're looking for a

1324
01:50:17,446 --> 01:50:17,946
really

1325
01:50:18,558 --> 01:50:33,558
You know, holistic view of Bitcoin that is really iconoclastic and very detailed, you know, it's a great resource, you know, but I can also think that and still not want to activate drivechains today, you know, it's...

1326
01:50:33,558 --> 01:50:42,366
Well, maybe one difference between your philosophy and Paul's is that I think that within Paul's view, there's a sense of urgency.

1327
01:50:43,206 --> 01:50:49,166
So you point to ordinals as something which, as you say, took many, you know, 10 years

1328
01:50:49,166 --> 01:50:50,266
for something like that to happen.

1329
01:50:50,446 --> 01:50:52,226
was your wording.

1330
01:50:52,566 --> 01:50:55,374
Well, I mean, I don't know, there weren't NFCs on the base, before.

1331
01:50:55,434 --> 01:51:01,154
that. well, what I, all I mean to say is that in your view, you're saying, look,

1332
01:51:01,294 --> 01:51:06,254
here's an example of someone doing something interesting and successful, and he didn't

1333
01:51:06,254 --> 01:51:07,974
have to, you know,

1334
01:51:09,342 --> 01:51:13,502
go through the core development process and consensus process.

1335
01:51:13,902 --> 01:51:19,382
But I think that in Paul's view, maybe it would be better if there

1336
01:51:19,382 --> 01:51:24,422
were like 25 things, like as successful and new and

1337
01:51:24,422 --> 01:51:25,022
interesting.

1338
01:51:25,470 --> 01:51:34,110
Serving 25 different kinds of consumers instead of just one, and it would have been very good for them to be on Bitcoin seven years ago instead of now.

1339
01:51:34,590 --> 01:51:43,230
And if we get something like ordinals from time to time, that's not as good for Bitcoin and freedom as if we have Bitcoin platforming.

1340
01:51:44,350 --> 01:51:50,510
many more of those things much more rapidly because it has oriented its protocol development in the

1341
01:51:50,510 --> 01:51:56,750
direction of experimentation and innovation on layer twos. So yes, Ordinales was cool and exciting

1342
01:51:56,750 --> 01:52:04,510
and it brought value and fee revenue and an excitement and fun to Bitcoin for a time and in

1343
01:52:04,510 --> 01:52:05,390
the future. But

1344
01:52:06,110 --> 01:52:15,110
Many more of those things, much sooner, would accelerate Bitcoinization and better humanity.

1345
01:52:15,110 --> 01:52:21,110
So, it sounds like you're a very patient man, and sometimes that's good in life.

1346
01:52:21,110 --> 01:52:25,110
Other times in life, it's better to be more ambitious.

1347
01:52:26,130 --> 01:52:29,810
the, in. Well, I mean, I'm saying the average Bitcoin user is patient.

1348
01:52:30,650 --> 01:52:34,810
And, you know, I'm just pointing out that the collective psyche right now is, you know,

1349
01:52:35,070 --> 01:52:38,290
is very dismissive of claims of urgency.

1350
01:52:38,410 --> 01:52:42,290
Right. Like, I mean, that's, you know, that that's just a fact

1351
01:52:42,345 --> 01:52:46,405
of the Yeah, like, do you what do you make of, on the long hand, what you said about

1352
01:52:46,405 --> 01:52:51,945
like, Paul's blog truthcoin.info being a place of like, you know,

1353
01:52:52,345 --> 01:52:55,125
valuable theory and holistic understanding of Bitcoin?

1354
01:52:55,585 --> 01:52:58,899
How do you do you contrast that with like, Samson Mao tweeting yesterday,

1355
01:52:59,159 --> 01:53:04,979
that like Bitcoin intellectuals, know, and he like wrote it with like all caps,

1356
01:53:05,159 --> 01:53:06,539
you know, in half of the characters.

1357
01:53:06,679 --> 01:53:11,299
In other words, like he's mocking, I think, like the Drivechain community, saying that

1358
01:53:11,299 --> 01:53:15,454
like we're just a bunch of like people with these like annoying theories or like

1359
01:53:15,454 --> 01:53:20,134
Like when Pierre Richard debated Paul, he was kind enough to come to our space a few

1360
01:53:20,134 --> 01:53:26,454
weeks ago and he said like, he referred to Paul's speech as like mumbo-jumbo economics.

1361
01:53:26,454 --> 01:53:32,294
So what do you think, Pete, about like, do you think that there is complacence and a

1362
01:53:32,294 --> 01:53:40,734
degree of like anti-intellectualism and in Bitcoin's like discourse today to some extent,

1363
01:53:40,734 --> 01:53:42,534
like, or do you think that?

1364
01:53:43,038 --> 01:53:48,838
there's not and we're all good and that that's just like hoi -pah -loi chattering

1365
01:53:48,838 --> 01:53:53,298
and that the technical community isn't affected by those problems?

1366
01:53:55,798 --> 01:53:56,998
Well, I

1367
01:53:57,038 --> 01:53:59,598
mean there's a certain beauty in the right to ignorance.

1368
01:54:00,558 --> 01:54:05,978
And I do think that the extent that Bitcoin allows people the right to ignorance

1369
01:54:05,978 --> 01:54:11,038
about their money and gives them a satisfied feeling that

1370
01:54:11,038 --> 01:54:16,038
they'll be able to hold their value ignorantly for hundreds of years without participating

1371
01:54:16,038 --> 01:54:17,958
in any consensus upgrades.

1372
01:54:17,958 --> 01:54:25,238
That is probably a laudable thing on some levels.

1373
01:54:25,238 --> 01:54:31,958
As someone who considers himself an intellectual, I do think it's sort of tempting to think

1374
01:54:31,958 --> 01:54:34,798
that our solutions to things are...

1375
01:54:35,326 --> 01:54:39,486
valuable, it's easy to fall into that trap. Look, I don't know, I mean I think

1376
01:54:39,486 --> 01:54:47,006
that it would be nice to see a more higher level of conversation within

1377
01:54:47,006 --> 01:54:52,766
Bitcoin. I like that Drivechains has steered the conversation back towards

1378
01:54:52,766 --> 01:54:56,566
things that are technical. I think the average Bitcoin conversation has

1379
01:54:56,566 --> 01:54:58,910
definitely suffered over the last few years.

1380
01:54:58,910 --> 01:55:11,910
But again, like this is another example where it's like I think I can agree with you at a couple of higher level points and then not think that that necessitates an urgent consensus change to Bitcoin in the way as you've described.

1381
01:55:11,910 --> 01:55:19,910
So, you know, I guess we can maybe conclude and just say, yeah, I mean, I share a lot of your frustrations with the community.

1382
01:55:19,910 --> 01:55:22,910
You know, I wish that the dialogue was better.

1383
01:55:22,910 --> 01:55:25,910
I understand the position of the people who think that.

1384
01:55:26,910 --> 01:55:31,910
You know, the current dialogue is just Bitcoin's gotten bigger, you can't expect everybody to be involved.

1385
01:55:32,910 --> 01:55:38,910
It's their prerogative to get involved and to the extent that you're proposing a change, you know, the onus is on you.

1386
01:55:39,646 --> 01:55:45,706
You know, look, I wrote in a piece for Forbes that the first tenet of Bitcoin maximalism

1387
01:55:45,706 --> 01:55:50,426
was essentially this belief that we're building Bitcoin for the long term.

1388
01:55:50,426 --> 01:55:54,786
I actually do think that most Bitcoin maximalists are sort of united in that, and that's sort

1389
01:55:54,786 --> 01:55:56,226
of their number one thing, right?

1390
01:55:56,226 --> 01:55:56,546
So...

1391
01:55:57,310 --> 01:56:06,310
You know, it's probably better that there's some disdain for the people who are attempting to make changes.

1392
01:56:06,310 --> 01:56:12,310
I personally always thought that Bitcoin toxicity was a very valuable thing.

1393
01:56:12,310 --> 01:56:18,310
You certainly don't see within other cryptocurrency communities much of a respect for minority groups.

1394
01:56:18,310 --> 01:56:23,966
Like, in fact, they're sort of routinely forked off the chain and, you know, are...

1395
01:56:23,966 --> 01:56:32,766
You know, basically just, you know, second-class citizens to the, you know, majorities that sort of impose on them.

1396
01:56:32,766 --> 01:56:38,166
So, you know, I mean, it is certainly a nice feature that Bitcoin has some of these things.

1397
01:56:38,166 --> 01:56:40,866
We should think carefully about them, you know.

1398
01:56:40,866 --> 01:56:44,266
Again, I don't have all the answers here, but it's been a fun conversation, man.

1399
01:56:44,266 --> 01:56:46,666
I hope maybe people got something out of it.

1400
01:56:46,974 --> 01:56:51,134
Thank you so much again. This has been really great for the two hours of your time.

1401
01:56:51,134 --> 01:56:54,014
Thanks for being here. I hope you'll come back when Paul's here sometime.

1402
01:56:56,094 --> 01:57:01,054
You mentioned truthcoin.info. That's a great place to read some essays in favor of Drivechain.

1403
01:57:01,054 --> 01:57:05,614
There's also a high-quality long-form criticism of Drivechain written by Shinobi.

1404
01:57:05,614 --> 01:57:09,294
I would encourage everyone to read that as well at Bitcoin Magazine.

1405
01:57:09,502 --> 01:57:34,622
And, Pete, thank you for your excellent writing as well in Bitcoin Magazine, and everyone who wants to learn more about Drivechain can go to LayerTwo Labs and download the testnet software, which has recently been enhanced, and there's also a really good essay by Fiatjaf, who I see in the audience, everyone can go to fiatjaf.com and read his essay on Drivechain there.

1406
01:57:34,622 --> 01:57:38,622
Oh, Austin, you want to say some final words to Pete?

1407
01:57:38,622 --> 01:57:55,622
Yeah, I just wanted to thank you for your time. I'm a big fan and I think what you're doing as far as cataloging and the history of Bitcoin, or I don't know, I don't know how you describe yourself, like Bitcoin sociologist or something like that.

1408
01:57:55,622 --> 01:57:58,622
I'm going with the story.

1409
01:57:59,390 --> 01:58:01,390
Well, thank you, Ben. Yeah, I appreciate it.

1410
01:58:01,390 --> 01:58:09,390
You know, look, I think hopefully I gave you guys some insight into how I think about some of the ways people are thinking about Bitcoin.

1411
01:58:09,390 --> 01:58:13,390
You know, look, I appreciate the conversation, the energy.

1412
01:58:13,390 --> 01:58:19,390
You know, I think it's been great to see the passion from the community, but, you know, it's a high hurdle.

1413
01:58:19,390 --> 01:58:21,390
I'm interested to see what you guys do.

1414
01:58:21,390 --> 01:58:24,390
And, you know, I'll be waiting for the...

1415
01:58:24,838 --> 01:58:28,578
the formal code to drop whenever that might be.

1416
01:58:35,646 --> 01:58:36,866
the code and do the pull request.

1417
01:58:37,726 --> 01:58:42,686
was cool to see him do a draft recently of one of the BIPs, so hopefully in the coming

1418
01:58:42,686 --> 01:58:46,006
weeks or months, we'll get to see more of that progression.

1419
01:58:46,654 --> 01:58:51,254
Well, thanks again, Pete, for being here, and thank you everyone for listening.

1420
01:58:51,254 --> 01:58:52,494
These are recorded spaces.

1421
01:58:52,494 --> 01:58:56,454
People can catch the beginning if you joined late in the recording.

1422
01:58:56,454 --> 01:59:00,254
The recordings are available of all of our Twitter spaces at layertwolabs.com.

1423
01:59:00,254 --> 01:59:03,174
Bye, everyone.

1424
01:59:03,174 --> 01:59:07,094
Happy Friday.