1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:08,800
[Intro music]

2
00:01:00,000 --> 00:01:05,000
♪, and check out my other videos! ♪, and check out my other videos!

3
00:01:05,000 --> 00:01:10,000
♪, and check out my other videos!

4
00:01:10,000 --> 00:01:15,000
♪, and check out my other videos!

5
00:01:15,000 --> 00:01:22,000
Hello and welcome to Drivechain Twitter Spaces.

6
00:01:22,000 --> 00:01:32,000
We are back. The last Twitter Space had a problem.

7
00:01:32,000 --> 00:01:42,000
Unexpectedly, it suddenly ended, but now we're back.

8
00:01:42,000 --> 00:01:49,000
Soon, everyone will join, and all will be well.

9
00:02:13,000 --> 00:02:19,000
All right, let's see if the connection now works. Excellent. Excellent.

10
00:02:19,000 --> 00:02:24,000
Rejoin. They probably rejoined, and then they're like, where did it go?

11
00:02:24,000 --> 00:02:30,000
You have one shot, just like that famous Eminem song.

12
00:02:30,000 --> 00:02:37,000
Yes, 8 Mile. Well, I opened it exactly as I have in the past for many weeks,

13
00:02:37,000 --> 00:02:42,000
and there's not been a problem for a few weeks. Maybe Twitter's issues have reached you.

14
00:02:42,000 --> 00:02:47,000
Probably Elon. Yeah. I did nothing new, and yet there was a glitch.

15
00:02:47,000 --> 00:02:52,000
But welcome. We have an important speaker on the stage today,

16
00:02:52,000 --> 00:02:58,000
the designer of Drivechain, Mr. Paul Sztorc.

17
00:02:58,000 --> 00:03:03,000
Paul, what are your thoughts on scaling Bitcoin this time around?

18
00:03:03,000 --> 00:03:08,000
How do you feel that the narrative of scaling Bitcoin is going to take center stage

19
00:03:08,000 --> 00:03:11,000
in Drivechain discourse for the coming weeks?

20
00:03:11,000 --> 00:03:18,000
Well, I don't know. I think scalability is the most important thing by far.

21
00:03:18,000 --> 00:03:25,000
It's often just regarded as like one bullet point, like scalability, privacy, whatever.

22
00:03:25,000 --> 00:03:28,000
But I don't really think that's the case. Scalability is the only thing.

23
00:03:28,000 --> 00:03:31,000
When you have something with money, when you have something with network effects,

24
00:03:31,000 --> 00:03:51,000
the thing that meets the needs of the most users will win, and everything else will be destroyed.

25
00:03:51,000 --> 00:03:59,000
Well said. Yes, the needs of the users.

26
00:03:59,000 --> 00:04:02,000
Yes, right.

27
00:04:02,000 --> 00:04:11,000
Well, let's see. There have been a lot of great tweets recently on Drivechain.

28
00:04:11,000 --> 00:04:18,000
For example, this week, SuperTestNet confirmed, as he has before, that he is a big Drivechain supporter,

29
00:04:18,000 --> 00:04:29,000
and he is the programmer who created a disruption in inscriptions and ordinals.

30
00:04:29,000 --> 00:04:34,000
It's great to see people who are builders in the Bitcoin space understanding Drivechain

31
00:04:34,000 --> 00:04:43,000
and seeing its potential to meet the needs of the consumer.

32
00:04:44,000 --> 00:04:53,000
Yes, that's what we want. We don't want people just influencing each other.

33
00:04:53,000 --> 00:04:58,000
We want actual cost-satisfied customers.

34
00:04:58,000 --> 00:05:02,000
For me, the case for Drivechain has always been economic.

35
00:05:02,000 --> 00:05:07,000
It's the idea that if there are, let's say, 10 different technologies that can be done on blockchain,

36
00:05:07,000 --> 00:05:14,000
if each one is done as an altcoin, then they all compete for monetary premium, for network effect.

37
00:05:14,000 --> 00:05:22,000
Each of those 10 monetary units competes to serve as unit of account in the transactions of consumers.

38
00:05:22,000 --> 00:05:31,000
So it's inevitable that one of those 10 altcoins would, in that hypothetical, develop a Drivechain-like design,

39
00:05:31,000 --> 00:05:38,000
and then it would become the base layer for all of those 10 applications.

40
00:05:38,000 --> 00:05:45,000
Does that simple narrative fit with your view on the economics of how Drivechain...

41
00:05:45,000 --> 00:05:53,000
Well, I think so. I mean, Drivechain is a solution to the problem of that people disagree over what the blockchain should contain.

42
00:05:53,000 --> 00:06:00,000
So either there's one thing, which is very unlikely, because people are different and transactions are different.

43
00:06:00,000 --> 00:06:06,000
So not every transaction requires the same privacy and same decentralization.

44
00:06:06,000 --> 00:06:15,000
The coffee transaction really just does not. It doesn't have the same requirements as other transactions, which do.

45
00:06:15,000 --> 00:06:20,000
And so it's very, very, very hard to have a one-size-fits-all thing,

46
00:06:20,000 --> 00:06:29,000
just because the people and the transactions are so different from each one another.

47
00:06:29,000 --> 00:06:33,000
The idea of Drivechain is that you would fit all different shapes and sizes.

48
00:06:33,000 --> 00:06:38,000
So that's the idea.

49
00:06:38,000 --> 00:06:44,000
And I think that this problem of people disagreeing over what the blockchain should contain,

50
00:06:44,000 --> 00:06:48,000
I think this problem has always been with us and always will be with us.

51
00:06:48,000 --> 00:06:57,000
So that is the justification for Drivechain.

52
00:06:58,000 --> 00:07:03,000
Well said.

53
00:07:03,000 --> 00:07:05,000
Well, it's great to have you here.

54
00:07:05,000 --> 00:07:15,000
We've had a number of spaces where all kinds of people have shared ideas on the potential for Drivechain to create a lot of value for Bitcoiners.

55
00:07:15,000 --> 00:07:25,000
Some people, some of our frequent speakers, much prefer discussion of Drivechain in a context of technological innovation and experimentation.

56
00:07:25,000 --> 00:07:32,000
Other people, myself included, especially enjoy discussion of Drivechain in an economic context,

57
00:07:32,000 --> 00:07:42,000
where it is understood that Drivechain could have a great effect on Bitcoin's miner revenue and Bitcoin's price.

58
00:07:42,000 --> 00:07:53,000
So there is a split. Some DriveChainers like the innovation discussion and others like the economic number go up discussion and security budget discussion.

59
00:07:53,000 --> 00:07:56,000
Paul, which would you say speaks to you the most?

60
00:07:56,000 --> 00:08:05,000
Is it the technology or is it the economic value proposition or would you say they're one in the same?

61
00:08:05,000 --> 00:08:08,000
Well, what did you mean exactly?

62
00:08:08,000 --> 00:08:13,000
I was just saying how some of our Drivechain supporters, they like the innovation of Drivechain.

63
00:08:14,000 --> 00:08:23,000
For example, people who are very interested in having people who are interested in just having these interesting sidechains on Bitcoin,

64
00:08:23,000 --> 00:08:26,000
regardless of whether they're very large in value.

65
00:08:26,000 --> 00:08:33,000
But others like me find it interesting to reflect on the possibility that the sidechains would become billions of dollars of value,

66
00:08:33,000 --> 00:08:38,000
which would mean pushing Bitcoin's price up and solving its security budget.

67
00:08:38,000 --> 00:08:43,000
So what I'm saying is that there are some people who love the innovation part of Drivechain, the technology,

68
00:08:43,000 --> 00:08:52,000
having interesting experiments like oracles and strong privacy and other people who envision those sidechains becoming very large economically

69
00:08:52,000 --> 00:08:57,000
and how that could affect Bitcoin's price and security positively.

70
00:08:57,000 --> 00:09:03,000
So there's like the investor case for Drivechain and then there's the innovation case.

71
00:09:03,000 --> 00:09:06,000
Well, I think the tech case is like a disqualifier.

72
00:09:07,000 --> 00:09:11,000
Someone says, well, like this is what the Ethereum people used to say.

73
00:09:11,000 --> 00:09:16,000
They say, well, Bitcoin is great, but Bitcoin can't do smart contracts.

74
00:09:16,000 --> 00:09:19,000
That was the line, you know.

75
00:09:19,000 --> 00:09:24,000
And so the line is, oh, it can't do such and such.

76
00:09:24,000 --> 00:09:29,000
But with the Drivechain, then there's no disagreement over what the blockchain is going to contain.

77
00:09:29,000 --> 00:09:32,000
So you're never disqualified.

78
00:09:32,000 --> 00:09:34,000
And I think that's really the key.

79
00:09:34,000 --> 00:09:39,000
People want to, they don't want, if they're trying to figure out what money do we pick,

80
00:09:39,000 --> 00:09:42,000
they want to avoid anything where people cannot use it.

81
00:09:42,000 --> 00:09:47,000
So if they just can't support some people, then those people will be natural enemies of the project.

82
00:09:47,000 --> 00:09:55,000
They'll be no matter what, no matter how good or bad the project is in its other dimensions, these people will just be completely against it.

83
00:09:55,000 --> 00:09:58,000
So you want to eliminate all the blocking coalitions.

84
00:09:58,000 --> 00:10:00,000
That's how I see it, actually.

85
00:10:01,000 --> 00:10:04,000
That's very interesting.

86
00:10:04,000 --> 00:10:11,000
So your view, your view is not, your view is almost a third way of thinking about it from the two I listed.

87
00:10:11,000 --> 00:10:15,000
Your view is not simply a curiosity and passion for innovation.

88
00:10:15,000 --> 00:10:18,000
It's not simply strengthening Bitcoin economically.

89
00:10:18,000 --> 00:10:33,000
It's a third thing, which is we could say social, that we don't want to have disagreements lead to people being naturally outside of Bitcoin's ecosystem.

90
00:10:33,000 --> 00:10:39,000
They have to be outside of it because Bitcoin can't platform their technology in a peer to peer manner.

91
00:10:39,000 --> 00:10:45,000
So therefore they have to go launch an altcoin to have a peer to peer implementation of their technology.

92
00:10:45,000 --> 00:10:48,000
So sidechains, drivechain solves that.

93
00:10:48,000 --> 00:10:50,000
So it reduces disagreement.

94
00:10:50,000 --> 00:10:57,000
It allows the disagreement to flow to a sidechain rather than flow to an entirely new coin, a new blockchain, an altcoin.

95
00:11:05,000 --> 00:11:08,000
Indeed, it does.

96
00:11:08,000 --> 00:11:11,000
Why don't we get some other people up on stage?

97
00:11:11,000 --> 00:11:14,000
That'd be great.

98
00:11:14,000 --> 00:11:20,000
Welcome to all of our familiar faces, as well as those who've joined for the first time, perhaps.

99
00:11:20,000 --> 00:11:24,000
Come on up to the stage and ask a question or share a comment if you'd like.

100
00:11:24,000 --> 00:11:28,000
Hello, Hampus. Hello, Moon Settler.

101
00:11:28,000 --> 00:11:30,000
Hello, everyone.

102
00:11:30,000 --> 00:11:42,000
Don't be shy.

103
00:11:42,000 --> 00:11:44,000
It really is a great. Oh, great.

104
00:11:44,000 --> 00:11:47,000
Hi, Moon Settler. Raise your hand and come on up if you'd like.

105
00:11:47,000 --> 00:11:55,000
Hi, Hampus.

106
00:11:55,000 --> 00:12:01,000
All right. Maybe people are just preparing their thoughts.

107
00:12:01,000 --> 00:12:03,000
All right.

108
00:12:03,000 --> 00:12:08,000
They have a friendly wave.

109
00:12:09,000 --> 00:12:13,000
They have a real job. They have real work to do.

110
00:12:13,000 --> 00:12:15,000
Moon Settler is joining. Excellent.

111
00:12:15,000 --> 00:12:18,000
One of our most frequent speakers.

112
00:12:18,000 --> 00:12:20,000
Great to have you here.

113
00:12:20,000 --> 00:12:22,000
Hello, guys.

114
00:12:22,000 --> 00:12:24,000
Hello.

115
00:12:24,000 --> 00:12:25,000
Please begin.

116
00:12:25,000 --> 00:12:34,000
So, I'm just wondering really how this thing is going to play out, you know, economically.

117
00:12:34,000 --> 00:12:43,000
Because it looks to me that DGNs are actually paying way higher fees than I expected that they would ever pay.

118
00:12:43,000 --> 00:12:46,000
So, that was a surprise for me.

119
00:12:47,000 --> 00:12:58,000
I kind of used to think that this whole thing can resolve itself naturally because the real economic demand for block space, you know,

120
00:12:58,000 --> 00:13:08,000
is going to come from transactions and they will be able to outbid these various other arbitrary data storage use cases.

121
00:13:09,000 --> 00:13:19,000
But the problem seems to be that maybe Bitcoin block space has become sort of a web-length good, you know.

122
00:13:19,000 --> 00:13:26,000
So, the more scarce it is, the more expensive it is, the more desirable it becomes for these purposes.

123
00:13:26,000 --> 00:13:28,000
And that's a little bit worrisome.

124
00:13:28,000 --> 00:13:32,000
But obviously, we need to wait and see how it turns out.

125
00:13:32,000 --> 00:13:41,000
Maybe see how they will fare in the bull market, the bull part of the cycle.

126
00:14:02,000 --> 00:14:13,000
In my prior conversations with Moon Settler, I recall him expressing greater interest in the innovation-focused rhetoric for drivechain

127
00:14:13,000 --> 00:14:24,000
as opposed to the more economic line of reasoning that the economic effects of drivechain adoption could be fantastic.

128
00:14:24,000 --> 00:14:31,000
For example, that drivechain adoption could eliminate altcoins or devalue them almost completely.

129
00:14:31,000 --> 00:14:39,000
And that drivechain adoption could therefore boost Bitcoin's value and strengthen its security budget forever.

130
00:14:39,000 --> 00:14:48,000
So, if I recall, Moon Settler, you're more sympathetic to the innovation-focused ideas around drivechain,

131
00:14:48,000 --> 00:14:58,000
like just enabling interesting experiments on sidechains, bringing in some developers to Bitcoin sidechains who might otherwise go to some altcoins.

132
00:14:58,000 --> 00:14:59,000
Is that right?

133
00:14:59,000 --> 00:15:10,000
I think that would be the more preferable reason for me that people get excited about drivechain and want to activate it.

134
00:15:10,000 --> 00:15:23,000
And also that it would take a decade or two, in my opinion, for this to unfold in a way that it becomes truly significant, economically speaking.

135
00:15:23,000 --> 00:15:35,000
So I think if drivechain was activated today, it wouldn't have a significant effect on the fee, the miner revenue or anything else immediately.

136
00:15:35,000 --> 00:15:41,000
This would take years and years of building and people adopting it.

137
00:15:42,000 --> 00:16:01,000
If they did and some other happenings, you know, to unfold positively so that people have a better trust in this way of securing maybe their wealth.

138
00:16:02,000 --> 00:16:12,000
The main point is, I think, short term, it's probably this permissionless innovation that it would give us immediately.

139
00:16:12,000 --> 00:16:19,000
And long term, I think, yes, with a very low probability.

140
00:16:19,000 --> 00:16:27,000
I would personally give it a low probability, but I think it could be very, very positive economically.

141
00:16:32,000 --> 00:16:34,000
Well said.

142
00:16:37,000 --> 00:16:40,000
Ah, we have another request for speaker.

143
00:16:40,000 --> 00:16:42,000
Welcome, Hampus.

144
00:16:45,000 --> 00:16:47,000
Thanks for joining.

145
00:16:52,000 --> 00:16:53,000
Hampus.

146
00:16:53,000 --> 00:16:55,000
Hello. Can you hear me?

147
00:16:55,000 --> 00:16:56,000
Yes.

148
00:16:56,000 --> 00:17:07,000
Yes. So maybe this is in one of these two camps, but the reason why I am mostly interested in drivechains is because of the scaling capabilities.

149
00:17:07,000 --> 00:17:18,000
Like we see now with the on-chain fees are sky high on main chain and even lightning ceases to work, basically, in my opinion, in these situations.

150
00:17:18,000 --> 00:17:25,000
So I would rather see like intranet of drivechains where you could deploy lightning over that.

151
00:17:25,000 --> 00:17:30,000
I think that's the most that's that's the most interesting thing for me regarding drivechains.

152
00:17:30,000 --> 00:17:33,000
But maybe that's that is in one of these two camps.

153
00:17:33,000 --> 00:17:42,000
But like we need to I think we need to talk about scaling and drivechains more because it's a really interesting value proposition for me.

154
00:17:45,000 --> 00:17:51,000
Yeah, I agree. I think, unfortunately, it's just naive large block ism.

155
00:17:51,000 --> 00:17:58,000
It sort of resembles the sidechain point of view, like cosmetically, even though it's not it's not that at all.

156
00:17:58,000 --> 00:18:00,000
But I just it just kind of looks that way.

157
00:18:00,000 --> 00:18:05,000
So people are very dismissive of it, even though it's really the opposite in many ways.

158
00:18:05,000 --> 00:18:12,000
For one thing, there's a night and day difference between the mandatory layer one and the optional layer two that can just be paused and just come back.

159
00:18:13,000 --> 00:18:19,000
But, yeah, I think the other thing is, again, like I was saying, not every transaction needs the same amount of decentralization.

160
00:18:19,000 --> 00:18:22,000
Like we do need to have decentralization.

161
00:18:22,000 --> 00:18:25,000
Of course, that's the most important thing.

162
00:18:25,000 --> 00:18:33,000
But it's just like plenty of people today are going to use Venmo or whatever, something that's not decentralized in the slightest.

163
00:18:34,000 --> 00:18:38,000
And we want to capture all those use cases and make them Bitcoin.

164
00:18:39,000 --> 00:18:47,000
So this is requires just a paradigm shift that people just they they switch from saying we have to have decentralization to just.

165
00:18:49,000 --> 00:18:53,000
We have all the decentralization we need and we can also travel the whole spectrum.

166
00:18:54,000 --> 00:19:00,000
We travel the whole spectrum from decentralized to more centralized whenever and wherever we wish.

167
00:19:01,000 --> 00:19:06,000
And then, yeah, I think lightning like lightning, it was in a weird because of the scaling war.

168
00:19:07,000 --> 00:19:12,000
Lightning was in like a very little pattern where it was above criticism.

169
00:19:13,000 --> 00:19:21,000
So even the creators would try to tell people that it doesn't work when the fee rates, layer one fee rates are very high.

170
00:19:23,000 --> 00:19:26,000
People wouldn't listen because it was all performance.

171
00:19:26,000 --> 00:19:29,000
So this is an unfortunate thing that has happened.

172
00:19:35,000 --> 00:19:42,000
But we need to start having this conversation because it seems like like not many people understand that lightning just doesn't work that well.

173
00:19:42,000 --> 00:19:46,000
If the fees are too high, it becomes like trusted, basically.

174
00:19:47,000 --> 00:19:54,000
So, yeah, that's that's why I like drivechains and lightning together with with not so high fees on drivechains, maybe.

175
00:19:54,000 --> 00:19:58,000
But as I said, like main thing can keep sky high fees.

176
00:19:58,000 --> 00:20:02,000
And then we do a lot of small things on the drivechains instead.

177
00:20:03,282 --> 00:20:16,722
I think that's a much better way to go about it, right, because it's just it's like in practice, people are not going to be happy about onboarding, you know, like when people on board, they are very new and they have minimal commitment.

178
00:20:16,722 --> 00:20:29,442
So they're going to be in a bad mood, you know, and you don't want to onboard them with like buy expensive layer one transaction Bitcoin to immediately lose like thirty dollars and then open the channel.

179
00:20:30,161 --> 00:20:38,081
They're not going to know anything about channels. They don't know who to open the channel with. The whole thing is going to be a mess. That's just like doesn't work.

180
00:20:38,081 --> 00:20:44,881
You need to have something where there's just lower stakes and the large block sidechain is very good with that.

181
00:20:45,442 --> 00:20:56,962
You're on this more fragile network, but it doesn't matter because it's just layer two. It's just it can die at any day and layer one is unaffected.

182
00:20:57,921 --> 00:21:08,241
Henry, I don't know if you remember, but I said it a few times that I'm more interested in the Thunder sidechain than any EVM or any other stuff.

183
00:21:08,881 --> 00:21:26,722
So when I say permissionless innovation, I don't necessarily mean completely changing everything about Bitcoin, but a lot of a lot of Covenant stuff and other ideas are floating out there that could potentially make lightning

184
00:21:26,722 --> 00:21:35,201
a much, much better and safer and overall more advanced and more capable experience.

185
00:21:35,201 --> 00:21:39,442
And they are moving on to main chain very, very slowly.

186
00:21:39,762 --> 00:21:48,161
And the people who could benefit the most from them are likely the people who will have trouble paying the main chain fees anyhow.

187
00:21:48,402 --> 00:21:53,682
So and they could they would basically risk becoming dust.

188
00:21:54,002 --> 00:22:10,402
Their entire life saving may become dust on main chain if things work out not on the optimistic part, but on the worst case part where they would basically fall back to an unspendable UTXO possibly.

189
00:22:11,201 --> 00:22:38,481
And the other thing I wanted to note that, as Paul said, the decentralization does not need to be, you know, absolute or the largest possible one for everyone, because it kind of, if you think about it, the current spam is motivated by Bitcoin's claims on huge replication, huge decentralization.

190
00:22:38,722 --> 00:22:47,921
And infinite data availability, basically, and that contributes to this insane race for block space.

191
00:22:47,921 --> 00:22:52,882
Everyone wants to grab this scarce real estate for whatever silly purposes.

192
00:22:52,882 --> 00:23:04,722
And so basically it might pay to create real estate that is less scarce and less desirable because it is not as replicated and not as sure to be around forever.

193
00:23:04,802 --> 00:23:12,242
But it can actually be used, you know, people that just want to transact, that just want to hold their own keys, they could use it.

194
00:23:13,121 --> 00:23:22,401
And on the other side, it may be time to reconsider these narratives on Bitcoin main chain as well.

195
00:23:22,802 --> 00:23:46,321
So it might pay to reassess the whole pruning and pruning versus full archival nodes, you know, and this whole notion that we are basically creating a lure for these insane people to pollute the blockchain with garbage.

196
00:23:46,321 --> 00:23:49,761
I know some people are saying if they are paying the fees, then it's fine.

197
00:23:49,761 --> 00:24:00,882
But let's face it, this is not conductive to the purposes for why Bitcoin was made and basically makes the experience shitty for everyone.

198
00:24:01,442 --> 00:24:12,642
And that is the reason why I think Bitcoin mainnet should be more of a live network and less of infinite and forever data storage.

199
00:24:13,121 --> 00:24:24,081
And if people would reduce the block size, it might actually just make it more valuable, more desirable for certain people who have the money to spend on this bullshit.

200
00:24:24,081 --> 00:24:28,322
So anyway, I'm curious how this will play out. I just wanted to know these things.

201
00:24:29,042 --> 00:24:34,882
Well said. Could you could you clarify your question a bit more?

202
00:24:37,762 --> 00:24:38,882
About what?

203
00:24:40,641 --> 00:24:43,121
So what exactly is your your question?

204
00:24:44,641 --> 00:24:46,162
I don't think I can answer that.

205
00:24:46,882 --> 00:24:47,521
A bit more?

206
00:24:50,722 --> 00:24:51,841
About what?

207
00:24:53,442 --> 00:24:55,762
So what exactly is your your question?

208
00:24:57,521 --> 00:24:58,882
I don't think I have one.

209
00:25:00,641 --> 00:25:02,641
My question is how this will play out.

210
00:25:03,442 --> 00:25:07,121
But I don't think you can answer that with a great confidence.

211
00:25:07,202 --> 00:25:25,202
So basically, will the spammers give up and will the fee rate drop after a while, after the congestion gets bad and they start to capitulate because they can't sell the stuff that they are minting as well as they thought or whatever.

212
00:25:25,681 --> 00:25:32,801
We are experiencing some credit crunch and everything just drips down and they forget about this bullshit.

213
00:25:32,801 --> 00:25:40,081
And then we can finally do, you know, open Lightning channels on Bitcoin mainchain and get liquidity on Lightning again or something.

214
00:25:40,882 --> 00:25:43,282
Or it can actually get worse.

215
00:25:43,282 --> 00:25:45,202
And I don't know how this will play out.

216
00:25:45,762 --> 00:25:49,282
I'm just speculating that there might be things we could do.

217
00:25:49,922 --> 00:25:57,602
And these things mainly should involve making Bitcoin block space less desirable for spammers, I think.

218
00:25:59,521 --> 00:26:04,641
There is a interesting claim in one of Paul's essays on the security budget.

219
00:26:05,521 --> 00:26:16,961
It is a reference to Von Mises' ideas from long ago that Bitcoin token is a proportional good, but block space is a production good.

220
00:26:17,841 --> 00:26:19,521
And I've put a link in the chat.

221
00:26:20,401 --> 00:26:28,801
I'll put a link in our nest here in this space so you can all click to open that, see the chart and read the essay at the link included.

222
00:26:29,762 --> 00:26:36,641
Basically, competition and capitalism pushes down the price of all kinds of things.

223
00:26:36,641 --> 00:26:39,681
So capitalism is always making things cheaper.

224
00:26:40,561 --> 00:26:44,641
This is one reason why technology creates price deflation.

225
00:26:44,641 --> 00:26:55,602
If technology pushes prices down, even in the midst of government money printing, some prices fall because technology enables productivity to increase.

226
00:26:56,322 --> 00:27:11,521
So capitalism can't create more Bitcoin, but capitalism can make it more efficient to use the block space by creating innovations that make block space use more efficient for people.

227
00:27:12,801 --> 00:27:24,401
So things like Lightning and custodial Bitcoin, sidechains, all of these things tend to reduce the fee pressure.

228
00:27:25,121 --> 00:27:32,002
So for these reasons, it's very possible that we could see this fee spike end the way that the spike ended in the past.

229
00:27:34,401 --> 00:27:37,202
Anyone, please jump in and share your thought.

230
00:27:38,162 --> 00:27:43,922
But it's my understanding that our view as drive-chainers is probably that the fee spike will end.

231
00:27:43,922 --> 00:27:46,801
But I'm curious to hear anyone who thinks it'll remain permanently.

232
00:27:49,442 --> 00:27:52,081
Hey guys, thank you for bringing me up.

233
00:27:52,801 --> 00:28:04,401
I want to say first, thanks to Paul for making those videos on your YouTube that are like five years, six years old, that really, really go into detail about a bunch of stuff.

234
00:28:04,401 --> 00:28:06,401
Those are really nice.

235
00:28:06,401 --> 00:28:11,042
I wish one of them that you ran out of time, you wanted to explain blind merge mining.

236
00:28:11,042 --> 00:28:15,762
So maybe there's other videos that I didn't find that you explained them in.

237
00:28:16,322 --> 00:28:22,882
But I wanted to ask Paul a question, and I didn't mean to redirect from what you were saying, LayerTwo Labs.

238
00:28:23,521 --> 00:28:26,801
I wanted to say, I see Supertestnet was just up here.

239
00:28:27,681 --> 00:28:29,202
He was in the room, but he left.

240
00:28:29,202 --> 00:28:36,401
So I'm wondering if you had a chance to look at hand cranks, his way of potentially doing something like drivechains without changing consensus.

241
00:28:36,961 --> 00:28:44,162
And what you might think are the biggest differences or the biggest negatives to the hand crank model.

242
00:28:45,761 --> 00:29:00,001
Paul, I'm not sure if you looked at it before.

243
00:29:00,001 --> 00:29:00,641
I assume you did.

244
00:29:01,521 --> 00:29:02,722
Do you guys hear me?

245
00:29:05,441 --> 00:29:09,362
It's possible that his Twitter has glitched, and he can't.

246
00:29:10,961 --> 00:29:11,602
I don't know.

247
00:29:11,602 --> 00:29:12,881
Oh, man.

248
00:29:12,961 --> 00:29:18,162
It's interesting, because one of the first times I came to the show with you guys, Paul was there, and he also couldn't talk.

249
00:29:18,802 --> 00:29:20,482
And now it's happening again.

250
00:29:20,482 --> 00:29:20,982
No.

251
00:29:22,321 --> 00:29:24,001
Sometimes there's glitches.

252
00:29:24,001 --> 00:29:25,521
People can't hear or can't speak.

253
00:29:25,521 --> 00:29:28,802
But Supertestnet's work has been so amazing.

254
00:29:29,441 --> 00:29:35,042
And it was great that he created a variation on drivechain.

255
00:29:35,682 --> 00:29:38,722
That kind of tinkering and experimentation is very valuable.

256
00:29:39,521 --> 00:29:47,682
He remains a drivechain supporter, emphatically, and tweeted that recently, yesterday or the day before.

257
00:29:48,401 --> 00:29:56,081
So his invention is not intended to be a competitor to drivechain in the sense that he no longer supports drivechain.

258
00:29:56,081 --> 00:29:58,641
He does support drivechain now and has.

259
00:29:59,362 --> 00:30:08,321
So it would be awesome to hear him elaborate on what he learned about sidechains by creating hand crank.

260
00:30:08,321 --> 00:30:13,201
And how it influences his thinking on the whole topic.

261
00:30:14,242 --> 00:30:15,201
That would be cool.

262
00:30:15,201 --> 00:30:23,602
Yeah, I was thinking of what are the benefits of the BIP300 drivechain over hand crank?

263
00:30:23,602 --> 00:30:29,362
And what would be the cons of hand crank that drivechain can help with that hand crank can't?

264
00:30:29,362 --> 00:30:34,401
Basically, the major differences that Paul might see of one versus the other.

265
00:30:35,441 --> 00:30:37,682
But I'm not sure if he hears me or can speak.

266
00:30:38,482 --> 00:30:39,282
Maybe somebody else.

267
00:30:39,282 --> 00:30:40,162
Can you speak, Paul?

268
00:30:41,042 --> 00:30:43,122
Should I take this or can you speak, Paul?

269
00:30:46,081 --> 00:30:47,841
It seems like he's not connected.

270
00:30:47,841 --> 00:30:50,482
So Moonsettler, why don't you share your thoughts?

271
00:30:51,362 --> 00:30:58,162
So if I remember correctly, but I'm working from memory, I discussed this with Supertestnet.

272
00:30:58,162 --> 00:31:03,761
And like I said, from my memory, and maybe this is not the freshest version of the proposal,

273
00:31:04,482 --> 00:31:11,602
but he basically sought to emulate the miner consensus.

274
00:31:12,401 --> 00:31:19,282
If you try to obstruct, you know, a drivechain like a dynamic federation of miners,

275
00:31:19,282 --> 00:31:27,761
like a large, large multisig where the slots get handed to newer and newer miners who produce the

276
00:31:27,761 --> 00:31:32,802
blocks, I think hand crank is about emulating that somehow.

277
00:31:32,802 --> 00:31:42,001
So it will give a threshold vote, basically a threshold multisig for miners to drive this

278
00:31:42,001 --> 00:31:42,482
forward.

279
00:31:43,602 --> 00:31:51,122
And the main difference by BIP300 is, in my opinion, is vastly better, is that you have

280
00:31:51,122 --> 00:31:56,482
this long, long withdrawal period where you have to telegraph your intent to steal.

281
00:31:56,482 --> 00:31:58,482
It's not an immediate thing.

282
00:31:58,482 --> 00:32:08,162
You can't just have a momentary majority in a multisig and just steal the coins or do

283
00:32:08,162 --> 00:32:08,961
whatever you want.

284
00:32:09,682 --> 00:32:15,682
And as other miners keep building on this, it becomes more and more impossible to handle

285
00:32:15,682 --> 00:32:16,162
this thing.

286
00:32:17,122 --> 00:32:24,401
Instead, with BIP300, you need to telegraph this intent three months ahead.

287
00:32:25,362 --> 00:32:31,841
And the users, in theory, could stop you with a very, very simple soft fork that may not

288
00:32:31,841 --> 00:32:35,122
even require a new client to be downloaded.

289
00:32:35,122 --> 00:32:42,562
Just it could be as simple as them agreeing on social media or whatever that this is a

290
00:32:42,562 --> 00:32:43,682
very, very bad thing.

291
00:32:43,682 --> 00:32:51,441
And just scanning a QR code or just, you know, whatever.

292
00:32:52,321 --> 00:32:57,122
Very small input to their client could tell their client to ignore the chain where the

293
00:32:57,122 --> 00:33:01,362
miners end up successfully stealing, if they carry through even, you know.

294
00:33:02,001 --> 00:33:05,682
So it's trivially easy to stop it with a soft fork.

295
00:33:07,441 --> 00:33:14,081
And in case of handcrank, you don't have this incentive, basically.

296
00:33:14,722 --> 00:33:20,722
So in short, you don't have the exact, you don't have as much security as you would have

297
00:33:20,722 --> 00:33:21,922
with BIP300.

298
00:33:22,722 --> 00:33:27,602
And like the time of the security too, basically.

299
00:33:27,602 --> 00:33:28,802
Yes, I understand.

300
00:33:28,802 --> 00:33:35,122
No, it just seeks to emulate the dynamic federation aspect.

301
00:33:35,122 --> 00:33:38,401
And basically, it's kind of a proof of concept, right?

302
00:33:38,401 --> 00:33:45,682
So if handcrank works, it actually works in securing people's value, their holdings,

303
00:33:45,682 --> 00:33:46,242
right?

304
00:33:46,242 --> 00:33:47,201
It works for them.

305
00:33:47,201 --> 00:33:54,881
Then that basically proves that BIP300 is sort of fine because it's a much stronger,

306
00:33:54,881 --> 00:33:57,362
much better security, I believe.

307
00:33:57,362 --> 00:33:58,242
I see.

308
00:33:58,242 --> 00:33:58,802
That makes sense.

309
00:33:59,602 --> 00:34:00,881
Thanks for answering that.

310
00:34:00,881 --> 00:34:02,641
That definitely clears up for me.

311
00:34:09,042 --> 00:34:24,482
LayerTwo Labs, back to what you previously just said of the fees, meaning it's just a

312
00:34:24,482 --> 00:34:25,042
spike.

313
00:34:25,042 --> 00:34:30,961
I remember last time we spoke together on this space that we were looking at the charts

314
00:34:30,961 --> 00:34:37,282
on the Bitcoin.com charts and like the miner revenue and what it comes from fees.

315
00:34:37,761 --> 00:34:44,722
And we were kind of predicting that potentially this ordinal, this was before even the BRC20s,

316
00:34:44,722 --> 00:34:49,682
it would create some, the inscriptions would create some kind of floor for block space

317
00:34:49,682 --> 00:34:50,242
buyers.

318
00:34:50,242 --> 00:34:56,401
And it would, even a very, very little bit, it would increase the average fees miners

319
00:34:56,401 --> 00:34:57,602
make over time.

320
00:34:58,722 --> 00:35:00,482
It looks like it's been playing out so far.

321
00:35:00,482 --> 00:35:04,242
I think the recent spike can be temporary.

322
00:35:04,802 --> 00:35:07,441
Temporary can last because like DGNs can have a lot of money.

323
00:35:08,162 --> 00:35:14,881
But I do think that overall we might be in areas of like if Mempool does clear again,

324
00:35:14,881 --> 00:35:15,761
it probably won't last.

325
00:35:15,761 --> 00:35:17,602
That would be more of a temporary now.

326
00:35:17,602 --> 00:35:21,922
Whereas previously we had long periods of time of Mempool being clear.

327
00:35:21,922 --> 00:35:26,802
I don't think we're ever going to come back to a time where we're going to have long periods

328
00:35:26,802 --> 00:35:28,482
of time of Mempool being clear.

329
00:35:28,482 --> 00:35:32,321
As opposed to now, if Mempool clears up, people are going to wake up and be like, oh, let

330
00:35:32,321 --> 00:35:34,162
me go and do on-chain activity.

331
00:35:34,401 --> 00:35:36,641
And whatever that is, it might be consolidation.

332
00:35:36,641 --> 00:35:38,321
It might be opening channels.

333
00:35:38,321 --> 00:35:39,362
It might be inscribing.

334
00:35:39,362 --> 00:35:42,562
It might be finding other use cases for that block space.

335
00:35:42,562 --> 00:35:50,001
But I think we have kind of like sailed that time of having low fee rates for like long

336
00:35:50,001 --> 00:35:50,722
periods of time.

337
00:35:51,922 --> 00:35:52,641
Those are my thoughts.

338
00:35:55,362 --> 00:35:59,761
It's very hard to know what the future holds for the value of the block space, that is

339
00:35:59,761 --> 00:36:01,362
the total transaction fee rate.

340
00:36:02,321 --> 00:36:10,001
So the best thing I've ever found on the subject is Paul's essay, which is security budget

341
00:36:10,001 --> 00:36:12,961
in the long run and then security part two.

342
00:36:12,961 --> 00:36:23,042
Those two essays written in 2019 and 2021, where he examines how the Bitcoin token is

343
00:36:23,042 --> 00:36:27,362
something which is of a different economic category than the block space.

344
00:36:27,441 --> 00:36:32,562
So on the Bitcoin network, there are two different goods, two different economic goods.

345
00:36:32,562 --> 00:36:35,682
One is the token, the other is the block space.

346
00:36:35,682 --> 00:36:40,242
Their value is not linearly related.

347
00:36:40,242 --> 00:36:45,682
So the token could go up by 100 times while the value of the block space goes down.

348
00:36:46,242 --> 00:36:47,922
Hypothetically, that's possible.

349
00:36:47,922 --> 00:36:52,562
What we've seen over the last decade is that the token can go up a lot while the value

350
00:36:52,562 --> 00:36:57,282
of the block space doesn't move up at all in terms of purchasing power.

351
00:36:59,362 --> 00:37:05,042
So you say that there's now perhaps a new normal where we'll see fee pressure forever,

352
00:37:06,001 --> 00:37:09,042
but it's not something that I would bet on.

353
00:37:09,761 --> 00:37:19,282
I think that we might see a return to low fees because that's what's happened in the

354
00:37:19,282 --> 00:37:23,842
past when there was other activity that seemed that it might be permanent.

355
00:37:25,521 --> 00:37:32,721
Well, the way I would say to that is, even early on to Bitcoin, I always assumed that

356
00:37:32,721 --> 00:37:38,241
block space is going to be very highly demanded and blocks are going to be full at some point

357
00:37:38,241 --> 00:37:42,322
in time because of just natural adoption of Bitcoin.

358
00:37:42,322 --> 00:37:45,042
And that was kind of a given to me.

359
00:37:46,001 --> 00:37:52,241
I'm actually more surprised to why 10 years have passed and block spaces has still been

360
00:37:52,241 --> 00:37:53,682
like very hardly used.

361
00:37:54,881 --> 00:38:00,082
So I think that it's not that we're going to go back to a low fee environment.

362
00:38:00,082 --> 00:38:06,562
I think that we could, but just like a mempool clear environment won't last because now people

363
00:38:06,562 --> 00:38:09,761
are realizing of different use cases.

364
00:38:09,761 --> 00:38:15,282
And I think just like the most simple use case of having the most distributed database

365
00:38:15,282 --> 00:38:20,562
in the world and being able to put data on it, and that can be any kind of arbitrary

366
00:38:20,562 --> 00:38:21,202
data you want.

367
00:38:22,401 --> 00:38:25,922
You might want to back up something of yours, even though that's a bad idea.

368
00:38:27,442 --> 00:38:30,962
The fact that you can do that openly and easily, even though you could have always done it,

369
00:38:30,962 --> 00:38:35,282
but now it's more easily accessible and it's more widely heard about.

370
00:38:35,282 --> 00:38:38,322
I think that that's a use case that will be explored over time more.

371
00:38:40,322 --> 00:38:46,962
Yeah, this is what I was talking about a few minutes before, that we should, I believe,

372
00:38:46,962 --> 00:38:55,042
disincentivize this notion, completely disabuse it and just wreck those people that want to

373
00:38:55,042 --> 00:38:58,562
put data on chain because this will not end well.

374
00:38:58,562 --> 00:39:00,082
It looks like right now, at least.

375
00:39:01,121 --> 00:39:07,442
Yeah, but if you think about it, like what is the Bitcoin blockchain space used for?

376
00:39:07,442 --> 00:39:13,521
It's used for data and that data is ledger balance updates, right?

377
00:39:13,521 --> 00:39:18,401
And you can say that, all right, that's the main use case of it right now, today.

378
00:39:18,401 --> 00:39:24,082
And you can say somebody else making a meme coin, and even though it's technically flawed

379
00:39:24,082 --> 00:39:29,202
and we don't agree with it and it's a bad idea, but just the fact that they're also

380
00:39:29,202 --> 00:39:34,562
putting on ledger state updates in that block space.

381
00:39:34,562 --> 00:39:40,082
So it's arbitrary to say that certain ledger updates are more valuable than other ledger

382
00:39:40,082 --> 00:39:43,761
updates because they're doing the same thing and they're also paying for the block space

383
00:39:43,761 --> 00:39:48,001
to do the same thing, just update their own state and they're leveraging it.

384
00:39:48,001 --> 00:39:53,922
So one data cannot be necessarily a better use case for it than another data because

385
00:39:53,922 --> 00:39:59,202
from the person that is paying to put that data on there, it's like, why would your data

386
00:39:59,202 --> 00:40:02,562
be more important or more incentivized than anybody else's data?

387
00:40:02,562 --> 00:40:06,962
And also, there's no real way to stop it because it's an open list or it's open

388
00:40:06,962 --> 00:40:09,282
permissionless network. You can't really stop it.

389
00:40:09,282 --> 00:40:15,682
Yeah, there is a way to stop it and I think we should do it for multiple reasons and this

390
00:40:15,682 --> 00:40:24,082
is one of them. So I understand this notion that if people are paying for it, it's a

391
00:40:24,082 --> 00:40:31,121
capitalistic system and they should be able to do it, but it disables the use of the system

392
00:40:31,121 --> 00:40:35,761
for its intended purpose and why people are buying into the Bitcoin asset.

393
00:40:35,761 --> 00:40:40,721
So I believe in this case, we should fight back, but fight back smart.

394
00:40:40,721 --> 00:40:45,842
So I don't think the old disrespect or patch or anything like that will

395
00:40:46,479 --> 00:41:02,079
give you the desired effect. I don't think you can fight it like this. I believe the way to fight this is literally making an asymmetry between how valuable the Bitcoin block space is for one purpose or the other.

396
00:41:02,079 --> 00:41:13,479
So by reducing the replication, by starting to prune the block space and the UTXO set, even if we must, heavily,

397
00:41:13,479 --> 00:41:29,479
and shifting the burden of storage to those people that want to store arbitrary data on Bitcoin that is not significant economic value expressed in the amounts known to the Bitcoin base layer.

398
00:41:29,479 --> 00:41:55,479
So not Satoshi's basically, but something exogenous. We can actually shift the burden to those people by just stopping replicating their shit and pruning and trying to compact the state and basically preferring the way the Bitcoin nodes store, replicate and even propagate this data.

399
00:41:56,479 --> 00:42:11,479
Should probably prefer these ledger updates, the Satoshi amount ledger updates. And I believe we can do a lot in this regard, but the other way to do it is creating alternative block spaces, basically.

400
00:42:11,479 --> 00:42:36,479
So that's one thing we are talking about here, that this is the two main attack angle that we could try. But basically, I understand that this sounds like an arbitrary moral judgment from one perspective, but I'm still making it.

401
00:42:36,479 --> 00:42:58,479
It's my personal opinion that the Bitcoin block space and the Bitcoin network should be used to transact Bitcoin and not for people basically making us store that junk and being satisfied with that we are forced to store that junk.

402
00:42:58,479 --> 00:43:21,479
I don't think that's a good idea to encourage that behavior because it's seemingly somehow the degens are able to outbid the people who are actually just trying to use Bitcoin in the short term. I don't know how sticky this is. I don't know how much we can project this into the future, but right now it looks rather bad to me.

403
00:43:22,479 --> 00:43:42,479
Well, I really appreciate your opinion and the way you defined it. But I think that those ways would not be able to stop it because, well, first of all, in order to have a full node sync and to self-verify every single, to verify it from Genesys, you really need all that data.

404
00:43:43,479 --> 00:43:50,479
You can speed that up, you can have trust-minimized ways, but if you want to fully verify from the beginning, you have to download that data.

405
00:43:51,479 --> 00:44:09,479
That's why I said that we should disabuse these notions. And it starts with making, first of all, accepting that Bitcoin is a probabilistic system. It always was a probabilistic system. It was never actually, nor immutable, nor 100% sure it was probabilistic.

406
00:44:10,479 --> 00:44:21,479
And accepting these reasonable trade-offs, like zero sync, if something comes out of zero sync, then we can do a lot about managing this.

407
00:44:22,479 --> 00:44:33,479
I agree with all that. And you can incentivize that and you can talk about that and all that. But at the end of the day, if you really want a node that's going to sync from Genesys, you have to download that data.

408
00:44:34,479 --> 00:44:42,479
And aside from that, there just will always be people that will have that. They will have that data because it's really not that much data since it's limited and it can only grow in a limited way.

409
00:44:43,479 --> 00:44:56,479
So even if the majority of nodes will not store that data, you still kind of have to have nodes that will store that data. But I think there will always be nodes that will store that data. So that will not disincentivize people.

410
00:44:57,479 --> 00:45:10,479
Sorry, I pressed the wrong button. I wanted to give you a thumbs up. So I agree, there will always be nodes that replicate everything. I'm pretty sure of this.

411
00:45:11,479 --> 00:45:34,479
But would this whole ethos and this whole motivation and whole incentive be on a strongly pruning network that tries to just work with a live state, that tries to move the UTXO set from one state to the next with the highest possible trust assumptions and the most decentralization?

412
00:45:34,479 --> 00:45:49,479
It would still be the best option. What's your other option? IPFS? The Bitcoin-based layer would still be the best option to store data, even if a very minority stored that data. It would still be the most immutable best place to store data.

413
00:45:50,479 --> 00:46:12,479
If you have to, because you don't get it served as readily and it does not have the same data availability that it right now boasts. So tens of thousands or maybe a hundred thousand, I don't know how many nodes are out there. I think it's a safe bet to say that right now there are tens of thousands of full nodes that fully replicate the Bitcoin blockchain.

414
00:46:13,479 --> 00:46:16,479
I see what you're saying. So you make the availability of that data more difficult.

415
00:46:17,479 --> 00:46:19,479
Yeah, make it more difficult.

416
00:46:20,479 --> 00:46:24,479
You're also making it more difficult than for anybody to think of fully verifying nodes.

417
00:46:25,479 --> 00:46:47,479
Yes, that's what I mean. So if you accept that this is money and it's a probabilistic system and nodes are pruning by default and they accept these trust assumptions that if you are an economically insignificant node, a new player that just starts syncing up a new node and you've never received a single Satoshi,

418
00:46:48,479 --> 00:47:13,479
then the energy and computation effort to fool you into a false chain so that when you receive your $10 worth of Satoshis from Binance or Lightning or something like that, it's not realistic.

419
00:47:13,479 --> 00:47:37,479
Like I said, it's not 100% sure, but it's a probabilistic system and the probabilities are that if you verify the proof of work and you have these very reasonable assumptions on the UTXO set that you receive either a zero knowledge proof or you are getting a confirmation on a chain state from multiple reputable parties

420
00:47:38,479 --> 00:47:48,479
and you are seeing that your node starts building, receiving the new blocks and they are all validating and checking out and the proof of work is checking out for a thousand blocks now,

421
00:47:49,479 --> 00:47:59,479
then you just know that chances of that you have been fooled are almost non-existent and you wouldn't give good motivation for people to mess with you anyhow.

422
00:48:00,479 --> 00:48:10,479
And the financial institutions and large players that are worth to spoof with significant effort are going to find a way to get the entire history anyhow.

423
00:48:11,479 --> 00:48:21,479
So that's why this mental shift could actually happen and I believe it could disincentivize the abuse of the block space and I think we should explore it now.

424
00:48:22,479 --> 00:48:40,479
Because like I said and as you said, so long that this ethos prevails that Bitcoin is this immutable storage forever stored and infinitely replicated, the motivation to put these things on chain is insanely high, I believe.

425
00:48:41,479 --> 00:48:51,479
Yeah, I understand your point. If you disincentivize availability, but it's trivial for somebody to spin up a thousand nodes and then make that availability higher again.

426
00:48:52,479 --> 00:48:54,479
Yeah, but the burden is his.

427
00:48:55,479 --> 00:49:06,479
Yeah, the burden is his. But there will be people that want to, like aside from any of this garbage storage of data, they just want to for the fundamental reasons of Bitcoin to have their availability better.

428
00:49:06,479 --> 00:49:10,479
There might be people like that, but I hear what you're saying, you can disincentivize them by explaining that.

429
00:49:11,479 --> 00:49:18,479
But I still think there will be people that will want to do that. But as far as the UTXO set, people can store data in the UTXO set as well with fake signatures.

430
00:49:19,479 --> 00:49:25,479
So you don't want to incentivize people to start storing data into the UTXO set because that's more of a problem for node operators.

431
00:49:26,479 --> 00:49:41,479
That's what I said to people who first wanted to fight back on this. When it was just in the witness space, I was fairly relieved because the UTXO set is a much bigger problem if they start spamming that.

432
00:49:42,479 --> 00:49:59,479
And sadly it happened with stamps. So even before any efficient fight would have been mounted by certain toxic maximalist labs, they already found a way to make things worse for everyone.

433
00:49:59,479 --> 00:50:17,479
But if you check out how zero sync is supposed to work and what UTXO can do, then you realize that we could actually prune the crap out of the UTXO set as well, the way we store it and propagate it.

434
00:50:17,479 --> 00:50:31,479
And shift the burden of proving that the UTXO is actually an existing thing and it is included in the UTXO set to those people that are creating these near-dust amounts.

435
00:50:32,479 --> 00:50:37,479
And if you are not creating near-dust amounts, then that is going to be pretty damn expensive.

436
00:50:38,479 --> 00:50:50,479
So obviously you can't stop it 100%, but you can probably keep it manageable. At least that is the theory that I think we should explore.

437
00:50:51,479 --> 00:50:52,479
So I don't know.

438
00:50:53,479 --> 00:51:06,479
I hear that. But as somebody that has been in the Ordinal ecosystem, I always incentivize people to run their own node if they are putting arbitrary data like pictures.

439
00:51:07,479 --> 00:51:11,479
Where I would tell them that the best way to secure it is you actually hosting this data yourself.

440
00:51:12,479 --> 00:51:17,479
So I think that there is an incentive for anybody participating in the network through putting arbitrary data.

441
00:51:18,479 --> 00:51:20,479
And that's okay, right?

442
00:51:21,479 --> 00:51:31,479
So if the people who are doing these things are actually the ones that are bearing the burden of it, then I think that is a more fair thing than what we have now.

443
00:51:32,479 --> 00:51:36,479
But I think the better solution to this would be to reduce the block size.

444
00:51:37,479 --> 00:51:52,479
Because I think that if economic value transfer of only Bitcoin satoshis and not any exogenous asset on top is the most valuable thing for Bitcoin, then that will eventually buy up the block space and pay the highest fee rate.

445
00:51:53,479 --> 00:52:00,479
Now if it's not, if actually other asset transfers are more valuable, then that can be a great use case for Bitcoin.

446
00:52:01,479 --> 00:52:11,479
If exogenous asset transfers or balanced transfers of something that's not taking up space is more valuable than actually transferring Bitcoins, then why not?

447
00:52:12,479 --> 00:52:14,479
That can help the security of budget of Bitcoin.

448
00:52:15,479 --> 00:52:21,479
What do you think about that? I think you might have missed the question I posed.

449
00:52:22,479 --> 00:52:33,479
Just observing what is happening now, it has just popped in my head that the Bitcoin block space is valued.

450
00:52:34,479 --> 00:52:39,479
They are not using BCH or PSV or anything else to put this data on.

451
00:52:40,479 --> 00:52:45,479
They are using Bitcoin block space because it has higher prestige, it has higher perceived value.

452
00:52:46,479 --> 00:52:49,479
Because it is scarce. It's all a downstream consequence of its scale.

453
00:52:49,479 --> 00:52:54,479
So maybe if you make it more scarce, it would be just more valuable, like a web link.

454
00:52:55,479 --> 00:52:59,479
The more expensive it is, the more scarce it is, the more valuable it is.

455
00:53:00,479 --> 00:53:03,479
But it's not to solve that. It's not to solve the fees going up.

456
00:53:04,479 --> 00:53:09,479
It's to solve the issue of people having to store more data than they are used to.

457
00:53:10,479 --> 00:53:13,479
The fee aspect would most likely go higher.

458
00:53:14,479 --> 00:53:19,479
I do agree that if you lower the block space, fees go higher. That would make the most sense.

459
00:53:20,479 --> 00:53:30,479
Because you want to ease the burden of regular node operators that do not want to participate in this from storing this data.

460
00:53:31,479 --> 00:53:34,479
And you want to incentivize the ones that do want to store this data, let them store it.

461
00:53:35,479 --> 00:53:36,479
And that's okay if you put the burden on them.

462
00:53:36,479 --> 00:53:39,479
But the easiest way to do that is to just lower the block size.

463
00:53:40,479 --> 00:53:44,479
And now the burden is lighter on every node operator because now they have to store less data.

464
00:53:45,479 --> 00:53:47,479
That's like the most simple solution.

465
00:53:48,479 --> 00:53:57,479
But they are also just getting further away from being able to afford to participate in a self-sustaining way with the Bitcoin ecosystem.

466
00:53:58,479 --> 00:54:03,479
So we are basically pouring gasoline into the fire from one aspect.

467
00:54:03,479 --> 00:54:07,479
And I know that can be sometimes a valid strategy.

468
00:54:08,479 --> 00:54:13,479
Some people suggested that we should constrict the block size temporarily.

469
00:54:14,479 --> 00:54:19,479
So to squeeze out this type of economic activity and then relax it.

470
00:54:20,479 --> 00:54:23,479
I'm not sure about all this.

471
00:54:24,479 --> 00:54:30,479
But the way I see the solution is really to create an asymmetry.

472
00:54:30,479 --> 00:54:35,479
So what Bitcoin is good for and what Bitcoin is the most useful for.

473
00:54:36,479 --> 00:54:41,479
I would like to shift that in a way that creates a more inclusive environment.

474
00:54:42,479 --> 00:54:48,479
I don't think the pricing out is a fair assessment.

475
00:54:49,479 --> 00:54:57,479
Because if you look at hypothetically, we have 1 million people using Bitcoin for day-to-day transfers.

476
00:54:57,479 --> 00:55:04,479
Or even more than that, let's say you have 1 billion people using the Bitcoin network.

477
00:55:05,479 --> 00:55:08,479
And the Bitcoin price is at 1 million USD.

478
00:55:09,479 --> 00:55:11,479
The fees are going to be extremely high.

479
00:55:12,479 --> 00:55:16,479
So people are going to be priced out from using the base layer no matter what.

480
00:55:17,479 --> 00:55:22,479
Even if there's no other type of transactions other than Bitcoin, eventually people get priced out.

481
00:55:23,479 --> 00:55:24,479
It doesn't scale for that.

482
00:55:24,479 --> 00:55:29,479
So to say that reducing the block size, you're pricing people out, it's an inevitability.

483
00:55:30,479 --> 00:55:31,479
People are going to be priced out anyways.

484
00:55:32,479 --> 00:55:33,479
I don't think that's a reason not to reduce it.

485
00:55:34,479 --> 00:55:35,479
I think reducing it can have other benefits.

486
00:55:36,479 --> 00:55:37,479
Wait, wait, wait.

487
00:55:38,479 --> 00:55:44,479
Obviously, the Bitcoin album block space will not be able to service billions of people.

488
00:55:45,479 --> 00:55:51,479
That was, I think, always pretty much understood after 2010 or something like that.

489
00:55:51,479 --> 00:55:57,479
I think it's not understood as far as, I assume then, just like you, it's understood.

490
00:55:58,479 --> 00:56:02,479
But as you can see on Twitter now, it seems like a lot of Bitcoiners have not understood that aspect.

491
00:56:03,479 --> 00:56:08,479
Because they're saying the same arguments of the bigger blockers in 2017.

492
00:56:09,479 --> 00:56:10,479
The same Roger Ver arguments, right?

493
00:56:11,479 --> 00:56:12,479
Like children are dying.

494
00:56:13,479 --> 00:56:16,479
It's really the same argument if you think about it.

495
00:56:17,479 --> 00:56:20,479
Yeah, but bigger and infinite are not the same, right?

496
00:56:21,479 --> 00:56:29,479
If you can make blocks reasonably bigger, and just hypothetically, if you can make blocks reasonably bigger,

497
00:56:30,479 --> 00:56:31,479
and like I said, create an asymmetry.

498
00:56:32,479 --> 00:56:33,479
It will not solve the issue.

499
00:56:34,479 --> 00:56:35,479
If you make them bigger, people will always use it as well.

500
00:56:36,479 --> 00:56:37,479
In itself.

501
00:56:38,479 --> 00:56:41,479
That is why I said, I think we need to create an asymmetry.

502
00:56:42,479 --> 00:56:45,479
Because if you just increase the block space now, you are going to get more of the garbage.

503
00:56:46,479 --> 00:56:47,479
I'm 100% down with it.

504
00:56:47,479 --> 00:56:52,479
So what I'm trying to say, we have these L2 solutions we are working on.

505
00:56:53,479 --> 00:56:57,479
We are trying to make something more optimistic, right?

506
00:56:58,479 --> 00:57:03,479
So people could share a UTXO, but they could fall back to on-chain.

507
00:57:04,479 --> 00:57:09,479
And their ability to fall back to on-chain and their UTXO share not becoming dust,

508
00:57:10,479 --> 00:57:14,479
basically depends on the availability of block space and the demand for it.

509
00:57:14,479 --> 00:57:21,479
And that is why I try to say that if you can create an asymmetry where Bitcoin block space is mostly used for this,

510
00:57:22,479 --> 00:57:24,479
because it is mostly good for this, right?

511
00:57:25,479 --> 00:57:29,479
And we have a bit more block space, in theory, again.

512
00:57:30,479 --> 00:57:37,479
I understand that probably it's not the best time to talk about increasing the available block space right now,

513
00:57:38,479 --> 00:57:39,479
but there are caveats to that.

514
00:57:40,479 --> 00:57:42,479
There are all sorts of ways we could do.

515
00:57:42,479 --> 00:57:46,479
But like I said, it's a non-starter, as things are, right?

516
00:57:47,479 --> 00:57:52,479
So if you just added more block space right now, it would be taken up with JPEGs and whatever.

517
00:57:53,479 --> 00:58:05,479
But to come back to this, all these L2 schemes where you are deferring settlement, you have an off-chain state,

518
00:58:06,479 --> 00:58:10,479
you are maintaining that off-chain state, preferably interacting with Lightning,

519
00:58:10,479 --> 00:58:19,479
and your property rights basically hinge on that you can fall back to L1 and enforce them contractually on Bitcoin.

520
00:58:20,479 --> 00:58:24,479
This all assumes that you are going to be able to pay for this.

521
00:58:25,479 --> 00:58:33,479
And if we take, for example, say, CTV check template verify,

522
00:58:34,479 --> 00:58:40,479
we could just by activating that one fork, that one tiny 200 lines of code fork,

523
00:58:41,479 --> 00:58:45,479
we could put 1 billion people on Lightning with a single UTXO.

524
00:58:46,479 --> 00:58:50,479
But if they have to close, then they are completely trapped,

525
00:58:50,479 --> 00:58:57,479
and their small, tiny virtual UTXOs could actually become dust in a high-fee environment.

526
00:58:58,479 --> 00:59:01,479
And that means that they are not really self-sovereign.

527
00:59:02,479 --> 00:59:05,479
They did not accomplish anything by going to Lightning, right?

528
00:59:06,479 --> 00:59:15,479
So we need to find ways for these people to be able to optimistically defer from going to on-chain,

529
00:59:15,479 --> 00:59:17,479
but being able to fall to on-chain.

530
00:59:18,479 --> 00:59:26,479
That is the current scaling, I don't know what to say, scaling paradox of Bitcoin, right?

531
00:59:27,479 --> 00:59:33,479
This is the scaling paradox that we want, yes?

532
00:59:34,479 --> 00:59:40,479
The drivechain vision is to have multiple one-gigabyte thunderside chains

533
00:59:40,479 --> 00:59:44,479
that would be able to support billions of transactions a day,

534
00:59:45,479 --> 00:59:49,479
and they would be merge-mined, so billions of fees paid to Layer 1,

535
00:59:50,479 --> 00:59:53,479
and the fees would be low for the end user.

536
00:59:54,479 --> 00:59:59,479
So they would use the thunderside chain with its large blocks, and it would be opt-in.

537
01:00:00,479 --> 01:00:03,479
So anyone who wants to use the main chain only can do that,

538
01:00:04,479 --> 01:00:05,479
but the main chain would have very high fees.

539
01:00:05,479 --> 01:00:14,479
Very high fees on main chain was inevitable from Satoshi's decision to set the block size limit,

540
01:00:15,479 --> 01:00:21,479
and it's good that he did that because it makes the main chain very cheap to validate.

541
01:00:22,479 --> 01:00:26,479
So an ordinary person can validate, and if the block size were smaller,

542
01:00:27,479 --> 01:00:34,479
as drive-chainers generally support, not all of them, but I believe that's Paul's view,

543
01:00:35,479 --> 01:00:41,479
and it makes sense to me and others, is that if we have an even smaller block size,

544
01:00:42,479 --> 01:00:46,479
then it would be even sooner that Bitcoiners could have a full node on their phone.

545
01:00:46,767 --> 01:01:13,267
Comfortably. And then the whole world would be able to, you know, including poor people who only have a phone and no laptop, could validate the blockchain and be sure that they're paid Bitcoin, and for anyone who opts in to the thunderside chain, the large block sidechain, then they would have lower decentralization and lower fees, and validation would be harder, but it'd be optional.

546
01:01:13,267 --> 01:01:30,767
So it's just like a restaurant. Some people like McDonald's, and some people like the Four Seasons. So it's good that poor people can choose to get some food cheaply, while other people who prefer to pay a lot for a higher quality experience can do that.

547
01:01:30,767 --> 01:01:55,267
So Bitcoin needs to be a place where people can choose whatever they want, they can go to the sidechain they want, and it's all optional. No one has to use any sidechain ever. And if Bitcoin fails to provide that multiple sidechain design, where anyone can opt into whatever they want, then some other coin will, and then that coin will eventually accrue the value, because we don't want to lose users.

548
01:01:55,267 --> 01:02:10,267
We want all this activity on Bitcoin, people doing all different kinds of things on Bitcoin. And we want to provide avenues, sidechains for people to be most comfortable. So if they want low fees, then they can use the large thunder sidechain.

549
01:02:10,267 --> 01:02:39,267
So Moonsettler, why is it that you would prefer a block size increase, if I understood you correctly, on mainchain, when that would be a mandatory change for everyone? It would force everyone to have larger blocks, making it more expensive for the whole world to validate Layer 1. Why not keep Layer 1 small, if not smaller block size, and have large blocks on Layer 2, where it's completely optional, no one has to use it? Isn't that better? Why not have...

550
01:02:39,267 --> 01:03:04,267
Yeah, I didn't get to this part. So basically, there is a difference, two different approaches that you can take. The one is the mandatory block size increase, as you said, which increases the burden for everyone, and the other is the non-mandatory block size increase, sort of, where you are running a lean mainchain node, and you are running a heavier sidechain node,

551
01:03:04,267 --> 01:03:20,267
and that way, we could basically have, if not infinite block space, but definitely more than what we need to scale Lightning and stuff like that. And the whole thing would probably be manageable.

552
01:03:20,267 --> 01:03:47,267
And as I said before, there is the potential for the Internet to partition even, you know, among continents, among superpowers. We don't know what the future holds, and it's very likely that these sidechains could be localized, if needed, and the Internet infrastructure would still work fine within the geographical and jurisdictional borders of these superpowers, even if they are not talking to each other.

553
01:03:47,267 --> 01:03:59,267
You know, they are shooting down each other's satellites, and they are cutting the fibers below the oceans or whatever, and they are just setting up these huge national firewalls.

554
01:03:59,267 --> 01:04:15,267
So, in a future like that, which is not completely unimaginable, it would definitely be the best option to have localized blockchains and a lean mainchain.

555
01:04:16,267 --> 01:04:31,267
I have talked about this, but I would also like to mention, as I usually mention, that the trust assumptions are not the same for mainchain and for drivechains.

556
01:04:31,267 --> 01:04:32,267
Yes.

557
01:04:32,267 --> 01:04:54,267
Property rights do not have the same strength, and some of the people who are married to this part of the Bitcoin ethos, that you have to be, you know, momentum and self-sovereign, then those people probably do not accept it as a good compromise right now.

558
01:04:54,267 --> 01:05:08,267
I'm saying right now because, as I said, it would take 10 to 20 years for us to be able to judge it with certainty that it's as good as mainchain, basically.

559
01:05:09,267 --> 01:05:25,267
But since no one has to use it, the mountain men who don't want to use it, because as you rightly emphasize, the sidechain security budget is going to be only the sidechain fees, whereas the mainchain has the fees plus the subsidies.

560
01:05:25,267 --> 01:05:27,267
So the mainchain is stronger.

561
01:05:27,267 --> 01:05:38,267
In fact, it's funny that people who don't like sidechains actually benefit from them, even if they don't use them, which is an unusual phenomenon.

562
01:05:39,267 --> 01:05:53,267
Usually there isn't a positive externality from activity, but in the case of a Bitcoin sidechain that's using drivechain technology, all of the fees on the sidechain are paid to the mainchain, approximately all of them.

563
01:05:53,267 --> 01:06:07,267
And therefore, people who never use the sidechains ever still benefit, because when they eventually do their mainchain transaction, their layer one transaction, it's more secure because of the existence of those sidechains.

564
01:06:07,267 --> 01:06:18,267
So this is why it's wrong for people to say that the ordinals and inscriptions, that this activity would be better if it were completely outside of Bitcoin, if it were to be on Ethereum or somewhere else.

565
01:06:18,267 --> 01:06:29,267
We want this activity, these value, the value, the activity, the users, the demand, these people, it'd be better if they're Bitcoiners.

566
01:06:29,267 --> 01:06:41,267
But if we had sidechains like drivechain, then more likely these users would find their way to a sidechain, or people who don't like the high fees could use a sidechain.

567
01:06:41,267 --> 01:06:46,267
So we want to make Bitcoin a place where everyone can get whatever they want, kind of like Walmart.

568
01:06:46,267 --> 01:06:50,267
You walk into Walmart, they have every product for every kind of person.

569
01:06:50,267 --> 01:06:53,267
And that's why it's such a successful place.

570
01:06:53,267 --> 01:07:00,267
We don't want Bitcoin to be narrow and limited, where most people in the world go somewhere else for their needs.

571
01:07:00,267 --> 01:07:08,267
If Bitcoin were to be like that, and it become like a niche product, then it would not have the global monetization narrative.

572
01:07:08,267 --> 01:07:19,267
It would become flipped and it would become a niche product, kind of like gold is today, where there's only a limited number of people around the world who are using gold and hoping for gold to become money.

573
01:07:19,267 --> 01:07:31,267
And instead, you know, something else with more features and capabilities and flexibility becomes the world's one stop shop for all kinds of monetary use.

574
01:07:31,267 --> 01:07:43,267
So you're emphasizing that some people don't like that the sidechains under drivechain would have a security model that is not identical to Bitcoin's mainchain.

575
01:07:43,267 --> 01:07:49,267
So you're right about that, but that's fine. They don't have to use it. No one has to use it.

576
01:07:49,267 --> 01:07:50,267
Yes.

577
01:07:50,267 --> 01:08:17,267
Yes, but basically by reducing the block size of the mainchain and adding drivechains, you are almost forcing the people who actually want to use it for, I don't know, even just for, you know, a lightning wallet to have to run their own nodes and connect lightning network and stuff like that.

578
01:08:17,267 --> 01:08:23,267
You are almost economically forcing them if they have holdings below a certain threshold.

579
01:08:24,267 --> 01:08:49,267
And at the same time, you create a scarcity and prestige to mainchain block space where quote unquote artists and other people could basically use that block space scarcity to sell stuff that is really exogenous to the value that Bitcoin is trying to provide.

580
01:08:50,267 --> 01:09:18,267
And some people call that scam outright and fraud and whatever. But even if you are not going there, it kind of sounds like that we are pushing the people who actually want to use Bitcoin as we envisioned how it will be used back in the days to lessen trust assumption and trust model and data availability model.

581
01:09:18,267 --> 01:09:43,267
And we are just making the thing that the scammers produce even more valuable. So I see a potential there that it could play out in this perverse way. But like I said, from another approach and under other assumptions, it can make a lot of sense to actually do this. I just don't like what I'm seeing right now.

582
01:09:44,267 --> 01:09:55,267
I'm surprised you have that view. It seems like you're comfortable making a value judgment on how people are using the chain, but you're talking about what people envisioned long ago.

583
01:09:55,267 --> 01:10:10,267
Like Satoshi himself, the first Bitcoiner, was interested in using it for poker and for people to pay their pornography bills privately so their wife wouldn't see. Stuff like that.

584
01:10:10,267 --> 01:10:36,267
So the idea that Bitcoin was originally only for political dissidents and victims of statism and that no one should use it for any kind of artistic or entertainment purpose is actually the opposite of the most original Bitcoin view, which was that it's about fun, creativity, experimentation and freedom.

585
01:10:37,267 --> 01:10:48,267
I love libertarianism, but I feel that it would be a mistake to have a view which is at all anti-capitalist.

586
01:10:48,267 --> 01:11:13,267
There are multiple ways to do these things, right? So you can commit arbitrary amounts of data to the Bitcoin blockchain, you can stamp it to site trees or whatever else, and you can have whatever you want attached to it without making it everyone's burden to this degree that we are seeing right here.

587
01:11:13,267 --> 01:11:37,267
So I'm not sure I would say that I completely disapprove... I don't disapprove people paying poker and paying each other over Bitcoin. I disapprove putting every poker game that ever was played on the Bitcoin blockchain and recording it there. That's silly and that's bullshit.

588
01:11:38,267 --> 01:11:56,267
I don't disapprove open timestamps, right? I don't necessarily disapprove DID's ION that is using Bitcoin for these DIDs and verifiable credentials.

589
01:11:56,267 --> 01:12:09,267
I don't disapprove these uses. I disapprove the reckless and damaging ways that they are done that just make things worse for the people we want to bring to Bitcoin.

590
01:12:11,267 --> 01:12:12,267
Well said.

591
01:12:13,267 --> 01:12:17,267
Sudrunim, please join the conversation. You've so politely been waiting.

592
01:12:18,267 --> 01:12:38,267
Yeah, well, I don't know enough about drivechain and sidechain, but my opinion on the situation is to just take a bunch of steps back and know that these guys are basically burning $150,000 to $200,000 every single block and this thing, it won't sustain.

593
01:12:39,267 --> 01:13:02,267
But what will sustain is like multiple new use to Bitcoin blockchain. And what I find good in this is what we want to preserve a security budget of Bitcoin chain is as many use that have a high dependency to block space, but not in size, more like in blocks.

594
01:13:03,267 --> 01:13:18,267
And right now what we're seeing is extremely inefficient. And I see it as a good reminder that people need to come up with alternatives. And I think the block size is too big and that's why people don't.

595
01:13:19,267 --> 01:13:34,267
Like what happened with the inscription is people got access to three extra megabytes for very cheap. And that led to a bunch of stuff. And I see it as a good thing. And I'm curious to see how the fee was stabilized.

596
01:13:34,267 --> 01:14:03,267
I'm thinking maybe around 25 sats per byte. And I don't know how long it's gonna last, but maybe like a week or two. It's pretty impressive the amount of money that is being spent on this. And I welcome as many completely different use cases that create themselves high dependencies for extremely reliable block space.

597
01:14:05,267 --> 01:14:21,267
Yeah, I mean, we are having a bit of a glimpse into the future in some ways. And if we had for Bitcoin transaction at the moment, we would have these fees and we could sustain them.

598
01:14:21,267 --> 01:14:38,267
Even that would be an interesting wake-up call, right? So people paying 30 or 50,000 satoshis for transactions and just imagining what that would mean at sub-dollar parity, right?

599
01:14:38,267 --> 01:14:52,267
So who would be the people that can transact on-chain or open a lightning channel? And with what amount of money? That gives us some insight to how this thing could look in the future.

600
01:14:53,267 --> 01:15:06,267
If we assume the bullish case for Bitcoin where the fees might sustain the miners and all. But we already see that this would be a serious barrier to entry.

601
01:15:07,267 --> 01:15:17,267
And really the scary thing for me, and I understand the argument that this might just work itself out, right? This might just be a temporary thing.

602
01:15:18,267 --> 01:15:43,267
But this temporary insanity that people are paying these fees for these various use cases, this is, I don't know, it just makes me be more careful about assumptions on how insane people could get and for how long, right?

603
01:15:44,267 --> 01:15:54,267
That's all. So maybe I'm just a bit shaken and it's not a big deal actually and it will work out just fine. But right now what I'm seeing is not encouraging.

604
01:15:55,267 --> 01:15:59,267
Hello SuperTestNet. Welcome. What's on your mind?

605
01:16:00,267 --> 01:16:11,267
Thank you. I was just, when Mr. Moonsettler brought up that he doesn't want to see or he would not like it if every poker game ever was on Bitcoin.

606
01:16:12,267 --> 01:16:27,267
When you brought up that, it brought to mind the observation that I suspect that it would be possible to do something where you put the payments for the poker game on the blockchain without putting the hands on blockchain.

607
01:16:27,267 --> 01:16:37,267
Like you don't need to show what or to put information on the blockchain concerning what card everyone has in the poker game, but you can still put the payments on it and say like the payout is done through Bitcoin.

608
01:16:38,267 --> 01:16:44,267
So like using Bitcoin as a payments layer but not using it as a data storage layer seems like a good idea to me.

609
01:16:44,267 --> 01:17:05,267
Well said. One of the analogies Paul makes in his essays is that there is a structure in our energy grid where there is, for example, a nuclear power plant and ordinary consumers generally are not plugged in directly to that power plant.

610
01:17:06,267 --> 01:17:30,267
Instead, there's a layered system, an architecture where the power plant connects to a set of industrial grade power lines that then diffuse the power availability to neighborhoods and then the neighborhoods eventually through smaller infrastructure diffuse the power to the retail households.

611
01:17:30,267 --> 01:17:40,267
And then within the household, an ordinary person connects to an even more diffuse human level power outlet to get a trickle of power.

612
01:17:41,267 --> 01:17:48,267
So there are many different layers between the power station with the nuclear reactor and the ordinary consumer a few miles away.

613
01:17:48,267 --> 01:17:57,267
Similarly, Bitcoin in the future, if it adopts drivechain or something like it, will have a layered architecture.

614
01:17:58,267 --> 01:18:07,267
And the ordinary person generally will be interacting with certain parts of that layered system depending on his needs.

615
01:18:07,267 --> 01:18:24,267
So it's under it's reasonable that, you know, back in the primordial days, you know, mankind was like using a fireplace, they would make a bonfire and burn some wood and that was their power system for heat and cooking and light.

616
01:18:24,267 --> 01:18:35,267
But today, you know, as Bitcoin's growing, instead of everyone directly interacting with only one layer, as if we were gathered around a fireplace, instead there's a nuclear reactor.

617
01:18:36,267 --> 01:18:46,267
And now we're far removed from the fire because the fire, you know, the energy source has become massively powerful and therefore it isn't going to be something that ordinary people directly interact with.

618
01:18:46,267 --> 01:18:57,267
So if Bitcoin has drivechain with, you know, let's say, as Paul has elaborated in his essays, there would be multiple thunder sidechains with one gigabyte blocks.

619
01:18:58,267 --> 01:19:03,267
And as Moon Settler has talked about in different parts of the world, there could be one for Russia, one for China, one for America, one for India.

620
01:19:04,267 --> 01:19:07,267
And, you know, that would make it more efficient.

621
01:19:08,267 --> 01:19:11,267
So billions of people would be using these massive block sidechains.

622
01:19:12,267 --> 01:19:17,267
And if they want to do a very large transaction, like if a bank is moving a billion dollars, maybe they would settle on layer one directly.

623
01:19:18,267 --> 01:19:22,267
But for most people, they don't want to pay the high fee and there's no need.

624
01:19:22,267 --> 01:19:42,267
So super like I feel that if we were to have this layered architecture, it would be perfectly fine for anyone who chooses to to spend a whole bunch of money to do something with the blockchain for fun or entertainment or art.

625
01:19:43,267 --> 01:19:49,267
No one would object to it because everybody would already be happily on the layer where they are most comfortable and efficient.

626
01:19:49,267 --> 01:19:54,267
So people would opt in to the amount of decentralization and low fees that they prefer.

627
01:19:55,267 --> 01:20:04,267
And nobody would mind if someone is a willing customer at a higher level of decentralization that carries a higher fee, such as the Bitcoin main chain.

628
01:20:05,267 --> 01:20:13,267
Because why would it why would I mind if someone goes to eat lunch at the Four Seasons if I'm happy eating lunch at an inexpensive store?

629
01:20:14,267 --> 01:20:18,267
It doesn't bother me that someone eats lunch at a more expensive store.

630
01:20:20,267 --> 01:20:23,267
Does that all make sense?

631
01:20:26,267 --> 01:20:28,267
Can I say just one small thing?

632
01:20:28,267 --> 01:20:29,267
Yeah.

633
01:20:29,267 --> 01:20:38,267
So I have mentioned that I don't actually think that it's a good idea.

634
01:20:38,267 --> 01:20:48,267
It's necessary or generally an optimal outcome if you have a gigabyte blocks on these sidechains.

635
01:20:48,451 --> 01:20:58,651
So the way this works is the security budget is, of course, a function of the total fees that you allocate on a sidechain.

636
01:20:58,651 --> 01:21:07,651
And since they can't have subsidy rights, so they can't be subsidized like alternative layer ones or like Bitcoin.

637
01:21:07,651 --> 01:21:13,651
So they are going to have the fees for security budget and we can see it already.

638
01:21:13,851 --> 01:21:23,851
I think it's pretty much proven at this point that infinite block space or just obdurant block space does not equal to high aggregate fees.

639
01:21:23,851 --> 01:21:36,851
Right. So especially in I don't want to say dollar value, but in purchasing power or whatever you want to say,

640
01:21:37,050 --> 01:21:45,050
it's not going to be competitive to have obdurant block space.

641
01:21:45,050 --> 01:21:55,050
I think these sidechains would also have to need to make rational decisions on the size of their blockchain

642
01:21:55,050 --> 01:22:01,050
to have the best security possible that their users can actually afford.

643
01:22:01,050 --> 01:22:03,050
So I just wanted to...

644
01:22:03,251 --> 01:22:08,251
Yes, understood. I see what you're saying.

645
01:22:08,251 --> 01:22:13,251
If there's a one gigabyte block, then you're saying, why wouldn't the fee be extremely low?

646
01:22:13,251 --> 01:22:15,251
Well, the fee is going to be extremely low.

647
01:22:15,251 --> 01:22:17,251
That's the whole point.

648
01:22:17,451 --> 01:22:25,451
It's kind of like if the whole world can pay an extremely low fee for cash payments that are peer-to-peer

649
01:22:25,451 --> 01:22:33,451
and that use a verifiable peer-to-peer relationship to the main chain,

650
01:22:33,451 --> 01:22:38,451
then they're dealing with a unit of account which is equal to one Bitcoin,

651
01:22:38,451 --> 01:22:43,451
but it's very easy to move around at extremely low fee and that's the result they would have.

652
01:22:43,650 --> 01:22:49,650
So there'd be a billion transactions a day of a penny each on each of these one gigabyte sidechains

653
01:22:49,650 --> 01:22:55,650
and the total amount of fee would be substantial because we're talking about billions of pennies.

654
01:22:57,650 --> 01:23:04,650
I'm just saying everyone probably wants to be in the highest security setting that they can pay for, right?

655
01:23:04,650 --> 01:23:07,650
So that makes sense to me.

656
01:23:07,850 --> 01:23:12,850
And I think that will not work with practically infinite block space,

657
01:23:12,850 --> 01:23:16,850
but I also think you're probably going to have options.

658
01:23:16,850 --> 01:23:23,850
As you said, people can shop around and have options, whichever suits them for whatever purpose

659
01:23:23,850 --> 01:23:30,850
because hodling and transacting large amounts is probably completely different

660
01:23:30,850 --> 01:23:36,850
from micropayments that for whatever reason happen on-chain.

661
01:23:37,850 --> 01:23:41,850
I actually don't think we should have micropayments on-chain necessarily,

662
01:23:41,850 --> 01:23:44,850
that's not a very good use of resources,

663
01:23:44,850 --> 01:23:47,850
but I'm not going to be the blockchain police, right?

664
01:23:47,850 --> 01:23:49,850
So if people want to do it, sure.

665
01:23:50,850 --> 01:23:54,850
Satoshi himself was excited about microtransactions.

666
01:23:55,850 --> 01:23:57,850
He wrote about it repeatedly.

667
01:23:57,850 --> 01:24:00,850
I remember when I read the book of Satoshi

668
01:24:00,850 --> 01:24:06,850
where Phil Champagne collected all of Satoshi's writings into one book,

669
01:24:07,051 --> 01:24:13,051
all of the forum posts as well as messages that have been published reliably.

670
01:24:15,051 --> 01:24:19,051
Satoshi was interested in the possibility that microtransactions

671
01:24:19,051 --> 01:24:22,051
would be possible and useful and interesting

672
01:24:22,051 --> 01:24:25,051
and that would develop a new kind of economy.

673
01:24:25,051 --> 01:24:27,051
So maybe he was right.

674
01:24:27,051 --> 01:24:30,051
Yeah, but come on, Lightning.

675
01:24:30,051 --> 01:24:34,051
It's so much better, I believe, for this purpose.

676
01:24:34,251 --> 01:24:41,251
And Lightning and also for very microtransactions and special cases,

677
01:24:41,251 --> 01:24:46,251
even eCash, so when you are going to these extreme low values,

678
01:24:46,251 --> 01:24:51,251
I just don't think the blockchain makes as much sense

679
01:24:51,251 --> 01:24:57,251
and it's not really where you need the best assurances, really.

680
01:24:57,451 --> 01:25:04,451
So people usually want to secure their life savings, right?

681
01:25:04,451 --> 01:25:11,451
So they don't want to secure as much whatever coffee purchases they make that day.

682
01:25:11,451 --> 01:25:15,451
It just doesn't, it's not as important.

683
01:25:15,451 --> 01:25:19,451
But they actually want their savings to be safe.

684
01:25:19,451 --> 01:25:22,451
That is a very important part of the Bitcoin ethos

685
01:25:22,651 --> 01:25:30,651
and I believe for this reason it's probably going to work out a bit different.

686
01:25:30,651 --> 01:25:34,651
And this is why I said I'm very interested in the Thunder sidechain,

687
01:25:34,651 --> 01:25:38,651
actually providing block space for Lightning nodes.

688
01:25:38,651 --> 01:25:43,651
Lightning nodes actually rely on having some finality assumptions.

689
01:25:43,651 --> 01:25:48,651
I mean, they would probably work if you increased

690
01:25:48,850 --> 01:25:52,850
because you have lower security assumptions on the sidechain

691
01:25:52,850 --> 01:25:59,850
and you increase the time lock that if you are unilaterally closing

692
01:25:59,850 --> 01:26:01,850
that you have to wait for spending, you know,

693
01:26:01,850 --> 01:26:09,850
while someone else can, if you are fraudulently closing,

694
01:26:09,850 --> 01:26:12,850
someone else can put in a justice transaction, right?

695
01:26:12,850 --> 01:26:17,850
And the problem with this is the lower the security budget,

696
01:26:18,051 --> 01:26:23,051
the cheaper it is to steal from someone like this

697
01:26:23,051 --> 01:26:30,051
by denying them transactions or reorging or whatever reason.

698
01:26:30,051 --> 01:26:34,051
And there is going to be a limit for how long people are willing to wait

699
01:26:34,051 --> 01:26:36,051
in a non-cooperative scenario.

700
01:26:36,051 --> 01:26:38,051
So there are practical limits.

701
01:26:38,051 --> 01:26:42,051
These sidechains would need to have reasonable finality

702
01:26:42,051 --> 01:26:47,051
and trust assumptions for the amounts that people are using to lock them in.

703
01:26:47,250 --> 01:26:51,250
And that is why I think it will probably pay to have

704
01:26:51,250 --> 01:26:54,250
the maximum amount of fees that people are able to,

705
01:26:54,250 --> 01:26:58,250
certain people are able to, you know, pay on a sidechain

706
01:26:58,250 --> 01:27:00,250
for this to work optimally.

707
01:27:00,250 --> 01:27:04,250
And they would just have to deal with the time locks

708
01:27:04,250 --> 01:27:08,250
and finality assumptions that come with that fee band, right?

709
01:27:08,250 --> 01:27:12,250
And everyone can basically then use Bitcoin

710
01:27:12,250 --> 01:27:15,250
by trading time for money.

711
01:27:17,250 --> 01:27:19,250
Well said.

712
01:27:19,250 --> 01:27:23,250
Everyone is free to chime in and join this conversation.

713
01:27:23,250 --> 01:27:25,250
This is Drivechain Twitter Spaces.

714
01:27:25,250 --> 01:27:27,250
We meet every Monday and Thursday,

715
01:27:27,250 --> 01:27:29,250
hosted by LayerTwo Labs to discuss

716
01:27:29,250 --> 01:27:32,250
Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 300 and 301,

717
01:27:32,250 --> 01:27:35,250
a potentially transformative upgrade for Bitcoin

718
01:27:35,250 --> 01:27:39,250
enabling sidechains that are more peer-to-peer.

719
01:27:39,250 --> 01:27:41,250
That is the phrasing I like,

720
01:27:41,250 --> 01:27:43,250
which I read in a tweet by Adam Back,

721
01:27:43,451 --> 01:27:47,451
where he described Drivechain sidechains

722
01:27:47,451 --> 01:27:51,451
as being more peer-to-peer than the sidechains we have today,

723
01:27:51,451 --> 01:27:57,451
which necessarily include a 15-party multisig federation.

724
01:27:57,451 --> 01:27:59,451
So in a Drivechain sidechain,

725
01:27:59,451 --> 01:28:03,451
there would not be a 15-party multisig federation

726
01:28:03,451 --> 01:28:07,451
where socially selected people are appointed

727
01:28:07,451 --> 01:28:11,451
to hold the Bitcoin as part of the security model.

728
01:28:11,651 --> 01:28:13,651
Instead, it would be the dynamic,

729
01:28:13,651 --> 01:28:15,651
global multitude of Bitcoin miners

730
01:28:15,651 --> 01:28:18,651
who are involved in the security model.

731
01:28:18,651 --> 01:28:21,651
And we believe that it would be great

732
01:28:21,651 --> 01:28:24,651
for Bitcoiners to have the option to use that.

733
01:28:24,651 --> 01:28:26,651
No one has to use it,

734
01:28:26,651 --> 01:28:28,651
but it would be great to have that option.

735
01:28:32,651 --> 01:28:33,651
Yeah.

736
01:28:33,651 --> 01:28:35,651
Do you want me to talk about that?

737
01:28:35,651 --> 01:28:38,651
Maybe Hampus, if you can come back,

738
01:28:38,850 --> 01:28:42,850
will talk about what he thinks it would look like

739
01:28:42,850 --> 01:28:45,850
to integrate sidechains into Lightning.

740
01:28:45,850 --> 01:28:48,850
That's an interesting topic, I think.

741
01:28:51,850 --> 01:28:53,850
I've invited him back.

742
01:28:56,850 --> 01:28:59,850
There are a bunch of different sidechains

743
01:28:59,850 --> 01:29:02,850
that have captured different people's attention.

744
01:29:02,850 --> 01:29:05,850
For example, Fiatjaf has tweeted,

745
01:29:06,051 --> 01:29:09,051
Fiatjaf, the creator of Nostr,

746
01:29:09,051 --> 01:29:12,051
has tweeted that the Hivemind sidechain

747
01:29:12,051 --> 01:29:15,051
is the one that interests him the most.

748
01:29:15,051 --> 01:29:19,051
And I think he means that Paul's idea

749
01:29:19,051 --> 01:29:22,050
for a peer-to-peer Oracle network

750
01:29:22,050 --> 01:29:25,050
as a Bitcoin sidechain could be very interesting.

751
01:29:25,050 --> 01:29:28,050
And that also is my personal greatest interest.

752
01:29:28,050 --> 01:29:30,050
But Thunder is also interesting,

753
01:29:30,050 --> 01:29:32,050
as is DNS on blockchain,

754
01:29:32,050 --> 01:29:35,050
something Satoshi approved of all the way back in 2010.

755
01:29:35,250 --> 01:29:36,250
And then there's others.

756
01:29:36,250 --> 01:29:39,250
There's a whole number of sidechains that are planned,

757
01:29:39,250 --> 01:29:40,250
including Zcash technology

758
01:29:40,250 --> 01:29:43,250
on a privacy-focused sidechain for Bitcoiners.

759
01:29:45,250 --> 01:29:48,250
Hivemind is the prediction markets thing, right?

760
01:29:48,250 --> 01:29:49,250
Yes, exactly.

761
01:29:49,250 --> 01:29:51,250
A peer-to-peer Oracle network

762
01:29:51,250 --> 01:29:54,250
for multi-dimensional event derivatives,

763
01:29:54,250 --> 01:29:55,250
as Paul calls it.

764
01:29:55,250 --> 01:29:58,250
It's a really interesting white paper Paul wrote in 2014,

765
01:29:58,250 --> 01:30:03,250
which you can find at bitcoinhivemind.info.

766
01:30:03,451 --> 01:30:04,451
I believe it's .info.

767
01:30:04,451 --> 01:30:07,451
And it's an amazing white paper.

768
01:30:07,451 --> 01:30:09,451
Basically, as far as I can tell,

769
01:30:09,451 --> 01:30:10,451
in my humble understanding,

770
01:30:10,451 --> 01:30:12,451
it overcomes the Oracle problem

771
01:30:12,451 --> 01:30:15,451
and enables the whole world to collaborate

772
01:30:15,451 --> 01:30:18,451
to have a prediction market

773
01:30:18,451 --> 01:30:19,451
for all kinds of things,

774
01:30:19,451 --> 01:30:20,451
an unlimited number of things.

775
01:30:20,451 --> 01:30:23,451
And this could help society

776
01:30:23,451 --> 01:30:26,451
crystallize its expectations for the future

777
01:30:26,451 --> 01:30:28,451
in a capitalistic way.

778
01:30:28,651 --> 01:30:32,651
And do you think this could be leveraged

779
01:30:32,651 --> 01:30:35,651
on the Bitcoin network or on other sidechains,

780
01:30:35,651 --> 01:30:39,651
like via DLC contracts or something like that?

781
01:30:42,651 --> 01:30:44,651
I didn't quite hear that question.

782
01:30:44,651 --> 01:30:45,651
Could you say it again?

783
01:30:47,651 --> 01:30:50,651
So I was asking if we could leverage these Oracles

784
01:30:50,651 --> 01:30:54,651
on Bitcoin mainchain or other sidechains

785
01:30:54,651 --> 01:30:57,651
via DLC contracts or something like that?

786
01:30:58,651 --> 01:31:01,651
That would be a question for Paul.

787
01:31:05,651 --> 01:31:06,651
Welcome, Hampus.

788
01:31:09,651 --> 01:31:10,651
Welcome to the stage.

789
01:31:10,651 --> 01:31:14,651
I think Moon Settler had a question for you about lightning.

790
01:31:14,651 --> 01:31:16,651
Yeah, but I see him drop though.

791
01:31:16,651 --> 01:31:17,651
Is he on stage?

792
01:31:20,651 --> 01:31:22,651
I think he is, from my standpoint.

793
01:31:22,651 --> 01:31:23,651
But in the meantime...

794
01:31:23,651 --> 01:31:24,651
I could see him.

795
01:31:24,651 --> 01:31:25,651
I wanted to challenge him

796
01:31:25,651 --> 01:31:27,651
because he said lightning completely breaks

797
01:31:27,851 --> 01:31:28,851
when fees are high.

798
01:31:28,851 --> 01:31:29,851
And it's working for me.

799
01:31:29,851 --> 01:31:30,851
What's up with that, Hampus?

800
01:31:33,851 --> 01:31:34,851
Super, could you elaborate?

801
01:31:34,851 --> 01:31:37,851
There's been lots of discourse on Twitter

802
01:31:37,851 --> 01:31:39,851
about how high fees make it unaffordable

803
01:31:39,851 --> 01:31:40,851
to open a channel.

804
01:31:40,851 --> 01:31:41,851
What's your view?

805
01:31:42,851 --> 01:31:44,851
Well, I opened one yesterday

806
01:31:44,851 --> 01:31:46,851
and it was more expensive than usual

807
01:31:46,851 --> 01:31:48,851
but I just increased the amount

808
01:31:48,851 --> 01:31:50,851
that I was putting into the channel

809
01:31:50,851 --> 01:31:53,851
so that the overall percentage was still low.

810
01:31:54,851 --> 01:31:56,851
And that's how I figured it out.

811
01:31:57,050 --> 01:31:59,050
So it still works, at least for me.

812
01:31:59,050 --> 01:32:01,050
You have spoken in the past here

813
01:32:01,050 --> 01:32:04,050
about how any kind of block size increase

814
01:32:04,050 --> 01:32:09,050
on Bitcoin would make it economically difficult

815
01:32:09,050 --> 01:32:11,050
for people of limited means

816
01:32:11,050 --> 01:32:13,050
to have a full copy of the blockchain.

817
01:32:13,050 --> 01:32:15,050
So you have expressed sensitivity

818
01:32:15,050 --> 01:32:17,050
to the economics of nodes

819
01:32:17,050 --> 01:32:20,050
being burdened with lots of data

820
01:32:20,050 --> 01:32:22,050
at a high rate of data accrual.

821
01:32:22,250 --> 01:32:27,250
So why is it that you aren't as sensitive

822
01:32:27,250 --> 01:32:29,250
to the economics of higher fees

823
01:32:29,250 --> 01:32:31,250
for lightning operation?

824
01:32:34,250 --> 01:32:39,250
When you say I'm not as sensitive

825
01:32:39,250 --> 01:32:41,250
I'm not sure what is the relative sensitivity

826
01:32:41,250 --> 01:32:42,250
of the first comment

827
01:32:42,250 --> 01:32:43,250
and the relative sensitivity

828
01:32:43,250 --> 01:32:44,250
of the second comment.

829
01:32:44,250 --> 01:32:46,250
I'm just saying I recall you

830
01:32:46,250 --> 01:32:48,250
once talked about how

831
01:32:48,250 --> 01:32:49,250
you would like it to be cheap

832
01:32:49,250 --> 01:32:51,250
for people to have a full node.

833
01:32:51,451 --> 01:32:53,451
But today you're not expressing

834
01:32:53,451 --> 01:32:55,451
the same kind of attitude

835
01:32:55,451 --> 01:32:57,451
about the cheapness or lack thereof

836
01:32:57,451 --> 01:32:59,451
of lightning operation.

837
01:32:59,451 --> 01:33:01,451
That's all.

838
01:33:03,451 --> 01:33:05,451
I don't think...

839
01:33:05,451 --> 01:33:07,451
Okay, I haven't thought of this before

840
01:33:07,451 --> 01:33:09,451
so I will give that some thought.

841
01:33:09,451 --> 01:33:11,451
I'm not sure that

842
01:33:11,451 --> 01:33:13,451
I have a good answer right now.

843
01:33:16,451 --> 01:33:18,451
Welcome, Brad Baker.

844
01:33:18,651 --> 01:33:20,651
What's your question or comment?

845
01:33:21,651 --> 01:33:23,651
Hi, sorry.

846
01:33:23,651 --> 01:33:25,651
I've only followed you guys

847
01:33:25,651 --> 01:33:28,651
in the project kind of cursory.

848
01:33:28,651 --> 01:33:30,651
And you probably answered this question

849
01:33:30,651 --> 01:33:32,651
a hundred or a thousand times

850
01:33:32,651 --> 01:33:35,651
but I don't know the answer.

851
01:33:35,651 --> 01:33:38,651
How does drivechains differ

852
01:33:38,651 --> 01:33:40,651
or at least the mining part of it

853
01:33:40,651 --> 01:33:44,651
or the block producing?

854
01:33:44,851 --> 01:33:46,851
How does it differ

855
01:33:46,851 --> 01:33:49,851
from the merge mining

856
01:33:49,851 --> 01:33:51,851
of like RSK, for example?

857
01:33:53,851 --> 01:33:55,851
Super, do you want to take this?

858
01:33:56,851 --> 01:33:58,851
What was the question?

859
01:33:58,851 --> 01:34:00,851
I was reading something on Twitter.

860
01:34:00,851 --> 01:34:02,851
He asked, how is the merge mining

861
01:34:02,851 --> 01:34:04,851
of a drivechain

862
01:34:04,851 --> 01:34:06,851
with BIP301 different

863
01:34:06,851 --> 01:34:08,851
than the merge mining that's going on

864
01:34:08,851 --> 01:34:10,851
in RSK right now?

865
01:34:10,851 --> 01:34:12,851
Oh, so it is merge mining.

866
01:34:13,050 --> 01:34:15,050
I didn't even realize.

867
01:34:15,050 --> 01:34:17,050
I thought it was something different.

868
01:34:17,050 --> 01:34:19,050
Yeah, merge mining is

869
01:34:19,050 --> 01:34:21,050
something that's existed

870
01:34:21,050 --> 01:34:23,050
for a long time.

871
01:34:23,050 --> 01:34:25,050
Ever since 2010, I think

872
01:34:25,050 --> 01:34:27,050
there's been merge mine.

873
01:34:27,050 --> 01:34:29,050
So let me change the question

874
01:34:29,050 --> 01:34:31,050
a little bit.

875
01:34:31,050 --> 01:34:33,050
How does it differ

876
01:34:33,050 --> 01:34:35,050
from what RSK is doing then?

877
01:34:35,050 --> 01:34:37,050
Yeah, so one of the things

878
01:34:37,050 --> 01:34:39,050
that happens with the way

879
01:34:39,050 --> 01:34:41,050
RSK does merge mining

880
01:34:41,250 --> 01:34:43,250
is to run the RSK software

881
01:34:43,250 --> 01:34:45,250
and then

882
01:34:45,250 --> 01:34:47,250
the miners of RSK

883
01:34:47,250 --> 01:34:49,250
basically run

884
01:34:49,250 --> 01:34:51,250
both sets of software

885
01:34:51,250 --> 01:34:53,250
and when they create a block

886
01:34:53,250 --> 01:34:55,250
on the sidechain, they put a hash of it

887
01:34:55,250 --> 01:34:57,250
into Bitcoin in the Coinbase.

888
01:34:57,250 --> 01:34:59,250
But it's hard to convince miners

889
01:34:59,250 --> 01:35:01,250
to run alternative software

890
01:35:01,250 --> 01:35:03,250
which is why

891
01:35:03,250 --> 01:35:05,250
RSK only has about 50%

892
01:35:05,250 --> 01:35:07,250
of them actually doing it.

893
01:35:07,250 --> 01:35:09,250
So BIP301

894
01:35:09,451 --> 01:35:11,451
is a way for users

895
01:35:11,451 --> 01:35:13,451
to do it.

896
01:35:13,451 --> 01:35:15,451
The users of the sidechain are the ones

897
01:35:15,451 --> 01:35:17,451
who create the blocks on the sidechain.

898
01:35:17,451 --> 01:35:19,451
They create a hash of them

899
01:35:19,451 --> 01:35:21,451
and then they submit those hashes to miners.

900
01:35:21,451 --> 01:35:23,451
That way miners don't have to run the software.

901
01:35:23,451 --> 01:35:25,451
They just put in whatever hash

902
01:35:25,451 --> 01:35:27,451
the sidechain users

903
01:35:27,451 --> 01:35:29,451
give them and that way

904
01:35:29,451 --> 01:35:31,451
they don't have to validate anything

905
01:35:31,451 --> 01:35:33,451
or run any software.

906
01:35:33,451 --> 01:35:35,451
So that means

907
01:35:35,451 --> 01:35:37,451
that

908
01:35:37,651 --> 01:35:39,651
the block producers

909
01:35:39,651 --> 01:35:41,651
on the drivechain don't have to be

910
01:35:41,651 --> 01:35:43,651
Bitcoin miners as well.

911
01:35:43,651 --> 01:35:45,651
Yeah, you can produce

912
01:35:45,651 --> 01:35:47,651
blocks on the sidechain without running Bitcoin

913
01:35:47,651 --> 01:35:49,651
software and vice versa.

914
01:35:49,651 --> 01:35:51,651
You can mine blocks on Bitcoin without running

915
01:35:51,651 --> 01:35:53,651
the sidechain software.

916
01:35:53,651 --> 01:35:55,651
That's good. That was my main concern

917
01:35:55,651 --> 01:35:57,651
was like, wow, it seems limiting

918
01:35:57,651 --> 01:35:59,651
if you're forcing all of the people

919
01:35:59,651 --> 01:36:01,651
who want to support

920
01:36:01,651 --> 01:36:03,651
this drivechain sidechain

921
01:36:03,651 --> 01:36:05,651
to have to also be a Bitcoin miner.

922
01:36:05,851 --> 01:36:07,851
So that's good. I'm glad

923
01:36:07,851 --> 01:36:09,851
to hear that part. That should help

924
01:36:09,851 --> 01:36:11,851
a lot to

925
01:36:11,851 --> 01:36:13,851
get adopted, I think.

926
01:36:13,851 --> 01:36:15,851
So the main

927
01:36:15,851 --> 01:36:17,851
difference is between

928
01:36:17,851 --> 01:36:19,851
previous

929
01:36:19,851 --> 01:36:21,851
attempts

930
01:36:21,851 --> 01:36:23,851
is like

931
01:36:23,851 --> 01:36:25,851
the old merge mining was

932
01:36:25,851 --> 01:36:27,851
forcing miners

933
01:36:27,851 --> 01:36:29,851
to run the sidechain software.

934
01:36:29,851 --> 01:36:31,851
The new

935
01:36:31,851 --> 01:36:33,851
proposal of blind merge mining

936
01:36:34,050 --> 01:36:36,050
does not force them

937
01:36:36,050 --> 01:36:38,050
because there is an open auction

938
01:36:38,050 --> 01:36:40,050
in the Bitcoin mempool for these slots

939
01:36:40,050 --> 01:36:42,050
and anyone can

940
01:36:42,050 --> 01:36:44,050
make a bid

941
01:36:44,050 --> 01:36:46,050
and the miners can just simply take

942
01:36:46,050 --> 01:36:48,050
the highest fee bid, whether it's

943
01:36:48,050 --> 01:36:50,050
valid or not valid. So it can actually

944
01:36:50,050 --> 01:36:52,050
be invalid. Someone can just stop

945
01:36:52,050 --> 01:36:54,050
the sidechain,

946
01:36:54,050 --> 01:36:56,050
deny them

947
01:36:56,050 --> 01:36:58,050
progress or whatever,

948
01:36:58,050 --> 01:37:00,050
try to include invalid hashes

949
01:37:00,050 --> 01:37:02,050
for trollish

950
01:37:02,250 --> 01:37:04,250
or other reasons,

951
01:37:04,250 --> 01:37:06,250
but the sidechain

952
01:37:06,250 --> 01:37:08,250
nodes will still validate their blocks

953
01:37:08,250 --> 01:37:10,250
and will not advance on an invalid hash

954
01:37:10,250 --> 01:37:12,250
and

955
01:37:12,250 --> 01:37:14,250
basically

956
01:37:14,250 --> 01:37:16,250
their

957
01:37:16,250 --> 01:37:18,250
only defense is

958
01:37:18,250 --> 01:37:20,250
pay more than the other care

959
01:37:20,250 --> 01:37:22,250
eventually to advance the state

960
01:37:22,250 --> 01:37:24,250
the valid state.

961
01:37:24,250 --> 01:37:26,250
Is there any progress

962
01:37:26,250 --> 01:37:28,250
in this bit going through?

963
01:37:28,250 --> 01:37:30,250
I mean, what do you guys

964
01:37:30,451 --> 01:37:32,451
think is the

965
01:37:32,451 --> 01:37:34,451
prognosis or the time

966
01:37:34,451 --> 01:37:36,451
required for this to get

967
01:37:36,451 --> 01:37:38,451
adopted?

968
01:37:40,451 --> 01:37:42,451
Does anybody know?

969
01:37:42,451 --> 01:37:44,451
It is progressing.

970
01:37:44,451 --> 01:37:46,451
It's hard to know when the Bitcoin community

971
01:37:46,451 --> 01:37:48,451
will decide to do anything.

972
01:37:48,451 --> 01:37:50,451
So it's like predicting

973
01:37:50,451 --> 01:37:52,451
an election. It's extremely hard to know

974
01:37:52,451 --> 01:37:54,451
the future, but work is being done

975
01:37:54,451 --> 01:37:56,451
that's very important. For example,

976
01:37:56,451 --> 01:37:58,451
a very experienced Bitcoiner

977
01:37:58,650 --> 01:38:00,650
has been

978
01:38:00,650 --> 01:38:02,650
hired by LayerTwo Labs to rebase

979
01:38:02,650 --> 01:38:04,650
the drivechain code

980
01:38:04,650 --> 01:38:06,650
so to meticulously review

981
01:38:06,650 --> 01:38:08,650
it and ready it to be

982
01:38:08,650 --> 01:38:10,650
merged at some time this year.

983
01:38:10,650 --> 01:38:12,650
So that's one interesting

984
01:38:12,650 --> 01:38:14,650
fact and then

985
01:38:14,650 --> 01:38:16,650
there have also been

986
01:38:16,650 --> 01:38:18,650
a great increase in the number

987
01:38:18,650 --> 01:38:20,650
of well-known

988
01:38:20,650 --> 01:38:22,650
Bitcoiners who have

989
01:38:22,650 --> 01:38:24,650
announced a favorable

990
01:38:24,650 --> 01:38:26,650
or strongly supportive

991
01:38:26,851 --> 01:38:28,851
attitude towards this upgrade.

992
01:38:28,851 --> 01:38:30,851
So

993
01:38:30,851 --> 01:38:32,851
there is some momentum.

994
01:38:32,851 --> 01:38:34,851
Yeah. So I wonder

995
01:38:34,851 --> 01:38:36,851
this may

996
01:38:36,851 --> 01:38:38,851
be blasphemy in your guys'

997
01:38:38,851 --> 01:38:40,851
eyes, but

998
01:38:40,851 --> 01:38:42,851
I wonder if

999
01:38:42,851 --> 01:38:44,851
you did it or if you

1000
01:38:44,851 --> 01:38:46,851
were able to convince, for example,

1001
01:38:46,851 --> 01:38:48,851
Litecoin or something to do it on there

1002
01:38:48,851 --> 01:38:50,851
just as kind of like a test run

1003
01:38:50,851 --> 01:38:52,851
to show them, hey, look, it works.

1004
01:38:52,851 --> 01:38:54,851
It's in the wild.

1005
01:38:55,050 --> 01:38:57,050
It's running here. Look at this.

1006
01:38:57,050 --> 01:38:59,050
And then maybe that makes it a little bit easier

1007
01:38:59,050 --> 01:39:01,050
to convince Bitcoiners. I don't know.

1008
01:39:01,050 --> 01:39:03,050
Just a weird

1009
01:39:03,050 --> 01:39:05,050
idea.

1010
01:39:05,050 --> 01:39:07,050
I support

1011
01:39:07,050 --> 01:39:09,050
that. We should ask the Liquid people

1012
01:39:09,050 --> 01:39:11,050
if they'll add drivechain support

1013
01:39:11,050 --> 01:39:13,050
or if they'll add BIP300 to Liquid.

1014
01:39:13,050 --> 01:39:15,050
Oh, Liquid.

1015
01:39:15,050 --> 01:39:17,050
Yeah.

1016
01:39:17,050 --> 01:39:19,050
To my knowledge, by the way,

1017
01:39:19,050 --> 01:39:21,050
Bitcoin Cash actually tried

1018
01:39:21,050 --> 01:39:23,050
to implement

1019
01:39:23,251 --> 01:39:25,251
and they,

1020
01:39:25,251 --> 01:39:27,251
for some reason that

1021
01:39:27,251 --> 01:39:29,251
I don't know, abandoned it

1022
01:39:29,251 --> 01:39:31,251
completely.

1023
01:39:31,251 --> 01:39:33,251
Yeah.

1024
01:39:33,251 --> 01:39:35,251
Is Bitcoin Cash, though,

1025
01:39:35,251 --> 01:39:37,251
is it actually being used

1026
01:39:37,251 --> 01:39:39,251
anywhere near? Because I know

1027
01:39:39,251 --> 01:39:41,251
people who use Litecoin.

1028
01:39:41,251 --> 01:39:43,251
Bitcoin Cash,

1029
01:39:43,251 --> 01:39:45,251
I don't...

1030
01:39:45,251 --> 01:39:47,251
I've never even heard of people using

1031
01:39:47,251 --> 01:39:49,251
it for anything.

1032
01:39:49,251 --> 01:39:51,251
It depends on who you are talking to

1033
01:39:51,451 --> 01:39:53,451
because if you are talking to Bitcoin Cash

1034
01:39:53,451 --> 01:39:55,451
people who are actually deep

1035
01:39:55,451 --> 01:39:57,451
in their own cut, then

1036
01:39:57,451 --> 01:39:59,451
you will hear the exact same

1037
01:39:59,451 --> 01:40:01,451
bullish sentiment and adoption

1038
01:40:01,451 --> 01:40:03,451
stories that you are going

1039
01:40:03,451 --> 01:40:05,451
to hear from Bitcoin Moxes

1040
01:40:05,451 --> 01:40:07,451
if you are talking to them

1041
01:40:07,451 --> 01:40:09,451
about adoption in Africa,

1042
01:40:09,451 --> 01:40:11,451
adoption in El Salvador. They have

1043
01:40:11,451 --> 01:40:13,451
pretty much the same version,

1044
01:40:13,451 --> 01:40:15,451
their own versions

1045
01:40:15,451 --> 01:40:17,451
of the same stories,

1046
01:40:17,451 --> 01:40:19,451
but their own chain activity

1047
01:40:19,650 --> 01:40:21,650
shows that they are usually

1048
01:40:21,650 --> 01:40:23,650
averaging around 100 kilobyte blocks

1049
01:40:23,650 --> 01:40:25,650
and that's it. At least last time

1050
01:40:25,650 --> 01:40:27,650
I looked at it.

1051
01:40:27,650 --> 01:40:29,650
As someone who

1052
01:40:29,650 --> 01:40:31,650
supports Bitcoin,

1053
01:40:31,650 --> 01:40:33,650
I would tend to

1054
01:40:33,650 --> 01:40:35,650
support the idea of using Litecoin

1055
01:40:35,650 --> 01:40:37,650
more than Bitcoin Cash

1056
01:40:37,650 --> 01:40:39,650
just because I'm not too...

1057
01:40:39,650 --> 01:40:41,650
I just think that Charlie Lee

1058
01:40:41,650 --> 01:40:43,650
doesn't kind of do the...

1059
01:40:44,870 --> 01:40:51,870
shenanigans that people in the Bitcoin Cash have done, like trying to basically take the name.

1060
01:40:51,870 --> 01:40:54,670
And I mean, you guys know all the stories.

1061
01:40:55,710 --> 01:40:58,270
Super. Can I ask you a question about Handcrank?

1062
01:40:58,750 --> 01:41:01,070
If you're interested in chatting for a bit more.

1063
01:41:03,390 --> 01:41:04,589
I am? Who's asking?

1064
01:41:04,870 --> 01:41:05,870
That's me, Henry.

1065
01:41:06,950 --> 01:41:08,589
Wow. Really?

1066
01:41:08,630 --> 01:41:13,589
OK, sure. If you're willing to take up space in the drivechain thing to talk about Handcrank,

1067
01:41:13,589 --> 01:41:14,589
I'm happy to talk about it.

1068
01:41:15,030 --> 01:41:21,509
Cool. My question was, well, it was about drivechain in that, you know, what did you learn about

1069
01:41:21,509 --> 01:41:26,870
drivechain or what issues were you thinking about that led you to develop something of a similar

1070
01:41:26,870 --> 01:41:27,870
nature?

1071
01:41:30,190 --> 01:41:37,110
It was mainly, well, partly it was the difficulty that we're having with getting immersion to

1072
01:41:37,110 --> 01:41:42,430
Bitcoin Core. Whenever I run into a roadblock or often when I run into a roadblock, I try to find a

1073
01:41:42,430 --> 01:41:47,509
way around it. So one thought that went into my mind was, what if we what if we just do it without

1074
01:41:47,509 --> 01:41:51,469
them? You know, what if we just figure out a way to do it and do a run around around Bitcoin

1075
01:41:51,469 --> 01:41:59,990
Core? But the second thing was I was reading, I was actually reading through the BIP300, you

1076
01:41:59,990 --> 01:42:08,829
know, BIP. And it seemed to me that essentially the essence of drivechain is to find a way to make

1077
01:42:08,829 --> 01:42:12,590
a Bitcoin address that miners can vote on how to spend the funds in it.

1078
01:42:13,389 --> 01:42:18,749
And I just thought it sounded like he's using something that's effectively a type of time lock to do

1079
01:42:18,749 --> 01:42:23,870
this. And since we already have time locks in Bitcoin, I've wondered if there was a way to just kind of

1080
01:42:24,749 --> 01:42:31,149
change the way we use them to do the same thing or use them in a novel way to do the same thing that BIP300

1081
01:42:31,149 --> 01:42:39,389
is trying to do. So I spent some time leading up to writing Handcrank. I spent some time trying to

1082
01:42:39,389 --> 01:42:49,190
rephrase, reframe what exactly the hashrate escrow is doing. And I came up with a description of it

1083
01:42:49,230 --> 01:42:55,830
that sounded like it was faithful to the original, but also possible to implement by just doing funky

1084
01:42:56,069 --> 01:43:03,870
time locks. And that ended up being Handcrank. So I wrote out a proposal for how you could use regular

1085
01:43:03,870 --> 01:43:10,989
time locks to create a Bitcoin address that miners could vote on how to spend the funds in it. And then

1086
01:43:10,989 --> 01:43:15,950
once, if we implement that, or if I implement that, or if anyone does, I suppose, then you have something

1087
01:43:15,950 --> 01:43:23,789
that's very similar to drivechain, but doesn't need a new opcodes or doesn't need a new, well, in some

1088
01:43:23,789 --> 01:43:28,830
sense, it still needs a software because miners would still need to run this extra software. But at

1089
01:43:28,830 --> 01:43:36,190
least you wouldn't be asking anyone but miners to modify their node. So yeah, that it seemed to be kind

1090
01:43:36,190 --> 01:43:41,909
of well received, but I haven't implemented it yet to show people how it works. And I think it's a bit

1091
01:43:41,909 --> 01:43:47,390
confusing. It's more complicated than drivechain itself. So implementing it and then demoing it for

1092
01:43:47,390 --> 01:43:52,149
people would really help with helping people understand how Handcrank is supposed to work.

1093
01:43:54,230 --> 01:44:03,349
Super. One of the struggles of advocating for drivechain, or anything like it, is that people tend to be

1094
01:44:03,349 --> 01:44:11,030
less excited about the architecture of sidechains, then they might be about a specific sidechain that

1095
01:44:11,030 --> 01:44:18,030
offers a specific feature. For example, if you tell people, let's have sidechains on Bitcoin, that doesn't

1096
01:44:18,030 --> 01:44:22,590
tell them exactly what they would be using a sidechain for. But if you tell them, there could be a

1097
01:44:22,590 --> 01:44:29,670
sidechain that uses Bitcoin's unit of account, but Zcash privacy technology, or a sidechain that is like

1098
01:44:29,670 --> 01:44:36,349
Bitcoin, except it has very large blocks for lower fees, or a sidechain that has peer to peer oracles,

1099
01:44:36,349 --> 01:44:42,909
like Hivemind, or a sidechain that has a focus on facilitating DNS in a self sovereign way, which even

1100
01:44:42,909 --> 01:44:49,789
Satoshi was excited about a little bit. Those are different applications, oracles, DNS, scaling,

1101
01:44:49,989 --> 01:44:56,909
fungibility, those are examples of sidechain applications that are proof that there is blockchain

1102
01:44:56,909 --> 01:45:02,870
technology other than mere simple payments on Bitcoin, that should be on blockchain and can be on

1103
01:45:02,870 --> 01:45:11,030
Bitcoin in a layer two. So which of those or some other application on a sidechain excites you and is the

1104
01:45:11,030 --> 01:45:17,949
one that you use as an example to explain the value proposition of sidechains? Like, are you most excited

1105
01:45:17,949 --> 01:45:23,630
about a privacy sidechain, an oracle sidechain, a DNS sidechain, or a smart contracting sidechain or

1106
01:45:23,630 --> 01:45:24,510
something else?

1107
01:45:25,949 --> 01:45:32,229
The ones that I hear the most about are a sidechain with Monero's privacy, a sidechain with Liquid's

1108
01:45:32,229 --> 01:45:37,389
opcodes, and a sidechain with bigger blocks. And so those are the ones that I try when I'm trying to tell

1109
01:45:37,389 --> 01:45:42,229
people what drivechains could could bring us, those are my go to's, say it could bring us all of those

1110
01:45:42,229 --> 01:45:51,190
things. Personally, I'm not interested in the first two of those. Because I'm quite happy with using

1111
01:45:51,190 --> 01:45:56,949
Coinjoins as a privacy mechanism. And I'm quite happy with Bitcoin scripts, flexibility as a

1112
01:45:56,949 --> 01:46:02,310
scripting language. But the one that personally appeals to me is a big block one. I think,

1113
01:46:02,829 --> 01:46:07,870
especially in times of fee congestion, like right now, it's nice to be able to say, you know, if we had

1114
01:46:07,870 --> 01:46:13,829
a drivechain, all of this activity, you could open up lightning channels on a drivechain and not have to

1115
01:46:13,829 --> 01:46:20,229
pay, you know, $60 to do it. And that'd be great. So that one actually personally appeals to me and the

1116
01:46:20,229 --> 01:46:20,829
other two don't.

1117
01:46:20,829 --> 01:46:36,070
So I just wanted to inject one thing that it's entirely possible that Monero's and the Coinjoins

1118
01:46:36,949 --> 01:46:47,030
expectations on whatever privacy that they could provide, completely break under pretty believable

1119
01:46:47,030 --> 01:46:54,989
and simplistic assumptions on an adversary's behavior and access to information. So it can be

1120
01:46:54,989 --> 01:47:01,750
us in a sentence, you pseudo anonymously receiving donations, like you have a donation address, it can

1121
01:47:01,750 --> 01:47:14,030
be a B47, or some silent payment address or, or it can be like Monero addresses are not actually, you

1122
01:47:14,030 --> 01:47:20,790
know, show up on chain. So you have a lot of privacy when you publish a Monero address. So you receive

1123
01:47:20,829 --> 01:47:28,790
donations, micropayments from a passive adversary like E and say you are purchasing a pizza in a

1124
01:47:28,790 --> 01:47:35,030
pizza joint from time to time from these donations and other stuff that you get, you're purchasing a

1125
01:47:35,030 --> 01:47:41,829
pizza, and they got your name and home address, because otherwise, how would you get your pizza,

1126
01:47:41,829 --> 01:47:51,070
right? And basically statistical analysis completely breaks your anonymity. Doesn't matter what, or

1127
01:47:51,070 --> 01:47:56,350
potentially completely breaks your anonymity if you are just a normal user who Coinjoins or just uses

1128
01:47:56,350 --> 01:48:02,829
Monero and just normally receive donations and spend them on pizza. That's all it needs, right? And

1129
01:48:02,870 --> 01:48:10,429
either they are using EVE as payment provider, or they are using an accounting software that EVE has

1130
01:48:10,429 --> 01:48:15,590
access to, because the data is in the cloud or whatever. And EVE can send you micro donations,

1131
01:48:15,590 --> 01:48:22,910
because basically, you are doing something that they don't like, like publish open source, 3d

1132
01:48:22,910 --> 01:48:32,549
printable, WAPON parts, templates, or whatever other online activity you do. So that's just an

1133
01:48:32,549 --> 01:48:39,030
interesting thing that I discovered not long ago that I wanted to interject that we may actually need

1134
01:48:39,030 --> 01:48:45,030
some better privacy than what Coinjoin or, you know, Monero can do.

1135
01:48:59,910 --> 01:49:06,229
All right. Everyone is welcome to come on up to the stage if you have a question or comment. Or if you

1136
01:49:06,229 --> 01:49:13,149
want to chat about Drivechain or anything related to it. Come on up to the stage, raise your hand,

1137
01:49:13,790 --> 01:49:15,750
and you can ask questions to anyone here.

1138
01:49:20,029 --> 01:49:26,589
Drivechain is Bitcoin Improving Proposal 300 and 301. It's been around since 2015. That was when the

1139
01:49:26,589 --> 01:49:34,909
idea was first introduced in a blog post by Paul Sztorc on truthcoin.info, his blog on economics of

1140
01:49:34,909 --> 01:49:35,510
Bitcoin.

1141
01:49:51,830 --> 01:49:59,310
All right. Anyone have any more thoughts? We've been going for about two hours now. This space meets every

1142
01:49:59,310 --> 01:50:05,469
Monday and Thursday to talk about Drivechain. Follow LayerTwo Labs to get notifications of these

1143
01:50:05,469 --> 01:50:13,789
spaces. In the nest here in this space, there's a bunch of tweets that are interesting and significant

1144
01:50:13,830 --> 01:50:24,390
recent tweets. We have one from supertestnet, one from Adam Back, and two tweets from LayerTwo Labs

1145
01:50:24,390 --> 01:50:30,870
about. If you go to the very first tweet, you can see a list of the resources that are available, including

1146
01:50:31,029 --> 01:50:39,870
the Drivechain website, drivechain.info. Our Telegram group has over 700 people in it. And there are videos

1147
01:50:39,870 --> 01:50:46,390
on YouTube. And there's, of course, the GitHub repository with all of the code, including code for the

1148
01:50:46,390 --> 01:50:54,270
Thunder sidechain and the Zcash sidechain and a whole bunch of other interesting sidechains that Bitcoiners

1149
01:50:54,270 --> 01:51:00,630
will be able to use. So the idea of Drivechain is that once we have Drivechain, every technology from every

1150
01:51:00,630 --> 01:51:08,710
altcoin can be copied into a sidechain. And then Bitcoiners can use that technology, whether it's for scaling,

1151
01:51:08,710 --> 01:51:15,510
privacy, oracles, DNS or something else. They can use it on Bitcoin for Bitcoiners using Bitcoin's unit of

1152
01:51:15,510 --> 01:51:22,070
account, sending the transaction fees to Bitcoin miners, basically stealing all the good ideas from all of the

1153
01:51:22,070 --> 01:51:30,510
altcoins, and giving them no rationale for having an altcoin at all. When Vitalik wrote the Ethereum white paper

1154
01:51:30,789 --> 01:51:38,989
in 2014, at the very beginning, he talks about how creating an altcoin gives him freedom to create new features

1155
01:51:39,029 --> 01:51:45,830
without the limitations of Bitcoin's limited extensibility. So that wouldn't have been something he could have

1156
01:51:45,830 --> 01:51:55,710
said had Drivechain been enabled at that time. Because once we have Drivechain, then every protocol, virtually any,

1157
01:51:56,029 --> 01:52:04,390
can be cloned into a Bitcoin sidechain without the use of a federation. Instead of a 15-party federation, it's more

1158
01:52:04,390 --> 01:52:09,109
peer-to-peer, and therefore Bitcoin would have stronger narratives, potentially.

1159
01:52:15,830 --> 01:52:29,070
Does anyone have any closing thoughts or final comments for conversation? If not, we can wrap up. But I'd love to hear

1160
01:52:29,190 --> 01:52:34,229
anyone on stage talk more, or anyone else come on up to the stage, if you'd like.

1161
01:52:34,229 --> 01:52:43,349
Yeah, we can keep on going. I have a quick point regarding what you talked about just recently. Because I see a lot of

1162
01:52:43,390 --> 01:52:52,070
criticism that Drivechains will enable shitcoins for Bitcoin. But I think that seems like a weird argument, because the

1163
01:52:52,070 --> 01:53:00,549
whole point of a Drivechain is to have Bitcoin, the unit of account, on a sidechain, right? So you're not supposed to

1164
01:53:00,549 --> 01:53:10,070
have another token on the Drivechain. Although it might be possible to do that. So I see a lot of people criticizing

1165
01:53:10,070 --> 01:53:17,109
Drivechains because of that. Not sure if you have any thoughts regarding that. For me, I like Drivechains because it's

1166
01:53:17,109 --> 01:53:26,630
using BTC, the unit. I don't want to speculate on another coin. So that's why Drivechains are good for me. But it's

1167
01:53:26,630 --> 01:53:34,950
theoretical that someone could make a Drivechain with BTC, the unit, but also another staking coin or whatever, on that

1168
01:53:35,029 --> 01:53:38,070
Drivechain. So yeah, what do you think about that?

1169
01:53:39,229 --> 01:53:45,510
Yeah, but we already have them on the mainchain, right? There are at least three or four ways now that you can put

1170
01:53:46,029 --> 01:53:49,429
quote-unquote shitcoins on Bitcoin. So whatever.

1171
01:53:51,349 --> 01:53:59,789
Hampus, I think you're exactly right. The entire purpose of Drivechain is oriented toward the strengthening of

1172
01:53:59,789 --> 01:54:07,989
Bitcoin's network effect, enabling every protocol to use a synthetic Bitcoin as its unit of account. So instead of people

1173
01:54:07,989 --> 01:54:16,150
using Monero for privacy, they could use a Monero Drivechain, which would use Bitcoin, a synthetic Bitcoin, as its unit of

1174
01:54:16,150 --> 01:54:23,989
account. And the only way to create that token is to put Bitcoin in the hashrate escrow. In other words, as Adam Backwood has

1175
01:54:23,989 --> 01:54:34,950
tweeted, Drivechain is about maximum innovation, but minimal seniorage. Seniorage being the economic phenomenon of money

1176
01:54:34,950 --> 01:54:40,150
printing from the creation of more units of money. So I agree with you entirely.

1177
01:54:42,870 --> 01:54:51,150
Yeah, and I've also asked some altcoiners that I know if they will use a Drivechain if it had the same technology as their

1178
01:54:51,150 --> 01:55:01,190
shitcoin or altcoin, and they basically confirmed that they will do that. So it seems like the best way forward overall to go

1179
01:55:01,190 --> 01:55:05,950
ahead with Drivechains and innovate without affecting the mainchain.

1180
01:55:08,029 --> 01:55:12,070
I think SuperTestNet had a question for you earlier, if I recall correctly.

1181
01:55:16,070 --> 01:55:17,150
Ask you about Lightning.

1182
01:55:17,669 --> 01:55:27,789
I think that was me. So how do you see how sidechains could be integrated to Lightning Network, if you have thought about that?

1183
01:55:29,070 --> 01:55:41,630
Yeah, I mean, Lightning can work over multiple chains, basically. And especially works good if it's the same unit of account. So

1184
01:55:41,630 --> 01:55:53,710
there's no speculation or option. So I foresee the mainchain will have Lightning, of course, but then you could have multiple Drivechains,

1185
01:55:54,150 --> 01:56:06,029
not necessarily one big block Drivechain, because I still think big blocks are bad, regardless if it's on a sidechain or not. So you could still

1186
01:56:06,029 --> 01:56:16,989
have an interoperable internet of Drivechains, you could deploy Lightning with that. And you can still have the problem with the network

1187
01:56:16,989 --> 01:56:25,549
graph or channels for Lightning nodes. So you could implement something like trampling routing, where you don't need to know the whole

1188
01:56:25,789 --> 01:56:38,310
channel network over all Drivechains, you just need to know your base, basically. So something like that would work out, I think, if you think long, long, long term.

1189
01:56:38,669 --> 01:56:48,630
Do you think rendezvous routing would work well? Like, let's assume you have a sidechain and the mainchain, and you have an entity that has a node on bot,

1190
01:56:48,830 --> 01:57:00,029
and they create a virtual channel between the two, and then you can just create an invoice with rendezvous routing, and you can naturally pay it with the

1191
01:57:00,029 --> 01:57:01,989
existing software, maybe? I don't know.

1192
01:57:02,989 --> 01:57:11,750
Yeah, I think trampling routing would be like a specialization, right? So you will pay the service provider to find the path for you, because Lightning still

1193
01:57:12,150 --> 01:57:21,750
scales horribly for the channel graph, right? To know all the nodes and stuff. So I think that's basically Drivechains and Lightning over those

1194
01:57:21,750 --> 01:57:35,190
Drivechains, plus trampling routing is an attractive way to scale up as well. And yeah, it's all interoperable and stuff, so yeah.

1195
01:57:36,190 --> 01:57:40,190
Excellent. Welcome to the stage, Stack.

1196
01:57:42,190 --> 01:57:52,189
Thanks for putting this together. I have a few questions here before you guys end the show. So I think the previous speaker and person might have answered my first question,

1197
01:57:52,189 --> 01:58:04,189
which is, is Layer, is the Drivechain a Layer 2 type solution, and would it be competing with Lightning? That's my first question. Second question is that we have the

1198
01:58:04,189 --> 01:58:17,189
old situation going on with the BRC20. Will there be another solution on the mainnet, or is this going to be a Layer 2, Layer 3 type solution, which will at least hope to avoid

1199
01:58:17,189 --> 01:58:32,189
congestion on the mainnet? And then when we talk about shitcoin, there are shitcoins, and then there are other attempts at innovation using Bitcoin, right? So how do we go ahead and enable more

1200
01:58:32,189 --> 01:58:50,189
innovation using a Drivechain or a sidechain, like what you guys call a Drivechain here, without being on the mainnet? I was not here earlier, so I'm not sure if you guys answered all those questions. So I'm just trying to, like, connect all the dots.

1201
01:58:51,189 --> 01:59:04,189
Those are all great questions. Would anyone like to answer those? We've heard Mies talk a lot. Moonsettler, Hampus, Super, anyone like to?

1202
01:59:05,189 --> 01:59:21,189
I can answer the Lightning question, of course. Yes, Lightning works over Drivechains, and it also works interoperable with the mainchain, which is quite interesting. You can have bridge nodes that can talk with both the Drivechain and the mainchain.

1203
01:59:21,189 --> 01:59:42,189
So that method works, and it works even better if it's the same unit of account, which it is with Drivechains, right? You still have BTC, the unit, so it's all just fine. That's the primary scaling vision I have personally for Bitcoin, to use Drivechains and Lightning over Drivechains.

1204
01:59:43,189 --> 01:59:59,189
Because I still think that, like, Lightning is just a better payment network for small payments in general. Like, on-chain is not that great for small, fast payments. And we've seen that with the full RBF debates that we had, like, some months ago.

1205
01:59:59,189 --> 02:00:09,189
And I think that's settled now, right? So I think that Lightning for small payments is the way to go, and that applies to Drivechains as well.

1206
02:00:09,189 --> 02:00:30,189
Stack, your questions were really great. Thank you for responding to them. I'll add my two cents. Basically, Drivechain is all about enabling a new kind of sidechain on the mainchain.

1207
02:00:30,413 --> 02:00:37,693
Bitcoin. So right now, Bitcoin has some sidechains, but they all involve a 15-party federated multisig.

1208
02:00:37,693 --> 02:00:43,373
All of them. Liquid, RSK, and all the rest. And the sidechains are very small.

1209
02:00:43,373 --> 02:00:49,212
There's only about $100 million worth of Bitcoin sent to those sidechains.

1210
02:00:49,212 --> 02:00:56,493
And arguably, if Drivechain were enabled on Bitcoin, then Bitcoin would have a much stronger narrative

1211
02:00:56,653 --> 02:01:01,613
associated with its sidechains, because the sidechains would be more peer-to-peer,

1212
02:01:02,653 --> 02:01:07,372
because they would not involve that 15-party federated multisig.

1213
02:01:08,493 --> 02:01:15,852
Instead, the Bitcoin miners, which is a dynamic global multitude with an enormous economic

1214
02:01:15,852 --> 02:01:21,453
commitment to Bitcoin, they would be involved in an important way in the security model of the

1215
02:01:21,453 --> 02:01:29,133
sidechain. So as Adam Back says, Drivechain sidechains would be more peer-to-peer than

1216
02:01:29,133 --> 02:01:35,453
the first generation of sidechains, which have been all including a 15-party multisig federation.

1217
02:01:36,573 --> 02:01:44,573
So the idea of Shitcoin would be an altcoin that uses a technology which is available on a

1218
02:01:44,573 --> 02:01:50,093
peer-to-peer Bitcoin sidechain. Right now, a lot of blockchain technology is not available

1219
02:01:50,652 --> 02:01:57,773
on a peer-to-peer Bitcoin sidechain. And therefore, the altcoins have a strong narrative.

1220
02:01:57,773 --> 02:02:03,612
They can say, hey, if you want to do Monero or Zcash or Ethereum kind of stuff,

1221
02:02:04,733 --> 02:02:09,052
you can't do it on Bitcoin and you can't do it on a peer-to-peer Bitcoin sidechain,

1222
02:02:09,052 --> 02:02:13,853
so you have to do it on our altcoin. Therefore, buy our altcoin. That's what they can say.

1223
02:02:14,493 --> 02:02:22,252
But if Drivechain is adopted, then arguably, the narrative for Bitcoin will be much stronger.

1224
02:02:22,252 --> 02:02:29,292
The narrative will be every technology that's good can be put into a Bitcoin sidechain using

1225
02:02:29,853 --> 02:02:38,173
peer-to-peer technology. So by strengthening the facilities available to Bitcoin sidechain users,

1226
02:02:39,052 --> 02:02:43,293
Drivechain is aimed at strengthening Bitcoin's narrative and potentially

1227
02:02:44,092 --> 02:02:46,812
strengthening Bitcoin economically in terms of its price,

1228
02:02:47,692 --> 02:02:54,092
miner revenue, variety of technology on top of Bitcoin, increasing the number of builders

1229
02:02:54,092 --> 02:02:58,733
and thinkers and innovators who focus on Bitcoin instead of focusing on altcoins.

1230
02:02:59,293 --> 02:03:04,252
So it has the potential to change Bitcoin a lot. No one can know for sure what would happen

1231
02:03:04,332 --> 02:03:10,252
if Drivechain is adopted, but Drivechain proponents believe that it could be very,

1232
02:03:10,252 --> 02:03:13,052
very good for Bitcoin in all the ways that we're describing.

1233
02:03:14,413 --> 02:03:16,972
Quick question. This is going to be off the mainnet, correct?

1234
02:03:18,972 --> 02:03:20,573
That is why it's a sidechain?

1235
02:03:22,013 --> 02:03:29,933
Yeah, it's a protocol. It's a blockchain that is not Bitcoin, but it's attached to Bitcoin using a

1236
02:03:30,573 --> 02:03:37,692
peer-to-peer two-way peg, and the two-way peg moves value between the sidechain and the mainchain.

1237
02:03:38,573 --> 02:03:41,692
Kind of like what Lightning does, but a different type of Lightning,

1238
02:03:41,692 --> 02:03:44,013
which allows you to do a lot more than what Lightning does.

1239
02:03:46,332 --> 02:03:50,013
It's a different kind of sidechain, which can be harmonious with Lightning,

1240
02:03:50,013 --> 02:03:51,933
because you could have Lightning on the sidechains.

1241
02:03:52,653 --> 02:03:57,293
Yes, and you can actually have Lightning on the sidechains that can do stuff that

1242
02:03:57,373 --> 02:04:02,573
the Lightning on Bitcoin mainchain can't do, because the rules change on the Bitcoin

1243
02:04:02,573 --> 02:04:07,133
mainchain a lot slower, and it's a lot harder to actually try out new stuff.

1244
02:04:07,933 --> 02:04:11,213
So it's also possible that the Lightning network on

1245
02:04:11,213 --> 02:04:15,373
drivechains or sidechains will be simply better than the one on mainchain.

1246
02:04:16,972 --> 02:04:20,493
So now, how do we work with that sidechain on our nodes?

1247
02:04:22,493 --> 02:04:26,092
How would that get implemented on the node? Just a quick question.

1248
02:04:27,373 --> 02:04:33,452
The set of people who are running Bitcoin mainchain node are different and overlapping

1249
02:04:33,452 --> 02:04:38,733
with the set of people running the sidechain node. You don't have to run the mainchain node.

1250
02:04:38,733 --> 02:04:42,013
No one has to. People will do it if they want to.

1251
02:04:42,013 --> 02:04:46,332
So this system, drivechain, relies on capitalism. It relies on incentives.

1252
02:04:46,893 --> 02:04:49,932
Some people will have an incentive to run the sidechain node.

1253
02:04:49,932 --> 02:04:52,333
Other people have an incentive to run the Bitcoin node.

1254
02:04:53,372 --> 02:04:55,532
Some people have an incentive to be a miner.

1255
02:04:56,092 --> 02:05:00,812
The whole system is like Bitcoin, where every sidechain lives and dies on its own.

1256
02:05:01,772 --> 02:05:07,853
However, there is a synergy, a collaboration, a capitalistic order that will emerge,

1257
02:05:07,853 --> 02:05:11,372
where everything will be linked together harmoniously.

1258
02:05:11,372 --> 02:05:15,692
So there'll be a large community of people using the Thunder sidechain for low fees,

1259
02:05:16,893 --> 02:05:23,692
some people using Hivemind and BitNames and BitAssets and other planned sidechains

1260
02:05:23,692 --> 02:05:29,692
for their specific purposes, whether they want privacy, DNS, scaling or smart contracts.

1261
02:05:29,692 --> 02:05:31,372
There'll be a sidechain for each of those.

1262
02:05:31,932 --> 02:05:36,652
So no longer will any developer have to leave the Bitcoin community to do something new.

1263
02:05:36,652 --> 02:05:40,492
Instead, they can stay within the Bitcoin community and build the sidechain.

1264
02:05:40,492 --> 02:05:45,453
And if they build a really good one, then they'll get tons of users and they'll make a lot of money

1265
02:05:46,013 --> 02:05:52,173
because the sidechain node operators are able to retain a small amount of the fees

1266
02:05:52,733 --> 02:05:53,692
on the sidechain.

1267
02:05:54,413 --> 02:05:59,613
99% of the fees are sent to the Bitcoin mainchain by design.

1268
02:05:59,613 --> 02:06:02,092
That's what we expect due to market forces.

1269
02:06:02,092 --> 02:06:04,812
Virtually all of the fees will go to the mainchain miners,

1270
02:06:04,812 --> 02:06:08,652
but a tiny amount will be retained by the sidechain node operators.

1271
02:06:09,212 --> 02:06:12,333
And that's their incentive, just like people have an incentive

1272
02:06:12,333 --> 02:06:17,293
to facilitate lightning and collect a small fee from lightning activity.

1273
02:06:17,293 --> 02:06:22,252
So there's actually a profit motive for people to develop great sidechains and run the nodes.

1274
02:06:26,812 --> 02:06:29,133
Now, here comes another question.

1275
02:06:29,133 --> 02:06:32,972
So, kind of like what we have right now with the BRC20s,

1276
02:06:32,972 --> 02:06:37,532
not everybody has a positive initiative or a positive objective.

1277
02:06:38,092 --> 02:06:41,293
There could be a negative impact for somebody creating a sidechain,

1278
02:06:41,293 --> 02:06:45,532
so it intentionally impacts the flow.

1279
02:06:46,013 --> 02:06:49,372
The flow into the mainchain.

1280
02:06:49,372 --> 02:06:50,413
Have we thought about that?

1281
02:06:51,293 --> 02:06:52,013
Yes.

1282
02:06:52,013 --> 02:06:55,532
From the very beginning, Paul designed Drivechain to have...

1283
02:06:56,413 --> 02:07:03,212
Paul and his co-author CryptAxe designed Drivechain to have a feature where

1284
02:07:03,212 --> 02:07:10,252
if the Bitcoin community thinks that a certain sidechain is harming users

1285
02:07:10,252 --> 02:07:12,333
or harming Bitcoin in general,

1286
02:07:13,053 --> 02:07:18,893
such as if a Drivechain sidechain is interfering with other sidechains or the mainchain somehow,

1287
02:07:18,893 --> 02:07:26,013
then that sidechain can be terminated by the community acting through the will of the miners.

1288
02:07:26,013 --> 02:07:32,573
So the miners would have the power to express the will of the community to terminate a sidechain.

1289
02:07:33,212 --> 02:07:35,293
So it can be turned off if there's a problem.

1290
02:07:36,013 --> 02:07:40,812
Also, if the entire Drivechain experiment is somehow not a good idea,

1291
02:07:40,812 --> 02:07:42,893
the whole thing could be forked out of Bitcoin.

1292
02:07:43,932 --> 02:07:48,733
So it's something which has all kinds of optionality.

1293
02:07:48,733 --> 02:07:53,772
And of course, it's also important to emphasize that anyone who never goes into a sidechain

1294
02:07:54,333 --> 02:07:57,133
wouldn't be affected by the failure of a sidechain.

1295
02:07:57,133 --> 02:07:58,573
So the whole thing is optional.

1296
02:07:58,573 --> 02:08:02,013
It's very capitalism-oriented where you don't have to go there.

1297
02:08:02,013 --> 02:08:04,652
So it's kind of like if someone builds a store,

1298
02:08:06,173 --> 02:08:07,692
you don't have to go into that store.

1299
02:08:07,692 --> 02:08:08,812
You don't have to shop there.

1300
02:08:08,812 --> 02:08:10,013
You don't have to buy anything there.

1301
02:08:11,532 --> 02:08:17,853
It kind of reminds me of all the dApps that were on the Ethereum blockchain.

1302
02:08:17,853 --> 02:08:19,053
You don't have to use the dApps.

1303
02:08:19,053 --> 02:08:19,772
It's up to you.

1304
02:08:20,812 --> 02:08:25,613
It also reminds me of the new protocols that came up on the internet

1305
02:08:25,613 --> 02:08:27,133
back in the early days of the internet.

1306
02:08:28,492 --> 02:08:29,053
So, all right.

1307
02:08:29,053 --> 02:08:29,613
Makes sense.

1308
02:08:30,173 --> 02:08:30,893
I'm here for it.

1309
02:08:31,453 --> 02:08:32,492
Just here to learn.

1310
02:08:32,492 --> 02:08:33,613
Thanks for answering the questions.

1311
02:08:36,573 --> 02:08:37,212
Thank you.

1312
02:08:37,212 --> 02:08:38,013
Great questions.

1313
02:08:38,812 --> 02:08:44,092
Everyone else here is welcome to come on up to the stage and share your thoughts,

1314
02:08:44,092 --> 02:08:45,453
ask a question or comment.

1315
02:08:47,293 --> 02:08:53,372
Everyone in this audience, all of you can raise your hand and come on up if you'd like to.

1316
02:08:54,092 --> 02:08:55,613
This is Drivechain Twitter Spaces.

1317
02:08:55,613 --> 02:08:57,133
We meet every Monday and Thursday.

1318
02:08:57,932 --> 02:09:03,132
We are all about developing understanding and education for Bitcoiners to understand

1319
02:09:03,132 --> 02:09:04,493
what Drivechain is all about.

1320
02:09:05,132 --> 02:09:06,733
Drivechain has a lot of potential.

1321
02:09:07,293 --> 02:09:08,972
It's an idea which is eight years old.

1322
02:09:09,772 --> 02:09:13,532
The Bitcoin community has been thinking about it for a very long time.

1323
02:09:14,493 --> 02:09:18,972
And now, more than ever, there is energy and understanding around it.

1324
02:09:19,693 --> 02:09:24,012
There are very famous Bitcoiners who are in support of it vocally,

1325
02:09:24,652 --> 02:09:30,413
like Nostr creator Fiatjaf, Handcrank creator SuperTestNet.

1326
02:09:30,892 --> 02:09:36,012
And Hompas is here, creator of Blixed Wallet.

1327
02:09:36,012 --> 02:09:40,413
And there's also many others who I personally made a long list of.

1328
02:09:40,413 --> 02:09:43,933
It's over 50 people, all of them recognizable names.

1329
02:09:43,933 --> 02:09:48,972
And there's hundreds more in our Telegram group and elsewhere who are supportive on Twitter,

1330
02:09:48,972 --> 02:09:50,092
on Reddit.

1331
02:09:50,092 --> 02:09:51,613
We have over 100 people.

1332
02:09:52,173 --> 02:09:57,293
There's various groups and venues where Drivechain is discussed and the energy is building.

1333
02:09:57,293 --> 02:09:58,572
There's a lot of interest in this.

1334
02:09:59,532 --> 02:10:04,493
One of the curious things about sidechains is that many of the Bitcoiners who love sidechains

1335
02:10:05,293 --> 02:10:07,293
leave Bitcoin and do altcoins.

1336
02:10:07,293 --> 02:10:12,092
And then they no longer have an incentive to advocate for sidechains within the Bitcoin

1337
02:10:12,092 --> 02:10:15,373
community because they're now an altcoiner.

1338
02:10:15,373 --> 02:10:20,733
So they leave the Bitcoin community and they know that it would be good for Bitcoin to

1339
02:10:20,733 --> 02:10:22,092
adopt Drivechain.

1340
02:10:22,092 --> 02:10:28,332
But they have no incentive to say that anymore because they've now become an Ethereum developer.

1341
02:10:28,572 --> 02:10:39,053
For example, so what Paul has wisely warned about, he has warned that Ethereum is targeting

1342
02:10:39,613 --> 02:10:41,772
a design similar to Drivechain.

1343
02:10:42,332 --> 02:10:48,253
And if the Ethereum roadmap works, which is a big if, but if it works, then in the very

1344
02:10:48,253 --> 02:10:54,173
end of their roadmap, they will achieve small blocks on layer one with a high degree of

1345
02:10:54,173 --> 02:11:01,132
extensibility to support layer twos that have a peer-to-peer architecture and manifold

1346
02:11:01,132 --> 02:11:03,853
features and capabilities and customizability.

1347
02:11:03,853 --> 02:11:05,373
In other words, Drivechain.

1348
02:11:05,373 --> 02:11:11,132
So we want Bitcoin, the original and most ethical project in the whole space, to be

1349
02:11:11,132 --> 02:11:12,253
the big winner.

1350
02:11:12,253 --> 02:11:17,053
We want Bitcoin to have $100 trillion of value and 8 billion users.

1351
02:11:17,693 --> 02:11:20,092
We want to eliminate all of its competition.

1352
02:11:20,092 --> 02:11:24,733
We want Bitcoin to be the layer one for every blockchain application, for every protocol.

1353
02:11:24,733 --> 02:11:26,892
We want every developer building on Bitcoin.

1354
02:11:28,572 --> 02:11:34,813
And the way we get there is, at this time, to adopt the upgrade for Bitcoin, which is

1355
02:11:34,813 --> 02:11:41,053
available and well-developed and understood and conservative, and that is Drivechain,

1356
02:11:41,053 --> 02:11:41,613
we believe.

1357
02:11:42,493 --> 02:11:49,132
So making Bitcoin sidechain stronger, more peer-to-peer and enabling stronger privacy

1358
02:11:49,132 --> 02:11:52,332
and scalability and oracles and DNS for Bitcoiners.

1359
02:11:58,972 --> 02:12:00,332
It's very exciting.

1360
02:12:00,332 --> 02:12:05,853
Moon Settler, you've talked about it taking 10 to 20 years for Drivechain to fulfill its

1361
02:12:05,853 --> 02:12:06,413
potential.

1362
02:12:08,092 --> 02:12:16,332
But there is a possibility that immediately after Drivechain is adopted, there could be

1363
02:12:16,332 --> 02:12:18,493
momentous transformation.

1364
02:12:18,493 --> 02:12:26,972
There could, for example, we could see a tidal wave of billions of dollars flow from Monero

1365
02:12:26,972 --> 02:12:28,413
and Zcash users.

1366
02:12:28,413 --> 02:12:34,493
From those communities, they could hypothetically drop their altcoin because they are focused

1367
02:12:34,493 --> 02:12:38,652
on privacy and utility more than just number go up.

1368
02:12:38,652 --> 02:12:42,892
So some of these altcoin communities are focused on utility, and therefore they're going to

1369
02:12:42,892 --> 02:12:46,253
be interested in something that's better than what they're doing.

1370
02:12:46,253 --> 02:12:49,772
They're not simply Dogecoin holders where they're loyal to Doge.

1371
02:12:50,413 --> 02:12:56,173
So, for example, imagine you're a very privacy-oriented blockchain user and currently you're

1372
02:12:56,173 --> 02:12:57,772
using Zcash and Monero.

1373
02:12:57,772 --> 02:13:04,012
And then Bitcoin comes along and launches the Zcash Drivechain sidechain.

1374
02:13:04,972 --> 02:13:12,733
And now it's possible to do Zcash-level privacy with Bitcoin's unit of account, which is the

1375
02:13:12,733 --> 02:13:17,613
best of all worlds, because then you get the high-tech privacy of Zcash with the economic

1376
02:13:19,532 --> 02:13:21,053
unit of account of Bitcoin.

1377
02:13:21,053 --> 02:13:27,693
Bitcoin has the lowest volatility of purchasing power of any token on any blockchain.

1378
02:13:27,693 --> 02:13:28,892
It's the most stable.

1379
02:13:28,892 --> 02:13:32,092
It's not very stable, but it's the most stable of all of the others.

1380
02:13:32,092 --> 02:13:38,413
So the best thing for privacy-oriented blockchain users is to use Bitcoin's unit of account

1381
02:13:38,413 --> 02:13:40,012
with the privacy of Zcash.

1382
02:13:40,733 --> 02:13:44,493
And that is what this sidechain can deliver.

1383
02:13:44,493 --> 02:13:49,053
But of course, if it were a federated sidechain, it wouldn't be good because then the federated

1384
02:13:49,053 --> 02:13:51,693
sidechain would be susceptible to government attack.

1385
02:13:52,652 --> 02:13:57,613
But if there's no federated sidechain and instead the miners, the dynamic global multitude

1386
02:13:57,613 --> 02:14:03,053
of miners control the Bitcoin in the hashrate escrow, then we have something to work with.

1387
02:14:03,053 --> 02:14:05,532
So I feel that there could be a tidal wave.

1388
02:14:05,532 --> 02:14:07,293
And in fact, Adam Back said that.

1389
02:14:07,772 --> 02:14:14,652
In a recent conversation he had with Brad Mills, Jamison Lobb and Austin Alexander of

1390
02:14:14,652 --> 02:14:16,413
LayerTwo Labs, Dr.

1391
02:14:16,413 --> 02:14:23,532
Back said that in the 2014 white paper by Blockstream, when that paper was published,

1392
02:14:24,173 --> 02:14:28,493
right after that publication, there was a moment in the Bitcoin community and the whole

1393
02:14:28,493 --> 02:14:35,452
altcoin community where everyone thought maybe Bitcoin would absorb all of the value of all

1394
02:14:35,452 --> 02:14:36,012
the blockchains.

1395
02:14:36,173 --> 02:14:39,772
Of all the blockchains, potentially because of sidechains.

1396
02:14:40,332 --> 02:14:45,293
And he said that altcoin prices collectively fell for a moment.

1397
02:14:45,293 --> 02:14:50,813
So for some period of time around that publication of that paper on sidechains.

1398
02:14:50,813 --> 02:14:53,452
So let's get that again, but in a bigger way.

1399
02:14:53,452 --> 02:15:00,012
Let's pursue a vision where drivechain is adopted and then potentially the entire privacy

1400
02:15:00,012 --> 02:15:03,212
altcoin community moves to the privacy drivechain.

1401
02:15:03,212 --> 02:15:06,493
And then that would be about $3 billion of value.

1402
02:15:07,293 --> 02:15:12,413
And they would not come as the first users of the sidechain, but instead first the Bitcoin

1403
02:15:12,413 --> 02:15:13,293
community.

1404
02:15:13,293 --> 02:15:19,933
So imagine the Bitcoin community sends 1% of its value to this Zcash drivechain on Bitcoin.

1405
02:15:19,933 --> 02:15:23,212
That's, well, Bitcoin has a $400 billion value.

1406
02:15:23,212 --> 02:15:27,212
So right away, that drivechain would have $4 billion of value.

1407
02:15:28,012 --> 02:15:31,293
And then that would be bigger than either Zcash or Monero.

1408
02:15:31,293 --> 02:15:32,813
So then they would come over, too.

1409
02:15:32,813 --> 02:15:40,253
And now we have like a $7 or $8 billion privacy sidechain on Bitcoin, a high tech, amazing

1410
02:15:40,253 --> 02:15:44,253
community of people all working on Bitcoin in a sidechain venue.

1411
02:15:44,813 --> 02:15:46,173
So that's an exciting vision.

1412
02:15:46,173 --> 02:15:48,733
It doesn't take 20 years to imagine that happening.

1413
02:15:48,733 --> 02:15:54,733
There could be a flip where the whole altcoin privacy community moves to Bitcoin, maybe.

1414
02:15:55,293 --> 02:16:00,012
And the same thing could be true of others, of other projects that have communities that

1415
02:16:00,012 --> 02:16:06,572
are focused on utility and technology and not just loyalty to the coin for speculation

1416
02:16:06,572 --> 02:16:07,053
purposes.

1417
02:16:11,212 --> 02:16:17,132
So my point is that we could see drivechains succeed rapidly once it's adopted.

1418
02:16:17,132 --> 02:16:19,053
It wouldn't necessarily take 20 years.

1419
02:16:30,173 --> 02:16:30,733
All right.

1420
02:16:32,253 --> 02:16:34,332
Does anyone have any further comments or questions?

1421
02:16:35,293 --> 02:16:36,332
Anybody want to chat?

1422
02:16:44,253 --> 02:16:46,012
It's a lot to take in.

1423
02:16:46,012 --> 02:16:47,772
This is my first time hearing about this.

1424
02:16:47,772 --> 02:16:49,693
So I'm still kind of processing it.

1425
02:16:50,733 --> 02:16:58,652
My concern, if I'm allowed to speak my mind, is that I'm not going to be able to do it.

1426
02:16:58,972 --> 02:17:03,933
Speak my mind is that, you know, we have the current issue with some of the innovation

1427
02:17:03,933 --> 02:17:08,733
we have going on on the Bitcoin blockchain that I think is the total distraction from

1428
02:17:08,733 --> 02:17:14,332
the main objective, which is trying to free ourselves from this centralized control of

1429
02:17:14,332 --> 02:17:16,253
us being able to create our own value.

1430
02:17:16,972 --> 02:17:19,532
And I don't think we are there yet.

1431
02:17:20,332 --> 02:17:26,012
So creating sidechains for some distractions, which we're already having a lot of with this

1432
02:17:26,092 --> 02:17:33,452
BRC20, might be a disadvantage in the median time.

1433
02:17:33,452 --> 02:17:35,852
Or, you know, that's just my thoughts.

1434
02:17:36,413 --> 02:17:37,453
That's what comes to mind.

1435
02:17:38,492 --> 02:17:40,652
Well, what are your thoughts on the following?

1436
02:17:40,652 --> 02:17:51,772
Right now, over $10 million per day, over $10 million per day is being paid to the Bitcoin

1437
02:17:51,772 --> 02:17:52,732
miners.

1438
02:17:52,732 --> 02:18:02,492
And just three months ago, or even one month ago, it was where it usually is, which is

1439
02:18:02,492 --> 02:18:03,213
half a million.

1440
02:18:03,772 --> 02:18:11,933
So right now, we have 20 times higher fees on Bitcoin than we used to.

1441
02:18:11,933 --> 02:18:17,693
So do you think it's a distraction and an unproductive and unfavorable circumstance

1442
02:18:17,693 --> 02:18:23,612
that the Bitcoin miners are now getting 20 times more revenue per day from fees?

1443
02:18:24,732 --> 02:18:25,532
Good question.

1444
02:18:25,532 --> 02:18:31,772
So when I think about that, I think about some of the comments that the Ethereum folks

1445
02:18:31,772 --> 02:18:36,173
will say that Bitcoin is not decentralized because of the miners.

1446
02:18:36,173 --> 02:18:37,693
So that makes a lot of sense.

1447
02:18:39,532 --> 02:18:45,453
That is unusual, but my understanding was that Satoshi's plan for maintaining the Bitcoin

1448
02:18:45,453 --> 02:18:51,372
standard economy was that once we reach $21 million, then the incentive will be there

1449
02:18:51,372 --> 02:18:57,933
for us to all be involved and have a reason to have a node.

1450
02:18:59,053 --> 02:19:02,012
But are we jumping ahead of the $21 million?

1451
02:19:02,012 --> 02:19:07,453
Or, of course, maybe we should limit the power that the nodes have, because that's another

1452
02:19:07,453 --> 02:19:14,492
centralized point of impact that centralized powers could use to impact the growth of Bitcoin

1453
02:19:14,492 --> 02:19:15,053
in the long term.

1454
02:19:15,213 --> 02:19:21,772
What you see, trying to charge 39 or 30% taxes on the miners.

1455
02:19:21,772 --> 02:19:26,252
So yeah, we can start looking for other options that will bring other people into the space.

1456
02:19:26,252 --> 02:19:31,213
So the question now will now be, what will it cost for you and I, somebody out there,

1457
02:19:31,213 --> 02:19:39,053
to run their own sidechain without the big expenses that the folks running the miners

1458
02:19:39,053 --> 02:19:39,933
are accumulating?

1459
02:19:39,933 --> 02:19:43,293
So it's, you know, that's a lot of give and take.

1460
02:19:45,612 --> 02:19:51,453
I know, I know, I know I said a lot and I kind of connected a lot of dots there.

1461
02:19:51,453 --> 02:19:53,612
I think everything you're saying makes sense.

1462
02:19:53,612 --> 02:19:59,453
The drivechain vision is that people can do whatever they want with Bitcoin and that

1463
02:19:59,453 --> 02:20:07,213
they will naturally find a home in the sidechain that facilitates their preferred features

1464
02:20:07,213 --> 02:20:07,852
and uses.

1465
02:20:08,173 --> 02:20:15,933
So it's fine that people are paying a lot for layer one block space, because when we

1466
02:20:15,933 --> 02:20:24,813
have drivechain, people who want a cheaper experience can opt in to the low fees and

1467
02:20:24,813 --> 02:20:27,053
large blocks on a sidechain.

1468
02:20:31,053 --> 02:20:33,293
And it's great that people are using Bitcoin.

1469
02:20:33,293 --> 02:20:39,053
If all of the activity and money and value and people and attention and narrative that

1470
02:20:39,053 --> 02:20:44,492
Bitcoin currently has were instead happening in Ethereum, that would not be a good thing

1471
02:20:44,492 --> 02:20:46,892
for Bitcoin's long-term viability.

1472
02:20:49,372 --> 02:20:54,173
So there's an interesting debate going on right now within the Bitcoin community, whether

1473
02:20:54,173 --> 02:20:59,693
the additional people and money and value is good or whether it's somehow an attack

1474
02:20:59,772 --> 02:21:03,453
and spam, a plot by evil people.

1475
02:21:03,453 --> 02:21:04,973
There's all kinds of theories out there.

1476
02:21:05,852 --> 02:21:11,852
I think that the right view is the one found here in this room, in this space, in this

1477
02:21:11,852 --> 02:21:19,693
conversation, which is that we want capitalism, innovation and user preference to govern what

1478
02:21:19,693 --> 02:21:21,852
happens on Bitcoin.

1479
02:21:22,573 --> 02:21:27,453
And all we all we need to do is just enable more, more peer to peer sidechains.

1480
02:21:28,012 --> 02:21:29,053
To help that happen.

1481
02:21:30,652 --> 02:21:31,213
I agree.

1482
02:21:31,213 --> 02:21:37,852
I think that would that would slow down the overload, increase more bandwidth.

1483
02:21:37,852 --> 02:21:39,453
That's basically what you're saying here.

1484
02:21:39,453 --> 02:21:41,053
Provide availability for more bandwidth.

1485
02:21:48,093 --> 02:21:53,772
Well, we've been going for two and a half hours now, longer than we usually go.

1486
02:21:54,012 --> 02:21:55,213
Longer than we usually go.

1487
02:21:55,772 --> 02:21:57,693
Usually our spaces are just 90 minutes.

1488
02:21:57,693 --> 02:21:59,852
Today it's been an hour more.

1489
02:22:04,333 --> 02:22:08,892
If we have answered all the questions for today, then we can adjourn for next time.

1490
02:22:08,892 --> 02:22:12,333
Next time will be Thursday, 9.30 a.m.

1491
02:22:12,333 --> 02:22:14,892
Pacific, 12.30 p.m.

1492
02:22:14,892 --> 02:22:15,372
Eastern.

1493
02:22:17,213 --> 02:22:18,413
We meet twice a week.

1494
02:22:18,413 --> 02:22:19,852
I welcome everyone to return.

1495
02:22:19,933 --> 02:22:20,892
Please come back.

1496
02:22:20,892 --> 02:22:21,852
Bring your questions.

1497
02:22:23,293 --> 02:22:26,813
And we'll talk more every Monday and Thursday.

1498
02:22:26,813 --> 02:22:28,652
This is Drivechain Twitter Spaces.

1499
02:22:28,652 --> 02:22:33,053
We're focused on Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 300 and 301.

1500
02:22:33,693 --> 02:22:36,573
You can read more about it at drivechain.info.

1501
02:22:37,132 --> 02:22:40,333
You can read the BIPs on Bitcoin's GitHub.

1502
02:22:40,333 --> 02:22:44,413
You can watch the videos created by LayerTwo Labs.

1503
02:22:44,413 --> 02:22:45,293
There are many of them.

1504
02:22:45,293 --> 02:22:46,492
There's dozens of videos.

1505
02:22:47,293 --> 02:22:48,973
And lectures.

1506
02:22:50,012 --> 02:22:55,693
There's essays on truthcoin.info, which is the blog of Paul Sztorc,

1507
02:22:56,413 --> 02:22:59,132
the co-author of the Drivechain BIPs.

1508
02:23:00,413 --> 02:23:04,573
So everyone's encouraged to engage, learn, and debate and understand.

1509
02:23:05,453 --> 02:23:09,532
That's the only way these BIPs will ever get adopted, is if the Bitcoin community

1510
02:23:09,532 --> 02:23:14,012
understands what we think is the correct understanding of how sidechains work and

1511
02:23:14,973 --> 02:23:18,252
why they have a valuable value proposition.

1512
02:23:19,293 --> 02:23:22,573
Until Bitcoin adopts Drivechain or something like it,

1513
02:23:23,293 --> 02:23:28,413
Bitcoin will not have peer-to-peer two-way pegs for Layer 2s.

1514
02:23:29,293 --> 02:23:33,453
And as long as that's the case, Bitcoin is not going to have as much extensibility

1515
02:23:34,252 --> 02:23:37,053
and features that it should have.

1516
02:23:37,053 --> 02:23:41,612
And it'll continue to lose users who will instead choose altcoins,

1517
02:23:42,413 --> 02:23:43,852
like Ethereum, primarily.

1518
02:23:49,293 --> 02:23:53,933
So it's great if Bitcoin can regain the narratives of being able to platform all

1519
02:23:53,933 --> 02:23:56,173
kinds of applications and technology.

1520
02:23:56,173 --> 02:23:58,732
And that way it doesn't have to turn away users to altcoins.

1521
02:23:59,612 --> 02:24:04,892
In the long run, only one blockchain will be the Layer 1 for the whole world.

1522
02:24:04,892 --> 02:24:08,973
In the very long run, because of the power of network effects,

1523
02:24:09,213 --> 02:24:12,973
there will be only one blockchain that is the Layer 1,

1524
02:24:12,973 --> 02:24:16,732
and it will have a whole bunch of Layer 2s with two-way pegs.

1525
02:24:17,293 --> 02:24:18,252
That's going to happen.

1526
02:24:18,252 --> 02:24:20,973
It's inevitable because of the power of network effects.

1527
02:24:21,612 --> 02:24:24,012
There will be one dominant chain.

1528
02:24:24,813 --> 02:24:27,213
Will it be Bitcoin or will it be Ethereum?

1529
02:24:27,213 --> 02:24:32,573
As Drivechain proponents, we believe, at least I do, that Drivechain is instrumental.

1530
02:24:32,573 --> 02:24:37,132
And if Drivechain or something like it isn't adopted, then Bitcoin will be under threat.

1531
02:24:38,012 --> 02:24:43,132
And today's fee crisis, the crisis of high fees, isn't the worst thing.

1532
02:24:43,132 --> 02:24:48,333
In fact, fees that are high are good, but a flippening would be bad for Bitcoin.

1533
02:24:48,333 --> 02:24:53,933
So in order to prevent the flippening, and in order for Bitcoin to have high fees forever,

1534
02:24:54,813 --> 02:24:59,293
and in order for Bitcoin to become the Layer 1 for every protocol,

1535
02:25:00,413 --> 02:25:02,973
it would be great to have Drivechain or something like it.

1536
02:25:03,933 --> 02:25:08,573
I say something like it because that rhetoric is something that I learned from Junseth

1537
02:25:08,573 --> 02:25:15,053
in conversations where, you know, Drivechain is not necessarily perfect.

1538
02:25:15,053 --> 02:25:17,532
It's not necessarily the only possible solution.

1539
02:25:17,532 --> 02:25:20,973
However, it is the best one that's available today.

1540
02:25:21,772 --> 02:25:23,132
And that's why we support it.

1541
02:25:23,693 --> 02:25:28,492
And we welcome, you know, tweaks and criticisms and improvements or ideas.

1542
02:25:28,813 --> 02:25:32,652
So this isn't about any one person or any one project.

1543
02:25:32,652 --> 02:25:38,012
It's about making Bitcoin better and developing peer-to-peer, two-way pegged sidechains

1544
02:25:38,012 --> 02:25:42,973
so that Bitcoin can have a vibrant set of Layer 2s rather than what it currently has,

1545
02:25:42,973 --> 02:25:48,732
which is just a few rather small projects that have not accrued billions of dollars

1546
02:25:48,732 --> 02:25:50,573
and massive amounts of users.

1547
02:25:50,573 --> 02:25:54,413
We need Bitcoin to have Layer 2s that have billions of dollars of value

1548
02:25:54,413 --> 02:25:56,252
and massive numbers of users.

1549
02:25:56,252 --> 02:25:57,693
That is how Bitcoin will win.

1550
02:25:58,492 --> 02:26:00,333
Because people want oracles.

1551
02:26:00,333 --> 02:26:01,693
They want large blocks.

1552
02:26:01,693 --> 02:26:04,492
They want strong fungibility.

1553
02:26:05,053 --> 02:26:09,612
They want all kinds of experimental and innovative technology on blockchain.

1554
02:26:10,173 --> 02:26:12,333
And Bitcoin should be the place that they come for that.

1555
02:26:13,532 --> 02:26:16,173
Because if Bitcoin doesn't offer it, something else will.

1556
02:26:16,173 --> 02:26:23,132
And then that protocol will be on track for global monetization and strong narratives.

1557
02:26:26,333 --> 02:26:26,652
All right.

1558
02:26:26,652 --> 02:26:27,852
I'll see you all on Thursday.

1559
02:26:29,213 --> 02:26:31,132
Looking forward to it.