Announcing ProductionReady with Samson Mow & Jimmy Song | BIS #198

1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:02,300
Welcome to the Bitcoin Infinity Show.

2
00:00:02,900 --> 00:00:09,200
Tonight I have the immense pleasure of having fellow grunge guitarist Samson Moe

3
00:00:09,200 --> 00:00:16,860
and fellow cowboy hat wearer Jimmy Song on to talk about their new project, Production Ready.

4
00:00:17,620 --> 00:00:20,260
So welcome, guys. Nice to have you here.

5
00:00:20,760 --> 00:00:21,240
Thanks, Knut.

6
00:00:22,160 --> 00:00:29,740
And thanks. And by the way, I do play guitar, so I think I should get included in the guitarist trio.

7
00:00:30,000 --> 00:00:36,080
whatever it is yeah but you're you're acoustic you know i am acoustic i i i used to play a little bit

8
00:00:36,080 --> 00:00:42,000
of uh the the electric stuff but i i just couldn't handle all the pedals and all that if we have

9
00:00:42,000 --> 00:00:48,480
never mind unplugged then you're you're up there with us absolutely and we'll do the uh uh the

10
00:00:48,480 --> 00:00:55,200
the nirvana unplugged set i guess yeah and and you wear cowboy hats occasionally right samson

11
00:00:55,200 --> 00:01:02,100
maybe is this cowboy hat no it's not it's american we don't want to confuse people

12
00:01:02,100 --> 00:01:06,980
like people already call me samson sometimes and stuff yeah i get called jimmy come on

13
00:01:06,980 --> 00:01:12,380
actually this was a bad idea we should have had like you and parker on instead or something

14
00:01:12,380 --> 00:01:17,680
yeah parker had a hat on they'd still confuse people not not really paying attention so

15
00:01:17,680 --> 00:01:23,160
yeah i i have uh samson's bull here behind me i don't think you can see it now because we have

16
00:01:23,160 --> 00:01:31,040
smaller. We don't really see the entire span here, but he's wearing a UASF hat also, and he has his

17
00:01:31,040 --> 00:01:37,920
laser eyes on for the occasion. So what is production ready? Who wants to start here and

18
00:01:37,920 --> 00:01:43,360
give the TLDR on what this thing is and why you decided that was a good idea to

19
00:01:43,980 --> 00:01:49,180
fire this thing up, whatever it is? I'm still jet lagged, so Jimmy, you take it.

20
00:01:49,180 --> 00:02:06,460
So Production Ready is the funding organization. We're a 501c3 in the United States. That basically means a nonprofit. We can't go endorse political candidates or something like that. But otherwise, it's like a normal nonprofit.

21
00:02:06,460 --> 00:02:20,840
And basically, we are funding several initiatives, including an alternative client, Bitcoin node software, along with some educational initiatives and things like that.

22
00:02:20,880 --> 00:02:23,960
So that's what production ready is from a legal standpoint.

23
00:02:24,340 --> 00:02:30,460
We have a board. It's me, Samson, Parker and John Ratcliffe.

24
00:02:30,460 --> 00:02:34,400
So the four of us are on the board of the organization.

25
00:02:34,400 --> 00:02:43,660
the client is different and the you know you know it's it's a little confusing for a lot of people

26
00:02:43,660 --> 00:02:52,000
but it's it's not unlike what Brink is to core development it's you know they they fund it

27
00:02:52,000 --> 00:02:56,920
as does several other organizations so that's that's how I would think of it.

28
00:02:58,160 --> 00:03:01,920
And do you plan on having feeling Fridays like Brink?

29
00:03:01,920 --> 00:03:08,480
we already do for the developers what do you think this is we're recording on a friday exactly

30
00:03:08,480 --> 00:03:14,000
this is our feeling this is the feeling friday yeah yeah no this is uh you're saying that this

31
00:03:14,000 --> 00:03:20,860
will be a more conservative client is that right yeah uh and that's uh the explicit goal of this

32
00:03:20,860 --> 00:03:27,240
uh particular implementation is that we want to be something that preserves the monetary properties

33
00:03:27,240 --> 00:03:35,020
of Bitcoin. And our focus is on the sound money properties of Bitcoin. And the best way we feel

34
00:03:35,020 --> 00:03:42,680
that that can be done is through a conservative client, one that is runnable by a lot of people.

35
00:03:43,460 --> 00:03:49,820
I'm sure you're familiar with Linux distros and things like that, right? You have lots of

36
00:03:49,820 --> 00:03:55,980
different kinds of Linux distributions, and some have more of a reputation for being more bleeding

37
00:03:55,980 --> 00:04:02,880
edge. Others sort of like, you know, making sure that it's absolutely stable and won't go down and

38
00:04:02,880 --> 00:04:10,400
things like that. We're more on the, you know, on the more conservative side. So we want to be the

39
00:04:10,400 --> 00:04:16,940
client that's run by people that want something that works that aren't necessarily trying to be

40
00:04:16,940 --> 00:04:23,200
on the bleeding edge. We want businesses and organizations to use it. That's where we want

41
00:04:23,200 --> 00:04:29,340
to be because this is where the value proposition of Bitcoin is. It's sound money and we want to

42
00:04:29,340 --> 00:04:38,360
make sure that it's secure, it's easily runnable, so you don't have to have crazy specs on your

43
00:04:38,360 --> 00:04:45,320
computer to run it and things like that. So generally, I think these are things that I

44
00:04:45,320 --> 00:04:53,360
honestly believe a lot of people within Bitcoin want. We just don't necessarily have a client

45
00:04:53,360 --> 00:05:01,240
that's focused on that. Generally, the distinction in client software tends to be, okay, we have this

46
00:05:01,240 --> 00:05:07,820
language or we have this technical feature or things like that. We're differentiating on process.

47
00:05:07,820 --> 00:05:10,300
We're differentiating on priorities.

48
00:05:11,100 --> 00:05:22,760
So it's a little different than what you might think and how people typically think about software differences and things like that.

49
00:05:23,020 --> 00:05:27,080
Yeah. So let's get into the why of this thing.

50
00:05:27,480 --> 00:05:30,400
This is sort of why is this needed now?

51
00:05:30,400 --> 00:05:33,720
And like something is rotten in core.

52
00:05:34,000 --> 00:05:37,220
We have explored that in many episodes here.

53
00:05:37,220 --> 00:05:43,900
You may have this and that opinion on what's going on there, not to throw anyone under the bus or so.

54
00:05:43,900 --> 00:05:48,380
But there is also the already existing alternative to core is not.

55
00:05:48,620 --> 00:05:51,900
So why not just run nots?

56
00:05:51,920 --> 00:05:55,400
And why is there a need for a third implementation?

57
00:05:57,140 --> 00:06:05,860
Well, I want to quote Samson here because I think this encapsulates something that I think I really believe about this.

58
00:06:05,860 --> 00:06:34,040
With one, you have a monopoly. With two, you have a lot of conflict. With three, I think you start to have more balance. And ideally, once you get to four, five, six, then it becomes more of a consensus mechanism, like that spirit of consensus starts to come back in rather than this sort of like oppositional force sort of dynamic that we have with core and knots at the moment.

59
00:06:34,040 --> 00:06:41,920
So even from a social standpoint, I think that is a very useful dynamic to change.

60
00:06:42,060 --> 00:06:44,220
To change the dynamic would be a very useful thing.

61
00:06:44,440 --> 00:06:44,580
Sorry.

62
00:06:45,640 --> 00:06:45,760
Yeah.

63
00:06:46,420 --> 00:06:48,660
Samson, you can like expand on that more.

64
00:06:48,780 --> 00:06:51,020
But yeah, I thought that was a great way to put it.

65
00:06:51,680 --> 00:06:56,580
Yeah, I think that's definitely a goal that there's more balance in the force and that

66
00:06:56,580 --> 00:07:00,460
we have multiple choices that are viable.

67
00:07:00,460 --> 00:07:05,480
And I think that is a key delineation here because there are other clients.

68
00:07:05,660 --> 00:07:09,880
There's Libetcoin, there's BTCD, but they have very little adoption.

69
00:07:10,820 --> 00:07:17,860
And I don't think they will gain significant adoption because they're not direct Satoshi client descendants like Core and NotSAR.

70
00:07:18,420 --> 00:07:24,480
So we do have a lot of thinking about what would go into this third client, this third major client.

71
00:07:25,260 --> 00:07:30,140
And even though it doesn't exist yet, but it should be a direct descendant of the Satoshi client.

72
00:07:30,460 --> 00:07:35,460
Because I think miners won't run anything else because there's just too much risk.

73
00:07:35,580 --> 00:07:40,700
As someone that's run a mining pool before, I can tell you, like, you know, will they run,

74
00:07:40,920 --> 00:07:44,600
you know, some other new client, something written in a new language?

75
00:07:45,080 --> 00:07:46,500
There's just too much risk there too.

76
00:07:47,140 --> 00:07:48,920
And would they run knots?

77
00:07:49,420 --> 00:07:50,000
I don't know.

78
00:07:50,080 --> 00:07:53,000
But what we're seeing right now is that that's not the case.

79
00:07:53,000 --> 00:07:55,660
Like the big mining pools are not running knots.

80
00:07:55,660 --> 00:08:01,540
and I think if we take a more conservative approach and it is a direct Satoshi client

81
00:08:01,540 --> 00:08:09,220
descendant rebased off of a recent version of core which has a lot of review and checks and

82
00:08:09,220 --> 00:08:17,480
balances then I think we're more likely to see miners adopt it large miners so that's kind of

83
00:08:17,480 --> 00:08:24,260
the direction we're taking in it's like a it's a longer term project some people think you just

84
00:08:24,260 --> 00:08:27,080
wanted to make a quick client, dump it on the market, and then something's going to happen

85
00:08:27,080 --> 00:08:32,160
magically. But as Jimmy was saying earlier, we're trying to differentiate on process. So

86
00:08:32,160 --> 00:08:40,200
this client, which it doesn't have a name yet, would be very minimalist at first. It might just

87
00:08:40,200 --> 00:08:49,460
be a fork of core from a few versions ago with some minor fixes, bug fixes, and some undoing of

88
00:08:49,460 --> 00:08:55,960
policy changes that were hastily implemented. But I think around that, what we want to do is have

89
00:08:55,960 --> 00:09:01,900
reproducible builds. We want to have our own discussion, our own developer group with

90
00:09:01,900 --> 00:09:09,140
discussions like our own separate mailing list, a separate improvement process or adjustment process.

91
00:09:09,280 --> 00:09:15,880
I'm thinking it should be something like a Bitcoin adjustment proposal and it would be a BAP.

92
00:09:15,880 --> 00:09:22,740
And those would be mirrored to BIPs and they would analyze BIPs and discuss BIPs openly.

93
00:09:23,460 --> 00:09:34,280
And then this would be a totally separate chain of discussions and implementation and development, which kind of serves as a check and balance on core.

94
00:09:34,960 --> 00:09:42,880
And I think you need all of these things and especially a trusted group that is signing the binaries, which is building up that trust over years.

95
00:09:42,880 --> 00:09:46,960
you know, years. Because let's say, you know, there's a lot of talk about Bitcoin Core going

96
00:09:46,960 --> 00:09:52,040
rogue. Let's say they did actually go rogue somehow. You know, what is the next reliable

97
00:09:52,040 --> 00:09:58,000
source of truth that you have to get your binary from, right? And I think a lot of developers don't

98
00:09:58,000 --> 00:10:03,340
understand this, but most Bitcoiners probably rely on getting a built binary. They're not

99
00:10:03,340 --> 00:10:09,760
compiling from source, right? They're not that technical. So you do need this long running track

100
00:10:09,760 --> 00:10:16,000
record of people that are trusted and are signing the binaries that you can get it from in a pinch.

101
00:10:16,800 --> 00:10:23,980
So, I mean, I think what Samson's saying about sort of being the thing that's there in case

102
00:10:23,980 --> 00:10:29,920
something really bad happens to the Bitcoin Core project or something like that is a perfectly

103
00:10:29,920 --> 00:10:36,240
reasonable thing for anyone to be doing. I mean, you have backups of your hard drive,

104
00:10:36,240 --> 00:10:42,640
for example, so that if it gets corrupted or if somebody hacks into your stuff, that you can

105
00:10:42,640 --> 00:10:49,520
always recover it. You can think of it like that. I mean, that's at least one of the many different

106
00:10:49,520 --> 00:10:57,580
goals that we have. But as he said, this is a long-term project. We're not thinking about the

107
00:10:57,580 --> 00:11:05,000
next six months. We actually had active discussions last year, right before Core30 came out. Hey,

108
00:11:05,000 --> 00:11:10,060
should we launch it this week because Core v30 is about to come out?

109
00:11:10,660 --> 00:11:15,520
And we decided not to because we wanted to make sure that we had the right foundation

110
00:11:15,520 --> 00:11:18,200
and we wanted to set up all the organization stuff,

111
00:11:18,740 --> 00:11:23,760
which I think is important if you're going to have a long-running,

112
00:11:23,960 --> 00:11:25,560
credible third implementation.

113
00:11:28,220 --> 00:11:34,760
So, first of all, would it be correct to call it a mod

114
00:11:34,760 --> 00:11:42,280
of core? You shouldn't call it a fork, I guess. Like, is it a mod? What's the correct terminology

115
00:11:42,280 --> 00:11:45,740
here? Is it like a different implementation? What do you call it?

116
00:11:46,000 --> 00:11:51,720
People get, well, fork is a loaded word. So because everyone's traumatized by the word fork.

117
00:11:51,860 --> 00:11:56,780
So we talked about it, but there's no really good way to describe it. Technically, it will be a fork,

118
00:11:56,780 --> 00:12:01,560
but I think a better way to say it is it's a direct descendant of the Satoshi client.

119
00:12:02,500 --> 00:12:03,460
A spoon, maybe.

120
00:12:03,460 --> 00:12:13,340
maybe yeah uh so so which version of core will it spoon off from if that's the correct term

121
00:12:13,340 --> 00:12:21,440
we're still in some internal discussions about that and it's uh you know it we're we're we have

122
00:12:21,440 --> 00:12:28,140
some ideas but we're not ready at this point to commit to anything yeah the other part of it is

123
00:12:28,140 --> 00:12:33,200
that we want to, like we talked about it a lot, but we want to build this in a sustainable,

124
00:12:34,200 --> 00:12:39,820
scalable way. So this is why we announced the funding organization first. So you can think of

125
00:12:39,820 --> 00:12:46,980
production ready sort of like OpenSats or Brink or whatever. It's like created to fund and we have

126
00:12:46,980 --> 00:12:51,800
all the legal structure in place and accounting for that. So it is a nonprofit. Everything is

127
00:12:51,800 --> 00:12:57,420
tax deductible. All donations are tax deductible to the fullest extent of the law. And I think this

128
00:12:57,420 --> 00:13:02,940
is the first piece. The second piece is, well, obviously announcing it so people know. And then

129
00:13:02,940 --> 00:13:08,760
the third is recruiting a development team. So we have our idea and our goal is to fund a client.

130
00:13:09,420 --> 00:13:14,500
So the goal would be to get a development team and discuss with them which version of core would be

131
00:13:14,500 --> 00:13:21,180
the best to fork off from. And it's not like we're going to pick one version. We are the funding

132
00:13:21,180 --> 00:13:25,980
group. So we want to work together with the dev team and the lead maintainer and everyone else to

133
00:13:25,980 --> 00:13:28,460
figure out exactly what the steps are to move forward.

134
00:13:30,000 --> 00:13:37,180
Okay. There's been a lot of critique around this, but most of that is like just a general

135
00:13:37,180 --> 00:13:43,680
misunderstanding. I think that they think that this is the actual thing and not just the funding

136
00:13:43,680 --> 00:13:58,934
organization for the thing So people think you have no code yet you have nothing to show for yourself but that not the point Like this is just the funding organization right Or is there any specific critique you want to address that

137
00:13:58,934 --> 00:14:07,574
you've seen on X or anywhere else? Well, I think what you're saying is correct about, you know,

138
00:14:07,614 --> 00:14:13,634
people wanting to see code right away and stuff like that. But that's really, it's like, did you

139
00:14:13,634 --> 00:14:20,034
expect like a fully grown human to be born like from a woman after nine months, like that's not

140
00:14:20,034 --> 00:14:26,814
how these things work. And we have been talking to a lot of potential donors and things like that.

141
00:14:26,874 --> 00:14:32,674
But, you know, part of that is we don't want to be doing everything behind the scenes. We want

142
00:14:32,674 --> 00:14:40,374
the process to be open. And, you know, if we were to have like a full client ready and we launch

143
00:14:40,374 --> 00:14:47,054
at launch and stuff like that, the first criticism would be, hey, how come you did this all behind

144
00:14:47,054 --> 00:14:52,814
the scenes and you weren't open about what you were doing? So we're kind of caught in a damned

145
00:14:52,814 --> 00:14:57,574
if you do, damned if you don't kind of situation where people will criticize us no matter what.

146
00:14:57,794 --> 00:15:06,494
And so we wanted to have the right spirit of open source and transparency. So we came out and said,

147
00:15:06,494 --> 00:15:11,534
hey, here's what we're doing. And here's what our plans are. If you want to join us, join us.

148
00:15:11,614 --> 00:15:17,594
But we're not going to be doing everything in like a backroom deal or whatever. We're actively

149
00:15:17,594 --> 00:15:23,654
talking to people. We're open about what we're doing. We don't want to be sort of like a shadow

150
00:15:23,654 --> 00:15:30,054
group that's like doing things all like in secret or whatever. Yeah, I think we talked about this

151
00:15:30,054 --> 00:15:34,394
for maybe two months before we announced, like, what are we announcing? What should we announce?

152
00:15:34,394 --> 00:15:39,834
What do we say? Because no matter what we say, there's going to be a lot of blowback.

153
00:15:40,454 --> 00:15:42,994
Surprisingly, there's less blowback than I expected.

154
00:15:43,154 --> 00:15:47,394
And most of it came from, you know, people that we kind of expected the blowback to come from.

155
00:15:48,294 --> 00:15:49,774
And, you know, you know who they are.

156
00:15:49,914 --> 00:15:55,054
But, you know, the Nots people were very supportive of another alternative for the most part.

157
00:15:55,114 --> 00:15:57,654
I think maybe a few says, well, why don't you guys just run Nots?

158
00:15:57,694 --> 00:15:59,694
But, you know, we're trying to do something different.

159
00:16:00,054 --> 00:16:04,054
And I think even Luke was supportive of our initiative.

160
00:16:04,394 --> 00:16:09,234
But yeah, like Jimmy is saying, we're damned if we do, damned if we don't.

161
00:16:09,354 --> 00:16:18,634
We could have probably hired a couple of devs and pushed our client quickly, but then we still would have had the critique that, oh, you're just a fork.

162
00:16:18,934 --> 00:16:21,614
Why are you raising money to launch a fork?

163
00:16:21,614 --> 00:16:33,814
But I think we kind of had to launch and say we're coming out with this intention because if we just skip that part and we said, we're launching to raise money for Bitcoin development.

164
00:16:33,814 --> 00:16:40,574
people will presume that we're funding core development. And if they did fund us and we say,

165
00:16:40,734 --> 00:16:44,754
well, now we're going to fund another client, then it's almost like we rug pulled them, right? So

166
00:16:44,754 --> 00:16:50,574
it's like a very tricky situation to bootstrap something like this. Unless you just had a big

167
00:16:50,574 --> 00:16:56,574
donor come in, like Jack Dorsey, and he gave you a large chunk of change and you can kind of go

168
00:16:56,574 --> 00:17:03,574
add it right away. But every other funding foundation didn't really have the same level

169
00:17:03,574 --> 00:17:10,374
of criticism because they didn't need to have a code base because they're not a new client.

170
00:17:10,494 --> 00:17:18,494
They're just funding developers to work on the existing client. So there's no bar of having

171
00:17:18,494 --> 00:17:22,754
something ready announcement time, right? Like when Brink came out, no one said, did you guys

172
00:17:22,754 --> 00:17:28,174
have code? Do you have a developer even? No, like they just announced it. Maybe they had some funding,

173
00:17:28,354 --> 00:17:32,494
but then they slowly built up and they got more and more people and then more and more funding.

174
00:17:32,714 --> 00:17:39,594
So it's just the position that we're in to try to bootstrap a new client is more

175
00:17:39,594 --> 00:17:51,174
tenuous and more difficult. Yeah. One rebuttal tweet or whatever I saw from Eric Voskul of

176
00:17:51,174 --> 00:17:56,614
libbitcoin fame where he says it's not about improvement it's about control uh what what

177
00:17:56,614 --> 00:18:02,294
would you say to that well that's a good question so he thinks that we're trying to take control

178
00:18:02,854 --> 00:18:09,574
of something but that implies that someone else has control and who is that group that has control

179
00:18:09,574 --> 00:18:16,454
and why do they have control right either bitcoin is open software for everyone or it's under control

180
00:18:16,454 --> 00:18:17,054
of somebody.

181
00:18:18,754 --> 00:18:19,534
Yeah, exactly.

182
00:18:19,814 --> 00:18:21,954
Either the users are in control

183
00:18:21,954 --> 00:18:23,314
or it isn't Bitcoin anymore,

184
00:18:23,414 --> 00:18:24,134
basically, right?

185
00:18:25,394 --> 00:18:26,534
That's all there is to it.

186
00:18:26,654 --> 00:18:27,394
So, you know,

187
00:18:27,474 --> 00:18:28,834
to take control of something

188
00:18:28,834 --> 00:18:30,614
means someone else has control.

189
00:18:30,734 --> 00:18:31,694
And I don't think that's true.

190
00:18:32,154 --> 00:18:33,374
Bitcoin is open source software

191
00:18:33,374 --> 00:18:35,274
and it belongs to the world.

192
00:18:36,094 --> 00:18:36,634
And, you know,

193
00:18:36,714 --> 00:18:38,154
even you could counter the argument

194
00:18:38,154 --> 00:18:39,514
like, do you guys have any code?

195
00:18:39,674 --> 00:18:40,194
Yeah, we do.

196
00:18:40,254 --> 00:18:41,014
It's the Bitcoin code

197
00:18:41,014 --> 00:18:42,734
because it's all of ours, right?

198
00:18:43,234 --> 00:18:44,454
And we will contribute

199
00:18:44,454 --> 00:18:45,374
to that code base.

200
00:18:45,374 --> 00:18:45,714
Yeah.

201
00:18:46,454 --> 00:18:56,954
So what would you say to people who say that this can be corrupted just simply from it being an organization trying to raise money to fund developers?

202
00:18:56,954 --> 00:19:12,394
I mean, there is a crowd who think that this whole funding of Bitcoin core developers is inherently wrong to begin with and that they should be developing or maintaining Bitcoin because of their self-interest, because they have stacks and they need to secure their stacks.

203
00:19:12,594 --> 00:19:16,274
That would be enough of a motivator. What would you say to that?

204
00:19:16,454 --> 00:19:26,014
Yeah, it's a tough question because the funding reality for developers is that most of them are, this is their job, right?

205
00:19:26,134 --> 00:19:30,414
They don't necessarily have stacks and stacks of Bitcoin.

206
00:19:30,594 --> 00:19:35,754
In fact, if they did, a lot of those that did actually retired a while back.

207
00:19:35,754 --> 00:19:40,374
So they're no longer doing that because they already have Bitcoin.

208
00:19:41,174 --> 00:19:46,294
And the new developers that are coming in, well, they didn't get into Bitcoin that long ago.

209
00:19:46,454 --> 00:19:49,394
So they don't have a fat stack from 10 years ago.

210
00:19:49,534 --> 00:19:53,654
They have, you know, maybe some, but it's not anywhere near it.

211
00:19:53,894 --> 00:19:59,834
And I know this to be a fact that most of the developers are, it is kind of their job.

212
00:19:59,834 --> 00:20:10,114
Now, is it possible to maintain a client with just people that are motivated to keep their stack or something like that?

213
00:20:10,774 --> 00:20:11,714
Very possibly.

214
00:20:11,714 --> 00:20:28,794
But a lot of those people don't necessarily want to go and review pull requests and check for security vulnerabilities or refactor something that has boost in it or whatever.

215
00:20:29,374 --> 00:20:34,154
That's not something that they're necessarily wanting to spend their time on.

216
00:20:34,154 --> 00:20:42,514
This is where a lot of those people end up contributing money to these organizations to hire people to do these things.

217
00:20:42,514 --> 00:20:57,154
Now, the part that I think that you're implying is broken, which I think is somewhat true, is that if they're getting some money, then you have to be clear about what you're getting for that money.

218
00:20:57,154 --> 00:21:05,374
If you are funding somebody, if it's too open-ended, it tends to not work out that well.

219
00:21:06,214 --> 00:21:16,314
And I'm sure you've seen this in other contexts where you give somebody money, no strings attached, and that tends to do badly.

220
00:21:16,454 --> 00:21:21,714
I used to work at a homeless shelter or volunteer at a homeless shelter a while back.

221
00:21:21,714 --> 00:21:41,314
And this is a common problem. If you just give them money, a lot of times they'll just use it on alcohol or something like that. Whereas if you provide something very specific with instructions and conditions and things like that, they tend to be able to pull themselves up by the bootstraps and sort of improve things again.

222
00:21:41,314 --> 00:21:44,854
So it's a tricky incentive question.

223
00:21:45,194 --> 00:22:02,054
And I think this is one of the things that we're discussing and figuring out what the alternative to sort of like an open-ended grant, which tends to be the model currently, and changing that to something that has a little more accountability.

224
00:22:03,154 --> 00:22:04,774
Yeah, so I think there's two parts to this.

225
00:22:04,774 --> 00:22:17,494
The first part is donations to Production Ready are no strings attached, just like they are with every other group, Brink or local host or what else are there?

226
00:22:17,554 --> 00:22:18,314
There's a whole bunch, right?

227
00:22:18,314 --> 00:22:18,594
Spiral.

228
00:22:19,014 --> 00:22:19,454
Yeah, Spiral.

229
00:22:20,214 --> 00:22:21,494
They're all no strings attached.

230
00:22:21,494 --> 00:22:25,634
So a donor to Production Ready can't say, well, you guys should do something, right?

231
00:22:25,714 --> 00:22:34,114
Like you can say something, but we're not obligated to do anything that we don't think is in the best interest of funding a developer with that grant.

232
00:22:34,114 --> 00:22:45,194
What Jimmy is talking about is the other side of it, which is, should that organization making the grant to a developer have some say in it?

233
00:22:45,294 --> 00:22:51,674
And I think what he's getting at is that the way that they're funding is very open-ended.

234
00:22:51,954 --> 00:23:01,654
So you get, well, I think Brink is probably better in the sense that they're funding people specifically for very narrow scope projects, at least for like fuzz testing, right?

235
00:23:01,654 --> 00:23:14,054
But in the past, I don't know, like, well, Chaincode is not a non-profit, but like Chaincode would just hire a developer and you get to work on whatever you feel like working on or, you know, Spiral or something like that.

236
00:23:14,494 --> 00:23:21,834
But that is more an artifact from a time where it was really difficult to get people to work on Bitcoin.

237
00:23:22,314 --> 00:23:24,774
So that you kind of have to get people there.

238
00:23:24,854 --> 00:23:27,054
You kind of have to say, well, we'll give you money, do what you want.

239
00:23:27,054 --> 00:23:47,654
And the result of that is, as Jimmy was alluding to, which is people just work on esoteric things. They're more concerned with maybe their own personal interests, not necessarily the interest of the project as a whole. And definitely the grunt work, like reviewing is difficult. I've seen it time and time again where people are complaining that no one's reviewing my PR.

240
00:23:47,654 --> 00:23:54,154
But, you know, that necessarily is not the best way that you just give someone money and they do what they want.

241
00:23:54,214 --> 00:24:02,714
So I think for us, our approach will be more targeted that, you know, we're giving a grant for someone to review or very specific tasks or you're rebasing, right?

242
00:24:02,714 --> 00:24:20,674
I think this is another thing that also I forgot to mention that would differ from NOTs, which is I think our general plan is that would rebase from a certain core version at periodic times, whereas NOTs is more cherry picking and merging changes.

243
00:24:20,674 --> 00:24:35,314
So I think the development would be more akin to like the liquid network or elements where you take the latest version of core, add and remove some things, and you have a new version rather than maintaining an older version and pulling things in periodically.

244
00:24:35,974 --> 00:24:42,014
All right. Yeah. Back to the funding thing, like giving people money and say, do what you will with it.

245
00:24:42,014 --> 00:24:44,834
It sounds a bit like how governments work, right?

246
00:24:46,114 --> 00:24:47,274
Government handouts.

247
00:24:47,514 --> 00:24:53,174
So, yeah, there are some free market forces applied to this, I guess.

248
00:24:53,174 --> 00:25:07,174
I'm still not able to wrap my head entirely around what are the core tenets of this new, like, what is it trying to achieve, like, except for just being an alternative?

249
00:25:07,174 --> 00:25:13,854
I mean I guess you're not going to have 100 kilobyte op returns for instance

250
00:25:13,854 --> 00:25:18,474
like what else are there any specifics that you can tell me about

251
00:25:18,474 --> 00:25:21,854
that you have already sort of pre-decided before bringing on developers

252
00:25:21,854 --> 00:25:27,714
well the big one is we're differentiating on process

253
00:25:27,714 --> 00:25:32,194
so you know the op return thing is a good example

254
00:25:32,194 --> 00:25:36,674
of where the process wasn't that satisfactory

255
00:25:36,674 --> 00:25:55,914
It is like the majority client. It's overwhelming. Majority of nodes are running Bitcoin Core. So for the process by which they decided, hey, this is what we're going to do with the op return.

256
00:25:55,914 --> 00:26:04,054
Like, personally, I don't think the particular PR was that big a deal from a technical perspective.

257
00:26:04,254 --> 00:26:08,214
But the process by which it happened, that was a bigger deal for me.

258
00:26:08,474 --> 00:26:20,694
And the essential precedent that was set was if there's consensus among the developers that are developing core, then all these other opinions don't actually matter.

259
00:26:20,694 --> 00:26:32,214
That wouldn't be too much of a problem if it was one client among five or six and they only had like 20% of all the nodes or something like that.

260
00:26:32,454 --> 00:26:37,674
But because they're the overwhelming majority, this starts to become a problem.

261
00:26:37,954 --> 00:26:41,334
I think the process might even be fine going forward.

262
00:26:41,334 --> 00:26:53,594
You just need more alternatives to balance that out where they're not making decisions for the entire network because, you know, five maintainers decided, hey, this is how it's going to be.

263
00:26:53,874 --> 00:26:56,874
And they have some organizational say or whatever.

264
00:26:57,034 --> 00:26:58,814
And I'm not saying they do or they don't.

265
00:26:59,374 --> 00:27:07,394
But that precedent is a little is something that we don't want to exist.

266
00:27:07,394 --> 00:27:12,614
Like that where a few people make decisions for everybody else.

267
00:27:13,874 --> 00:27:31,614
Would you agree that the success of Noughts, if you can call it that, that they have like, what is it, between 15 and 20 percent of the nodes now by the best estimates, that that is mostly because of a failure of core to listen to the actual users?

268
00:27:31,614 --> 00:27:38,414
and having this, for lack of a better word, arrogant attitude that we know best and sit

269
00:27:38,414 --> 00:27:58,908
down pleb and do what you told kind of attitude Is that why Notts is successful now Well I think people are just looking for an alternative right And it a reasonable response when you think about it I would say the developers of a client are sort of like a doctor of sorts right

270
00:27:59,268 --> 00:28:03,008
You're looking to them for expertise on the subject matter.

271
00:28:03,968 --> 00:28:07,168
But if the doctor is laughing in your face and saying,

272
00:28:07,228 --> 00:28:10,908
you're an idiot because you don't understand something and you're just wrong,

273
00:28:11,508 --> 00:28:17,508
then it doesn't really instill confidence in you as a user or consumer of that service.

274
00:28:18,468 --> 00:28:23,628
And I think the whole attitude or disposition of a lot of developers to

275
00:28:23,628 --> 00:28:31,608
general Bitcoin users has been kind of combative. And that's probably done a lot of wonders for

276
00:28:31,608 --> 00:28:37,228
people migrating to nots, right? And I think this is why there is a middle ground for another client

277
00:28:37,228 --> 00:28:39,428
that is a direct Satoshi client descendant

278
00:28:39,428 --> 00:28:42,228
that is not necessarily focused on,

279
00:28:42,308 --> 00:28:43,368
let's say, fighting spam,

280
00:28:43,528 --> 00:28:48,168
but is a version of the client that you can rely on.

281
00:28:48,448 --> 00:28:51,408
And the development team behind it is not hostile to you

282
00:28:51,408 --> 00:28:53,648
and giving you a feeling

283
00:28:53,648 --> 00:28:57,068
that you should not be here or present, right?

284
00:28:57,488 --> 00:28:59,508
But I guess it really takes two hands to clap.

285
00:28:59,588 --> 00:29:01,788
You can't just say, you know, the plebs are stupid.

286
00:29:01,888 --> 00:29:02,708
They didn't understand.

287
00:29:03,428 --> 00:29:06,108
And the filters don't do anything like that, right?

288
00:29:06,108 --> 00:29:14,468
Maybe some things are true, but the way that it's presented is not conductive to people wanting to continue using that software.

289
00:29:15,308 --> 00:29:18,468
And I think that has had an impact on fracturing the network.

290
00:29:18,628 --> 00:29:24,608
I think people running knots has had an impact on, what was it again, Jimmy?

291
00:29:24,688 --> 00:29:29,408
I think it's weak blocks, like the ability to construct a block.

292
00:29:29,748 --> 00:29:31,808
It's degraded because-

293
00:29:31,808 --> 00:29:32,368
Compact blocks?

294
00:29:32,688 --> 00:29:33,468
Yeah, compact blocks.

295
00:29:33,468 --> 00:29:34,368
Yeah, yeah.

296
00:29:34,808 --> 00:29:35,528
Compact blocks.

297
00:29:35,528 --> 00:29:38,988
So that was degraded because of everyone switching to nots.

298
00:29:39,228 --> 00:29:45,068
And if you go back to the original point of where this all split, it was the upper turn

299
00:29:45,068 --> 00:29:45,408
thing, right?

300
00:29:45,468 --> 00:29:49,688
And even the developers on core were saying, yeah, it doesn't really matter.

301
00:29:49,928 --> 00:29:52,548
It doesn't, it doesn't, you could change it, could not change it.

302
00:29:52,768 --> 00:29:53,568
It's bypassable.

303
00:29:53,808 --> 00:29:58,728
So you kind of just decided to change something because of a non-technical reason.

304
00:30:00,148 --> 00:30:04,108
And you alienated a large portion of the user base of that client.

305
00:30:04,108 --> 00:30:07,468
So was that the best thing that could have happened?

306
00:30:07,648 --> 00:30:08,288
I don't think so.

307
00:30:08,388 --> 00:30:14,288
And even some people that are pro core supporters have said they probably shouldn't have done that, right?

308
00:30:14,348 --> 00:30:18,548
And the damage is done and the focus has been on damage control.

309
00:30:18,788 --> 00:30:28,168
But this largely could have been avoided by just not being immature about everything that you're doing as a developer.

310
00:30:29,448 --> 00:30:33,088
Yeah, I think that's why people lose their trust in them, right?

311
00:30:33,088 --> 00:30:37,628
because of this very, a lot of the being technical

312
00:30:37,628 --> 00:30:41,548
should be about being able to predict future outcomes.

313
00:30:42,068 --> 00:30:44,288
And if now the future outcome was that everyone was,

314
00:30:44,288 --> 00:30:48,588
like that 20% of the network shifted to another client,

315
00:30:49,128 --> 00:30:51,068
then was that intentional?

316
00:30:51,428 --> 00:30:55,628
Like, to me, they obviously weren't very good

317
00:30:55,628 --> 00:30:56,628
at predicting the future,

318
00:30:56,728 --> 00:30:58,848
which is like sort of their main task here.

319
00:30:59,668 --> 00:31:00,988
There's one caveat I would say,

320
00:31:00,988 --> 00:31:06,908
which is you definitely don't want development to be dictated by mob rule or sibilable things like

321
00:31:06,908 --> 00:31:13,728
node count, right? Like that is, that's kind of like the block size war where the big block

322
00:31:13,728 --> 00:31:19,308
nodes spun up a bunch and they're, they're not real. And you don't want non-technical people

323
00:31:19,308 --> 00:31:24,688
dictating technical discussions. I mean, we're seeing this again when Brian Armstrong is coming

324
00:31:24,688 --> 00:31:30,748
into the fold and saying, I'm going to fix Bitcoin to be quantum resistant because we got to do this

325
00:31:30,748 --> 00:31:35,908
on a tight timeline. And that's not good either, right? So there's a delicate balance here. You

326
00:31:35,908 --> 00:31:41,908
don't want to be ruled by the mob and people that are non-technical, but at the same time,

327
00:31:41,908 --> 00:31:47,568
you should not be alienating the user base by doing things that don't really matter at the end,

328
00:31:47,688 --> 00:31:55,468
right? So that's a fine line that I hope that we will be able to tread as a sponsor of this new

329
00:31:55,468 --> 00:32:01,988
client. And I think we have a good foundation to go on. And I think we have a good team at

330
00:32:01,988 --> 00:32:06,208
Production Ready and we have a good idea of the development team we want to build. Like

331
00:32:06,208 --> 00:32:13,868
we're interested to find more mature developers that have been around for a while, that have a

332
00:32:13,868 --> 00:32:19,948
family, are very stable and have skin in the game rather than, you know, some single kid living in

333
00:32:19,948 --> 00:32:28,348
a big city in either San Francisco or New York that doesn't have a lot of emotional maturity or

334
00:32:28,348 --> 00:32:34,808
social development skills. Yeah. I would also say that the whole

335
00:32:34,808 --> 00:32:41,908
knots thing was sort of like a user rebellion a little bit. And they, unfortunately, I think it

336
00:32:41,908 --> 00:32:50,728
went maybe a little too far with the child porn, CSAM stuff, going sort of in the extremes.

337
00:32:51,468 --> 00:32:57,168
And that tends to happen in a social dynamic when you only have two sides, is that there's

338
00:32:57,168 --> 00:33:02,688
no real room for middle ground and people tend to sort of go gravitate towards one end

339
00:33:02,688 --> 00:33:03,248
or the other.

340
00:33:03,248 --> 00:33:11,848
And really, a single client is not much better because you do have this tendency,

341
00:33:11,908 --> 00:33:16,328
for a small group sort of controlling

342
00:33:16,328 --> 00:33:19,228
or being able to dictate a lot of things.

343
00:33:19,988 --> 00:33:21,988
And by having a third client,

344
00:33:22,148 --> 00:33:26,888
our argument is that the process changes pretty drastically.

345
00:33:27,048 --> 00:33:29,528
Now, it's not going to be like an overnight thing, right?

346
00:33:29,548 --> 00:33:32,288
And that's something that we've realized from the beginning

347
00:33:32,288 --> 00:33:33,988
is that if we release a client,

348
00:33:34,088 --> 00:33:37,188
it's not going to have like 30% overnight.

349
00:33:37,348 --> 00:33:38,408
That's not going to happen.

350
00:33:38,408 --> 00:33:49,388
We want to be building this thing for the long term and be able to point back like 10 years from now and say, look, we have 10 years of history of doing this.

351
00:33:49,928 --> 00:33:52,268
And our clients are always patched.

352
00:33:52,348 --> 00:33:54,028
You know, there are no security vulnerability.

353
00:33:54,268 --> 00:33:55,648
This is the most stable one.

354
00:33:55,928 --> 00:34:04,668
It's not subject to these new vulnerabilities that were created as a result of like moving too fast or being on the bleeding edge or whatever.

355
00:34:04,668 --> 00:34:26,788
Um, that, that's where we want to be, where you have a variety of different, you know, Bitcoin node clients that a lot of people are using, because that, that's what really brings balance is not mob rule, right? That's one end of the spectrum and not like a small, you know, cohort that decides like what, what to do.

356
00:34:26,788 --> 00:34:37,008
You want choices, and that gives the network sort of like a natural decentralization that's also kind of smart.

357
00:34:37,208 --> 00:34:40,168
That's not like ruled by emotion or whatever.

358
00:34:40,588 --> 00:34:49,148
It's ruled by, you know, a bunch of different clients doing different things and the market sort of responding to it.

359
00:34:49,868 --> 00:34:52,468
Yeah, there's definitely a drag-along effect with Core, right?

360
00:34:52,468 --> 00:35:00,428
So if there's only one and they make some changes that you disagree with, you know, whether they are material or immaterial, let's just ignore that for now.

361
00:35:00,528 --> 00:35:06,128
But they can make some changes and they can say, well, if you don't like it, you don't have to upgrade.

362
00:35:06,388 --> 00:35:13,748
But that's not true at all because you have to upgrade eventually because you need the security fixes and bug fixes and patches, right?

363
00:35:13,828 --> 00:35:18,068
So I think Core's policy is only support two versions back.

364
00:35:18,068 --> 00:35:23,468
so like what happened recently they just released like a few small versions in between

365
00:35:23,468 --> 00:35:31,308
and guess what now all the versions are containing the contentious change and you know they're not

366
00:35:31,308 --> 00:35:35,848
going to support anything any version without the contentious change right and i think people picked

367
00:35:35,848 --> 00:35:41,068
up on that too and said you know that's just nasty what you did there because you know i can't even

368
00:35:41,068 --> 00:35:47,128
run that old one now for that long because you're not going to support it anymore so while it is

369
00:35:47,128 --> 00:35:52,868
true. You don't have to upgrade. You also have to upgrade at some point, right? So there is this

370
00:35:52,868 --> 00:35:58,568
drag along effect by which you do need to follow everything they're doing. And that's inclusive of,

371
00:35:58,568 --> 00:36:04,168
you know, future things that you may not want. I don't know, like pick something, covenants,

372
00:36:04,368 --> 00:36:08,908
whatever. There's like a lot of things that people are working on. And again, it goes back

373
00:36:08,908 --> 00:36:11,908
to the funding question. People are just working on things that they think are cool, right? There

374
00:36:11,908 --> 00:36:16,468
is no leadership or direction, really. It's just people work on what they think is good. And

375
00:36:16,468 --> 00:36:20,208
If other people acknowledge it's good, then it gets merged.

376
00:36:20,628 --> 00:36:29,428
And it can be controversial, as we've seen in the past, or it could be experimental, which introduces another subset of risk.

377
00:36:29,808 --> 00:36:35,328
Or it could just be something that is not necessary to Bitcoin's function as money.

378
00:36:35,948 --> 00:36:37,808
And again, that is heavily debatable.

379
00:36:38,008 --> 00:36:45,548
So again, the best thing is that there are several well-maintained, secure client options that people have.

380
00:36:45,548 --> 00:36:49,748
So the network is not beholden to any one particular implementation.

381
00:36:50,228 --> 00:37:01,988
And you can go back to the block size wars and see where it would have been valuable to have this setup, which is when the big blockers were just saying, you know, we need to fire core because there's only one target out there.

382
00:37:02,128 --> 00:37:07,508
But let's say there were three, then, you know, you would look kind of weird saying we need to fire all three.

383
00:37:08,028 --> 00:37:12,388
We need to fire this third client, Notts development team and core development team.

384
00:37:12,388 --> 00:37:23,808
So if you really think about it analytically without emotions, tinting your vision with emotions because you're a pro core guy, then this is actually really good for the network.

385
00:37:24,048 --> 00:37:31,988
And also it is this check and balance whereby you have another client that is focused on looking carefully at all the changes that are being made.

386
00:37:32,608 --> 00:37:39,048
Because there's also that risk of groupthink that, you know, okay, let me be careful here.

387
00:37:39,048 --> 00:37:42,148
We're trying to be neutral, we want to be Switzerland.

388
00:37:42,388 --> 00:37:45,488
So we're trying not to point fingers.

389
00:37:45,728 --> 00:37:51,788
But let's say there is, okay, let's say core is a meritocracy.

390
00:37:52,508 --> 00:38:00,408
But there are a lot of people in that organization that know each other and agree with each other and trust each other.

391
00:38:00,788 --> 00:38:07,688
Then even within a meritocracy, you can have people just waving a change through.

392
00:38:07,688 --> 00:38:15,708
And we saw that with Matt Corallo's CV 2018-17-144, which is the inflation bug, right?

393
00:38:15,888 --> 00:38:17,268
He submitted the PR.

394
00:38:17,628 --> 00:38:19,168
It was a minor optimization.

395
00:38:19,768 --> 00:38:21,108
You don't need to think much about it.

396
00:38:21,148 --> 00:38:22,828
It's just making validation better.

397
00:38:23,768 --> 00:38:24,608
And guess what?

398
00:38:24,668 --> 00:38:26,588
It introduced inflation.

399
00:38:27,668 --> 00:38:29,668
So why did nobody catch it?

400
00:38:30,328 --> 00:38:30,508
Yeah.

401
00:38:30,708 --> 00:38:31,808
Why did nobody catch it?

402
00:38:31,868 --> 00:38:33,848
Because everyone's like, oh, yeah, it's Matt.

403
00:38:34,048 --> 00:38:34,828
We trust him.

404
00:38:35,328 --> 00:38:36,688
And we'll just wave it through.

405
00:38:36,688 --> 00:38:40,868
And I pointed this out years ago when it was the topic.

406
00:38:41,428 --> 00:38:48,088
And I think I got blasted by everybody, like John Newberry and all those guys saying, you know, you're wrong.

407
00:38:48,168 --> 00:38:49,048
You can't say this.

408
00:38:49,108 --> 00:38:50,328
It's a failure of everybody.

409
00:38:51,228 --> 00:38:52,348
But that's the point.

410
00:38:52,408 --> 00:38:53,468
It was a failure of everybody.

411
00:38:54,088 --> 00:39:00,448
It's a failure of Matt for making, causing the bug, but it is a failure of everybody.

412
00:39:00,588 --> 00:39:04,048
So why not have a second group that is a check and balance?

413
00:39:04,748 --> 00:39:08,108
I don't know if you watched the Foundation series, like Asimov.

414
00:39:08,568 --> 00:39:09,388
Asimov, yeah, yeah.

415
00:39:09,488 --> 00:39:10,848
I watched a couple of episodes.

416
00:39:11,068 --> 00:39:11,848
Or if you read the book.

417
00:39:11,948 --> 00:39:13,568
If you watch it, you watch it, you read the book.

418
00:39:13,668 --> 00:39:24,068
But there is the concept of the second foundation to kind of keep balance in the system in case the first foundation falters.

419
00:39:25,248 --> 00:39:27,028
And, you know, that's the same thing.

420
00:39:27,088 --> 00:39:28,148
This is a check and balance.

421
00:39:28,148 --> 00:39:33,848
And if you think a check and balance is bad, then you really need to think about your worldview.

422
00:39:33,848 --> 00:39:36,548
because I don't think it is a bad thing to have that.

423
00:39:37,588 --> 00:39:39,168
Well, so I would put it this way.

424
00:39:39,228 --> 00:39:39,948
I would put it this way.

425
00:39:40,048 --> 00:39:45,508
So what we saw with Matt Corallo's bug was a process failure.

426
00:39:45,508 --> 00:39:49,088
And I think that's pretty fair to say.

427
00:39:49,508 --> 00:39:52,988
And I wrote a long article back when that happened

428
00:39:52,988 --> 00:39:57,648
about all the different things that led up to that particular bug

429
00:39:57,648 --> 00:40:00,648
creating inflation or the possibility of inflation.

430
00:40:00,648 --> 00:40:05,908
And there were a bunch of things that people didn't check that they probably should have.

431
00:40:06,048 --> 00:40:08,168
So that's a process failure.

432
00:40:08,408 --> 00:40:13,768
And that's okay if you have multiple clients that have a significant portion of the network.

433
00:40:13,908 --> 00:40:17,168
Like you can survive something like that.

434
00:40:17,448 --> 00:40:23,188
But if it's the only one, then your process has to be absolutely perfect, right?

435
00:40:23,188 --> 00:40:26,048
Because you can't have anything fail.

436
00:40:26,048 --> 00:40:32,408
Otherwise, then your whole network goes down because this is the one client that everyone runs.

437
00:40:33,028 --> 00:40:53,128
So our argument is that if you have a second client, if you have a third client, if you have multiple clients and they're not subject to the same process, well, it's good for everybody because you have this backup or it becomes like there are multiple choices that you can make.

438
00:40:53,128 --> 00:40:57,848
And for the entire network, it actually works to improve everybody else.

439
00:40:58,248 --> 00:41:06,068
Because if your process fails, well, you learn and you can learn from the other clients that are happening at the same time and so on.

440
00:41:06,388 --> 00:41:20,748
Instead of thinking that this process has to be absolutely perfect, this monorepo or this monopoly repository has to have the exact right policies and it has to be decentralized perfectly.

441
00:41:20,748 --> 00:41:25,648
if you have multiple ones, then you don't have to worry about all of those things. So in a sense,

442
00:41:26,708 --> 00:41:31,148
I mean, it's kind of a weird way to say it, but we're trying to take some of the burden

443
00:41:31,148 --> 00:41:49,382
off of Core because I think it has honestly a little too much responsibility for the maintenance of the network then it probably should Yeah could one say that the core developers trusted and didn verify that that was the

444
00:41:49,382 --> 00:41:56,402
exact problem, right? And speaking of Asimov, one of my favorite quotes from him come to mind,

445
00:41:56,402 --> 00:42:00,402
and it's very adjacent to all of this that we're talking about, and it's,

446
00:42:00,402 --> 00:42:05,642
people who think they know everything are of a great nuisance to those of us who do.

447
00:42:07,482 --> 00:42:16,102
That is sort of, I think, the perceived attitude of the core developers from the people who are

448
00:42:16,102 --> 00:42:20,362
now irritated with them. They think that they are know-it-alls.

449
00:42:20,822 --> 00:42:26,102
Yeah, well, there's a certain danger there too. Like when there is a lack of humility,

450
00:42:26,102 --> 00:42:31,782
that really raises red flags in my mind because then you think that you're better than you maybe

451
00:42:31,782 --> 00:42:37,802
actually are. And that's dangerous for the Bitcoin network, right? And I've seen critiques of us

452
00:42:37,802 --> 00:42:44,082
announcing the plan to have a third client, which is that this won't be as secure as Core because

453
00:42:44,082 --> 00:42:50,702
there's way more testing and scrutiny and there's no way you'll match that level. But I mean,

454
00:42:51,502 --> 00:42:54,882
Core just shipped with a wallet migration bug that can cause people to lose funds.

455
00:42:55,542 --> 00:42:59,242
So there's like a lack of humility and a lack of self-awareness.

456
00:42:59,322 --> 00:43:09,562
How can you just have this massive blunder and then say this new client, which does not exist yet because the team does not exist yet, will be less secure?

457
00:43:09,702 --> 00:43:12,402
You don't know that in absolute certainty, right?

458
00:43:12,862 --> 00:43:19,382
And it's just kind of blows my mind that this is the kind of discourse that we have there.

459
00:43:19,762 --> 00:43:21,442
But that's just the way it is now.

460
00:43:21,482 --> 00:43:23,442
People are kind of entrenched.

461
00:43:23,442 --> 00:43:27,982
They have a side and they think that, you know, we're the enemy somehow.

462
00:43:28,442 --> 00:43:30,602
But no, we're all on Team Bitcoin.

463
00:43:31,602 --> 00:43:41,982
And, you know, one unspoken goal of this project that I have is that we can bring the community back together because we're all Bitcoiners.

464
00:43:42,042 --> 00:43:43,322
We all want what's best for Bitcoin.

465
00:43:43,482 --> 00:43:46,182
How we want that may be different.

466
00:43:46,862 --> 00:43:49,122
And the degree to which we want that may be different.

467
00:43:49,242 --> 00:43:52,042
But I don't think that any of us are going away.

468
00:43:52,042 --> 00:44:05,442
A lot of the core people hate the not people and vice versa, but I don't think a haul nut's not going anywhere. Adam Back is not going anywhere. We're all going to be here. So I think eventually we have to learn to get along with one another again.

469
00:44:05,442 --> 00:44:29,602
I think there's a difference of opinion in what Bitcoin is, though, like at a very fundamental level. You have the Bitcoin is money crowd who basically just want send, receive and do not change. And then you have others that you use the term bleeding edge before, Jimmy, like the people who want like this BitVM stuff and these other programmability features to be built on top and anchored to the chain and whatnot.

470
00:44:29,602 --> 00:44:50,822
And I think your average Bitcoin is money type user doesn't care at all about that and wants as little of that as possible. And if there's any chance that that somehow compromises Bitcoin as money, they don't want it there at all. So they want Bitcoin to not change. Like the notion of Bitcoin as money, that's the thing we want ossified, right?

471
00:44:50,822 --> 00:45:08,822
So, and I think there's a difference of opinion. And also, I've noticed with a lot of developer types, whenever I speak to them, that the bar for what is like necessary and the bar for what is useful for Bitcoin is very different from different Bitcoiners.

472
00:45:08,822 --> 00:45:15,742
Bitcoiners. The more developer-y you are, the more you tend to like these things as smart contracts,

473
00:45:15,842 --> 00:45:23,122
anchoring, tether on Bitcoin and all of this stuff. And the more from the economics perspective

474
00:45:23,122 --> 00:45:27,002
you come, the more you tend to... I mean, I've heard you say before, for instance, that maybe

475
00:45:27,002 --> 00:45:31,042
we should have waited with Taproot because it came with so many negative side effects. And I

476
00:45:31,042 --> 00:45:37,722
completely agree with that angle. The most crucial thing here is to not move fast and break things,

477
00:45:37,722 --> 00:45:39,962
but move slow and do not break things.

478
00:45:40,082 --> 00:45:41,462
So like, what would you say to that?

479
00:45:42,282 --> 00:45:45,782
Yeah, I think you made a lot of really good points in there.

480
00:45:46,202 --> 00:45:49,202
Let me start with some of the last stuff that you said

481
00:45:49,202 --> 00:45:50,722
with regard to Taproot.

482
00:45:51,002 --> 00:45:53,622
I feel like one of the things that happened in that

483
00:45:53,622 --> 00:45:56,202
is that a lot of people upgraded

484
00:45:56,202 --> 00:45:59,082
without really knowing what the consequences were.

485
00:45:59,282 --> 00:46:01,042
And I mean, me included.

486
00:46:01,222 --> 00:46:04,002
I don't think we really understood what was going on.

487
00:46:04,042 --> 00:46:07,062
And this is where having a conservative client

488
00:46:07,062 --> 00:46:07,882
is very important.

489
00:46:08,922 --> 00:46:13,582
Your sort of like check against all of that stuff happening

490
00:46:13,582 --> 00:46:15,482
was to stay behind, right?

491
00:46:15,782 --> 00:46:18,922
I think Taproot released on version 21.

492
00:46:19,602 --> 00:46:21,342
If you had stayed on version 20,

493
00:46:22,202 --> 00:46:25,822
you know, like your node runs a particular way

494
00:46:25,822 --> 00:46:27,862
and it doesn't validate all of that

495
00:46:27,862 --> 00:46:30,702
and you don't get maybe some of the features of Taproot,

496
00:46:31,022 --> 00:46:34,902
but you also don't do a lot of the stuff

497
00:46:34,902 --> 00:46:38,382
that Taproot ended up doing, right?

498
00:46:38,482 --> 00:46:40,562
So a lot of the spam, for example,

499
00:46:40,762 --> 00:46:42,442
that came on the network,

500
00:46:42,782 --> 00:46:45,542
the BRC20s and the inscriptions and stuff,

501
00:46:45,642 --> 00:46:48,362
they use the Taproot stuff.

502
00:46:48,762 --> 00:46:51,262
If there was a significant portion of the network

503
00:46:51,262 --> 00:46:52,962
that had stayed behind on 20

504
00:46:52,962 --> 00:46:56,522
because they didn't know what 21 was going to do,

505
00:46:56,742 --> 00:46:58,262
how it was going to be affected,

506
00:46:58,782 --> 00:47:02,862
then that wouldn't have worked quite as well.

507
00:47:02,862 --> 00:47:11,262
And, you know, I mean, I suppose you could make the argument you only need like a tiny fraction to go relay that stuff or whatever.

508
00:47:11,262 --> 00:47:20,102
But that's sort of like your way of saying, hey, I don't want this or I don't trust this yet or whatever.

509
00:47:20,262 --> 00:47:24,322
And there's not enough of that skepticism, if you will.

510
00:47:24,322 --> 00:47:37,262
There's not enough of that, you know, like verify, don't trust attitude, which I think users are starting to get with this latest thing with op return and so on.

511
00:47:37,842 --> 00:47:46,782
The other thing that you mentioned with respect to developers is that they do tend to like getting new primitives and stuff like that.

512
00:47:46,782 --> 00:47:53,382
And I think it's best encapsulated by a tweet I saw from Ben Carmen a while back.

513
00:47:53,382 --> 00:48:01,562
he's a core dev, he works for Spiral, he's done a bunch of stuff. And the tweet was,

514
00:48:02,022 --> 00:48:05,362
you know, the suckiest thing about Bitcoin is that there's not that much to do.

515
00:48:05,882 --> 00:48:13,422
And what he meant by that was the things that he wants to work on, right? Like some sort of like

516
00:48:13,422 --> 00:48:20,822
BitVM thing and, you know, covenants and new technologies or new ways of composing and stuff

517
00:48:20,822 --> 00:48:25,902
like that. It's like none of them are really making that much progress because, as you said,

518
00:48:26,062 --> 00:48:31,442
most users are not interested in covenants, right? Like you can sell that all day, but

519
00:48:31,442 --> 00:48:38,442
they're like, the primary reason I have Bitcoin is for my savings. And I think there's a lot of

520
00:48:38,442 --> 00:48:45,282
truth to that, that, you know, a lot of developers are frustrated because they want to make some new

521
00:48:45,282 --> 00:48:51,782
interesting feature. And they can't because there's no primitive to do it. And they're like,

522
00:48:51,882 --> 00:48:58,402
if I do this, then you can pay rent automatically with a smart contract or something like that.

523
00:48:58,722 --> 00:49:06,462
And they're thinking of all the things that they can build rather than what the market actually

524
00:49:06,462 --> 00:49:12,022
wants. And this is where I think a lot of developers need to kind of step back and say,

525
00:49:12,022 --> 00:49:18,762
OK, well, even if we make covenants, would that actually make everything better?

526
00:49:19,202 --> 00:49:21,182
Would people actually use it?

527
00:49:21,662 --> 00:49:30,302
And it has to, at the very least, be on par with the main use case that we found, which is savings.

528
00:49:30,662 --> 00:49:37,602
And I think too many developers think too much of their own feature.

529
00:49:37,602 --> 00:49:39,742
And this is common with developers, right?

530
00:49:39,822 --> 00:49:42,442
With people that are sort of startup-y.

531
00:49:42,922 --> 00:49:48,522
They think that whatever they're working on is way more important than it actually ends up being.

532
00:49:49,262 --> 00:49:55,562
And this is where, you know, some amount of humility is very useful or at least like proving things out.

533
00:49:55,762 --> 00:49:59,082
And, you know, I've been in the startup space forever, right?

534
00:49:59,122 --> 00:50:02,162
Like ever since I came out of college like 30 years ago.

535
00:50:02,162 --> 00:50:18,902
So the thing that you need to understand about being in a startup is after a while of trying and failing, building what you want, and then seeing that the market doesn't want it and stuff, you eventually get to the point where you're like, okay, let's go market testing first.

536
00:50:19,282 --> 00:50:20,742
Are people actually going to want it?

537
00:50:20,742 --> 00:50:33,122
And, you know, this has been my criticism of stuff like Covenants is I don't know if there's a single thing where people have said, you know, I really want this thing.

538
00:50:33,662 --> 00:50:36,962
If only Bitcoin had this thing, I would go buy Bitcoin, but it doesn't.

539
00:50:37,042 --> 00:50:37,942
So I'm not going to.

540
00:50:38,422 --> 00:50:41,462
I haven't seen a single feature like that, like ever.

541
00:50:41,982 --> 00:50:44,142
And I mean, maybe lightning.

542
00:50:44,322 --> 00:50:50,242
Lightning might be the one thing that might be the exception that proves the rule kind of thing.

543
00:50:50,742 --> 00:50:57,082
But vast majority of people aren't looking for those things.

544
00:50:57,082 --> 00:51:08,682
So what developers want and what users want are oftentimes contradictory because developers have, they want to work on something that impacts people.

545
00:51:08,782 --> 00:51:10,322
They want to create something new.

546
00:51:10,902 --> 00:51:15,802
They're much less interested in maintaining things or securing things or whatever.

547
00:51:16,362 --> 00:51:17,922
And it's unfortunate.

548
00:51:17,922 --> 00:51:23,702
it. But that's kind of what happens when you have a bunch of people that are working on whatever

549
00:51:23,702 --> 00:51:31,382
they want to work on. Isn't this also where shitcoinery comes in? Because I agree with you,

550
00:51:31,402 --> 00:51:35,202
I've never seen a single person saying that I refrained from buying Bitcoin because it doesn't

551
00:51:35,202 --> 00:51:42,222
have this or that feature. But I have seen shitcoiners trying to tell people that that's

552
00:51:42,222 --> 00:51:49,002
the case. Like shitcoiners want people to believe that we need quantum resistance now, or we need

553
00:51:49,002 --> 00:51:54,582
this or that. Like everyone's selling FUD one way or another. And it feels like there's a connection

554
00:51:54,582 --> 00:52:02,342
there between developers who just trigger happy or whatever the equivalent of trigger happy is on a

555
00:52:02,342 --> 00:52:08,302
keyboard, but they want to develop. There's a connection there to being more apologetic to

556
00:52:08,302 --> 00:52:13,782
shitcoinery and shitcoinery on Bitcoin is not only bad, it's actually an attack vector, I would

557
00:52:13,782 --> 00:52:22,402
say. What would you say to that? Yeah, I think there's definitely some truth to that. And honestly,

558
00:52:22,402 --> 00:52:30,022
a lot of developers do go over to shitcoins because they can make whatever Rube Goldberg

559
00:52:30,022 --> 00:52:36,782
machine that they want, right? That was Vitalik's original thing was, I want to make a Turing

560
00:52:36,782 --> 00:52:42,702
complete smart contracts. So I'm going to make this very complicated system. I mean,

561
00:52:43,042 --> 00:52:49,062
in Ethereum, it's not fees, right? It's gas and it's gas that has to run a certain amount of time

562
00:52:49,062 --> 00:52:53,242
and it has to have an endpoint because if it is turning complete, then you might have an infinite

563
00:52:53,242 --> 00:52:59,622
loop and you don't want nodes to just execute an infinite loop and completely put them offline.

564
00:52:59,802 --> 00:53:04,582
So you have to have this other thing and it becomes like this enormously complicated system.

565
00:53:04,582 --> 00:53:07,422
and that's what he kind of wanted to do.

566
00:53:07,542 --> 00:53:09,342
And that's sort of like the temptation

567
00:53:09,342 --> 00:53:11,882
that a lot of developers fall into

568
00:53:11,882 --> 00:53:14,582
is making something cool

569
00:53:14,582 --> 00:53:19,622
rather than something that's actually needed by the market,

570
00:53:19,762 --> 00:53:20,722
demanded by the market.

571
00:53:21,162 --> 00:53:21,502
And yeah.

572
00:53:21,722 --> 00:53:22,962
The market isn't demanding anything.

573
00:53:23,082 --> 00:53:25,102
The market kind of wants you to leave it alone,

574
00:53:25,682 --> 00:53:28,502
which is kind of like diametrically opposed

575
00:53:28,502 --> 00:53:30,022
to someone that wants to build cool stuff.

576
00:53:30,422 --> 00:53:32,862
But didn't we have like one of our former maintainers

577
00:53:32,862 --> 00:53:39,722
on core they were a fan of solana or something like that you know yeah i i mean that's i mean

578
00:53:39,722 --> 00:53:44,022
i'm a fan of all the shit coins in hindsight because at least they're building them on other

579
00:53:44,022 --> 00:53:50,402
chains now like this is the thing with vitalik for instance the reason he left bitcoin was that

580
00:53:50,402 --> 00:53:56,702
he wasn't welcome to do all this shit on bitcoin he was sort of pushed out right or am i getting

581
00:53:56,702 --> 00:54:02,142
history wrong so i mean i i have a little more insight into that because i i i was there but

582
00:54:02,142 --> 00:54:09,822
like we were making colored coins and we said like an asset on top of bitcoin this was back in 2013

583
00:54:09,822 --> 00:54:16,302
and we had the whole client working and everything and he he wanted something like that but he wanted

584
00:54:16,302 --> 00:54:24,582
more than that and uh honestly like the um the minimum spend thing that changed from one set

585
00:54:24,582 --> 00:54:29,262
per UTXO to, I think at the time it was like 5,430.

586
00:54:29,782 --> 00:54:33,362
That changed everything and it was too volatile.

587
00:54:33,562 --> 00:54:38,162
So he decided to go and make his own thing on his own chain.

588
00:54:38,542 --> 00:54:39,942
And he raised a bunch of money.

589
00:54:39,962 --> 00:54:41,702
I've seen a tweet from him where he explains

590
00:54:41,702 --> 00:54:44,962
that he decided to build an entirely new chain

591
00:54:44,962 --> 00:54:47,062
because the ideas weren't welcome.

592
00:54:47,062 --> 00:54:48,982
Yeah, things were changing too much, right?

593
00:54:49,102 --> 00:54:51,802
Because it used to be you could have one-side outputs,

594
00:54:51,802 --> 00:55:05,562
And that made the protocol a certain way, but then they changed it so that it was like, okay, those weren't going to be relayed unless it had at least 5,430 SATs per SAT outputs.

595
00:55:05,902 --> 00:55:09,722
And that's changed again to, I don't know, 543 or whatever.

596
00:55:10,282 --> 00:55:16,182
But that hostility was exactly why he wanted to go create his own chain.

597
00:55:16,742 --> 00:55:17,882
That's a generous interpretation.

598
00:55:17,882 --> 00:55:21,402
You could also say he wanted to shitcoin and ICO and make a bunch of money.

599
00:55:21,802 --> 00:55:25,202
That was just a reason for him to go and do it.

600
00:55:25,202 --> 00:55:28,902
Yeah, he was going to raise money regardless, but yeah.

601
00:55:28,902 --> 00:55:33,002
I mean, but there is something of that connection where

602
00:55:33,016 --> 00:55:41,156
You want to build and people like, especially developers, they like building because it makes them important, right?

603
00:55:41,216 --> 00:55:45,116
It makes what they're doing the focal point and things like that.

604
00:55:45,176 --> 00:55:47,736
And this is why a lot of them go off to shit coins.

605
00:55:48,876 --> 00:55:54,876
And, you know, that's a temptation that a lot of developers have.

606
00:55:54,876 --> 00:56:02,396
I think we should try to resist it, especially in Bitcoin, because like Samson said, it's kind of opposed to the traditional startup thing.

607
00:56:02,396 --> 00:56:04,996
where like adding more features to your product

608
00:56:04,996 --> 00:56:07,516
gets new users and so on.

609
00:56:07,816 --> 00:56:09,436
That's not the case for money.

610
00:56:09,536 --> 00:56:10,996
Money is the exact opposite.

611
00:56:11,136 --> 00:56:12,296
You want it to stay the same.

612
00:56:12,396 --> 00:56:14,496
You don't want things to change.

613
00:56:14,636 --> 00:56:16,396
That's what we're hoping to,

614
00:56:16,756 --> 00:56:17,616
you know, that's what we mean

615
00:56:17,616 --> 00:56:19,116
when we're saying conservative.

616
00:56:19,116 --> 00:56:23,216
Like we recognize the economic reality of money

617
00:56:23,216 --> 00:56:26,796
and this isn't some, you know, website

618
00:56:26,796 --> 00:56:29,016
or some, you know, tech startup

619
00:56:29,016 --> 00:56:31,336
or, you know, AI startup or something

620
00:56:31,336 --> 00:56:33,716
where you add these features and you get more users,

621
00:56:33,856 --> 00:56:35,896
you get more users by keeping it the same.

622
00:56:36,176 --> 00:56:38,096
That's the big thing.

623
00:56:38,356 --> 00:56:40,976
And that's the insight we hope to,

624
00:56:41,656 --> 00:56:44,556
or that's the portion of the Bitcoin community

625
00:56:44,556 --> 00:56:48,176
that we hope to attract to this client and so on.

626
00:56:49,556 --> 00:56:50,376
So I want to add there,

627
00:56:50,716 --> 00:56:52,736
it's like, I think Saylor said it too,

628
00:56:52,736 --> 00:56:54,436
one of the biggest risks to Bitcoin

629
00:56:54,436 --> 00:56:56,956
is that you give developers unlimited funding

630
00:56:56,956 --> 00:57:00,536
because they'll fix things and make new things, right?

631
00:57:00,536 --> 00:57:02,276
And that's kind of dangerous.

632
00:57:02,636 --> 00:57:14,276
And the pace at which we're seeing a lot of new proposals come out is disconcerting because most people can't keep up with how many new things people want to go into Bitcoin.

633
00:57:14,696 --> 00:57:15,896
Covenants was the last one.

634
00:57:16,476 --> 00:57:20,576
And there's going to be more things that people want to add to Bitcoin to make it, quote unquote, better.

635
00:57:21,336 --> 00:57:26,936
And I think it's important that there is an alternative that is not going to be focused on adding new features.

636
00:57:26,936 --> 00:57:32,216
But again, Covenant's like, if it was there already, maybe it might be useful.

637
00:57:32,356 --> 00:57:33,216
I might use it.

638
00:57:33,736 --> 00:57:36,696
But to add it, it's not really needed.

639
00:57:36,896 --> 00:57:41,956
But then you do have developers campaigning for this and aggressively pushing for something.

640
00:57:42,116 --> 00:57:51,116
And I think you want another alternative, which is that they're not lobbying just core, which is it could be their friends.

641
00:57:51,116 --> 00:57:57,336
And then one day, five years in the future, you know, there's enough people that are friends with them that they wave it through.

642
00:57:57,776 --> 00:58:06,636
You want one client that is with the absolute mission for conservatism and erring on the side of caution to resist these changes.

643
00:58:06,816 --> 00:58:12,616
So the benefit of this client from Production Ready is not in the immediate year.

644
00:58:12,616 --> 00:58:20,236
It's for five years in the future or 10 years in the future when someone's pushing for something that, you know, is not really needed.

645
00:58:21,116 --> 00:58:49,116
Yeah, that's great. I mean, in an ideal world, like I would want every developer to always ask themselves, how does this make Bitcoin better money before changing anything? And in order to do that, you need to know what money is and the two problems the money solves, which is it removes the mutual coincidence of needs so you don't have to barter and it allows for economic calculation so you can plan for the future.

646
00:58:49,116 --> 00:58:55,596
And then you have the portability, fungibility, uniformity, including privacy, I would say, nowadays.

647
00:58:55,856 --> 00:58:58,416
And all of those metrics are like what you're optimizing.

648
00:58:58,576 --> 00:59:01,576
That should be what you're optimizing for when building anything in this.

649
00:59:01,756 --> 00:59:02,876
Would you agree to that?

650
00:59:03,396 --> 00:59:09,156
Well, the problem is if you ask a developer to ask themselves that question, they'll find a way to rationalize it, right?

651
00:59:09,216 --> 00:59:15,096
Because it's a different mindset of someone that just wants cool stuff and features.

652
00:59:15,096 --> 00:59:20,956
And I think Jimmy touched on this earlier, which is, you know, the incentive structure is to make something cool and make a name for yourself.

653
00:59:20,956 --> 00:59:30,616
Because once you leave Bitcoin development, then you might get, you know, a big role in some other project doing something else because you've had this quote unquote achievement.

654
00:59:31,396 --> 00:59:40,236
And I think this also extends to the funding organizations too, because the funding organizations have their incentive structure, which is that they need to get more funding.

655
00:59:40,676 --> 00:59:41,776
How do you get more funding?

656
00:59:41,776 --> 00:59:48,296
You have to say, well, we sponsored and gave grants to all of these developers that did all of these really cool big things.

657
00:59:48,676 --> 00:59:56,436
If your list is just, you know, they maintained the client and patched it and reviewed changes and fixed bugs, donors will be less likely to give you money.

658
00:59:56,636 --> 01:00:09,516
So there's like an entire incentive structure that I think hopefully if we can get production ready funded at a certain level where we can exist for a long period of time, it kind of mitigates that risk.

659
01:00:09,516 --> 01:00:16,396
yeah it's a very noble cause what what's what's your dream team of developers like what what

660
01:00:16,396 --> 01:00:23,356
developers are you looking for is are there like people who have rage quit core are like what what

661
01:00:23,356 --> 01:00:28,076
are you looking for in a developer are you looking for developers that are good at reviewing other

662
01:00:28,076 --> 01:00:34,476
people's work mainly or like what is there is there an idea there well the the main thing for us

663
01:00:34,476 --> 01:00:40,376
is that the developer have sort of like the right economic ideas

664
01:00:40,376 --> 01:00:43,716
or are doing it for the right reasons, if that makes sense.

665
01:00:43,916 --> 01:00:45,256
So we want that to...

666
01:00:45,256 --> 01:00:47,896
You mentioned maturity and having kids and all of that.

667
01:00:47,956 --> 01:00:51,776
Yeah, not just that, but having an understanding of money,

668
01:00:51,856 --> 01:00:52,856
like you were saying, right?

669
01:00:52,916 --> 01:00:57,016
Like having an understanding that money is better when it doesn't change.

670
01:00:57,796 --> 01:01:02,936
And sort of that, I think, ideological alignment,

671
01:01:02,936 --> 01:01:06,616
I think informs what we prioritize.

672
01:01:07,096 --> 01:01:10,176
And I think that that's pretty important,

673
01:01:10,236 --> 01:01:14,336
I think, for deciding what to put in

674
01:01:14,336 --> 01:01:17,836
and what to take out and what to change and so on.

675
01:01:18,336 --> 01:01:21,056
Ideally, the changes that happen

676
01:01:21,056 --> 01:01:23,336
are mostly around security,

677
01:01:23,696 --> 01:01:26,116
around making it easier to run,

678
01:01:26,316 --> 01:01:28,536
making it more convenient to run,

679
01:01:28,696 --> 01:01:31,036
making it more useful to the end user

680
01:01:31,036 --> 01:01:38,396
so that they're more motivated to run it and spend money to go and get the hardware to run it and so on.

681
01:01:38,916 --> 01:01:48,676
Those are the kinds of things that I would like to focus more on than, hey, here's this new primitive and we can do all of these other things.

682
01:01:48,936 --> 01:01:54,936
And, you know, this complicated thing that allows for this other complicated thing.

683
01:01:55,096 --> 01:02:00,876
Or, you know, now we can, I don't know, do eBay escrow or something as a feature.

684
01:02:00,876 --> 01:02:03,256
Like those things don't interest me, right?

685
01:02:03,316 --> 01:02:07,616
Like the things that I want are a better money.

686
01:02:08,016 --> 01:02:18,036
And like Samson said, all of these organizations that are raising money, they're doing it on stuff like, okay, we're going to add this feature.

687
01:02:19,896 --> 01:02:22,296
We're going to add this other feature.

688
01:02:22,296 --> 01:02:38,516
I think our pitch to the people that are donating is, well, this is the way, you know, having a conservative implementation, this is the way to preserve the reason why Bitcoin is valuable.

689
01:02:38,516 --> 01:03:00,036
It's its role as money. And instead of looking for this feature or that feature, let's just keep the thing that, you know, like this kind of like insurance, right? Like you're making sure that it stays the thing that it is and the thing that makes it valuable more so than this, you know, extra thing on the end of it.

690
01:03:00,596 --> 01:03:02,076
It doesn't sound that hard.

691
01:03:02,176 --> 01:03:12,636
I mean, if I applied for a grant and I said, like, I want to be a Bitcoin developer for this new client, and I promise to not write a single line of code till the day I die, because I wouldn't know how to.

692
01:03:12,776 --> 01:03:14,736
Do you think that would be a pitch to your funder?

693
01:03:14,736 --> 01:03:20,756
That's the perception that a lot of people have is that a lot of most development work is new features.

694
01:03:20,936 --> 01:03:21,836
It's totally not.

695
01:03:21,836 --> 01:03:30,436
If you've ever been a developer, you know that at least 60%, 70% of what you do is maintenance of the stuff that's already there.

696
01:03:31,116 --> 01:03:33,256
And there's plenty of work there, right?

697
01:03:33,376 --> 01:03:43,476
Like making sure that there isn't this security vulnerability or we have too much data in this database.

698
01:03:43,716 --> 01:03:48,996
Let's make sure that it doesn't overflow once it reaches this limit or something like that.

699
01:03:48,996 --> 01:03:51,156
Those are valuable things.

700
01:03:51,156 --> 01:03:55,476
And maintenance is a big part of software development.

701
01:03:55,736 --> 01:03:57,476
And that's a normal thing.

702
01:03:57,816 --> 01:04:03,276
It's not all, hey, we're going to have this new privacy thing or whatever.

703
01:04:03,576 --> 01:04:07,936
I love privacy, and I hope we get more of it in Bitcoin.

704
01:04:08,496 --> 01:04:11,616
But that's not all development is.

705
01:04:11,736 --> 01:04:17,256
There's a lot of other things that go into making sure that software is running properly,

706
01:04:17,256 --> 01:04:33,236
that it's running securely, that it's running without vulnerabilities, and it isn't trying to do too much, and it's running on reasonable hardware and all that stuff.

707
01:04:33,376 --> 01:04:35,816
So, I mean, there's plenty to do.

708
01:04:36,316 --> 01:04:42,596
It's just not necessarily in the direction that maybe we've done in the last few years.

709
01:04:42,596 --> 01:04:43,756
Yeah.

710
01:04:43,756 --> 01:04:48,356
Also optimizations, like syncing block downloads.

711
01:04:48,356 --> 01:05:00,115
So you Kanute you asked like what quality I think one quality we would like in a developer is they not petty and immature because we seen some very senior core people come out and you know make stupid comments

712
01:05:00,115 --> 01:05:01,235
of like, you know, your logo,

713
01:05:01,495 --> 01:05:03,355
your name of your organization.

714
01:05:03,735 --> 01:05:05,295
Like that should be beneath you

715
01:05:05,295 --> 01:05:08,015
as a, you know, a very senior member

716
01:05:08,015 --> 01:05:09,335
of the core development team.

717
01:05:10,075 --> 01:05:11,415
Dying your hair blue, maybe.

718
01:05:11,595 --> 01:05:12,615
If that counts as immature.

719
01:05:12,955 --> 01:05:14,155
Maybe we'll cut that out.

720
01:05:14,595 --> 01:05:15,035
Anyway.

721
01:05:15,675 --> 01:05:17,435
I mean, the thing is,

722
01:05:17,435 --> 01:05:22,575
I have a lot of respect for core developers and I was one, right?

723
01:05:22,635 --> 01:05:25,135
I contributed and did a lot of that stuff.

724
01:05:25,315 --> 01:05:30,655
I would say most of them or even all of them are very good people to like hang out with

725
01:05:30,655 --> 01:05:31,375
and talk about.

726
01:05:31,475 --> 01:05:32,415
And they're very technical.

727
01:05:32,635 --> 01:05:34,495
They know what they're doing and so on.

728
01:05:35,155 --> 01:05:40,935
But you have to make sure that the incentives are all aligned because currently the incentives

729
01:05:40,935 --> 01:05:44,735
are a little bit off in the way things are,

730
01:05:44,815 --> 01:05:48,195
largely because it more or less functions as a monopoly.

731
01:05:48,575 --> 01:05:54,275
And getting away from sort of like a monopolistic model,

732
01:05:54,275 --> 01:05:56,475
I think is desirable for this community.

733
01:05:56,935 --> 01:05:59,515
And you're not really going to, I mean,

734
01:05:59,715 --> 01:06:03,415
I understand there's like four or five other things

735
01:06:03,415 --> 01:06:08,235
that are trying to write Bitcoin software from scratch and so on.

736
01:06:08,635 --> 01:06:10,755
But like Samson said, I don't think,

737
01:06:10,935 --> 01:06:17,295
they understand the users. They don't want to run something that's risky, especially

738
01:06:17,295 --> 01:06:23,775
if you're running a mining pool and it creates the wrong template and you end up losing out on

739
01:06:23,775 --> 01:06:31,655
hundreds of thousands of dollars. You want to lower the risk for them by having something that's

740
01:06:31,655 --> 01:06:39,315
a descendant of the Satoshi client. And those things actually end up mattering. So from a

741
01:06:39,315 --> 01:06:47,895
practical standpoint, if you don't want this sort of monopoly thing that we have with Node software,

742
01:06:47,895 --> 01:06:53,235
then you're going to have to have something like what we're making.

743
01:06:54,095 --> 01:07:02,235
Yeah. Just going back a couple topics back, you're talking about Taproot and you can stay behind,

744
01:07:02,355 --> 01:07:09,015
but Taproot was activated through SoftFork, right? But you can see that could be easily dragged along.

745
01:07:09,315 --> 01:07:15,055
Because miners have to upgrade at some point and they're going to have that client installed.

746
01:07:15,595 --> 01:07:29,275
And from then you just kind of lobby them and maybe they don't understand the implications because maybe a lot of us also didn't of Taproot and they just activate because some developers contacted them and they said, well, it's in there now, just activate it.

747
01:07:29,275 --> 01:07:43,455
So the risk is really just drag along effect. And I think the call it monopoly, call it whatever, just having optionality is a good thing for the Bitcoin network, especially at the mining pool level, because that's where a lot of new things do get activated.

748
01:07:43,455 --> 01:07:53,775
yeah absolutely agree so so uh what would be the risk of a reduced data temporary soft fork like uh

749
01:07:53,775 --> 01:07:59,855
uh bip 110 how is how how does that or how does it not make bitcoin better money

750
01:08:00,335 --> 01:08:06,335
um like yeah maybe maybe i should give a bit of a disclaimer like how i rationalize like i've

751
01:08:06,335 --> 01:08:11,055
I'm publicly supporting it.

752
01:08:11,695 --> 01:08:14,995
And the rationale I have for doing that is like,

753
01:08:15,195 --> 01:08:18,775
I agree with you guys that I don't buy the CSAM argument at all

754
01:08:18,775 --> 01:08:20,675
because I don't think there's a judge in the world

755
01:08:20,675 --> 01:08:22,555
who could tell the difference between an op return

756
01:08:22,555 --> 01:08:24,335
and somewhere else in Bitcoin's data.

757
01:08:24,675 --> 01:08:28,515
They're not going to care where this picture ends up.

758
01:08:28,875 --> 01:08:33,255
They're not going to care if there's a specific part of the code to put it in.

759
01:08:33,255 --> 01:08:36,675
But what I think this is doing is like,

760
01:08:37,495 --> 01:08:40,115
the first thing is the fact that it's temporary,

761
01:08:40,515 --> 01:08:43,015
so that it has an actual expiry date.

762
01:08:43,735 --> 01:08:48,355
And also that it's just making the rules stricter

763
01:08:48,355 --> 01:08:49,795
for a shorter period of time,

764
01:08:50,115 --> 01:08:53,155
and thereby maybe scaring off some of the spammers

765
01:08:53,155 --> 01:08:55,575
because it makes some of their business models crap.

766
01:08:55,755 --> 01:08:57,215
Like that's the intention of the,

767
01:08:57,295 --> 01:08:58,815
part of the intention of the thing.

768
01:08:58,815 --> 01:09:03,195
But also it might discipline the core developers a bit

769
01:09:03,255 --> 01:09:07,355
because they know that we actively show them that they're not in charge.

770
01:09:07,355 --> 01:09:11,895
And I don't see any particular risks in terms of incentive changes

771
01:09:11,895 --> 01:09:14,275
for people who just want to use Bitcoin as money.

772
01:09:14,675 --> 01:09:21,775
And I mean, this is full of Bastiat's, the seen and the not seen, right?

773
01:09:21,835 --> 01:09:27,655
We don't know all the effects that play into Bitcoin's price at the moment,

774
01:09:27,655 --> 01:09:29,715
but there's a lot of unseen factors.

775
01:09:29,955 --> 01:09:32,975
And maybe these technical things have to do with that.

776
01:09:32,975 --> 01:09:34,795
and maybe not, and we don't know to which extent.

777
01:09:34,795 --> 01:09:40,735
But do you think BIP-110, is there a level of support

778
01:09:40,735 --> 01:09:43,595
where you would automatically be in support of it?

779
01:09:43,755 --> 01:09:45,475
Do you see risks in it?

780
01:09:45,615 --> 01:09:46,975
And what are your opinions?

781
01:09:47,435 --> 01:09:47,855
Curious.

782
01:09:48,295 --> 01:09:49,395
Well, I think it's a bit rushed.

783
01:09:49,715 --> 01:09:54,455
And there were discussions about this before it was a thing,

784
01:09:54,995 --> 01:09:58,815
that we can do something, there might be some elegant way

785
01:09:58,815 --> 01:10:01,395
to find a way to limit data.

786
01:10:01,395 --> 01:10:05,935
and there was discussion with people on the Bitcoin core side.

787
01:10:06,475 --> 01:10:09,415
And then somewhere along the way, when I got busy with other things,

788
01:10:09,595 --> 01:10:13,295
it just kind of became a movement all on its own.

789
01:10:13,375 --> 01:10:16,415
And I think at that point, you kind of lost the discussion

790
01:10:16,415 --> 01:10:19,815
and you lost consensus with the rest of a large portion

791
01:10:19,815 --> 01:10:22,095
of the Bitcoin network and community.

792
01:10:22,375 --> 01:10:26,195
So I don't think it'll work because of that rushed nature.

793
01:10:26,415 --> 01:10:28,915
And again, nothing in Bitcoin should be rushed,

794
01:10:28,915 --> 01:10:33,215
whether it's to fix the spam issue or to fix the quantum issue.

795
01:10:33,615 --> 01:10:35,815
Like this is the whole point of production ready,

796
01:10:35,895 --> 01:10:40,695
which is we want to take things slow and steady and not rush into anything in particular.

797
01:10:41,235 --> 01:10:48,975
But the issue with the 110 proposal is that I just think there's not enough support behind it

798
01:10:48,975 --> 01:10:50,535
and it's likely not going to fail.

799
01:10:50,695 --> 01:10:52,155
It's not going to activate.

800
01:10:52,335 --> 01:10:53,115
It'll likely fail.

801
01:10:53,115 --> 01:11:02,595
I would say that I agree with Samson in that the original proposal was actually from Portland HODL on the Bitcoin dev list.

802
01:11:03,135 --> 01:11:11,415
And he said, well, if it's not going to be done on the relay layer, maybe we should consider doing something on the consensus layer.

803
01:11:12,095 --> 01:11:17,315
And I think, you know, and as you know, Portland HODL is a core guy, right?

804
01:11:17,335 --> 01:11:19,895
Like he's been a big time core supporter.

805
01:11:19,895 --> 01:11:25,975
This was his way of saying, OK, well, let's solve it at the layer that it should be solved in, not the relay layer.

806
01:11:26,095 --> 01:11:34,635
And that's been sort of like the argument from the core side for a while was don't solve this at the relay layer, solve this at the consensus layer.

807
01:11:34,755 --> 01:11:37,175
OK, well, what would that look like?

808
01:11:37,195 --> 01:11:38,275
And that was his proposal.

809
01:11:38,655 --> 01:11:42,375
And I can confirm what Samson is saying.

810
01:11:42,455 --> 01:11:47,655
There were discussions going on about, OK, how can we make this?

811
01:11:48,075 --> 01:11:49,095
Is this possible?

812
01:11:49,775 --> 01:11:55,355
The problem with BIP-110, I think, is that it ran with it and said, okay, we're going to do it then.

813
01:11:55,695 --> 01:12:00,955
And it's urgent because of the CSAM argument or something like that.

814
01:12:01,615 --> 01:12:06,275
And for that reason, it now has no consensus.

815
01:12:06,275 --> 01:12:25,435
And at least from my perspective, the big thing in any sort of software is that you need to have a rough consensus of the participants before it can activate or before it's something that the network can kind of handle.

816
01:12:25,435 --> 01:12:31,215
Now, we're not entirely sure how this will play out because we've never had a contentious software before.

817
01:12:31,595 --> 01:12:35,055
And I'm personally very curious to see how that plays out.

818
01:12:35,055 --> 01:12:47,695
And I think it'll be good for the network because there's no doubt in my mind at some point in the future, the government will push for a soft fork for OFAC addresses or something like that, right?

819
01:12:47,735 --> 01:12:56,555
Like something ridiculous that a few people are going to be pushing for and they'll do a hostile soft fork.

820
01:12:56,555 --> 01:13:00,875
So we need to sort of harden against scenarios like that.

821
01:13:00,875 --> 01:13:13,355
Or on the opposite end, we might have a SHA-256 break or something like that, and we need to get something out reasonably quickly, and it's opposed by people in government or something.

822
01:13:13,355 --> 01:13:18,115
And we need to know if a hostile soft work in that direction can go.

823
01:13:18,235 --> 01:13:28,835
So the thing that this particular thing will reveal is how do users express their will and preference?

824
01:13:28,835 --> 01:13:39,375
So it's important for that reason. But the thing that Samsung was alluding to, which I think is true, is that it's trying to solve things at sort of like the wrong layer.

825
01:13:40,335 --> 01:13:48,795
The problem isn't that, you know, this particular thing is what needs to change, right?

826
01:13:48,835 --> 01:13:54,035
Like to make it money, we need to eliminate spam in these particular forms or make it hostile.

827
01:13:54,035 --> 01:13:57,415
I'm sympathetic to a lot of those arguments, by the way.

828
01:13:57,415 --> 01:14:05,655
But what we're trying to do is to change the client ecosystem so we don't have these things

829
01:14:05,655 --> 01:14:07,875
play out in this particular way.

830
01:14:07,875 --> 01:14:27,094
Because up until now softworks have been basically driven by core They say this is what we as the development community want and therefore this is what going to happen And this is why BIP is a hostile software at this point because

831
01:14:27,094 --> 01:14:36,554
it isn't driven by core. It's driven by somebody else. We think that a third way,

832
01:14:36,554 --> 01:14:43,554
like a consensus building mechanism where you have multiple clients that have a significant

833
01:14:43,554 --> 01:14:50,614
portion of the nodes of the network and different miners are using different software and so on,

834
01:14:51,034 --> 01:14:56,134
that's actually healthy because now you're going to go get true consensus when something

835
01:14:56,134 --> 01:15:03,194
is desirable instead of a small group being able to push for a certain thing or whatever.

836
01:15:03,194 --> 01:15:16,494
So think of our approach as something a little different than, say, the BIP110 approach, which is we're going to push it through and they might succeed, they might fail.

837
01:15:16,714 --> 01:15:23,774
And I don't know the consequences of either one, but I don't think that's how we should be settling a lot of these arguments.

838
01:15:23,774 --> 01:15:31,454
It should be through the clients, users expressing what they want and so on.

839
01:15:31,454 --> 01:15:36,634
And the fact that it's temporary, doesn't that change your opinion on it a bit?

840
01:15:37,414 --> 01:15:39,534
I'm sympathetic to the idea, right?

841
01:15:39,534 --> 01:15:43,954
You do it for a year and then that gets a lot of those people to leave.

842
01:15:44,054 --> 01:15:46,554
And then, you know, you still have everything back and whatever.

843
01:15:46,854 --> 01:15:48,094
I understand all that.

844
01:15:48,634 --> 01:15:57,394
But it's trying to fight at a level where I don't know if that's going to be the right way, right?

845
01:15:57,394 --> 01:16:12,174
If you have four or five clients that have somewhere between 10% and 40% of the network in terms of nodes, that's a very different situation for proposing a fork like that, a soft fork like that.

846
01:16:12,174 --> 01:16:23,754
I honestly believe a lot less, like a lot of the reaction around BIP-110 is because of sort of core's monopoly position on this.

847
01:16:23,754 --> 01:16:35,734
You change that dynamic and a lot of this stuff isn't an issue or is a lot more consensus-based.

848
01:16:35,994 --> 01:16:37,754
It's more in the spirit of Bitcoin.

849
01:16:38,074 --> 01:16:41,874
I'm trying to look for the right words to say on all those routes.

850
01:16:42,254 --> 01:16:45,454
The other problem with 110 is it does break some things.

851
01:16:46,934 --> 01:16:47,814
Minuscript, yeah.

852
01:16:48,154 --> 01:16:51,474
Yeah, the data restrictions will break some things in some wallets.

853
01:16:51,474 --> 01:16:55,014
I think Liana is another wallet and might be another one.

854
01:16:55,874 --> 01:17:02,074
But in general, you should not try to break things with any soft work, right?

855
01:17:02,194 --> 01:17:06,954
So it's got to be constructed in a way that does no harm to the network itself.

856
01:17:07,494 --> 01:17:16,414
But then the question is, what is the efficacy of the change, which is, you know, people can still bypass it to put data on chain.

857
01:17:16,554 --> 01:17:18,934
So it doesn't really fix that problem either.

858
01:17:18,934 --> 01:17:25,814
The way to fix the inscription issues was when it first started happening, Luke had a fix for it.

859
01:17:26,234 --> 01:17:28,914
And that was deemed to be not a good fix.

860
01:17:29,074 --> 01:17:32,074
But if that had gone in back then, it would have addressed the issue.

861
01:17:32,834 --> 01:17:39,674
Or if there was a second client that implemented that as a relay policy, that would have been very different.

862
01:17:40,494 --> 01:17:42,314
But the ship has sailed.

863
01:17:42,434 --> 01:17:46,054
And I don't think you can go and make up for lost time with the rush change.

864
01:17:46,054 --> 01:17:58,254
You have to first build consensus around it, and there should be a good cross-section of miners, exchanges, developers, nodes that are all agreeing upon it.

865
01:17:58,494 --> 01:18:02,114
You can't compare 110 to UASF.

866
01:18:02,574 --> 01:18:05,894
USF and Segwit had a broad support base.

867
01:18:06,394 --> 01:18:09,994
It was just a couple of guys blocking it, and that was why it worked.

868
01:18:10,494 --> 01:18:12,714
But this is kind of the opposite.

869
01:18:12,894 --> 01:18:14,794
It's being supported by a smaller group.

870
01:18:14,794 --> 01:18:20,934
and it's lacking important support from other segments of the Bitcoin ecosystem.

871
01:18:22,794 --> 01:18:27,734
Yeah, I agree to a lot of the points, but not all,

872
01:18:28,654 --> 01:18:32,974
since it's a temporary tightening of rules.

873
01:18:32,974 --> 01:18:38,394
I mean, SegWit effectively made the blocks bigger and not smaller,

874
01:18:38,654 --> 01:18:40,954
so there's a crucial difference there too.

875
01:18:40,954 --> 01:18:48,314
the breaking of stuff i i think a lot of that has been debunked and that the thing has also

876
01:18:48,314 --> 01:18:55,074
like the the proposal itself has been updated to specifically not break things and also that

877
01:18:55,074 --> 01:19:02,294
these are super fringe use cases that get temporarily broken or temporarily not available

878
01:19:02,294 --> 01:19:09,514
because bitcoin is like it's it's not built for the the the comfort of wallet developers it's it's

879
01:19:09,514 --> 01:19:13,874
built to protect Bitcoin as money for users.

880
01:19:14,074 --> 01:19:16,154
Like that's the higher goal.

881
01:19:16,314 --> 01:19:19,294
And I would say that I think that trade-off is worth it.

882
01:19:19,734 --> 01:19:20,494
Because we're in...

883
01:19:20,494 --> 01:19:24,014
And if it gets consensus, that's fine.

884
01:19:25,614 --> 01:19:29,914
There may be fringe use cases of just a few people using this wallet

885
01:19:29,914 --> 01:19:32,754
in which this might break something for them, but that's still money.

886
01:19:33,234 --> 01:19:35,754
And I think we have to approach it with the same level of care.

887
01:19:35,754 --> 01:19:42,074
If someone can lose money, then we cannot just say, well, too bad because we have to fight the spam.

888
01:19:42,614 --> 01:19:44,974
You kind of want the same on both ends.

889
01:19:45,094 --> 01:19:48,434
You want to protect Bitcoin as money, but for everybody.

890
01:19:48,794 --> 01:19:54,254
So if there was a way that nobody loses money, I'm sure there'll be much more consensus around it.

891
01:19:54,314 --> 01:20:00,034
But if that is a potential possibility still, then I don't think we should be supporting it.

892
01:20:00,034 --> 01:20:15,394
And, you know, I'm open to the possibility, Knute, that, you know, they modify it enough that they take care of all this and then it becomes more of a consensus thing, in which case, yeah, then go for it, right? Like that might happen still, I guess.

893
01:20:15,394 --> 01:20:25,074
But then think about this, thinking from this perspective, like what if someone came along with a CTV soft fork and said the same thing?

894
01:20:25,154 --> 01:20:27,054
Like we're going to, it's going to go live this September.

895
01:20:27,794 --> 01:20:30,374
You know, I think you would resist it the same way.

896
01:20:30,954 --> 01:20:34,114
And everything needs to have a long lead time.

897
01:20:34,234 --> 01:20:36,054
This is Bitcoin and this is money.

898
01:20:36,414 --> 01:20:43,074
And this is why people are up in arms because, you know, as a developer, even your policy thing kind of messes with my money.

899
01:20:43,254 --> 01:20:43,734
Right.

900
01:20:43,734 --> 01:20:46,554
And yeah, the smallest change.

901
01:20:47,014 --> 01:20:47,274
Exactly.

902
01:20:47,454 --> 01:20:54,294
So I think it's the same level of care and criteria that you would have for 110 that you would apply to everything else.

903
01:20:54,554 --> 01:20:58,114
Like, you know, someone says, we're going to fix Bitcoin for quantum resistant.

904
01:20:58,314 --> 01:20:58,974
It's for your own good.

905
01:20:59,014 --> 01:20:59,674
It's to protect you.

906
01:21:00,014 --> 01:21:05,954
You know, you would be up in arms too, because, you know, how do you know that's the best solution if it's rushed, if you say it's coming September?

907
01:21:05,954 --> 01:21:13,194
well to defend bit 110 there i'm saying it's just reverting the rules back to what it was three

908
01:21:13,194 --> 01:21:18,634
years ago and and also that it's temporary so and they're taking great care not to fuck up

909
01:21:18,634 --> 01:21:25,234
not to lose to make people lose money i think they're uh then again i'm not i'm not the expert

910
01:21:25,234 --> 01:21:30,134
and maybe it's stupid of me to support the thing because i might be missing something here uh

911
01:21:30,134 --> 01:21:36,254
absolutely right but let's just say that it is good then you need more time you can't just say

912
01:21:36,254 --> 01:21:42,374
it's still going to activate september right so if there's like a significant change and you know

913
01:21:42,374 --> 01:21:47,254
things are good now then it should be tabled in front of more developers and they should analyze

914
01:21:47,254 --> 01:21:52,734
it and evaluate it not just run on the same time frame i absolutely agree that it would be better

915
01:21:52,734 --> 01:21:59,174
if we had more implementations and but this is what is actually reality now this is on the table

916
01:21:59,174 --> 01:22:05,774
And there is a date where people will start throwing away blocks that don't follow the rules.

917
01:22:05,934 --> 01:22:06,934
Like, that's reality now.

918
01:22:06,934 --> 01:22:11,114
And that's what I'm very curious about how that plays out.

919
01:22:11,574 --> 01:22:13,114
And we'll learn a lot from it.

920
01:22:13,754 --> 01:22:20,534
In the meantime, I think for the long-term sort of like security of the network,

921
01:22:20,714 --> 01:22:26,814
we think that having a third implementation is much more important along those lines

922
01:22:26,814 --> 01:22:32,054
is to make sure that the network stays decentralized,

923
01:22:32,054 --> 01:22:35,794
that a small group doesn't make decisions.

924
01:22:36,094 --> 01:22:38,974
However right they might be for that moment,

925
01:22:39,214 --> 01:22:44,354
it's one bad decision away if they're the ones controlling it.

926
01:22:44,414 --> 01:22:47,014
So that's the pitch that we have.

927
01:22:48,234 --> 01:22:49,954
It's not sexy, right?

928
01:22:49,974 --> 01:22:56,054
It's not saying, hey, we're going to make cross-input signature aggregation happen on our client

929
01:22:56,054 --> 01:22:59,614
and covenants with this and that,

930
01:23:00,634 --> 01:23:02,134
that's not what we're pitching.

931
01:23:02,254 --> 01:23:04,674
We're pitching, we want to be sound money.

932
01:23:05,234 --> 01:23:08,774
And if you want Bitcoin to stay sound money,

933
01:23:08,774 --> 01:23:12,734
we're going to work our hardest to make that happen,

934
01:23:13,014 --> 01:23:14,934
taking everything into account.

935
01:23:15,114 --> 01:23:17,794
The current network, who the miners are,

936
01:23:17,894 --> 01:23:20,314
who our audience is, who node runners are.

937
01:23:20,514 --> 01:23:22,894
And we think we have a way to get there.

938
01:23:22,894 --> 01:23:26,894
And if you agree, then please support us.

939
01:23:26,894 --> 01:23:28,894
Now it sounds fantastic.

940
01:23:28,894 --> 01:23:32,894
And I'm curious as like, what timeline do you see here?

941
01:23:32,894 --> 01:23:46,033
Like do you have a prediction for when you will be able to raise the money and when you will be able to find these developers and stuff Like any good guesses on how long this can take

942
01:23:46,033 --> 01:23:52,373
before this is up and running? I mean, there's optimistic timelines, there's pessimistic timelines,

943
01:23:52,373 --> 01:24:00,693
and it's all kind of dependent. And I feel like I'd be projecting sort of like my desire more so

944
01:24:00,693 --> 01:24:06,713
than actual objective analysis of what will happen.

945
01:24:07,353 --> 01:24:09,653
It's hard for me to say,

946
01:24:09,753 --> 01:24:12,713
but my hope would be that we can do something

947
01:24:12,713 --> 01:24:15,393
before the end of the year, that sort of thing.

948
01:24:16,473 --> 01:24:19,293
Well, we do have some developers that want to help out now.

949
01:24:19,553 --> 01:24:22,173
So maybe ahead of the fundraising,

950
01:24:22,653 --> 01:24:25,113
then we could still get working on a client.

951
01:24:25,213 --> 01:24:25,813
So we'll see.

952
01:24:26,013 --> 01:24:27,813
I mean, it's all up in the air,

953
01:24:27,813 --> 01:24:29,453
but in terms of fundraising,

954
01:24:29,453 --> 01:24:32,353
I think we're about to get started.

955
01:24:32,693 --> 01:24:39,113
We've had some donors come to us, but the goal is to raise a significant amount of capital,

956
01:24:39,373 --> 01:24:48,553
similar to all the other big funding groups too, so that we can have a runway for maintainers for the client that will last them years.

957
01:24:48,753 --> 01:24:50,253
Because you want that stability.

958
01:24:51,673 --> 01:24:54,313
And you got to think about their incentives too, right?

959
01:24:54,313 --> 01:24:59,013
Do they really want to join something that doesn't have that much runway?

960
01:24:59,453 --> 01:25:03,033
They want to join something that they know is going to last.

961
01:25:03,333 --> 01:25:08,173
And that's honestly how we want to build this organization with a very long-term focus.

962
01:25:09,613 --> 01:25:12,413
Yeah, and who are these potential investors?

963
01:25:12,613 --> 01:25:19,093
Who would be interested in supporting this thing, except for people who have a very large stash of Bitcoin somewhere?

964
01:25:19,293 --> 01:25:20,313
Who are you thinking of?

965
01:25:21,593 --> 01:25:24,373
Yeah, right now we have a lot of individual donors.

966
01:25:24,373 --> 01:25:27,393
Once we launched the site, a bunch of people were donating.

967
01:25:27,393 --> 01:25:32,833
I don't know, Jimmy, like $1,000 to a couple hundred dollars too.

968
01:25:32,833 --> 01:25:37,293
So we know there are people that support the initiative already, but we're hoping to find

969
01:25:37,293 --> 01:25:38,953
some larger donors too.

970
01:25:38,953 --> 01:25:48,673
Especially maybe the OGs that have money or that have had Bitcoin for a while.

971
01:25:48,673 --> 01:25:59,973
But yeah, the key thing is that that's what we're trying to preserve is Bitcoin as money and not any of the other.

972
01:26:00,093 --> 01:26:12,193
Not to say that the other two clients aren't doing the same thing, but just structurally speaking, the more of these that you have, the better it is for Bitcoin in that regard.

973
01:26:12,193 --> 01:26:21,093
yeah i'm curious what are your individual roles in this project like well do you have titles or

974
01:26:21,093 --> 01:26:28,073
something like what what do you guys do specifically in at production ready i think we're just all

975
01:26:28,073 --> 01:26:35,053
directors on the board of directors okay samson and parker are maybe a little bit more on the

976
01:26:35,053 --> 01:26:41,753
fundraising side. I'm more on the developer and education side. So, yes. Yeah. So that, that,

977
01:26:41,933 --> 01:26:47,133
and John, John is working a little more on the developer side as well. So that would be maybe

978
01:26:47,133 --> 01:26:53,013
the split that I would say very roughly speaking. But, you know, we're, we're still working all of

979
01:26:53,013 --> 01:27:00,953
that out and, and, you know, you know, we're, we're, you know, there, there's, there's room

980
01:27:00,953 --> 01:27:04,673
for some of that to get more defined and we're working on that.

981
01:27:05,413 --> 01:27:05,613
Yeah.

982
01:27:05,833 --> 01:27:06,833
There's a lot to do still.

983
01:27:06,993 --> 01:27:10,593
We probably will set up some committees for grants and other things.

984
01:27:11,033 --> 01:27:15,453
We're interested to find volunteers that want to help us run our social accounts,

985
01:27:16,153 --> 01:27:18,073
fundraising events.

986
01:27:18,273 --> 01:27:19,393
They can host those too.

987
01:27:19,513 --> 01:27:20,693
But a lot of people have reached out.

988
01:27:20,773 --> 01:27:23,453
So we just have to process some of this and we've been busy.

989
01:27:23,453 --> 01:27:25,013
I just got back from a trip.

990
01:27:25,213 --> 01:27:29,313
So everything is still in a state of flux, I would say.

991
01:27:29,553 --> 01:27:30,733
But there's opportunity.

992
01:27:30,733 --> 01:27:34,053
If you want to help out ProductionReady, just reach out and we'll see.

993
01:27:34,213 --> 01:27:37,393
But there have been some interesting people that reached out that are interested.

994
01:27:37,653 --> 01:27:43,053
Other funding groups have reached out and have expressed interest to co-fund developers with us.

995
01:27:43,353 --> 01:27:45,793
So that could be a way to jumpstart this as well.

996
01:27:47,553 --> 01:27:48,293
Yeah, it sounds great.

997
01:27:48,613 --> 01:27:58,413
I mean, I personally believe that the more diversity of ideas we have in Bitcoin, the better, as long as the main idea is Bitcoin is money.

998
01:27:58,413 --> 01:28:00,773
so if we can decentralize

999
01:28:00,773 --> 01:28:02,013
other aspects of it

1000
01:28:02,013 --> 01:28:03,493
it's absolutely great

1001
01:28:03,493 --> 01:28:06,133
so anything we haven't covered yet

1002
01:28:06,133 --> 01:28:07,833
like anywhere else you want to go

1003
01:28:07,833 --> 01:28:09,873
like around

1004
01:28:09,873 --> 01:28:11,673
production ready

1005
01:28:11,673 --> 01:28:14,173
or other things you want to talk about

1006
01:28:14,173 --> 01:28:16,413
before we start wrapping this thing up

1007
01:28:16,413 --> 01:28:17,793
good I'm jet lagged

1008
01:28:17,793 --> 01:28:20,033
where were you

1009
01:28:20,033 --> 01:28:22,753
I was in Japan and Taiwan

1010
01:28:22,753 --> 01:28:23,793
cool

1011
01:28:23,793 --> 01:28:25,453
talking to important people I guess

1012
01:28:25,453 --> 01:28:27,213
yeah of course

1013
01:28:28,413 --> 01:28:36,473
I guess maybe one thing I want to mention is that we want to develop developers, if that makes sense.

1014
01:28:36,473 --> 01:28:44,873
In parts of the world that maybe we haven't tapped very much for developers.

1015
01:28:45,613 --> 01:28:55,413
Because honestly, the current thing is almost exclusively around New York, San Francisco, and London.

1016
01:28:55,413 --> 01:29:04,473
We want a little more input from people that are using it maybe in places that aren't in the first world.

1017
01:29:04,793 --> 01:29:07,693
So, yeah, we want more diversity.

1018
01:29:08,713 --> 01:29:09,233
Yeah, exactly.

1019
01:29:10,013 --> 01:29:14,193
I was thinking of that word all the time.

1020
01:29:14,613 --> 01:29:19,673
Diversity is good, but in a different way, I would say.

1021
01:29:19,673 --> 01:29:25,673
But yeah, and training developers is something that's been on my mind for a long time.

1022
01:29:26,053 --> 01:29:33,153
And it's certainly coming into like this, something that I'm working very hard on with

1023
01:29:33,153 --> 01:29:33,953
this organization.

1024
01:29:33,953 --> 01:29:36,193
And hopefully we can solve it.

1025
01:29:37,133 --> 01:29:42,453
Yeah, diversity is one of those words that have been hijacked just as equality.

1026
01:29:42,653 --> 01:29:47,633
Like equality used to mean equality in front of the law and diversity used to mean diverse

1027
01:29:47,633 --> 01:29:48,233
ideas.

1028
01:29:48,233 --> 01:29:50,233
and that's what it's supposed to mean.

1029
01:29:50,733 --> 01:29:56,093
So yeah, hopefully the word development

1030
01:29:56,093 --> 01:29:58,413
does not get hijacked by shitcoiners

1031
01:29:58,413 --> 01:30:01,733
and we'll see the third implementation soon.

1032
01:30:02,413 --> 01:30:04,713
So where do you want to send people?

1033
01:30:04,973 --> 01:30:08,673
Like the website, I guess, is productionready.org?

1034
01:30:09,133 --> 01:30:09,313
Yes.

1035
01:30:09,553 --> 01:30:09,713
Yeah.

1036
01:30:11,153 --> 01:30:15,173
There's a contact form there if you want to contact us

1037
01:30:15,173 --> 01:30:17,593
and we promise we'll respond.

1038
01:30:18,233 --> 01:30:21,293
as long as it's not like spam or something.

1039
01:30:22,013 --> 01:30:24,713
Yeah, so that would be the main way.

1040
01:30:26,413 --> 01:30:31,013
Yeah, we're still looking for devs.

1041
01:30:31,733 --> 01:30:36,673
You don't necessarily have to have like 10 years of core experience

1042
01:30:36,673 --> 01:30:37,513
or anything like that.

1043
01:30:37,573 --> 01:30:39,473
If you're familiar with Bitcoin and you can code,

1044
01:30:39,593 --> 01:30:45,173
we can work on getting you to a place where you can contribute and so on.

1045
01:30:45,173 --> 01:30:51,033
And so, yeah, obviously, we'd be very appreciative of donors.

1046
01:30:51,493 --> 01:30:54,713
And yeah, hopefully that's enough.

1047
01:30:55,573 --> 01:30:56,453
Yeah, we're on X too.

1048
01:30:57,193 --> 01:30:58,813
X handle is at production ready.

1049
01:30:59,173 --> 01:31:00,273
And I think we're on LinkedIn.

1050
01:31:00,273 --> 01:31:03,433
And I think John Ratcliffe is setting up a threads.

1051
01:31:03,873 --> 01:31:04,833
We're on Noster.

1052
01:31:05,053 --> 01:31:06,673
And we're on Noster, yeah.

1053
01:31:07,993 --> 01:31:11,113
Yeah, but I think we're not that active because we need to hire someone first.

1054
01:31:11,293 --> 01:31:13,293
But first comes the fundraising.

1055
01:31:13,293 --> 01:31:15,473
unless someone wants to volunteer at the start.

1056
01:31:15,733 --> 01:31:19,293
Yeah, like if you're also doing some educational initiatives,

1057
01:31:19,293 --> 01:31:21,773
then, you know, you can bring Jimmy out

1058
01:31:21,773 --> 01:31:24,673
and we can have some developer boot camps

1059
01:31:24,673 --> 01:31:25,613
or things like that too.

1060
01:31:25,793 --> 01:31:27,453
So there's a number of things that we're open

1061
01:31:27,453 --> 01:31:29,453
to working with people on a number of fronts,

1062
01:31:29,493 --> 01:31:31,233
but it's all in service of Bitcoin

1063
01:31:31,233 --> 01:31:32,853
and making Bitcoin more resilient.

1064
01:31:34,193 --> 01:31:38,273
Yeah, conservative is the key word used here, right?

1065
01:31:38,573 --> 01:31:41,193
In terms of Bitcoin not changing too much.

1066
01:31:41,753 --> 01:31:43,253
Well, it's funny because when we were,

1067
01:31:43,293 --> 01:31:47,473
preparing the press release, we're debating about using the word conservative too,

1068
01:31:47,633 --> 01:31:52,613
because we're thinking people will call us like the mega of Bitcoin clients or something like that.

1069
01:31:55,193 --> 01:31:56,193
What would that be?

1070
01:31:56,193 --> 01:32:01,613
Obviously, it's not political. It's about preserving Bitcoin's voluntary properties.

1071
01:32:02,353 --> 01:32:03,593
Make Bitcoin great again.

1072
01:32:04,313 --> 01:32:04,513
Yeah.

1073
01:32:06,093 --> 01:32:08,233
Mb-g-a? Is that the hat?

1074
01:32:08,973 --> 01:32:09,853
Mb-g-a, yeah.

1075
01:32:09,853 --> 01:32:14,513
No, but good luck with this project.

1076
01:32:14,653 --> 01:32:17,033
Of course, it sounds super interesting.

1077
01:32:17,873 --> 01:32:21,733
I'd like to explore if there's any way I could help.

1078
01:32:21,833 --> 01:32:24,033
I always love projects like this.

1079
01:32:24,253 --> 01:32:27,813
I think it's a very good initiative, and I wish you the best of luck with it.

1080
01:32:28,213 --> 01:32:31,373
And we'll see when we see each other in the world next time.

1081
01:32:31,373 --> 01:32:35,893
I hear you won't be doing as much conferencing as usual.

1082
01:32:35,893 --> 01:32:39,913
So we'll see where the next encounter is.

1083
01:32:40,473 --> 01:32:42,733
But always great talking to you guys.

1084
01:32:42,973 --> 01:32:45,313
And I wish you the best of luck with all of this.

1085
01:32:45,573 --> 01:32:46,733
So thank you very much.

1086
01:32:47,093 --> 01:32:47,813
Yeah, thanks, Knut.

1087
01:32:48,593 --> 01:32:49,033
Thanks.

1088
01:32:50,093 --> 01:32:51,973
This has been the Bitcoin Infinity Show.

1089
01:32:52,713 --> 01:32:56,213
Brush your teeth and install new clients or something.

1090
01:32:57,133 --> 01:32:57,573
Bye-bye.