Bitcoin Core's Governance Problem | Secure Sovereign | Bitcoin Infinity Show #207

1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:04,740
Josh, welcome to the Bitcoin Infinity Show. Nice to have you here.

2
00:00:05,420 --> 00:00:07,140
Thank you for having me. Glad to be here.

3
00:00:08,120 --> 00:00:13,680
Yeah, you have a fascinating story to tell. I think most of my listeners don't know who you are.

4
00:00:13,880 --> 00:00:20,320
So I'd urge you to give them a TLDR on who you are and why you're in Bitcoin.

5
00:00:21,000 --> 00:00:27,580
Sure. So primarily, I'm a software developer, IT specialist. I've been holding Bitcoin since 2010.

6
00:00:27,580 --> 00:00:34,200
I basically forgot about it for about 13 years life fell apart and then long story short I

7
00:00:34,200 --> 00:00:39,720
recovered it and it was a life-changing amount it was basically when I needed it most at the bottom

8
00:00:39,720 --> 00:00:45,660
and so it saved me and that's how I look at it so I've dedicated my life to Bitcoin and then I

9
00:00:45,660 --> 00:00:50,260
kind of had to go back through the record started going through the history of Bitcoin and I was a

10
00:00:50,260 --> 00:00:51,960
little troubled with what I found.

11
00:00:54,300 --> 00:00:56,920
Okay, so, but what's your profession?

12
00:00:56,920 --> 00:00:59,080
You're a developer, right?

13
00:00:59,080 --> 00:01:02,200
Yeah, so I've spent most of my life doing software development,

14
00:01:02,200 --> 00:01:06,200
been coding for over 20 years in IT and around IT,

15
00:01:06,200 --> 00:01:08,860
mostly open source technology, full stack web dev.

16
00:01:08,860 --> 00:01:11,960
I'm familiar with managing distributed systems

17
00:01:11,960 --> 00:01:13,320
and open source technology.

18
00:01:13,320 --> 00:01:17,340
So I'm not like the greatest mathematician or cryptographer,

19
00:01:17,340 --> 00:01:19,500
but I've built plenty of complex applications.

20
00:01:20,260 --> 00:01:41,860
Yeah, that's a nice precursor. Like the second part of that sentence sort of nullifies the first part of it because you sort of have to be at least familiar with mathematics and cryptography and doing these things. Anyway, and you have some idea, like let's start with Secure Sovereign. What is that name and how did you pick them?

21
00:01:41,860 --> 00:02:11,840
Yeah. So basically when I recovered my Bitcoin, I went kind of stir crazy for a little while, you know, changed my life completely. And so for about a year there, I was just spewing pro Bitcoin propaganda from the rooftops all day, every day, because it had totally changed my life. And I just wanted everybody to know. So yeah, so that was, I was, it was a different time than now. I'm a little bit more refined, a little bit more critical. But when I first started that handle, it was literally just, you know, trying to promote Bitcoin, try to tell people what they were doing.

22
00:02:11,860 --> 00:02:14,700
about how it changed my life and how it could change theirs too.

23
00:02:16,660 --> 00:02:21,600
Yeah, and what do you do now?

24
00:02:21,800 --> 00:02:23,140
Like, what are you working on?

25
00:02:24,060 --> 00:02:29,480
So in late 25, I started doing a governance analysis on Bitcoin Core.

26
00:02:30,220 --> 00:02:33,460
I saw an old Princeton speech by Gavin Andreessen

27
00:02:33,460 --> 00:02:35,800
where he talked about how there are two kinds of governance.

28
00:02:36,040 --> 00:02:38,060
There was the technical consensus layer,

29
00:02:38,140 --> 00:02:39,440
then there was the social consensus.

30
00:02:39,440 --> 00:02:44,900
and by my estimation, one had been solved and the other one hadn't.

31
00:02:45,200 --> 00:02:49,680
So I kind of dove into that governance problem and then through that governance lens,

32
00:02:50,580 --> 00:02:55,940
I basically came to the conclusion that the easiest way to solve this would be with an alternative implementation

33
00:02:55,940 --> 00:03:03,340
and have two innovations, the alternative implementation and the commons governance system to manage it.

34
00:03:03,480 --> 00:03:06,540
And those kind of work in tandem. We can get into that later.

35
00:03:06,540 --> 00:03:13,820
yeah absolutely there's a lot of talk about different implementations these days i mean uh

36
00:03:13,820 --> 00:03:20,260
the the longest running one i know of is lib bitcoin eric voskiel's thing there but that

37
00:03:20,260 --> 00:03:26,080
doesn't have very wide adoption i think and then there's of course the the project that jimmy and

38
00:03:26,080 --> 00:03:31,320
samson were talking about a couple of weeks back when i interviewed them knots is the biggest one

39
00:03:31,320 --> 00:03:38,020
I guess if you can call that a different implementation is basically very similar to core, except for a couple of parameters.

40
00:03:38,280 --> 00:03:41,740
But what's your view on all of these and why do we need yet another one?

41
00:03:43,080 --> 00:03:44,500
So sure, a great question.

42
00:03:44,760 --> 00:03:46,200
I looked at alternative implementations.

43
00:03:46,300 --> 00:03:47,880
I really didn't want to have to write one.

44
00:03:48,120 --> 00:03:50,120
So that was kind of the first step.

45
00:03:50,220 --> 00:03:55,480
And then I, for one reason or the other, none of the ones that I saw really fit the bill.

46
00:03:55,900 --> 00:03:57,520
LitBitcoin, Eric's work is great.

47
00:03:57,700 --> 00:03:59,960
I commend him for sticking to it for so long.

48
00:03:59,960 --> 00:04:03,660
I think there's some technical reasons why that couldn't work out.

49
00:04:03,760 --> 00:04:06,920
I don't want to rag on his work too much because he's doing great work.

50
00:04:07,520 --> 00:04:12,260
I think from my perspective, the real question is, you know, does it need to be a fork of core?

51
00:04:12,560 --> 00:04:14,620
You know, NOTS is primarily a fork of core.

52
00:04:14,740 --> 00:04:18,220
Like you mentioned, you know, it changes some parameters, but it's mostly core code.

53
00:04:18,380 --> 00:04:25,320
And then, you know, I guess the question is like, what is Bitcoin, right?

54
00:04:25,320 --> 00:04:33,340
And the specification for Bitcoin, or rather how you define the protocol, is essentially the code base, the core code base.

55
00:04:33,460 --> 00:04:35,400
So there is no specification, really.

56
00:04:35,500 --> 00:04:36,800
The code is the specification.

57
00:04:37,340 --> 00:04:42,980
And as a result, you have to follow core's code very closely or you risk breaking consensus.

58
00:04:43,340 --> 00:04:45,720
And this is kind of the first problem that I tried to address.

59
00:04:45,940 --> 00:04:54,980
And so as far as I know, there have been some attempts, but nobody has come up with a full independent specification of consensus up to this point.

60
00:04:54,980 --> 00:05:02,700
aside from us yeah that's i mean uh bitcoin is not bitcoin core and and they can't do what

61
00:05:02,700 --> 00:05:12,500
just whatever they want as as knots and and now bip 110 clearly has proven that uh a a non-neglectable

62
00:05:12,500 --> 00:05:20,900
part of the network can can dislike things core do enough to to try to break out so to speak

63
00:05:20,900 --> 00:05:26,460
So I guess the white paper is also something that is sort of referred to.

64
00:05:26,720 --> 00:05:30,240
I mean, you can do that without being called a BSV-er.

65
00:05:32,580 --> 00:05:41,360
And parts of what people view Bitcoin as being, like people choosing what node software to run,

66
00:05:41,360 --> 00:05:56,100
I think they all want Bitcoin to be primarily be money and be an electronic, peer-to-peer electronic cash system, as the white paper says, and cash in the sense of being final settlement.

67
00:05:56,340 --> 00:06:01,460
I think that's super important to most Bitcoiners, too, or most Bitcoiners I know, anyway.

68
00:06:01,820 --> 00:06:09,880
Well, and I'll add to that, like, I think there's a failure of understanding a lot of people have when they think of the word consensus, right?

69
00:06:09,880 --> 00:06:19,400
So when I was writing, building out this implementation, anytime I came to a bug with consensus, I treated it as it was a bug in my software that I needed to fix.

70
00:06:19,680 --> 00:06:23,560
Because consensus, by definition, is not something that I get to change.

71
00:06:24,040 --> 00:06:26,280
Because if I could, then it wouldn't be consensus.

72
00:06:26,800 --> 00:06:28,260
You know, it's either orange or it's not.

73
00:06:28,320 --> 00:06:30,180
It's either Bitcoin or it's not.

74
00:06:30,320 --> 00:06:36,120
And the goal with this project is to keep it orange and actually define what that means.

75
00:06:36,120 --> 00:06:42,620
Yeah, and how do you plan on getting people to go along with this?

76
00:06:42,620 --> 00:06:47,500
Like, what's the main strategy for adoption of this attitude?

77
00:06:47,500 --> 00:06:48,500
Sure.

78
00:06:48,500 --> 00:06:51,040
So there are a lot of reasons why.

79
00:06:51,040 --> 00:06:59,240
I think that recently you've seen a lot of controversy in the community, and that goes

80
00:06:59,240 --> 00:07:01,980
back all the way to the Bloxize Wars.

81
00:07:01,980 --> 00:07:04,320
It's basically one controversy after the other.

82
00:07:04,320 --> 00:07:09,920
And the argument I would make, the contention that I have, is that the social consensus layer

83
00:07:09,920 --> 00:07:15,160
and all the drama that we see is actually downstream from the monolithic code base.

84
00:07:15,160 --> 00:07:18,160
And you can't really separate one thing from the other.

85
00:07:18,160 --> 00:07:27,020
So in my view, essentially what we have in store for us is an inevitable series of escalating

86
00:07:27,020 --> 00:07:33,920
civil wars in Bitcoin because of this single monolithic implementation that basically everybody

87
00:07:33,920 --> 00:07:39,980
has to run because there is no definition of what Bitcoin is aside from those 300 or

88
00:07:39,980 --> 00:07:42,520
so thousand lines of code of Bitcoin core.

89
00:07:44,400 --> 00:07:50,820
Well, my instinct question here is why is that necessarily a bad thing?

90
00:07:50,920 --> 00:07:56,400
Because one thing that happens after one of these civil wars have played out is that we

91
00:07:56,400 --> 00:07:57,560
weed out the bad guys.

92
00:07:57,700 --> 00:07:58,840
That's how I see it.

93
00:07:58,840 --> 00:08:14,420
To me, I got my belief that Bitcoin could actually function the way and deliver on its promises, especially the nodes are in charge and therefore we cannot change the 21 million cap ever and so on and so forth.

94
00:08:14,420 --> 00:08:21,420
The outcome of the block size wars was sort of a proof of that, if you will, or a proof that we could win the battle.

95
00:08:21,660 --> 00:08:30,320
It wasn't proof that we could win the longstanding war against the forever flow of shitcoiners wanting to change Bitcoin.

96
00:08:30,520 --> 00:08:40,020
But at least we won the battle and did the opposite of what most of the money in Bitcoin wanted, what most of the fiat money, most of the big companies wanted.

97
00:08:40,020 --> 00:08:44,540
So in a way, I think the process is weeding out bad people.

98
00:08:44,820 --> 00:08:49,480
And I think I view BIP 110 and not as an attempt at doing that too.

99
00:08:49,740 --> 00:08:52,940
I mean, you can have different definitions of who's bad and who's good.

100
00:08:53,640 --> 00:08:58,500
But defending Bitcoin as money, I think, is like most Bitcoiners have that core belief.

101
00:08:58,600 --> 00:09:01,600
Then we have a slightly different definition of what that means.

102
00:09:01,860 --> 00:09:07,340
Does money necessarily have to include miniscripts and time locks and multisigs and stuff?

103
00:09:07,460 --> 00:09:08,540
Or is money just money?

104
00:09:08,540 --> 00:09:11,680
And I think there's where most opinions go apart.

105
00:09:11,920 --> 00:09:12,440
What are your thoughts?

106
00:09:12,700 --> 00:09:14,700
Yeah, that's a great, I can follow up with that.

107
00:09:14,900 --> 00:09:19,080
So I would say that the first thing is we really need to define our terms, what we're

108
00:09:19,080 --> 00:09:19,720
talking about.

109
00:09:19,820 --> 00:09:24,880
Without a specification of what constitutes consensus, what is the money part of Bitcoin

110
00:09:24,880 --> 00:09:31,760
over time, then your implementation, which is a bunch of spaghetti code entwined with

111
00:09:31,760 --> 00:09:34,680
that specification that doesn't really exist.

112
00:09:34,720 --> 00:09:37,020
It's kind of encoded in the Bitcoin.

113
00:09:37,020 --> 00:09:58,880
then without that you have a drift you could potentially have a drift where the values of the maintainers the developers in the community they shift away from the values that are currently encoded in Bitcoin then those then the thing is about values is is that they are actually represented in the code base as engineering constraints.

114
00:09:58,880 --> 00:10:23,040
So a lot of people don't make that, you know, that leap. They don't understand that, you know, the cypherpunk ethos is actually encoded in the code via constraint. And so we need to define what all those constraints are so we don't drift out of those constraints accidentally, which has happened multiple times in Bitcoin's history with the core developers having an inflation, you know, introducing an inflation bug.

115
00:10:23,040 --> 00:10:40,480
There's the wallet deletion bug recently. There was this remote code execution exploit. And I'm not saying they are malicious or bad or they did it deliberately, but without a spec, without a very clear idea of what the constraints are, it's easier to kind of drift away from what the money part of it should be. Does that make sense?

116
00:10:40,480 --> 00:10:46,180
yes it makes a lot of sense just so i get you right here like would you would you call the

117
00:10:46,180 --> 00:10:52,720
exploit of taproot maybe taproot is such a drift that we taproot was implemented too early it would

118
00:10:52,720 --> 00:10:57,800
have been better if we had like cooled down a little first and and thought more about the

119
00:10:57,800 --> 00:11:05,160
implications sure yeah i get i buy that i'm not actually i guess the key distinction for me is i'm

120
00:11:05,160 --> 00:11:11,240
not going to make a lot of prescriptions about what consensus should be, okay? However, with this

121
00:11:11,240 --> 00:11:17,260
project, the goal is to reduce the barriers of entry to forking and provide maximum optionality.

122
00:11:17,820 --> 00:11:24,340
So if you want to build your own, where you remove Taproot or you change some options,

123
00:11:24,580 --> 00:11:30,640
that's a lot easier for you than it currently is. And if you want to have way more options to

124
00:11:30,640 --> 00:11:36,180
configure your node to run your node how you want rather than what the defaults are what bitcoin core

125
00:11:36,180 --> 00:11:41,860
necessarily says then that is more accessible to you obviously we all have to agree about consensus

126
00:11:41,860 --> 00:11:49,340
right itself and then that's a kind of a separate question about the specification and then like is

127
00:11:49,340 --> 00:11:57,040
there's this tension between uh things that are in kind of in policy but enforced through defaults

128
00:11:57,040 --> 00:11:58,180
And then what is consensus?

129
00:11:58,840 --> 00:12:03,880
And I think maybe over time, you'll see, you know, some shift one way or the other.

130
00:12:04,000 --> 00:12:11,740
Some stuff that isn't in policy will probably become consensus just to simply preserve the Bitcoin as money aspect of it.

131
00:12:11,880 --> 00:12:14,020
And so I can definitely see that shift over time.

132
00:12:14,020 --> 00:12:21,440
But the issue I think I have is the project, from my perspective, because it's a monolithic code base, is largely paralyzed.

133
00:12:21,440 --> 00:12:30,380
And because of the spaghetti code, basically no one wants to risk their reputation on potentially breaking things because it's such a it's basically a mess.

134
00:12:30,380 --> 00:12:45,580
So the kind of the call of the day is to do nothing. And it has basically been that way for forever. And I argue, again, because there is no specification, because we're not actually able to reason about where the consensus boundaries are versus where the policy boundaries are.

135
00:12:45,580 --> 00:12:47,640
and then kind of have a very,

136
00:12:47,980 --> 00:12:49,780
instead of having a political discussion

137
00:12:49,780 --> 00:12:52,240
where we're, you know, throwing around adjectives

138
00:12:52,240 --> 00:12:53,520
and calling each other mean names,

139
00:12:53,700 --> 00:12:56,460
we can instead have an engineering discussion

140
00:12:56,460 --> 00:12:59,160
and then people can just run whatever node that they want

141
00:12:59,160 --> 00:13:00,740
with whatever options they want.

142
00:13:00,820 --> 00:13:01,960
So does that make sense?

143
00:13:02,020 --> 00:13:03,820
Like, I'm not trying to tell you how to run your node,

144
00:13:04,160 --> 00:13:05,780
which that's not why I'm here.

145
00:13:07,480 --> 00:13:09,780
Yeah, it makes sense from a certain perspective.

146
00:13:10,060 --> 00:13:11,800
However, like you say fork,

147
00:13:11,800 --> 00:13:18,140
I think you mean forking or modding node software rather than forking Bitcoin, right?

148
00:13:18,280 --> 00:13:18,740
You don't want...

149
00:13:18,740 --> 00:13:20,740
Yeah, so there's a...

150
00:13:20,740 --> 00:13:22,600
Yeah, the language is a little ambiguous there.

151
00:13:23,420 --> 00:13:24,800
Yeah, so I prefer...

152
00:13:25,480 --> 00:13:29,560
Would it be correct to call it modding Bitcoin rather than forking it?

153
00:13:29,740 --> 00:13:31,080
Yeah, that's good.

154
00:13:31,820 --> 00:13:32,000
Sure.

155
00:13:32,200 --> 00:13:33,800
So, and this whole...

156
00:13:34,380 --> 00:13:38,160
I mean, there is a danger to this line of thought, I think,

157
00:13:38,160 --> 00:13:42,200
because the spaghetti code you're talking about

158
00:13:42,200 --> 00:13:45,260
and it not changing is part of the reason

159
00:13:45,260 --> 00:13:59,388
why Bitcoin could save you when your life was going to shit right 100 So it a feature as much as it is a bug if even not more The fact that Bitcoin is hard to change is one of the things that I love the most about it

160
00:13:59,628 --> 00:14:02,068
I think that's what makes it good money.

161
00:14:02,448 --> 00:14:03,048
I totally agree.

162
00:14:03,148 --> 00:14:04,188
I totally agree with you.

163
00:14:04,428 --> 00:14:11,168
And I think that there was that Quark's lab audit and they found that the consensus code was about 30,000 lines of code.

164
00:14:11,748 --> 00:14:15,828
And the code base itself is about 350, 300 to 400 maybe.

165
00:14:15,828 --> 00:14:27,288
So the argument I would make to that is let's, yes, absolutely 100% ossify lockdown the consensus code and actually lock that to a specification.

166
00:14:27,868 --> 00:14:30,508
So we have math checking the code and vice versa.

167
00:14:30,508 --> 00:14:36,768
And if those things fall out of line, then, you know, alarm bells go off and it's immediately obvious that that's happened.

168
00:14:36,768 --> 00:14:45,368
And then for the remaining 80% of the code, which is networking code and storage code and database code, you know, there's a lot of room for improvement there.

169
00:14:45,368 --> 00:14:51,848
And I think a lot of people, not necessarily yourself, but a lot of people conflate ossification between those two things.

170
00:14:52,168 --> 00:14:54,608
Ossifying consensus and protocol, good.

171
00:14:55,008 --> 00:15:00,388
Ossifying everything else that isn't those things, that just is accumulating technical debt over a long period of time.

172
00:15:01,148 --> 00:15:03,928
And I don't think that's, you know, at the end of the day, it's just software.

173
00:15:04,328 --> 00:15:11,248
And I think, you know, we don't want Bitcoin to become this sort of ancient brittle thing that nobody wants to touch over a long period of time.

174
00:15:11,308 --> 00:15:14,568
Maybe the protocol, sure, but everything else, not.

175
00:15:14,568 --> 00:15:15,868
Does that follow?

176
00:15:16,828 --> 00:15:18,308
Yeah, I think I follow you.

177
00:15:18,408 --> 00:15:23,568
And I think we're more on the same page than it might sound like here, because my job is

178
00:15:23,568 --> 00:15:26,648
to ask tough questions, at least part of my job.

179
00:15:26,888 --> 00:15:29,068
Yeah, just being an idiot is the rest of it.

180
00:15:29,268 --> 00:15:35,488
But anyway, let me give you my views on ossification and see if we can find a point of agreement

181
00:15:35,488 --> 00:15:35,788
there.

182
00:15:35,888 --> 00:15:38,888
So I don't believe Bitcoin can ossify.

183
00:15:39,068 --> 00:15:42,948
I think that the term is wrong because behind every node is a person.

184
00:15:42,948 --> 00:15:47,968
This is, it's all dependent on people making deliberate choices.

185
00:15:48,148 --> 00:15:52,508
A node is a person, a miner is a person, everything in Bitcoin is a person.

186
00:15:52,928 --> 00:15:56,608
The mathematics and everything are like, they come after that.

187
00:15:57,308 --> 00:16:03,968
The very base layer is the people running the software and buying the hardware and paying the electricity bills.

188
00:16:04,488 --> 00:16:04,708
Layer zero.

189
00:16:05,448 --> 00:16:07,088
Yeah, exactly. Layer zero.

190
00:16:07,088 --> 00:16:16,888
So, but if we're talking of, if we're using the word ossification for simplicity's sake, like what would we want to stay the same forever in Bitcoin?

191
00:16:17,448 --> 00:16:25,868
And the only thing I'd really like to stay the same forever in Bitcoin is the notion that Bitcoin is money.

192
00:16:25,868 --> 00:16:36,748
So, and that every single developer, whenever they make the smallest change to anything in it, should always ask themselves, does this make Bitcoin better money?

193
00:16:37,088 --> 00:16:39,108
before they even propose a change.

194
00:16:39,528 --> 00:16:41,568
So that's the thing I want to ossify.

195
00:16:41,728 --> 00:16:44,348
I want to ossify the notion of Bitcoin is money,

196
00:16:44,508 --> 00:16:46,508
like that sentence, Bitcoin is money.

197
00:16:46,668 --> 00:16:49,188
Like that's the thing I want to see ossified

198
00:16:49,188 --> 00:16:50,488
or see live forever.

199
00:16:50,628 --> 00:16:51,928
Not necessarily the code,

200
00:16:51,988 --> 00:16:54,988
because code needs to adapt to the world around it.

201
00:16:54,988 --> 00:16:56,268
So that has to be.

202
00:16:56,708 --> 00:17:02,028
Then of course, I want the 20% consensus rules code

203
00:17:02,028 --> 00:17:04,288
that you talk about to be way harder to change

204
00:17:04,288 --> 00:17:05,448
than the other 80%.

205
00:17:05,448 --> 00:17:06,568
I'm totally with you.

206
00:17:06,568 --> 00:17:30,308
100%. Yeah, yes, yes. That's exactly right. So yeah, ossification is kind of a tricky thing. I guess the problem is, is that when it's all spaghetti code and it's all entangled and you can't really figure out what's consensus or consensus adjacent and what's everything else, then the impetus for most developers is to just do nothing because they don't want to be the guy who broke Bitcoin. And who would, right?

207
00:17:30,308 --> 00:17:57,868
So that's kind of that's the first question we asked was, what is consensus? And then I spoke recently on Cedric's podcast about how we basically define the consensus. We did the alternative implementation. And then what we did is differential testing against the entire blockchain to make sure that our implementation and our specification matched Bitcoin Core's behavior one for one, feature for feature, bug for bug.

208
00:17:57,868 --> 00:18:05,148
And then anytime there was a divergence, we treated it, like I mentioned earlier, as a bug in our implementation, not as a bug in core.

209
00:18:05,788 --> 00:18:18,348
So essentially through that process, we created a feedback loop, amended our specification and our implementation over time to get more and more into consensus until we eliminated any divergences.

210
00:18:18,608 --> 00:18:24,688
And I think we're the first so far to test, do a differential against the entire chain.

211
00:18:24,688 --> 00:18:31,408
So as far as I know, other attempts have been samples of small bits of the chain in particular areas.

212
00:18:33,468 --> 00:18:38,688
All right. And when you say we, who's in the group and how big is the group and like who's behind this?

213
00:18:38,788 --> 00:18:43,268
I think many, I mean, you're obviously behind it, but are there others that people should know of?

214
00:18:45,108 --> 00:18:45,808
Sure. Yeah.

215
00:18:46,348 --> 00:18:48,708
Yeah. So right now I'm the tech lead.

216
00:18:48,708 --> 00:18:50,808
I'm doing like 90% of the work.

217
00:18:50,908 --> 00:18:55,408
I've dedicated the last almost nine months full time to pumping this thing out.

218
00:18:55,568 --> 00:18:59,668
And I'm currently working with a guy, Gil Roberts, who has a long background.

219
00:19:00,128 --> 00:19:02,648
And he's also dedicated himself to Bitcoin.

220
00:19:02,788 --> 00:19:03,688
I met him recently.

221
00:19:04,208 --> 00:19:05,488
And we're building a team out.

222
00:19:06,228 --> 00:19:08,708
Most of the people I talk to are really excited about the project.

223
00:19:09,108 --> 00:19:10,528
They see a lot of potential in it.

224
00:19:10,568 --> 00:19:12,508
We have volunteers popping up out of the woodwork.

225
00:19:12,548 --> 00:19:14,128
And I'm very thankful for that.

226
00:19:14,308 --> 00:19:16,228
And the team is growing very rapidly.

227
00:19:16,228 --> 00:19:27,468
We're talking with John Attack and Eric Lombroso and various people throughout the community to get as much feedback as we can and just creating an open forum for what are very hard issues.

228
00:19:27,468 --> 00:19:36,768
And, you know, I have to be thankful to CORE. You know, this is in a way a continuation of their work. It's not replacing anything that they did, even though it's not a CORE fork.

229
00:19:36,768 --> 00:19:46,188
And, you know, I'm trying to be respectful to them, even though I'm pointing out, you know, potential conflicts of interest and skewed incentives and things like that.

230
00:19:46,328 --> 00:19:48,368
All in all, I don't think these are bad people.

231
00:19:48,768 --> 00:19:54,448
And, you know, alternative implementations will strengthen Bitcoin for everybody if done properly.

232
00:19:54,448 --> 00:20:03,668
And even if it doesn't reach wide adoption, just having the specification, having all these testing suites and stuff to test against is going to help everyone.

233
00:20:03,668 --> 00:20:12,968
yeah i i fully believe that i mean we want decentralization in all the aspects of it that

234
00:20:12,968 --> 00:20:17,948
can be decentralized basically i mean decentralization is one of those words that gets

235
00:20:17,948 --> 00:20:24,768
thrown around a lot and in in because i view it mainly in bitcoin as an unfortunate means to a

236
00:20:24,768 --> 00:20:29,828
greater end and it's unfortunate because it would be better if we could just trust people

237
00:20:29,828 --> 00:20:32,268
to not print money, but only in that sense.

238
00:20:32,588 --> 00:20:35,748
So because of that, we need to verify everything

239
00:20:35,748 --> 00:20:37,528
in a decentralized way.

240
00:20:38,908 --> 00:20:42,228
Yeah, any other thoughts on decentralization?

241
00:20:42,488 --> 00:20:47,128
I mean, miners are quite centralized at the moment.

242
00:20:47,368 --> 00:20:49,248
How do you see us fixing that problem

243
00:20:49,248 --> 00:20:50,508
if you see it as a problem?

244
00:20:50,508 --> 00:20:53,448
Yeah, I think we want to decentralize

245
00:20:53,448 --> 00:20:54,328
as much as possible.

246
00:20:54,648 --> 00:20:56,828
That's why we called our implementation commons.

247
00:20:57,008 --> 00:20:58,708
Basically, a commons is a shared resource

248
00:20:58,708 --> 00:21:00,848
that everybody benefits from, but nobody owns.

249
00:21:01,048 --> 00:21:03,228
And they have ways that they can be stable,

250
00:21:03,368 --> 00:21:04,788
and they have ways that they can collapse,

251
00:21:04,828 --> 00:21:07,828
and we're trying to build something that will be stable

252
00:21:07,828 --> 00:21:11,388
over a long period of time without creating a leadership structure,

253
00:21:11,608 --> 00:21:14,128
without creating a top-down hierarchy,

254
00:21:14,628 --> 00:21:15,728
something that's like flat.

255
00:21:15,728 --> 00:21:18,728
It's a flat hierarchy that, you know,

256
00:21:18,808 --> 00:21:22,208
I think there's research that shows that people are generally happier

257
00:21:22,208 --> 00:21:25,108
in horizontal or flat hierarchies.

258
00:21:25,268 --> 00:21:26,988
They're more productive, they're more free,

259
00:21:26,988 --> 00:21:29,848
And I think it will lead to better outcomes.

260
00:21:30,068 --> 00:21:34,188
Bitcoin Core has a very high attrition rate, about 90% right now.

261
00:21:34,268 --> 00:21:38,368
So most of the people who come to make contributions, they leave and never come back.

262
00:21:38,708 --> 00:21:46,188
To answer your question about mining centralization, that mining isn't really something I've looked into a whole bunch.

263
00:21:46,448 --> 00:21:54,928
I do think that it's a very serious concern, in particular the chip manufactories, the rare earth minerals, the supply chain.

264
00:21:54,928 --> 00:21:57,688
And there's a lot of things that go into building those rigs.

265
00:21:57,688 --> 00:22:02,528
And, you know, there's multiple potential vectors of attack there.

266
00:22:02,528 --> 00:22:07,988
And they're probably very smart people, smarter than me, looking at that particular problem.

267
00:22:08,208 --> 00:22:12,868
I'm mostly a software developer, so I'm looking at, like, the node side rather than the hardware side.

268
00:22:12,988 --> 00:22:14,548
But I definitely see that as a risk.

269
00:22:14,628 --> 00:22:24,188
I hope that a better node that, you know, manages to lock down consensus and does networking better and storage better and does all these other things better,

270
00:22:24,188 --> 00:22:32,028
then that might be able to help the margins of more decentralized mining operations to help them

271
00:22:32,028 --> 00:22:37,988
compete against the other larger operations you know that that's kind of experimental remains to

272
00:22:37,988 --> 00:22:46,608
be seen so i don't want to speak too much on that yet no i i i i think so too and i mean everything

273
00:22:46,608 --> 00:22:52,328
works better in an environment where mining is more decentralized for instance the filters on

274
00:22:52,328 --> 00:22:57,888
your node will work better if mining is more decentralized. It will take longer for someone

275
00:22:57,888 --> 00:23:06,268
running Libre Relay or something to get spam into a block if we had more different miners and fewer

276
00:23:06,268 --> 00:23:11,968
of them to allow this stuff to happen. So you were saying about flat organizations. It's an

277
00:23:11,968 --> 00:23:18,948
interesting topic. Do you believe Bitcoin Core was a flat organization until the developers got

278
00:23:18,948 --> 00:23:24,028
funding like that's sort of how i view it that these people were doing it because they were

279
00:23:24,028 --> 00:23:30,168
cared about bitcoin up until the point where they got funded where where there was sort of a slippery

280
00:23:30,168 --> 00:23:36,908
slope shift and now not all core developers are even bitcoiners any longer in any any true sense

281
00:23:36,908 --> 00:23:43,708
of the word i can very much recommend my friend hodl on its uh articles about this they were great

282
00:23:43,708 --> 00:24:09,508
Yeah, he's written, done some really good, apparently is a very good like Pulitzer Prize level journalist on top of being a space cat. And I enjoyed them a lot. And they are scary, though. It's scary to read that stuff. I mean, and as you say, I don't think anyone has bad intentions. I just think this is it's an incentive problem is created whenever, whenever people start getting funding from somewhere. Yeah.

283
00:24:09,948 --> 00:24:11,668
What are your thoughts on that?

284
00:24:11,668 --> 00:24:14,868
So, okay, this is obviously contentious.

285
00:24:15,088 --> 00:24:22,628
And again, I think all the drama that we're looking at is downstream from the monolith to like 90% of it.

286
00:24:22,788 --> 00:24:23,048
Easy.

287
00:24:23,608 --> 00:24:27,408
And so if you change the code base, then it's more maintainable.

288
00:24:27,548 --> 00:24:29,428
So it's not as expensive to maintain.

289
00:24:29,628 --> 00:24:31,268
So you need less money to maintain it.

290
00:24:31,288 --> 00:24:32,768
And therefore, incentives skew less.

291
00:24:32,768 --> 00:24:41,448
There's a whole bunch of reasons why the skewing of incentives is going to drift the sort of values, the ethos, the engineering constraints of Bitcoin.

292
00:24:41,668 --> 00:24:45,428
over a long period of time, if not kept in check by the community.

293
00:24:45,428 --> 00:24:51,388
And I encourage the community to remain vigilant about me and all implementations of Bitcoin.

294
00:24:51,768 --> 00:24:58,008
But nonetheless, you know, I think there's a, I don't know.

295
00:24:59,788 --> 00:25:05,608
We just have to keep our ear to the ground and we can't, I don't need to say,

296
00:25:05,608 --> 00:25:08,428
I don't need to say Bitcoin Core is captured, okay?

297
00:25:08,428 --> 00:25:31,328
All I need to prove is Bitcoin, as an informal oligarchy, which I think I've proven that it is, is capturable. And then all I have to do is demonstrate that, I don't know, state-level actors, very powerful money interests could use those attack vectors that I've identified.

298
00:25:31,328 --> 00:25:34,768
I'm not saying they have, that maybe they already have.

299
00:25:35,048 --> 00:25:36,348
I don't need to prove that.

300
00:25:36,448 --> 00:25:36,888
I don't.

301
00:25:37,168 --> 00:25:43,448
What I need to prove is that you can specify consensus and that we can all agree that there's

302
00:25:43,448 --> 00:25:45,988
some math here that constitutes consensus.

303
00:25:46,408 --> 00:25:49,468
And then we can build alternative implementations on top of that.

304
00:25:49,848 --> 00:25:54,428
And then we don't have to worry about how incentives are skewed anymore.

305
00:25:54,568 --> 00:25:59,248
We can just choose our own node, run our own node with our own options, and then, you know,

306
00:25:59,248 --> 00:26:07,328
have more optionality that way. So the main thing I think is also in that vein, I would add that

307
00:26:07,328 --> 00:26:13,388
Bitcoin Core, as far as I know, has no self-sustaining way of making money. There's nothing

308
00:26:13,388 --> 00:26:18,568
in the project itself that makes the project any money. They have to rely on grants. They have to

309
00:26:18,568 --> 00:26:26,308
rely on third-party money and incentives skew as a result. So I think there are a couple of things

310
00:26:26,308 --> 00:26:31,768
that Bitcoin could do that would be appropriate for Bitcoin in a commons to generate some

311
00:26:31,768 --> 00:26:33,688
revenue for the commons.

312
00:26:33,688 --> 00:26:39,068
Now, that's a tricky issue, but I do think that it would help in the long term to have

313
00:26:39,068 --> 00:26:40,808
Bitcoin make some of its own money.

314
00:26:40,808 --> 00:26:42,548
If that makes any sense.

315
00:26:42,548 --> 00:26:46,068
I think there are ways to do that without changing protocol or anything.

316
00:26:46,068 --> 00:26:51,068
Well, the simplest way to fund Bitcoin development is the success of Bitcoin, of course, like

317
00:26:51,068 --> 00:26:52,068
number go up.

318
00:26:52,068 --> 00:26:53,068
Sure.

319
00:26:53,068 --> 00:26:58,368
I think that's how every single Bitcoin developer thought of it in the beginning, at least.

320
00:26:58,568 --> 00:27:00,808
Like, if this works, we're going to be shit rich.

321
00:27:01,128 --> 00:27:03,448
And therefore, they devoted their time to it.

322
00:27:03,748 --> 00:27:06,548
And I mean, if that and that is a very good incentive.

323
00:27:06,848 --> 00:27:09,628
Like, don't if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

324
00:27:09,728 --> 00:27:13,888
Like having that kind of attitude must be paramount for a project like this.

325
00:27:14,048 --> 00:27:18,348
I imagine it's a security critical project, I think is the main thing.

326
00:27:18,428 --> 00:27:20,668
It's not just financial software, it's security software.

327
00:27:20,668 --> 00:27:29,228
I mean, we just saw the U.S. military come out and basically give it a distinction of being national security, right?

328
00:27:29,588 --> 00:27:30,948
I mean, that's...

329
00:27:30,948 --> 00:27:39,288
Yeah, I saw there was some funny stuff there with some talking heads trying to express what they thought about Bitcoin.

330
00:27:39,408 --> 00:27:40,468
I found it amusing.

331
00:27:40,988 --> 00:27:51,336
They had been listening to Lowry I think Fair enough Yeah Well uh yeah amusing to me but I guess like sooner or later

332
00:27:51,516 --> 00:27:53,616
every talking head is going to have an opinion

333
00:27:53,616 --> 00:27:55,376
and an idea around this.

334
00:27:55,876 --> 00:27:57,336
I mean, we're not getting around that.

335
00:27:57,336 --> 00:27:59,796
And it is a good thing in the end.

336
00:28:00,016 --> 00:28:01,696
Like we want more adoption, I guess.

337
00:28:02,536 --> 00:28:02,696
Sure.

338
00:28:02,896 --> 00:28:04,036
And to that end,

339
00:28:04,096 --> 00:28:06,016
I think that if we had a better node,

340
00:28:06,096 --> 00:28:07,956
we could have, we could drive adoption too.

341
00:28:08,536 --> 00:28:09,736
I don't know what that,

342
00:28:09,736 --> 00:28:14,936
like what that would translate into, whether it would be 5% or 10% or no percent, I don't know.

343
00:28:14,936 --> 00:28:31,716
But I do think that, you know, having this thing at the center of Bitcoin that's accumulated 17 years of technical debt and is, you know, heavily ossified, both the, also the good parts and the bad parts.

344
00:28:31,716 --> 00:28:44,456
That is, you know, I think that's actually leaving the room, leaving the door open for stable coins and shit coins and various other instruments that, you know, wouldn't necessarily be there.

345
00:28:44,516 --> 00:28:50,256
I think there actually is a pretty great opportunity cost to governance paralysis in Bitcoin.

346
00:28:50,856 --> 00:28:55,376
And I don't even have any prescriptions for like changing the block size or any of that stuff.

347
00:28:55,376 --> 00:28:58,576
Again, consensus is not mine to mess with.

348
00:28:58,776 --> 00:29:01,976
It's by definition, not mine to mess with.

349
00:29:02,396 --> 00:29:05,976
You know, this is where a lot of people, like I said, this is where a lot of people get lost.

350
00:29:06,116 --> 00:29:08,756
They don't literally know the definition of consensus.

351
00:29:09,456 --> 00:29:12,516
So, you know, I don't need to be prescriptive.

352
00:29:12,776 --> 00:29:21,376
What I'd like to do personally is not create an alternative implementation, but create a market for alternative implementations.

353
00:29:21,376 --> 00:29:26,076
and just let a free market develop with enabling infrastructure.

354
00:29:26,276 --> 00:29:29,796
Web browsers, they had the first browsers like Mosaic.

355
00:29:30,476 --> 00:29:33,876
You know, they had a spec for HTTP and HTML.

356
00:29:33,876 --> 00:29:36,716
And then you had this proliferation of web browsers.

357
00:29:36,716 --> 00:29:39,416
And then over time, a lot of innovation occurred.

358
00:29:39,416 --> 00:29:41,616
And then eventually one web browser won.

359
00:29:41,796 --> 00:29:44,696
And I think we're all better off because of that process

360
00:29:44,696 --> 00:29:47,856
and all these people competing and trying to build this in an open source way.

361
00:29:48,056 --> 00:29:50,236
And that never really happened with Bitcoin.

362
00:29:50,236 --> 00:29:57,736
You basically had the first generation and then people just kind of tacked on one thing after the other for now 17 years.

363
00:29:58,096 --> 00:30:05,416
And I think that is having some real consequences that are some of which are pretty can be hard to measure, but it's it's definitely real.

364
00:30:06,636 --> 00:30:19,656
So in the process of disentangling the spaghetti code and turning it into mac and cheese code, which is the what's the biggest issue that Bitcoin Commons solves?

365
00:30:19,656 --> 00:30:21,896
like for Bitcoin node software?

366
00:30:22,136 --> 00:30:25,756
Like what's the biggest problem with spaghetti code

367
00:30:25,756 --> 00:30:26,796
in the first place?

368
00:30:27,416 --> 00:30:29,656
So just in general, everything running smoother

369
00:30:29,656 --> 00:30:32,236
or is there like a main purpose here?

370
00:30:33,136 --> 00:30:35,376
Well, the main purpose is that we can adapt

371
00:30:35,376 --> 00:30:37,796
the parts of the implementation

372
00:30:37,796 --> 00:30:39,556
that aren't consensus very quickly.

373
00:30:39,556 --> 00:30:42,576
So we can kind of shave off all of that,

374
00:30:42,956 --> 00:30:45,536
that technical debt and just lock down consensus

375
00:30:45,536 --> 00:30:48,136
and then everything else can kind of move smoothly.

376
00:30:48,136 --> 00:30:54,616
and then because it's in Rust, it's locked down pretty heavily using a strong typing system.

377
00:30:54,736 --> 00:31:01,416
It's a little technical, but basically the risk that anybody could like break consensus is pretty minimal.

378
00:31:02,796 --> 00:31:07,316
Then because we have the spec and because the spec is locked to the implementation,

379
00:31:07,316 --> 00:31:13,636
when we give you a final release binary, which should hopefully our first pre-releases should be out by the time this airs,

380
00:31:13,636 --> 00:31:16,216
but we'll actually cryptographically sign that release binary

381
00:31:16,216 --> 00:31:20,236
with an attestation that it matches the spec.

382
00:31:20,736 --> 00:31:23,196
So when you download our implementation,

383
00:31:23,676 --> 00:31:26,856
you can rest assured that if you see 21 million in the spec,

384
00:31:26,856 --> 00:31:30,736
that is the total cap of Bitcoin in that download that you got.

385
00:31:31,056 --> 00:31:35,356
Without having to know C++ and check the source code,

386
00:31:35,476 --> 00:31:37,836
all you have to do is be able to read basic math.

387
00:31:38,916 --> 00:31:40,696
So that's kind of a neat thing.

388
00:31:40,696 --> 00:31:46,796
Also, I don't know, there's a lot of different things that we're trying to improve.

389
00:31:47,536 --> 00:32:00,936
But the main one is just being able to block consensus and provably, verifiably say that we are a consensus valid implementation via differential testing on 900,000 plus blocks.

390
00:32:01,576 --> 00:32:06,916
So I don't think anybody has come close to that so far, but I'm willing to be corrected.

391
00:32:06,916 --> 00:32:10,756
What is that exactly?

392
00:32:11,696 --> 00:32:13,056
What, with differential tests?

393
00:32:13,596 --> 00:32:13,916
Yeah.

394
00:32:14,476 --> 00:32:18,576
So differential testing basically just goes through every single block.

395
00:32:18,716 --> 00:32:27,076
It runs everything, single script, and it checks to see if our implementation accepts or rejects blocks in the exact same way that Bitcoin Core does.

396
00:32:27,136 --> 00:32:29,516
And it plays it against the entire historical chain.

397
00:32:29,516 --> 00:32:41,216
That way we're rerunning all the transactions, every single bit of it, to make sure that our implementation has the exact same outcomes that Bitcoin Core did in the past.

398
00:32:41,296 --> 00:32:50,256
So if you had to rerun it all over again and our implementation was the only one, then we would have had the same outcome that Bitcoin Core does, at least in terms of the blockchain.

399
00:32:50,256 --> 00:33:01,076
All right. So it's like testing the code by running it and see if you get the same results as core.

400
00:33:01,396 --> 00:33:03,676
Like that's a proof of it working then?

401
00:33:03,956 --> 00:33:11,336
Or like that sounds risky to me, like that's still something could slip through that is not in consensus.

402
00:33:11,856 --> 00:33:12,376
But I don't know.

403
00:33:12,556 --> 00:33:18,756
No, that's fair. And that's why we also have extensive property testing, something core is not done as far as I understand it.

404
00:33:18,756 --> 00:33:22,796
We also have fuzzing, extensive fuzz tests, which check the edge cases.

405
00:33:23,376 --> 00:33:28,456
And we're also doing something called formal verification of the math spec using a mathematical

406
00:33:28,456 --> 00:33:35,576
prover called Z3, which ensures that the implementation is locked to as many of the

407
00:33:35,576 --> 00:33:39,016
algorithms in the specification as we can possibly lock.

408
00:33:39,616 --> 00:33:43,156
So if the implementation or the spec get out of whack with each other, it's immediately

409
00:33:43,156 --> 00:33:46,856
apparent that either the math is wrong or the implementation is wrong.

410
00:33:48,756 --> 00:34:00,556
All right. I understood about 40% of that, but I believe it's all public on GitHub. I encourage people to go and, you know, throw their AI at it and, you know, have it. Don't believe me.

411
00:34:00,556 --> 00:34:05,356
Yeah, very interesting.

412
00:34:05,556 --> 00:34:16,296
I mean, I hear you like you don't really want to have opinions on what consensus is and you don't want to have opinions on anything really.

413
00:34:16,596 --> 00:34:23,216
But you want the community to be able to express their opinions more freely by implementing this software.

414
00:34:23,216 --> 00:34:24,316
Am I getting that right?

415
00:34:25,676 --> 00:34:27,696
Yeah, I mean, I have some prescriptions.

416
00:34:27,696 --> 00:34:31,256
I'd like to see certain things, but that's like a personal take.

417
00:34:31,516 --> 00:34:35,876
You know, that's different from my kind of role as the builder of this software.

418
00:34:37,256 --> 00:34:37,596
No, no.

419
00:34:37,776 --> 00:34:40,117
But still, I'm curious about that.

420
00:34:40,236 --> 00:34:49,236
So if you take off your builder of this software hat for a bit, what are your opinions about Bitcoin and what's going on in Bitcoin right now?

421
00:34:49,336 --> 00:34:52,617
And is there anything that bothers you more than anything else?

422
00:34:52,637 --> 00:34:55,456
And is there anything that excites you more than anything else?

423
00:34:55,456 --> 00:35:11,236
Well, I think I wouldn't have dedicated the last nine months or almost nine months of my life to specifying Bitcoin and doing a whole alternative implementation if I weren't concerned about a drift away from the spec, drift away from our principles, drift away from Bitcoin as money.

424
00:35:11,236 --> 00:35:26,996
And then, you know, the skewing of incentives due to outside money coming in and, you know, well-meaning people being sort of inadvertently driven one way or the other to change Bitcoin in a way that most people wouldn't agree with, I think.

425
00:35:26,996 --> 00:35:33,436
And so I think Bitcoin's market cap, you know, got over, what, $2 trillion.

426
00:35:33,676 --> 00:35:41,936
And then that was largely due, like, mostly all the way due to the fact that it's money, not that there are monkey JPEGs on chain.

427
00:35:42,096 --> 00:35:44,856
I think the spam issue is important.

428
00:35:45,236 --> 00:35:49,916
The way I would frame that as an engineer is I would say there are many different types of database software.

429
00:35:50,117 --> 00:35:53,637
You could make the argument in the very general sense that Bitcoin is database software.

430
00:35:53,637 --> 00:36:01,236
And then when you're writing database software, you can kind of cram different kinds of data into different kinds of databases, but it doesn't mean you should.

431
00:36:01,476 --> 00:36:08,316
Okay, so I could put tree data in a tabular SQL database, or I could put tabular data in a tree database.

432
00:36:08,736 --> 00:36:12,776
Like I can do those things, but there are better tools for the job.

433
00:36:12,996 --> 00:36:18,376
And for monkey JPEGs, I'm pretty sure there are better databases than Bitcoin for monkey JPEGs.

434
00:36:18,376 --> 00:36:35,456
That's all. So it's scope creep essentially for Bitcoin to be supporting monkey JPEGs, you know, and we could argue about whether or not that should be supported. And, you know, I would say probably not. But nonetheless, at the very bottom, it's just people using the wrong tool for the job.

435
00:36:35,456 --> 00:36:43,276
yeah absolutely like the the thing is being promoted as the thing that bothers me like

436
00:36:43,276 --> 00:36:48,916
there are many things that bothered me about these monkey jpegs on chain but the scamminess of them

437
00:36:48,916 --> 00:36:54,316
is what bothers me the most they're promoted as something they aren't first of all a picture is

438
00:36:54,316 --> 00:37:00,496
on the internet is not ownable in any any real sense of the word i mean owning owning a monkey

439
00:37:00,496 --> 00:37:04,456
jpeg on the time chain is a bit like owning a star in the adoramada galaxy

440
00:37:04,456 --> 00:37:11,276
sure you can see it and you can say that it's yours but so can everyone else there's nothing

441
00:37:11,276 --> 00:37:17,356
making it especially yours and especially since these pictures aren't attached to the satoshis in

442
00:37:17,356 --> 00:37:23,256
the way that they pretend they are there's not no such thing as a rare satoshi like they're all rare

443
00:37:23,256 --> 00:37:29,076
but equally they're fungible so they're equally amounts rare like my analogy is like a centimeter

444
00:37:29,076 --> 00:37:34,876
doesn't change its length because I measure a body part with it. That's not how centimeters

445
00:37:34,876 --> 00:37:41,196
work. And that's not how sats work either. Not really. So therein lies the scam. And the saddest

446
00:37:41,196 --> 00:37:47,676
part about it is like, okay, you own this star in this Andromeda galaxy, but the contract saying

447
00:37:47,676 --> 00:37:53,536
that you own it is actually messing. I have to write the contract on the telescope. So it actually

448
00:37:53,536 --> 00:38:00,316
fucks with the telescope and that's like the the data embedded on chain it's pretty bad uh far-fetched

449
00:38:00,316 --> 00:38:07,736
metaphor but but something like that is going on and you know uh they can come with all this value

450
00:38:07,736 --> 00:38:16,476
is subjective uh arguments but and that is true 100 true but that that scams are scams is also 100

451
00:38:16,476 --> 00:38:24,236
percent true and that you cannot own data in the same sense as you can own an actual painting by an

452
00:38:24,236 --> 00:38:28,876
original artist that that's also true so yeah there's a lot to be said about that stuff i'm

453
00:38:28,876 --> 00:38:34,156
with you on that and i ultimately i think really this is graffiti it's like graffiti except the

454
00:38:34,156 --> 00:38:38,876
thing is with graffiti is graffiti can be painted over when it's on the blockchain it cannot be

455
00:38:38,876 --> 00:38:43,436
painted over it's stuck on the blockchain forever and then every node runner at least if you run

456
00:38:43,436 --> 00:38:49,756
you know, standard core. Every node runner from here to time immemorial has to participate in all

457
00:38:49,756 --> 00:38:54,136
of your monkey JPEGs, not you specifically, but you know, whoever's putting those on chain,

458
00:38:54,696 --> 00:39:01,476
we all now have to participate in that, whether we like it or not. And, you know, I am a big

459
00:39:01,476 --> 00:39:05,976
believer in the principle of free association. So if I don't want to participate in it, I still

460
00:39:05,976 --> 00:39:11,876
want to be able to sync, you know, a node without having to download whatever you're putting on

461
00:39:11,876 --> 00:39:18,256
chain if it's not, you know, money. And that I think is the kind of the next step is trying to

462
00:39:18,256 --> 00:39:25,416
figure out a way to paint over the graffiti without compromising the permissionlessness of the money.

463
00:39:25,656 --> 00:39:29,556
That's like a very hard thing to do. But I think really at the end of the day, it'll come down to

464
00:39:29,556 --> 00:39:35,076
the node runners, all of us deciding collectively that we don't want this stuff on our nodes and

465
00:39:35,076 --> 00:39:41,696
then basically just not downloading it. Yeah, that sounds, it sounds like you're a bit 110

466
00:39:41,696 --> 00:39:43,836
advocate there by that.

467
00:39:43,956 --> 00:39:44,296
Are you?

468
00:39:44,296 --> 00:39:47,456
So I have issues with BIP-110.

469
00:39:47,676 --> 00:39:49,556
I did a full analysis of BIP-110.

470
00:39:49,816 --> 00:39:49,976
Okay.

471
00:39:50,056 --> 00:39:52,016
So I did a full chain analysis.

472
00:39:52,296 --> 00:39:54,716
I ran BIP-110 against the entire chain,

473
00:39:55,296 --> 00:39:56,916
900,000 plus blocks,

474
00:39:57,056 --> 00:39:59,456
just to see which transactions

475
00:39:59,456 --> 00:40:01,196
it would block historically

476
00:40:01,196 --> 00:40:03,616
as if it had been always enabled.

477
00:40:04,696 --> 00:40:05,336
Fantastic.

478
00:40:06,556 --> 00:40:07,956
That's, yeah, yeah, go on.

479
00:40:08,256 --> 00:40:09,416
I'm just excited.

480
00:40:09,416 --> 00:40:35,117
Well, so I found a lot of very good things there. I think I support generally this idea that in 2015, I think there was this massive spike of non-monetary data. Then basically it trundled along. There was none of this stuff on chain for a long, long time up until about 2023. And then it just got out of control.

481
00:40:35,117 --> 00:40:38,416
and now I think they call it block weight

482
00:40:38,416 --> 00:40:40,516
is much higher on average

483
00:40:40,516 --> 00:40:42,776
than it was in the entire time prior.

484
00:40:42,916 --> 00:40:44,896
So there's like massive amounts of data

485
00:40:44,896 --> 00:40:46,376
being dumped onto the blockchain

486
00:40:46,376 --> 00:40:48,156
like on a per megabyte basis.

487
00:40:48,476 --> 00:40:50,276
And that is, again, that's a cost

488
00:40:50,276 --> 00:40:51,556
that is going to be a burden

489
00:40:51,556 --> 00:40:53,936
that every node runner from here into the future

490
00:40:53,936 --> 00:40:54,836
is going to have to bear

491
00:40:54,836 --> 00:40:56,996
and at least with current technology

492
00:40:56,996 --> 00:40:59,356
and that, again, it's not voluntary.

493
00:40:59,556 --> 00:41:01,216
I don't want to participate in your monkey chain.

494
00:41:01,356 --> 00:41:04,896
No, but if you say at least for now,

495
00:41:04,896 --> 00:41:10,036
Is there a chance in the future that you will not have to do the initial block download?

496
00:41:10,216 --> 00:41:11,576
Like, what do you foresee there?

497
00:41:12,056 --> 00:41:18,956
Okay, so the first thing I looked at when I was looking at the IBD is UTXO set commitments.

498
00:41:19,356 --> 00:41:25,496
UTXO set commitments have been sort of in the works, in research for a very, very long time, okay?

499
00:41:25,616 --> 00:41:29,056
Since maybe even 2011, 2012, you know?

500
00:41:29,476 --> 00:41:32,936
And, you know, like many things, they never really got their due.

501
00:41:32,936 --> 00:41:46,124
The governance paralysis the sort of slow moving aspect of the repo of core I think perhaps had something to do with it as well I know a lot of really good people worked very hard on getting that in and never got in

502
00:41:46,304 --> 00:41:50,425
There's Utrixo, there's some other people trying to do this UTXO set commitment thing.

503
00:41:50,425 --> 00:42:03,044
Without getting too technical, but basically it allows you to eliminate up to 98% of the initial blockchain download when you set up your node and maintain most of the cryptographic guarantees.

504
00:42:03,044 --> 00:42:07,925
almost all the cryptographic guarantees that you would have syncing from tail to tip.

505
00:42:08,425 --> 00:42:09,564
So there's that.

506
00:42:09,685 --> 00:42:13,725
And that would probably eliminate 40 to 60% of spam if implemented.

507
00:42:13,925 --> 00:42:16,905
Also, it doesn't require a consensus change, which is nice.

508
00:42:17,104 --> 00:42:19,024
And then there are spam heuristics.

509
00:42:19,544 --> 00:42:24,365
So there's a lot of additional ways that you could potentially block spam,

510
00:42:24,465 --> 00:42:28,885
even beyond what Knots is doing, that aren't basically nobody's doing.

511
00:42:28,885 --> 00:42:42,245
And I think that we could have a lot more optionality there and give people, node runners, the ability to be even more restrictive than the current most conservative implementation not is.

512
00:42:42,245 --> 00:42:54,325
So there's that. And then finally, I'm currently working on a module for my implementation, our implementation, Bitcoin Commons, that we're calling Selective Synchronization.

513
00:42:54,725 --> 00:43:02,624
And it's experimental, but basically the idea is that there's a registry of transactions that have been kind of aggregated by the community.

514
00:43:02,624 --> 00:43:15,825
And if you as a node runner want to use that registry, when you do your IBD, it will skip those particular transactions without changing the cryptographic hashes for the block.

515
00:43:15,925 --> 00:43:20,064
So the blockchain still remains valid, but you actually get to skip the payload.

516
00:43:20,385 --> 00:43:24,925
It looks like you got the whole block, but no monkey JPEG went over your Internet.

517
00:43:26,064 --> 00:43:28,165
But where would that file be?

518
00:43:28,465 --> 00:43:29,865
Like, where would it be stored?

519
00:43:29,865 --> 00:43:33,845
Who would make sure that that file wasn't corrupt?

520
00:43:34,205 --> 00:43:35,965
Like, or could you verify it somehow?

521
00:43:36,544 --> 00:43:36,665
Right.

522
00:43:36,825 --> 00:43:39,225
So basically you would have to have it,

523
00:43:39,385 --> 00:43:41,124
you'd have like a peer consensus thing.

524
00:43:41,185 --> 00:43:43,604
And then also there would be community registries.

525
00:43:43,725 --> 00:43:44,705
They'd probably be decentralized.

526
00:43:45,185 --> 00:43:46,604
We're building that out,

527
00:43:46,624 --> 00:43:49,685
but we're pretty sure that technically it's possible.

528
00:43:49,985 --> 00:43:51,925
And it would obviously be voluntary as well.

529
00:43:52,044 --> 00:43:53,405
If you wanted to run a node

530
00:43:53,405 --> 00:43:54,564
where you just downloaded everything,

531
00:43:54,665 --> 00:43:56,685
I would encourage people to still run archival nodes.

532
00:43:56,764 --> 00:43:57,485
That's up to them.

533
00:43:57,544 --> 00:43:59,144
But if you didn't want the monkey JPEGs,

534
00:43:59,144 --> 00:44:00,325
that's an option for you too.

535
00:44:00,845 --> 00:44:04,024
So just trying to provide maximum optionality to people

536
00:44:04,024 --> 00:44:05,985
when they're running their own node,

537
00:44:06,104 --> 00:44:07,465
not to try to make prescriptions

538
00:44:07,465 --> 00:44:09,304
about what should or shouldn't be on chain.

539
00:44:09,465 --> 00:44:11,205
We don't really have a lot of control over that,

540
00:44:11,465 --> 00:44:13,685
but I do have complete control ostensibly

541
00:44:13,685 --> 00:44:15,225
over what goes over my node.

542
00:44:15,445 --> 00:44:17,624
And that's kind of what I'm trying to focus on.

543
00:44:18,985 --> 00:44:23,725
So would you call that a pruned node or a semi-pruned node?

544
00:44:23,725 --> 00:44:27,745
What's the correct way to define such a node

545
00:44:27,745 --> 00:44:28,865
that gets the proof?

546
00:44:29,144 --> 00:44:31,064
from this decentralized file.

547
00:44:31,064 --> 00:44:33,225
Yeah, it's kind of like selective pruning.

548
00:44:33,225 --> 00:44:36,804
So if someone else asks you for a block

549
00:44:36,804 --> 00:44:39,584
where you've used this sync shortcut,

550
00:44:39,584 --> 00:44:42,845
then it just tells that node

551
00:44:42,845 --> 00:44:44,124
that you don't have that block

552
00:44:44,124 --> 00:44:46,044
and it needs to find it somewhere else, essentially.

553
00:44:46,044 --> 00:44:49,825
So it doesn't break the whole networking gossip protocol

554
00:44:49,825 --> 00:44:52,524
of Bitcoin, that can still function just fine.

555
00:44:52,524 --> 00:44:55,685
It's just that stuff never has to go over your node.

556
00:44:55,685 --> 00:44:57,245
So you don't have to know about it.

557
00:44:57,245 --> 00:45:06,385
All right. Yeah, that sounds like a neat little tool. Okay. What else is going on? Is there

558
00:45:06,385 --> 00:45:08,905
something we missed here, something we haven't talked about yet?

559
00:45:08,905 --> 00:45:15,745
Well, we're trying to shoot for grants. And we're gonna have our release probably very

560
00:45:15,745 --> 00:45:25,405
shortly here. Probably by the time this is broadcast.

561
00:45:25,405 --> 00:45:27,885
I would encourage people to

562
00:45:27,885 --> 00:45:30,304
run a node

563
00:45:30,304 --> 00:45:33,205
look at our documentation

564
00:45:33,205 --> 00:45:34,325
look at our specification

565
00:45:34,325 --> 00:45:36,865
we definitely need review on the

566
00:45:36,865 --> 00:45:38,485
security side

567
00:45:38,485 --> 00:45:40,004
we're trying to get some audits together

568
00:45:40,004 --> 00:45:42,144
any contribution is necessary

569
00:45:42,144 --> 00:45:44,504
any contribution is welcome

570
00:45:44,504 --> 00:45:48,445
even critical feedback

571
00:45:48,445 --> 00:45:49,284
is welcome

572
00:45:49,284 --> 00:45:51,584
be gentle

573
00:45:51,584 --> 00:46:00,544
but uh i'm open to any feedback and we're we're just um we're at the bitcoincommons.org

574
00:46:00,544 --> 00:46:07,345
we currently have one implementation we're hoping we can get some more forks in the future

575
00:46:07,345 --> 00:46:14,425
more modules um and and uh just get through all this testing get into phase two where we

576
00:46:14,425 --> 00:46:20,725
activate governance and then uh you know then it's kind of out of my hands at that point it'll

577
00:46:20,725 --> 00:46:22,725
take on a life of its own.

578
00:46:22,725 --> 00:46:23,725
Yeah.

579
00:46:23,725 --> 00:46:28,784
So, so go to thebitcoincommons.org and check it out.

580
00:46:28,784 --> 00:46:30,564
Interesting stuff for sure.

581
00:46:30,564 --> 00:46:31,564
Thank you.

582
00:46:31,564 --> 00:46:32,564
Appreciate it.

583
00:46:32,564 --> 00:46:33,564
Yeah.

584
00:46:33,564 --> 00:46:38,425
Um, uh, yeah, let's, let's see here.

585
00:46:38,425 --> 00:46:41,284
What other topics have we missed to discuss here?

586
00:46:41,284 --> 00:46:43,644
I have a whole list here.

587
00:46:43,644 --> 00:46:45,024
So all right.

588
00:46:45,024 --> 00:46:46,885
So pick something from the list.

589
00:46:46,885 --> 00:46:51,784
Well, so one of the things that we did is we put together Compact.

590
00:46:52,345 --> 00:46:57,425
And the Compact is a complete, it's like our constitution, but basically in the Compact, it's completely voluntary.

591
00:46:58,004 --> 00:47:04,205
And it says essentially that authority in Bitcoin flows from users, not developers, not miners, and not institutions.

592
00:47:04,564 --> 00:47:09,964
And also that the technical implementation follows from social consensus, never the reverse.

593
00:47:09,965 --> 00:47:26,905
So essentially that means that, you know, the people who are developing Bitcoin, who are running Bitcoin, they have their principles, they have their values, and they kind of encode those values via engineering constraints into the code directly or choosing which code they're going to run.

594
00:47:27,484 --> 00:47:34,225
And so the social consensus of what Bitcoin is ultimately determines the technical consensus at the end of the day.

595
00:47:34,225 --> 00:47:55,284
And I'd like to be very clear about what our principles are. And you kind of alluded to this earlier. Anytime we're making a change in the implementation, whether it's to consensus or to some other aspect of the library, we need to check that change against every single one of our values, very consistently checking our principles.

596
00:47:55,284 --> 00:48:01,124
So we call Bitcoin Commons a commons because it's based on the work of Eleanor Ostrom.

597
00:48:01,985 --> 00:48:06,104
And there was a book by a guy named Hardin called Tragedy of the Commons.

598
00:48:06,304 --> 00:48:12,485
And in Tragedy of the Commons, he posits that all commons are basically destined for collapse.

599
00:48:12,564 --> 00:48:14,705
Anytime you have a shared resource, it collapses.

600
00:48:15,325 --> 00:48:24,905
And Eleanor Ostrom, with her work in commons, basically proved that in certain conditions, commons doesn't have to collapse.

601
00:48:24,905 --> 00:48:53,465
And so my contention is that the Bitcoin code base is essentially a commons. It's a shared resource that everyone benefits from, but nobody owns. And I don't want to set up a top-down, I don't want to see a top-down hierarchical system of governance. I want to see a flat hierarchy and then a very clear set of rules that even strangers could use to coordinate to ensure that the commons of this code base is stable.

602
00:48:53,465 --> 00:49:13,205
And there have been many stable commons throughout history. Some have lasted for hundreds of years. And this is something I think that we can bring into the sort of digital cryptography age. And it's something that is very specific to Bitcoin because Bitcoin is a very peculiar technology.

603
00:49:13,205 --> 00:49:41,624
I think everybody would agree that it's very special. It has unique properties that are unlike most open source software. And so I would argue that its governance also needs something very peculiar, very special to apply to it. And it can't be the same old thing. It can't be that same corporate top down hierarchy that we do everywhere else. And so it has to be tailored to Bitcoin. And that's and that's essentially what we're trying to do. And then make it very forkable, too.

604
00:49:41,624 --> 00:49:48,825
So, you know, if you disagree, which I'm assuming many people will, then the barriers of entry

605
00:49:48,825 --> 00:49:52,304
to forking their own implementation or their own governance are very low.

606
00:49:52,544 --> 00:49:54,425
And then we kind of play ball with them.

607
00:49:54,504 --> 00:49:57,784
We don't exile them and put them in the corner with a dunce hat.

608
00:49:57,865 --> 00:49:59,185
We tell them, you know, come on in.

609
00:49:59,265 --> 00:50:01,865
Let's all learn from each other and copy each other's homework, you know.

610
00:50:01,965 --> 00:50:07,965
That's, I think, the main goal there is just building a strong, healthy ecosystem based

611
00:50:07,965 --> 00:50:09,604
on rules, not rulers.

612
00:50:11,624 --> 00:50:22,725
That sounds like Bitcoin to me. You mentioned a couple of like functioning commons. Do you have any examples of that over the last couple of centuries?

613
00:50:22,725 --> 00:50:34,385
Sure. Yeah. So there was the Icelandic Commonwealth. That was a big one. We had Swiss farms. And then my favorite one is the Hanseatic League. It was a.

614
00:50:35,845 --> 00:50:36,144
Yeah.

615
00:50:36,144 --> 00:50:41,905
They had no constitution, no permanent bureaucracy, no standing army, no central treasury.

616
00:50:42,185 --> 00:50:48,685
They operated through periodic assemblies, and they had over 100 cities at one point under their sway.

617
00:50:49,544 --> 00:50:55,705
No, I guess it says almost over 400 years here for them.

618
00:50:55,705 --> 00:51:00,804
Yeah, the history of the Hanseatic League is absolutely fascinating.

619
00:51:01,064 --> 00:51:05,865
And those cities where they operate are some of the most beautiful cities in Europe.

620
00:51:06,144 --> 00:51:19,385
A lot of them in Northern Europe, I mean, they sort of invented the equity or stocks in a way because you could own, like it cost the individual ship owner quite a lot when one of their ships sank.

621
00:51:19,385 --> 00:51:22,484
Like they had their entire lives tied up in that.

622
00:51:22,804 --> 00:51:36,104
So they figured out that if we band together and we all bear the cost of a sunken ship, then we can all benefit from that or all have a smoother risk profile, let's say.

623
00:51:36,144 --> 00:51:38,365
So that's where that whole thing started.

624
00:51:38,544 --> 00:51:56,644
And there's a pretty good argument for why that is not only a good thing, because if your ship, if the cost to your ship sinking is lowered, then you will take less care in making it not sink.

625
00:51:57,484 --> 00:52:00,325
So that is the tragedy of the commons, I guess.

626
00:52:00,444 --> 00:52:05,304
And maybe that has something to do with why it didn't work more than 400 years.

627
00:52:05,304 --> 00:52:14,665
Sure. Well, to that end, I will say I'm completely allocated to Bitcoin. So if I fail, I'm only screwing myself over.

628
00:52:15,365 --> 00:52:26,225
Yeah, yeah. Same here. Like I prefer to make my own mistakes for as stubborn as I am becoming a stubborn old man, but I've always been a stubborn man.

629
00:52:26,225 --> 00:52:56,004
Well, yeah, so that it's honestly looking at the history of it, I think there's really been no more stable or prosperous example of, you know, a working system that is sort of human oriented than the commons. That's why I named the project commons. And to try again to apply our principles consistently. We look at Hayek, we look at Ostrom, we look at various cypherpunk, you know, I don't know if philosophers is probably the wrong term, but, but influencers maybe, you know,

630
00:52:56,004 --> 00:52:59,925
anytime we make a change, we're checking it against our principles to make sure that,

631
00:53:00,024 --> 00:53:06,225
you know, we're maintaining that mission of Bitcoin is money and doing something that

632
00:53:06,225 --> 00:53:11,205
is consistent with our values. So that's a high priority for us. And also, you know,

633
00:53:11,285 --> 00:53:14,885
it's either Bitcoin or it's not. It's either orange or it's not. We're trying to make it

634
00:53:14,885 --> 00:53:20,165
more orange, not less. And, you know, hopefully, hopefully we'll be able to prove that to people

635
00:53:20,165 --> 00:53:25,425
over the next year or two. And again, I encourage people to go test out the release, do the IBD.

636
00:53:25,425 --> 00:53:41,765
We'll make a comment, contribute however you see fit. We've got people popping up out of the woodwork, like I said earlier, to help. There's a lot of, I don't know, there's a lot of, I don't know, disappointment in the community for a lot of different reasons about the current status quo.

637
00:53:41,765 --> 00:54:10,484
So I think that we're trying to provide like a viable third way for people instead of just the core VNOTs or the, you know, some other thing, something viable that people can really get behind and could have some very important long term outcomes for Bitcoin and make it healthier, maybe even drive number go up, make it more secure and improve the properties that we've already enshrined and coded in Bitcoin.

638
00:54:10,484 --> 00:54:15,725
take our principles and take them even further, not remove any of our principles, but go even

639
00:54:15,725 --> 00:54:22,984
further with our principles. Go deeper, maybe? Would that be a correct way?

640
00:54:23,205 --> 00:54:27,445
Yeah. Well, and so, and we want to take the same principles that were applied by Satoshi in

641
00:54:27,445 --> 00:54:33,885
solving the Byzantine generals problem and solve the social consensus problem, that kind of Byzantine

642
00:54:33,885 --> 00:54:35,925
layer. And we solve that as well.

643
00:54:36,665 --> 00:54:37,484
Yeah, the Byzantine

644
00:54:37,484 --> 00:54:39,885
retards problem.

645
00:54:41,185 --> 00:54:41,345
Yeah.

646
00:54:42,104 --> 00:54:43,165
It's a different problem.

647
00:54:43,705 --> 00:54:45,544
You could argue it's a harder problem.

648
00:54:45,925 --> 00:54:47,685
So we have our work cut out for us. But

649
00:54:47,685 --> 00:54:49,804
fortunately, I have lots of tokens.

650
00:54:50,245 --> 00:54:51,044
So we'll

651
00:54:51,044 --> 00:54:53,385
figure it out. Maybe

652
00:54:53,385 --> 00:54:55,445
that's... There's

653
00:54:55,445 --> 00:54:57,685
something there. Democracy can

654
00:54:57,685 --> 00:54:59,665
never truly work until we solve

655
00:54:59,665 --> 00:55:01,385
the Byzantine retards problem.

656
00:55:01,745 --> 00:55:03,665
I like that. That'll be quote of the day.

657
00:55:03,665 --> 00:55:05,925
You can put that in the headline for the podcast.

658
00:55:06,185 --> 00:55:06,644
I'll tweet it.

659
00:55:06,725 --> 00:55:07,464
I'll tweet it.

660
00:55:07,604 --> 00:55:07,705
Yeah.

661
00:55:07,764 --> 00:55:09,385
No governance can ever work.

662
00:55:10,024 --> 00:55:11,764
The solution to solving governance,

663
00:55:11,865 --> 00:55:14,685
governance is first solving the Byzantine retards problem.

664
00:55:14,784 --> 00:55:15,644
I'm with you on that.

665
00:55:16,865 --> 00:55:18,365
I know I'm totally with you.

666
00:55:18,445 --> 00:55:19,405
So actually the,

667
00:55:19,584 --> 00:55:21,804
we kind of assume that by default and with,

668
00:55:21,945 --> 00:55:22,905
with our governance model,

669
00:55:22,905 --> 00:55:26,925
we have an Ostrom's principles for maintaining a commons.

670
00:55:27,044 --> 00:55:28,264
One is transparency.

671
00:55:28,804 --> 00:55:30,304
Monitoring is what she calls it.

672
00:55:30,745 --> 00:55:32,804
And so we have a radical transparency.

673
00:55:32,833 --> 00:56:02,733
transparency approach. So how we're doing what we're doing when we're doing it, all that stuff is logged, auditable. And then over time, we get we can build credibility with the community by just being very open with everybody about what what they're getting, rather than trying to like hide it and put it in private channels. And, you know, some of the stuff that john was complaining about recently, where we're important Bitcoin discussions are happening in dark rooms, not out in public. And that

674
00:56:02,733 --> 00:56:08,693
has to stop. No, that's, that's no good at all. And it's like posting it all out there in the

675
00:56:08,693 --> 00:56:11,913
open. It's like the opposite of what the government is doing because they want to

676
00:56:11,913 --> 00:56:16,773
survey their subjects and keep everything they're doing secret. And it should be the other way

677
00:56:16,773 --> 00:56:21,593
around. Like the, everything the government does should be transparent. A hundred percent. And then

678
00:56:21,593 --> 00:56:26,053
they shouldn't survey us at all. Exactly. And then I have to make the distinction too,

679
00:56:26,133 --> 00:56:29,613
a lot of people, you know, they hear the word governance and they assume government

680
00:56:29,613 --> 00:56:31,873
and they're very different things, you know.

681
00:56:32,793 --> 00:56:34,833
Governance is like there's a ship at sea,

682
00:56:35,013 --> 00:56:37,353
it has a direction, somebody is steering it

683
00:56:37,353 --> 00:56:38,693
and that's all that means.

684
00:56:38,773 --> 00:56:40,113
And we're just trying to figure out, you know,

685
00:56:40,133 --> 00:56:42,133
where the wheel is so we can get this thing

686
00:56:42,133 --> 00:56:42,933
going into the wind.

687
00:56:43,193 --> 00:56:45,633
Government is a totally separate thing.

688
00:56:45,733 --> 00:56:48,013
That's, you know, an organization

689
00:56:48,013 --> 00:56:50,073
at the center of society with monopoly

690
00:56:50,073 --> 00:56:51,953
on the use of force and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

691
00:56:52,053 --> 00:56:53,333
It's like a whole different thing.

692
00:56:53,393 --> 00:56:55,933
And we're definitely not trying to do that.

693
00:56:55,933 --> 00:56:58,973
I think we can all agree that is failing,

694
00:56:58,973 --> 00:57:00,533
if not already failed.

695
00:57:00,793 --> 00:57:02,313
No, yeah, but to me,

696
00:57:02,333 --> 00:57:03,293
it sounds like the opposite.

697
00:57:03,553 --> 00:57:04,473
Like you're trying to

698
00:57:04,473 --> 00:57:05,833
free things up here

699
00:57:05,833 --> 00:57:06,813
and it's all good.

700
00:57:07,033 --> 00:57:19,574
Josh I wish you the best of luck with all of this Yeah but maybe before I wrap this up are there more points there on your list I mean Well come check me out on X I do have an X handles

701
00:57:19,814 --> 00:57:21,634
sexsovereign, SECsovereign.

702
00:57:21,734 --> 00:57:23,154
I go by Secure Sovereign.

703
00:57:23,394 --> 00:57:25,734
The bitcoincommons.org is our website.

704
00:57:25,734 --> 00:57:30,514
And we basically have everything available publicly.

705
00:57:30,734 --> 00:57:32,074
There's nothing hidden.

706
00:57:32,234 --> 00:57:33,434
There's nothing, you know,

707
00:57:33,574 --> 00:57:35,194
that isn't just out in the open.

708
00:57:35,194 --> 00:57:42,054
So people are welcome to scrutinize and criticize and come to whatever conclusion they want.

709
00:57:42,234 --> 00:57:45,934
And we're trying to just make it, like I said, as transparent as we possibly can.

710
00:57:46,134 --> 00:57:47,694
And I'm open to discussion.

711
00:57:47,954 --> 00:57:49,274
We have a sub stack as well.

712
00:57:49,394 --> 00:57:51,174
So we'll be posting articles there as well.

713
00:57:51,374 --> 00:57:58,234
And hopefully soon we're going to have our first alpha release and go from there.

714
00:58:00,474 --> 00:58:00,994
Fantastic.

715
00:58:00,994 --> 00:58:08,994
Looking forward to that and seeing how the community reacts to it, hopefully in all the best ways.

716
00:58:09,234 --> 00:58:17,454
I appreciate you having me on, and I hope to come back after we have a significant release and we can chat about it again some more.

717
00:58:18,634 --> 00:58:24,214
Absolutely. You're welcome back again when we know more about what this thing actually looks like in reality.

718
00:58:25,174 --> 00:58:27,714
So thank you very much, Josh, for coming on the show.

719
00:58:27,854 --> 00:58:28,294
Thank you.

720
00:58:28,294 --> 00:58:31,714
The show, which is the Bitcoin Infinity Show.

721
00:58:32,154 --> 00:58:33,194
You should brush your teeth.

722
00:58:33,554 --> 00:58:34,394
Thank you for listening.