Block Size Wars, BIP-110, and Bitcoin Consensus with Samson Mow | Bitcoin Infinity Show #21

1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:08,380
Samson, a warm welcome to the summer nighttime super spooky edition of the Bitcoin Infinity

2
00:00:08,380 --> 00:00:08,620
Show.

3
00:00:08,720 --> 00:00:09,380
Nice to have you here.

4
00:00:10,040 --> 00:00:10,680
Great to be on, Knew.

5
00:00:11,580 --> 00:00:17,980
Yeah, today we're going to talk about drumroll BIP110, which we almost never talk about on

6
00:00:17,980 --> 00:00:18,400
this show.

7
00:00:18,640 --> 00:00:23,180
And the mandatory signaling is about to start here in a couple of weeks from now.

8
00:00:23,240 --> 00:00:25,640
This is recorded on the 25th of July.

9
00:00:25,640 --> 00:00:32,960
So I'd like your view and some people think you're being inconsistent and I'd like to address that too.

10
00:00:33,140 --> 00:00:44,640
And first of all, I'd like to hear your complete version of how you view the block size wars and specifically the BIP-148, how that played out and what impact it had.

11
00:00:44,720 --> 00:00:47,900
And has there been history revisionism and stuff after that?

12
00:00:48,000 --> 00:00:53,120
So can we talk a little about BIP-148 first and how that played out?

13
00:00:53,920 --> 00:00:54,100
Sure.

14
00:00:54,100 --> 00:01:02,520
so which aspect of it like the activation or how it started yeah all of it and and

15
00:01:02,520 --> 00:01:08,440
like the the crux of it that i want to get to is some people said that the miners started

16
00:01:08,440 --> 00:01:13,160
signaling and they just randomly started changing their minds and this new york agreement and all

17
00:01:13,160 --> 00:01:20,960
this stuff what's the timeline here and how much impact did the uasf actually have in in changing

18
00:01:20,960 --> 00:01:24,940
people's mind or making the miners scared enough to change their minds?

19
00:01:26,440 --> 00:01:31,100
Well, the block size war is super long and complicated and convoluted topic.

20
00:01:31,100 --> 00:01:38,000
But I think the crux of what you want to know is did 148 activate Segwit?

21
00:01:38,120 --> 00:01:42,080
Did it conclude with 148 activating?

22
00:01:42,360 --> 00:01:47,680
And this was a sticky point, I believe, on a Spaces a few days ago where Mr.

23
00:01:47,680 --> 00:01:53,440
Hoddle and Mechanic were all on with me and we were trying to explain. Mechanic was saying

24
00:01:53,440 --> 00:02:00,500
110 is the same as 148. It's a UASF and it's going to work because BIP-148 worked. And we

25
00:02:00,500 --> 00:02:09,720
tried to explain that BIP-148 didn't activate actually. BIP-91 did. And then SegWit BIP-141

26
00:02:09,720 --> 00:02:16,660
came along with it. But there were three BIPs and activation mechanisms all kind of floating around

27
00:02:16,660 --> 00:02:23,040
at the same time. But what people forget is that this was all about activating SegWit. And

28
00:02:23,040 --> 00:02:29,600
tangentially, it was about a block size increase to appease the big blockers. And we can debate

29
00:02:29,600 --> 00:02:36,560
and discuss that part there separately, again, for hours. But the consensus was that we wanted

30
00:02:36,560 --> 00:02:42,740
SegWit. Everyone wanted SegWit. There was hash rate behind it, a significant amount, something

31
00:02:42,740 --> 00:02:49,580
80% of the network and then a large amount of nodes were signaling too. And 148 was just like

32
00:02:49,580 --> 00:02:55,840
a, I think like 10% of nodes. But again, that's another topic too. We should discuss like the node

33
00:02:55,840 --> 00:03:02,560
signaling is indicative, but it is not a mechanism by which anyone should place their full trust in

34
00:03:02,560 --> 00:03:07,840
because there is no economic cost to creating a node, very minimal economic cost to creating a

35
00:03:07,840 --> 00:03:14,880
node and signaling for something. And even minor signaling is not fully, you can't actually be sure

36
00:03:14,880 --> 00:03:19,980
a minor is going to do what they say they will according to their signaling because they could

37
00:03:19,980 --> 00:03:25,880
stop at the last minute too. So there's a ton of complexity here that it makes it very hard to

38
00:03:25,880 --> 00:03:34,380
change consensus. And I guess the point is SegWit won and we got SegWit, but it was more that 148

39
00:03:34,380 --> 00:03:40,560
push it over the line. And it was able to push it over a line because there's really just one

40
00:03:40,560 --> 00:03:46,200
large holdout, which was Jihan, who at the time was at Bitmain. So you really only had to put

41
00:03:46,200 --> 00:03:53,760
pressure on one guy to let it go. And even within Bitmain, there were parties that supported and were

42
00:03:53,760 --> 00:04:00,900
against the blocking of Segwit as well. So it was a very, very messy landscape. And I think 148 was

43
00:04:00,900 --> 00:04:06,920
just a nudge to push people to get out of the way and allow this thing to activate. But this thing

44
00:04:06,920 --> 00:04:12,640
that was activating had massive amounts of support. And it was not a rush thing. It had developers

45
00:04:12,640 --> 00:04:19,740
behind it. It had exchanges, miners, mining pools, the whole gamut of Bitcoin ecosystem,

46
00:04:20,160 --> 00:04:27,660
big Bitcoin, all behind it. And that's how it worked. It was sort of a last ditch effort. A lot

47
00:04:27,660 --> 00:04:32,980
developers didn't support it. Some developers did support it. But at the end, it didn't activate,

48
00:04:33,140 --> 00:04:42,240
it pushed BIP91 to activate. What did BIP91 do? That's the one that lowered the threshold for

49
00:04:42,240 --> 00:04:48,620
what was needed to actually activate Segwit. Or am I misremembering this? Yeah, I think that was it.

50
00:04:48,620 --> 00:04:54,020
It was a proposal from James Hilliard. But effectively, it was a face saving maneuver

51
00:04:54,020 --> 00:04:57,640
that allowed the holdouts to give in without giving in.

52
00:04:57,800 --> 00:05:01,860
So they didn't want to see Bit148 succeed

53
00:05:01,860 --> 00:05:05,160
and that they were actually going to lose.

54
00:05:05,300 --> 00:05:08,580
So they chose something else to activate, which is Bit91.

55
00:05:08,900 --> 00:05:11,580
But it was a bridge between all the different proposals

56
00:05:11,580 --> 00:05:15,660
and it allowed them to activate without causing a split,

57
00:05:15,660 --> 00:05:17,480
which was also not very true too,

58
00:05:17,560 --> 00:05:19,720
because then they decided to split anyways.

59
00:05:21,300 --> 00:05:21,720
Yeah.

60
00:05:21,720 --> 00:05:40,820
Yeah. Okay, so what matters in Bitcoin is nodes with incoming transactions, right? Those are the ones that where the signaling actually matters. But I think a perspective that people miss in this is that it's not just about incoming transactions right now at this moment.

61
00:05:40,820 --> 00:05:54,260
But if you're signaling, like for BIP 110 now, for instance, I think most of the people signaling for it are willing to die on this hill, meaning that they will never include their transactions in a non-compliant block in the future.

62
00:05:54,260 --> 00:06:07,160
Now, if that leads to a hard fork, I mean, Luke's perspective is that it's now the corporate coin that is forking off and the side is saying that Luke coin will be the fork.

63
00:06:07,160 --> 00:06:10,140
regardless of what you think about that,

64
00:06:10,500 --> 00:06:13,240
isn't it true that all of these people,

65
00:06:13,440 --> 00:06:14,940
if they mean what they say,

66
00:06:15,080 --> 00:06:17,200
they will never include their transactions

67
00:06:17,200 --> 00:06:21,160
in a block that is not valid according to BIP 110,

68
00:06:21,160 --> 00:06:25,760
meaning that miners potentially lose 15% of their customers

69
00:06:25,760 --> 00:06:29,040
because miners sell the service of finding block space

70
00:06:29,040 --> 00:06:31,800
to their customers, which are the node runners, right?

71
00:06:31,880 --> 00:06:35,060
The Bitcoiners who pay them in fees and rewards

72
00:06:35,060 --> 00:06:36,880
for finding block space for them.

73
00:06:37,160 --> 00:06:42,840
Is there anything in that view that you sort of disagree with or am I on to something there?

74
00:06:45,020 --> 00:06:47,620
Well, you're right.

75
00:06:47,900 --> 00:06:54,240
But the question is how much of the economic power rests with the pleb nodes, right?

76
00:06:54,380 --> 00:06:56,740
Like it definitely is a part of the network.

77
00:06:56,740 --> 00:07:07,500
But if the vast majority of the network is not rejecting these non-compliant blocks, then yes, they will fork off into a minority chain.

78
00:07:07,660 --> 00:07:12,260
And you can say that the miners serve them, but the miners serve the entire network.

79
00:07:12,740 --> 00:07:16,540
So the question there is, are the pleb node runners the entire network?

80
00:07:16,880 --> 00:07:19,820
And I would say the answer is no, very obviously, right?

81
00:07:19,860 --> 00:07:22,120
The network is bigger than any one subgroup.

82
00:07:22,120 --> 00:07:26,680
It is everything that, yeah, it is everything.

83
00:07:26,740 --> 00:07:29,180
And it's the people that you might dislike.

84
00:07:29,320 --> 00:07:30,320
It might be your enemies.

85
00:07:30,540 --> 00:07:35,280
It might be people that say the things you don't like or have a different opinion than you.

86
00:07:35,400 --> 00:07:37,860
But the network is bigger than a small subgroup.

87
00:07:39,340 --> 00:07:40,300
Yes, of course.

88
00:07:40,420 --> 00:07:48,160
It's just a matter of like evaluating how big these groups are and how much economic impact they will have in the future.

89
00:07:48,280 --> 00:07:55,560
Because at some point, I think you agree with that at some point signaling makes sense.

90
00:07:55,560 --> 00:07:59,360
there is a certain threshold where it makes very little sense to not signal.

91
00:07:59,580 --> 00:08:03,340
Since all BIP-110 blocks are compliant with all the other rules,

92
00:08:03,580 --> 00:08:07,100
then it's, well, Mechanic calls it a milk chocolate fork,

93
00:08:07,160 --> 00:08:10,800
which I like that expression because it really doesn't do very much.

94
00:08:11,540 --> 00:08:14,140
Some claim it sets a bad precedent,

95
00:08:14,440 --> 00:08:18,420
but don't you think that precedent was set by BIP-148 already?

96
00:08:18,760 --> 00:08:20,400
Like, what are your thoughts around that?

97
00:08:21,680 --> 00:08:23,500
Well, let's backtrack a little bit.

98
00:08:23,500 --> 00:08:29,700
So there have been technical people that have evaluated BIT 110 and they said that

99
00:08:29,700 --> 00:08:35,760
Notts doesn't even follow the specification. So from a purely technical standpoint,

100
00:08:35,760 --> 00:08:51,057
it would be difficult to be compliant with BIT 110 if even the BIT 110 client doesn follow the rules set out in the BIP So this is a more systemic issue which is Bit is not a technically viable proposal

101
00:08:51,877 --> 00:09:00,477
There are developers, and regardless of your feelings of what individual developers have said or done or their interpersonal relationships,

102
00:09:00,477 --> 00:09:03,577
there are a lot of developers working on Bitcoin Core.

103
00:09:03,837 --> 00:09:12,317
And you cannot just make your own fork with one or two guys that don't have that much experience in Bitcoin.

104
00:09:12,317 --> 00:09:15,737
And I guess the counterpoint, the 110 supporters will go up in arms and say,

105
00:09:15,817 --> 00:09:17,577
well, Luke is a genius and he knows everything.

106
00:09:17,817 --> 00:09:19,257
But Luke is still one guy, right?

107
00:09:19,817 --> 00:09:25,137
He has had brilliant insights like the ability to implement SegWit as a soft fork.

108
00:09:25,137 --> 00:09:32,397
but that's not enough to maintain a one trillion dollar monetary network you need a lot of

109
00:09:32,397 --> 00:09:38,837
developers and a lot of eyes on the code and i don't think it's anywhere viable the way it is

110
00:09:38,837 --> 00:09:45,017
now that's why it is not taken seriously in the development community and it's just a non-starter

111
00:09:45,017 --> 00:09:51,217
to begin with what was the second part of your question bit 148 was the bad precedent and it was

112
00:09:51,217 --> 00:09:52,417
It was a precedent, right?

113
00:09:53,057 --> 00:09:53,297
Yeah.

114
00:09:53,577 --> 00:09:59,617
So I want to know the full picture of the similarities and differences between these things.

115
00:09:59,617 --> 00:10:09,737
Because if you're claiming that BIP-148 sort of pushed Yihan over the edge to then start signaling for BIP-91.

116
00:10:10,097 --> 00:10:16,257
I mean, all of these things, I guess they are trying to push people to act in a different way.

117
00:10:16,257 --> 00:10:21,417
So what's the dangerous precedent that would be set by BIP-110?

118
00:10:21,757 --> 00:10:24,637
Maybe that's the way to formulate the question.

119
00:10:25,497 --> 00:10:32,497
Right. So I just posted earlier this morning that BIP-110 is effectively pioneering a 1% attack.

120
00:10:32,757 --> 00:10:43,237
You rent 1% of network hash rate and the cost of that is effectively zero until fork day or mandatory signaling period because you're still mining Bitcoin and you're getting paid for it.

121
00:10:43,237 --> 00:10:47,337
And then the other cost is spinning up 3,000-ish nodes.

122
00:10:47,517 --> 00:10:49,797
And if you're doing light nodes on a VPS,

123
00:10:49,957 --> 00:10:53,717
that's like $10 to $15 a node,

124
00:10:53,837 --> 00:10:55,777
which is something like $15,000 a month.

125
00:10:56,137 --> 00:10:59,617
So the cost of this new attack is very low.

126
00:10:59,737 --> 00:11:02,037
And I don't think it should run.

127
00:11:02,317 --> 00:11:04,257
It should work because if it did work,

128
00:11:04,297 --> 00:11:07,077
it would signal that anybody could attack the network, right?

129
00:11:07,797 --> 00:11:12,077
Anybody could push for drive chains and do the same thing.

130
00:11:12,077 --> 00:11:16,997
You just need an angry mob to amplify the sunk cost of that or covenants.

131
00:11:17,577 --> 00:11:25,317
And I'm not against any of these things, but I think it should be done with consensus, which is ultimately the crux of the issue.

132
00:11:25,457 --> 00:11:29,557
Now, going back to 148, it was all about SegWit.

133
00:11:29,657 --> 00:11:38,617
And there was consensus that SegWit was the next upgrade the network needed and the malleability fix was needed, too.

134
00:11:38,617 --> 00:11:40,877
So there was consensus there.

135
00:11:40,877 --> 00:11:44,657
And Bit148 just pushed it across the line, as I said.

136
00:11:45,337 --> 00:11:49,297
Now, was Bit148 the best thing possible?

137
00:11:49,617 --> 00:11:53,397
No, because the best thing possible is that there is no drama.

138
00:11:54,057 --> 00:11:58,057
And I think this is why a lot of core developers at the time were also against it, because,

139
00:11:58,197 --> 00:12:01,497
you know, we're edging into slippery slope territory, right?

140
00:12:01,537 --> 00:12:04,337
We're trying to push something through.

141
00:12:04,337 --> 00:12:12,657
But the only other way would just to be, you know, let this drag on for a few more years, right?

142
00:12:13,377 --> 00:12:21,397
So there's nothing that's purely black and white and there's something that was right and something that was wrong.

143
00:12:21,597 --> 00:12:23,377
Bit148, I could see both sides of it.

144
00:12:23,537 --> 00:12:25,657
Yes, it is not an ideal precedent.

145
00:12:26,017 --> 00:12:29,677
The best way would be to build consensus and everything is done logically.

146
00:12:29,897 --> 00:12:32,177
But some things are not logical.

147
00:12:32,177 --> 00:12:38,577
And Bit110 supporters might twist that and say, well, yeah, it's the exact same situation because Core did this and this and this.

148
00:12:38,677 --> 00:12:45,177
And therefore, we need to, you know, socket to them and put them in their place by pushing this through.

149
00:12:45,637 --> 00:12:55,297
But I don't think there is enough broad consensus and there is no technical community around this that supports it in any way.

150
00:12:55,437 --> 00:13:00,937
And it seems to me that a lot of the large economic nodes are also saying no, too.

151
00:13:00,937 --> 00:13:13,137
So it is technically the same mechanism, but without all of the other context and surrounding mechanisms that made it possible for BIP-148.

152
00:13:14,717 --> 00:13:25,797
Okay, I think the rebuttal to the drive chains and covenants thing is that this is a temporary tightening of the rule of the existent rules.

153
00:13:25,797 --> 00:13:29,757
So once again, the milk chocolate soft fork thing, it's temporary.

154
00:13:30,037 --> 00:13:36,697
It expires after a year and it's just temporarily making some, there are some tightenings of

155
00:13:36,697 --> 00:13:37,917
some rules here and there.

156
00:13:38,017 --> 00:13:41,137
And I guess we'll figure out after a year if that was a good idea or not.

157
00:13:41,517 --> 00:13:45,897
But that whole thing, that's the precedent it sets, I think.

158
00:13:45,957 --> 00:13:50,377
I think it's hard to make the argument that it would set a precedent to push through drive

159
00:13:50,377 --> 00:13:55,377
chains and stuff, which is not just the tightening of the rules, right?

160
00:13:55,377 --> 00:14:09,457
It's adding stuff. And sort of the point of this is that these minor soft forks that just tells the network that we're not really going to tolerate this kind of behavior, that's a much easier thing to push through.

161
00:14:09,457 --> 00:14:22,937
And also this movement, I mean, it started with the Knotts movement and the Core V30 and the threat of Core V30 changing the mempool policy without the consensus of the plebs.

162
00:14:23,217 --> 00:14:27,457
And everything that followed is just downstream of that.

163
00:14:27,697 --> 00:14:35,457
So it has built momentum over quite a long period of time, like at least a year, I'd say, when this whole debacle started.

164
00:14:35,457 --> 00:14:39,777
So I don't think it's just a random angry mob.

165
00:14:39,977 --> 00:14:43,257
I mean, this is real people and quite a few of them.

166
00:14:43,397 --> 00:14:52,817
And Start9 has had their record sales and almost every server they sell is for plebs who want to download NOTS and signal for WIP 110.

167
00:14:53,117 --> 00:14:54,517
So what do you say to that?

168
00:14:55,917 --> 00:15:01,857
Well, there are definitely real people and that's why I'm trying to engage, but it's not really going anywhere.

169
00:15:01,857 --> 00:15:07,077
I spent the last week talking to everybody and, you know, trying to explain things and talk sense into people.

170
00:15:07,277 --> 00:15:11,257
But I think it does look like an angry mob.

171
00:15:11,457 --> 00:15:12,397
Nobody wants to listen.

172
00:15:12,577 --> 00:15:13,457
Everyone is angry.

173
00:15:13,657 --> 00:15:16,297
And there is this just zero nuance out there.

174
00:15:16,417 --> 00:15:21,597
Like, you know, people are slandering Blockstream and Adam and everyone else that they disagree with.

175
00:15:21,797 --> 00:15:25,057
And I don't see any of the mobs saying, hey, you can't really say that.

176
00:15:25,117 --> 00:15:27,637
You know, you're just making things up at this point.

177
00:15:27,737 --> 00:15:31,777
They're just encouraging it and all bandwagoning on these attacks.

178
00:15:31,857 --> 00:15:38,277
so it really looks like an angry mob every single person that has spoke out or has been somewhat

179
00:15:38,277 --> 00:15:43,757
neutral even jimmy song who said you know i'm neutral he was attacked too for not being on the

180
00:15:43,757 --> 00:15:49,617
mob train how who else like lynn alden massive amount of smears attacks nasty things said this

181
00:15:49,617 --> 00:15:55,837
morning plan b 100 trillion plan b not the plan b network the 100 trillion plan b he posted that

182
00:15:55,837 --> 00:16:00,797
you know he is also against 110 and i scrolled through his comments and it's the same thing like

183
00:16:00,797 --> 00:16:08,957
either you're corrupt, you're part of big Bitcoin, you're a suit coiner, anything to divide from who

184
00:16:08,957 --> 00:16:15,717
we, the mob or 110 supporters is, is thrown out there. It's a very intentional thing that

185
00:16:15,717 --> 00:16:21,737
anger groups do, which is to segregate and divide. It's us versus them. And that's also why I try

186
00:16:21,737 --> 00:16:28,257
very hard not to say you guys and they, I say bit 110 supporters, because I don't think this

187
00:16:28,257 --> 00:16:36,077
divisiveness is useful you know it's it's very hard to to not say that but uh i think you know

188
00:16:36,077 --> 00:16:43,417
i'll do my little bit and withhold from that but yeah like yes there it is real people it is real

189
00:16:43,417 --> 00:16:52,577
nodes but you're you're just seeing if uh your node with the will hold out against the vast

190
00:16:52,577 --> 00:16:58,757
economic power of everyone else. And I think maybe there is no way to talk this out. You just have to

191
00:16:58,757 --> 00:17:04,257
run it through and let it run its course and then people will see. But yes, you're right that it has

192
00:17:04,257 --> 00:17:10,377
been building up for a long time and you're right that people are angry. And I can see exactly why

193
00:17:10,377 --> 00:17:16,277
they're angry because yes, it was frustrating that a number of core developers wanted to push this

194
00:17:16,277 --> 00:17:30,914
change through when everyone was saying don do it and that people were upset about the ordinal So you kind of just had this tinderbox of stuff ready to blow up and then they tossed a match in there They could have easily deferred it for I don know a year two years three years

195
00:17:31,154 --> 00:17:36,814
five years, and done it later. But they chose to do it right at that time. And I don't think that

196
00:17:36,814 --> 00:17:42,134
was the right choice. Talking to some people in core, like not everybody in core is on X, and

197
00:17:42,134 --> 00:17:47,874
they speak out. But talking to some people and hearing through the grapevine, there were

198
00:17:47,874 --> 00:17:53,314
dissenting voices that said, yeah, they probably shouldn't do that. So it's not a monolith where

199
00:17:53,314 --> 00:18:00,594
they're all conspiring to destroy your node and infect you with spam and to push you out of the

200
00:18:00,594 --> 00:18:07,054
network because it's hard to run a node. But at the same time, this is a reactionary thing,

201
00:18:07,054 --> 00:18:10,534
and it lacks the due care and process

202
00:18:10,534 --> 00:18:14,274
that you would think is required for sound money,

203
00:18:14,394 --> 00:18:16,534
for money for a thousand years or a hundred years.

204
00:18:16,674 --> 00:18:18,934
What you just said, like, we want to push it out.

205
00:18:19,134 --> 00:18:20,574
Like, okay, so who is we?

206
00:18:20,774 --> 00:18:24,014
But we want to push this out and see how it goes for a year.

207
00:18:25,014 --> 00:18:28,174
Well, Bitcoin is a $1 trillion network.

208
00:18:28,294 --> 00:18:31,034
And I think most of us believe it's going to become

209
00:18:31,034 --> 00:18:34,174
a $10 trillion network and a $100 trillion network.

210
00:18:34,794 --> 00:18:36,374
So you don't really...

211
00:18:37,054 --> 00:18:41,774
throw something out there to see how it goes for a year, especially when it's so contentious.

212
00:18:42,454 --> 00:18:49,234
I can see you want to see how it goes, but the evidence is showing that nothing is going to

213
00:18:49,234 --> 00:18:55,834
matter with this software because it's done more to incentivize people to bypass the filters and

214
00:18:55,834 --> 00:19:02,774
anti-spam mechanisms than anything else has. There are so many new proposals out there and

215
00:19:02,774 --> 00:19:08,834
proof of concepts to load data up into Bitcoin. And I think it's probably going to get worse.

216
00:19:09,114 --> 00:19:11,614
And if anything else, this whole thing has made it worse.

217
00:19:13,434 --> 00:19:20,514
Yeah, I mean, there are, of course, good people and bad people on both sides of this. And I don't

218
00:19:20,514 --> 00:19:25,154
think that the BIP110 group is the only mob that is angry. There's a lot of angry people on the

219
00:19:25,154 --> 00:19:31,294
core side too, and a lot of arrogance and a lot of dismissive comments and stuff. And I think that

220
00:19:31,294 --> 00:19:37,374
has fueled the anger on the other side. Like I try to speak to people from both camps and from

221
00:19:37,374 --> 00:19:42,834
neutral camps and whatnot and try to keep the discussion as civil as I can. I also try to not

222
00:19:42,834 --> 00:19:48,854
attack people, but attack ideas. And I hope that that is what it comes off as on Twitter. As you

223
00:19:48,854 --> 00:19:54,854
know, I do believe in the fork and I do think it's a good idea. So what's the actual technical

224
00:19:54,854 --> 00:20:01,494
argument then because from what I know it's it's flipping a bit flipping a bit to signal and then

225
00:20:01,494 --> 00:20:08,474
there are these eight seven or eight limitations on on sizes of different things and and that's it

226
00:20:08,474 --> 00:20:15,254
so so so what is the the the actual technical problem why why wouldn't it work well we're

227
00:20:15,254 --> 00:20:20,354
talking circles a lot like discussing with people that support it like it's pointed out that those

228
00:20:20,354 --> 00:20:25,874
changes don't do anything because they can be bypassed. And then they say, well, it's not about

229
00:20:25,874 --> 00:20:32,094
stopping spam. It's about sending a message. But then you sent the message. Why try to push through

230
00:20:32,094 --> 00:20:35,374
a contentious fork? And then the argument is, well, they should just flip the bit and do what

231
00:20:35,374 --> 00:20:40,774
we say. But then that sets a bad precedent. And then that an angry mob, or if you don't want to

232
00:20:40,774 --> 00:20:47,634
call it an angry mob, you can say a small group of people that is not representative of the network

233
00:20:47,634 --> 00:20:54,134
can dictate change and consensus changes, that's a bad precedent. And it also erodes neutrality,

234
00:20:54,454 --> 00:20:59,714
which is some transactions are no longer good for the network. And that's a slippery slope too.

235
00:21:00,014 --> 00:21:05,674
It's the same idea that people speaking out against the filters early on were saying,

236
00:21:05,814 --> 00:21:10,414
like, if you can filter this, well, why can't you filter blacklist address or other things?

237
00:21:10,414 --> 00:21:29,134
And then extending on that, if you can convince developers to do something to be partial to something in the network, that's also bad, too, because then what the government should say, well, you change something for this reason to stop spam and bad images.

238
00:21:29,354 --> 00:21:35,654
Well, we want you to also change something for this and implement a blacklist into Bitcoin at the consensus level.

239
00:21:35,654 --> 00:22:04,854
I don't know. There's this world of really bad things that can happen when you start going down this path. But the crux of the issue, I think, is who is we when you say we want to just test it and we want this and we want change? Because everyone that is running a node, knowingly or unknowingly opted into the rules of the network, which is, to be blunt, and it's going to draw heat to store and relay data, all data, Bitcoin data and other data.

240
00:22:04,854 --> 00:22:12,794
Now, I don't like spam. I still am of the opinion that there should be work done on minimizing data.

241
00:22:13,394 --> 00:22:19,234
And I think more important than op return is limiting UTXO bloat and UTXO dust.

242
00:22:20,314 --> 00:22:27,634
But, you know, my opinion is just that I am not a core developer and I'm not sponsoring or hiring core developers.

243
00:22:27,634 --> 00:22:31,214
So I'm limited in what I can do other than just complaining.

244
00:22:34,854 --> 00:22:43,114
Okay, but the op-if thing, for instance, where 99.98% of the op-ifs are not even executable.

245
00:22:43,114 --> 00:22:50,634
They're like, they can only, op-if was made to put an if statement into a Bitcoin transaction, right?

246
00:22:50,834 --> 00:22:52,614
And have two different outcomes.

247
00:22:52,754 --> 00:22:56,634
But 99.98% of them don't do that at all.

248
00:22:56,914 --> 00:23:00,794
So it's just 99.98% spam and provably so.

249
00:23:00,974 --> 00:23:03,754
So why is that a bad thing to limit that?

250
00:23:03,754 --> 00:23:20,634
Like if we if we made a mistake and I think in hindsight that taproot was a mistake because it led to all of this crap, then then why why shouldn't we be able to express that and and and revert the change somehow or try to fix an obvious bug?

251
00:23:20,634 --> 00:23:28,454
because it is a consensus change and consensus changes are taboo effectively you don't want to

252
00:23:28,454 --> 00:23:35,274
be making consensus changes changes anyway like whether it's op if or the block size or the

253
00:23:35,274 --> 00:23:42,234
supply of bitcoin the 21 million you have to have massive overwhelming consensus to make a consensus

254
00:23:42,234 --> 00:23:48,694
rule change and it's the process too like this bypasses the traditional development process and

255
00:23:48,694 --> 00:23:52,514
yes, you can do whatever you want. I get that argument too. Like, why can't we do this? You

256
00:23:52,514 --> 00:23:57,454
can do this, but do it in your own fork and, you know, see if it has consensus. If it does, then

257
00:23:57,454 --> 00:24:04,054
maybe you can get this over time, but not by quote unquote mechanics example, which is I'm

258
00:24:04,054 --> 00:24:08,694
throwing a grenade on the wedding party floor and you better just get out of the room because

259
00:24:08,694 --> 00:24:13,574
it's going to blow up in 30 minutes. That's not how you make consensus changes to the network.

260
00:24:13,574 --> 00:24:23,874
But the actual change, some of the actual changes I think are viable, but they should be run through the standard development process and making sure nothing breaks.

261
00:24:24,374 --> 00:24:32,914
I don't think that same level of due care is in place with the current 110 client knots and even the specification itself.

262
00:24:33,714 --> 00:24:40,994
So, yeah, I think I agree we should limit some of these things, but I disagree with the method to limit.

263
00:24:40,994 --> 00:24:49,494
And I said to Luke and others, if you want to do this in the right way, I'm happy to do what I can to build consensus and bring people together.

264
00:24:49,894 --> 00:25:00,974
So last year at Plan B Lugano, we, a bunch of us all sat in a room for six hours trying to talk things through and figure out if there's something that can actually be done.

265
00:25:01,014 --> 00:25:05,974
Because I think there is appetite for something that limits spam and data.

266
00:25:05,974 --> 00:25:10,434
And at the end of that, I thought it was going in a good direction.

267
00:25:10,954 --> 00:25:12,794
Jimmy thought it was going in a good direction too.

268
00:25:12,994 --> 00:25:15,574
But then it seems like it wasn't fast enough.

269
00:25:15,654 --> 00:25:16,414
It wasn't good enough.

270
00:25:16,574 --> 00:25:21,794
And then we saw 110 come out and people pushing for that with a mandatory day.

271
00:25:22,774 --> 00:25:28,814
So I guess my point is I would be happy to work in something that is not harmful to the

272
00:25:28,814 --> 00:25:33,234
network and to contribute time and resources to building consensus.

273
00:25:33,234 --> 00:25:40,314
But where I draw the line is when you say there's a mandatory date, because who are you to say there's a mandatory date?

274
00:25:40,674 --> 00:25:43,114
And what about other people that are not on X?

275
00:25:43,274 --> 00:25:50,234
Like, you should be able to run a node and be living in the mountains somewhere for a few years and come back and everything's good.

276
00:25:50,574 --> 00:26:08,611
There should be no need to pay attention to what happening on X who said what who said what on which podcast and you know all these things Bitcoin is supposed to be boring it supposed to be stable and it supposed to be neutral Yeah but some of those arguments can be applied to the recent updates of Core 2

277
00:26:08,871 --> 00:26:19,431
Like, was it 30.1 that had that bug that when you moved an old address, the coins were at risk of being lost and stuff like that if you hadn't done a proper backup?

278
00:26:19,431 --> 00:26:23,171
So, I mean, I guess that argument goes both ways.

279
00:26:23,171 --> 00:26:33,211
So, all right, you say we a lot here, and I guess that's sort of representative of some type of community.

280
00:26:33,391 --> 00:26:38,992
I don't know what we were referring to, but this is happening and this is now playing out.

281
00:26:39,391 --> 00:26:48,711
So who's to say what we want at all in Bitcoin and what we should strive for and what we should not strive for?

282
00:26:48,711 --> 00:26:52,551
I mean, there are plenty of opinions about that.

283
00:26:53,171 --> 00:27:18,631
Right. But the great thing is that Bitcoin is not governed by opinions. It's governed by the consensus rules. So that's the ultimate arbiter of all emotions, anger, opinions, technical or otherwise. So it's great. The system works. I think people will just have to wait. Lynn Alden said it best. Sometimes you just have to wait till things play out. You can't argue it out and discuss it.

284
00:27:18,631 --> 00:27:26,512
yeah so nothing stops that train i guess well so so how does this play out because right now

285
00:27:26,512 --> 00:27:32,191
first a couple of statements just to see if you agree with them minors are not really incentivized

286
00:27:32,191 --> 00:27:39,411
to signal until they have to because if if if this is going to actually if the fork is happening in

287
00:27:39,411 --> 00:27:44,431
that scenario if you're a minor you're sort of incentivized to wait until mandatory signaling

288
00:27:44,431 --> 00:27:51,671
begins so that you can flip the bit at exactly the point where you can get an advantage over

289
00:27:51,671 --> 00:27:57,711
other miners because you were the first to flip the bit. Do you agree with that to begin with?

290
00:27:58,492 --> 00:28:03,691
No, because I used to run a mining pool. You don't want to flip something at the last minute.

291
00:28:03,691 --> 00:28:08,992
That is actually quite horrible. If you look at the announcement, I think from Foundry,

292
00:28:08,992 --> 00:28:16,631
It was saying, you know, we're going to let our miners in our pool vote because we don't want to make decisions for them, which is valid.

293
00:28:16,791 --> 00:28:23,671
But the thing that they missed is they set the voting period up until the deadline, which is sort of like what you're saying about flipping the bit at the last minute.

294
00:28:24,331 --> 00:28:30,291
So if they all vote up until the deadline and then they signal for it, then what happens when it's mandatory?

295
00:28:30,291 --> 00:28:40,711
Like they didn't say, you know, we're going to, you know, we're going to we're going to start start mining these bit 110 compliant blocks at that time.

296
00:28:40,711 --> 00:28:45,131
Right. It's not clear what the action is after that moment happens.

297
00:28:45,351 --> 00:28:47,851
And then what software are they going to use?

298
00:28:48,651 --> 00:28:54,752
Because there is no bit 110 compatible core fork, to my knowledge.

299
00:28:54,891 --> 00:28:56,331
They would have to change two knots.

300
00:28:56,331 --> 00:29:02,871
So there's just a ton of things that you have to do to be prepared to support whatever it is you're signaling for.

301
00:29:03,471 --> 00:29:04,851
And that doesn't exist.

302
00:29:05,391 --> 00:29:12,791
And the risk of a minority fork here is it's highly probable that you're going to end up with a minority fork.

303
00:29:13,492 --> 00:29:15,151
So what happens in that case?

304
00:29:15,331 --> 00:29:19,671
There are so many different eventualities that I don't think anyone has planned for.

305
00:29:19,671 --> 00:29:30,171
Because even as one pool foundry, if you flip the bit at the last minute and everyone else doesn't flip the bit at the last minute, you'll be mining on a minority fork.

306
00:29:30,811 --> 00:29:34,811
And then you're going to be mining bit 110 coins.

307
00:29:35,031 --> 00:29:39,451
What happens to your revenue and your cost?

308
00:29:39,551 --> 00:29:41,791
How are you going to pay your electrical bills and everything else?

309
00:29:41,951 --> 00:29:45,531
So there's just so much to it that you cannot just flip at the last minute.

310
00:29:45,531 --> 00:29:53,931
That's why in the block size wars, we were engaged with exchanges, miners, mining pools for two years talking to them.

311
00:29:54,231 --> 00:29:57,671
I don't really see anyone doing any talking with anybody.

312
00:29:57,951 --> 00:30:01,731
I see a lot of talking to people like, you know, you guys should do this.

313
00:30:01,791 --> 00:30:02,591
You guys should do that.

314
00:30:02,651 --> 00:30:09,012
But I just don't see any constructive dialogue at any level in the whole Bitcoin infrastructure ecosystem.

315
00:30:10,951 --> 00:30:13,992
Okay, so let's dissect this a bit more.

316
00:30:13,992 --> 00:30:25,611
The game theory, the prisoner's dilemma scenario, where you sort of have to flip the bit because you think that your opponents are going to do that.

317
00:30:25,611 --> 00:30:44,772
Can Foundry accidentally have set off that prisoner's dilemma type scenario by letting their miners vote or hashmongers vote so that they are now signaling that they might flip the bit, making the other miners have to take that into consideration.

318
00:30:45,151 --> 00:30:51,252
And then maybe one of the other big pools actually flips the bit because of that.

319
00:30:51,252 --> 00:30:54,591
Or is that just wishful thinking on my part?

320
00:30:55,611 --> 00:30:59,951
I think it's wishful thinking, and I'll get a bunch of hate for that too.

321
00:31:00,171 --> 00:31:01,231
But think of it from this way.

322
00:31:01,451 --> 00:31:05,211
There is no prisoner's dilemma because they're not your prisoner, right?

323
00:31:05,231 --> 00:31:07,371
If they were, that's kind of messed up too, right?

324
00:31:07,371 --> 00:31:13,391
You can buy a start nine node and you suddenly enslave the miners or hash mongers, as you say,

325
00:31:13,831 --> 00:31:18,171
that have invested tens and hundreds of millions of dollars in hardware, infrastructure,

326
00:31:18,731 --> 00:31:23,131
power purchase agreements, transformers, staff, everything like that.

327
00:31:23,131 --> 00:31:32,411
So the risk is like 1%, you know, like there's 1% chance that there's going to be a, that there's going to be something out of this.

328
00:31:32,591 --> 00:31:41,091
And I need to flip a bit and signal this thing and prepare in two weeks, which I don't think anyone has prepared.

329
00:31:41,091 --> 00:32:00,591
And I think if the 110 supporters are serious, then they should be able to show some discussion with miners and pools that they are prepared for all eventualities, both successful activation, unsuccessful activation, and a fork coming out of that unsuccessful activation.

330
00:32:00,831 --> 00:32:02,131
And I don't think they can produce that.

331
00:32:02,271 --> 00:32:08,071
They're too busy screaming at people online to do anything actually practical to help their cause.

332
00:32:08,071 --> 00:32:10,431
But look at it this way.

333
00:32:10,431 --> 00:32:18,451
If you invested $10 million into a mining facility, why would you bother to do anything?

334
00:32:18,971 --> 00:32:25,971
You need the Bitcoin to pay bills, to pay off debt if you're levered up and borrowed money.

335
00:32:26,691 --> 00:32:30,951
And yeah, you have electrical costs, ongoing electrical costs.

336
00:32:30,951 --> 00:32:36,851
You have to have massive faith in something magically happening to flip that bit.

337
00:32:37,571 --> 00:32:39,071
Otherwise, you'll go bankrupt.

338
00:32:40,431 --> 00:32:54,351
Well, I'd take the opposite view of that argument because all they need to do is flip a bit and then they mine all the transactions they mine are compatible with the BIP-110 rules and with the non-BIP-110 rules.

339
00:32:54,351 --> 00:33:02,492
There are no transactions that every node doesn't agree to is a valid Bitcoin transaction.

340
00:33:02,492 --> 00:33:12,431
The only thing that happens when you flip the bit is that you exclude some transactions that 15% of the nodes or whatever it is, rough estimation, does not like.

341
00:33:13,091 --> 00:33:23,611
So that argument can be made from the opposite perspective, that you're more at risk by not flipping the bit because it's virtually free to just flip from a one to a zero.

342
00:33:24,651 --> 00:33:25,351
Yeah, it's true.

343
00:33:25,532 --> 00:33:28,211
But after you flip the bit, then what?

344
00:33:28,512 --> 00:33:30,731
What node software are you running?

345
00:33:31,291 --> 00:33:31,851
Right?

346
00:33:31,851 --> 00:33:36,992
How do you know that your blocks will be compliant if you signaled for this thing?

347
00:33:37,772 --> 00:33:42,471
You'd have to run Noughts, which is probably the best bet at that point, but still.

348
00:33:42,471 --> 00:33:52,471
This is a question from ignorance here, but can't you just set the parameters of your mining node to be compliant?

349
00:33:53,031 --> 00:33:59,211
I'm not going to include any transactions that exceed these limits that Bit.1.10 doesn't allow for.

350
00:33:59,831 --> 00:34:01,512
It's changing eight things.

351
00:34:01,851 --> 00:34:07,211
it's not that simple. I mean, you should have been testing this on testnet or something. There's this

352
00:34:07,211 --> 00:34:13,351
zero body of evidence that anything will work according to the bit 110 spec and even the knots

353
00:34:13,351 --> 00:34:21,111
node. So Merch, I believe, found some bugs in there. And, you know, that's just one guy looking

354
00:34:21,111 --> 00:34:26,091
at it. You get a few other people looking at it and you'll probably find more. But there's just too

355
00:34:26,091 --> 00:34:31,631
much of a risk that everything is going to blow up if you signal for this. But weren't those bugs

356
00:34:31,631 --> 00:34:35,631
I mean, quite early on, someone looked at it.

357
00:34:35,631 --> 00:34:37,631
I don't know if it was Merch or someone else.

358
00:34:37,631 --> 00:34:39,631
It was last week.

359
00:34:39,631 --> 00:34:43,091
Okay. I think Jon Attack is looking at it as well.

360
00:34:43,109 --> 00:34:48,569
and like yeah so yeah but that's not good enough you think someone's looking at it i mean you should

361
00:34:48,569 --> 00:34:55,129
be able to say clearly this has been tested on testnet it's activated and works fine and you can

362
00:34:55,129 --> 00:35:02,049
see after the after you signal and you're running this client everything is working just as intended

363
00:35:02,049 --> 00:35:05,909
like there is zero body of evidence other than people saying just flip the bit bro

364
00:35:05,909 --> 00:35:15,889
yeah i guess we'll reach the end of the line of that discussion because i i don't see

365
00:35:15,889 --> 00:35:21,069
the risk there but maybe it's because i'm not a developer but

366
00:35:21,069 --> 00:35:28,589
from what i understand of the bit it's just like limiting some data outputs and you should be able

367
00:35:28,589 --> 00:35:34,549
to like set those limits manually if you if if you're technical enough to run a mining pool

368
00:35:34,549 --> 00:35:36,409
then that should be trivial, no?

369
00:35:37,409 --> 00:35:40,269
I mean, the block size increase was trivial too.

370
00:35:40,409 --> 00:35:42,569
And Jeff Garzik had an off by one bug too.

371
00:35:43,049 --> 00:35:46,129
Like I'm not a developer and I can say it sounds risky.

372
00:35:46,349 --> 00:35:48,569
I think if you brought on a few developers,

373
00:35:48,869 --> 00:35:51,629
they would probably be able to give you a far better answer

374
00:35:51,629 --> 00:35:54,649
about the technical risks because it is consensus rules.

375
00:35:54,749 --> 00:35:56,909
There are so many little edge cases here and there

376
00:35:56,909 --> 00:35:59,289
and how things interplay with one another.

377
00:36:00,029 --> 00:36:02,789
You're going into limitations of script.

378
00:36:02,789 --> 00:36:06,289
Like I'm not a developer and I can see the complexity there already.

379
00:36:06,629 --> 00:36:09,329
So, you know, take that as however you want to take it.

380
00:36:09,449 --> 00:36:14,769
But as a non-technical guy, well, OK technical web development, but that's different.

381
00:36:14,909 --> 00:36:16,009
But I'm not a core developer.

382
00:36:16,109 --> 00:36:17,069
I'm not a protocol developer.

383
00:36:17,069 --> 00:36:18,769
And I can say it looks kind of risky.

384
00:36:19,209 --> 00:36:24,189
Then you have to objectively look at the body of developers out there.

385
00:36:24,249 --> 00:36:27,429
Like, why are they all against it outside of Luke?

386
00:36:30,129 --> 00:36:30,529
Yeah.

387
00:36:31,589 --> 00:36:32,589
I mean, OK.

388
00:36:32,589 --> 00:36:45,489
So to take the conversation in a slightly different direction here, when I had you on last year, I think we talked about, and I've seen you talk about this on other pods, like that this corruption in core is a real thing.

389
00:36:45,629 --> 00:36:48,329
So Hodlonauts articles, there's something there.

390
00:36:48,429 --> 00:36:55,729
Maybe you don't agree with all that's written in there, but you have been talking about similar things, that there are bad stuff going on.

391
00:36:55,729 --> 00:36:57,989
So in the case of...

392
00:36:57,989 --> 00:36:58,749
Pause, pause for a second.

393
00:36:58,989 --> 00:37:01,989
So I choose my words very carefully when I say things.

394
00:37:01,989 --> 00:37:06,789
And I think a lot of nuance is just left when people take it at face value.

395
00:37:07,349 --> 00:37:08,609
I didn't say core is corrupt.

396
00:37:08,789 --> 00:37:11,789
I said there are structural problems and risk of groupthink.

397
00:37:12,649 --> 00:37:16,129
But that does not mean the whole of core is corrupt.

398
00:37:16,249 --> 00:37:18,009
That's like saying blockstream is evil.

399
00:37:18,309 --> 00:37:19,869
Like there are so many people at blockstream.

400
00:37:19,969 --> 00:37:21,409
There's like 100 plus people there.

401
00:37:21,569 --> 00:37:23,869
Researchers, business people, like are they all evil?

402
00:37:24,049 --> 00:37:27,189
It's just that same problem as before.

403
00:37:27,309 --> 00:37:30,509
The generalization, like us versus them, they are evil.

404
00:37:30,669 --> 00:37:31,169
We are good.

405
00:37:31,169 --> 00:37:32,109
It's not that straightforward.

406
00:37:32,729 --> 00:37:35,289
No, and I shouldn't have used the word corrupt.

407
00:37:35,409 --> 00:37:36,589
It's too strong of a word.

408
00:37:36,729 --> 00:37:43,049
But you have voiced that there are problems within core, like an incentive problems and stuff like this.

409
00:37:43,369 --> 00:37:50,229
So if now there's a hard fork situation and you lose all the people on the BIP110 side,

410
00:37:50,369 --> 00:37:53,569
and there's quite a few good people there and good Bitcoiners, I think.

411
00:37:53,749 --> 00:37:59,109
I mean, Luke is the most obvious one that has almost single-handedly saved Bitcoin a couple of times.

412
00:37:59,109 --> 00:38:04,129
and we will most definitely lose him if there's a hard fork.

413
00:38:04,649 --> 00:38:07,169
I hope not. I hope he'll stick around.

414
00:38:08,009 --> 00:38:09,109
But, yeah.

415
00:38:09,949 --> 00:38:13,269
It doesn't look like that's possible at this point.

416
00:38:13,929 --> 00:38:19,869
So is there a risk there that if now there's a fork,

417
00:38:20,089 --> 00:38:22,689
regardless of who you think is forking off or not,

418
00:38:23,229 --> 00:38:27,389
that all the BIP-110 people and all the NOTs people virtually go to,

419
00:38:27,389 --> 00:38:30,949
So 15% of the network goes to a different coin.

420
00:38:31,789 --> 00:38:33,669
And these are high integrity.

421
00:38:33,869 --> 00:38:41,189
I know a lot of people on this side, and there's a lot of high integrity Bitcoiners there and high integrity people in general.

422
00:38:41,349 --> 00:38:46,389
A lot of people who are deep into Austrian economics and stuff like this.

423
00:38:46,529 --> 00:38:53,389
And I know that on the other side, there is a lot of people who want to shitcoin on Bitcoin.

424
00:38:53,389 --> 00:38:58,309
I mean, almost all the spammers and scammers are on the other side.

425
00:38:58,429 --> 00:39:02,149
I don't see any spammers and scammers on the BIP-110 side.

426
00:39:02,409 --> 00:39:03,489
So what's the risk?

427
00:39:03,649 --> 00:39:04,149
There's a few.

428
00:39:05,249 --> 00:39:09,769
I don't want to name names, but if you search it, you know, you'll find them.

429
00:39:09,989 --> 00:39:12,029
Well, I can name a name.

430
00:39:12,129 --> 00:39:14,449
Udi is pro BIP-110, but I think he's just trolling.

431
00:39:14,449 --> 00:39:15,249
Yeah, but he's trolling.

432
00:39:16,029 --> 00:39:17,009
He's just a troll.

433
00:39:17,189 --> 00:39:19,969
But there are other people that have suddenly come out in support of 110.

434
00:39:20,169 --> 00:39:22,229
I think it was, there's this guy, Michael Sullivan.

435
00:39:22,229 --> 00:39:29,949
He did some analysis and he really dug into all the sentiment and metrics on everything and published a bunch of charts.

436
00:39:30,109 --> 00:39:30,749
I hope that's his name.

437
00:39:30,809 --> 00:39:31,429
I didn't say it wrong.

438
00:39:31,489 --> 00:39:32,469
I think it's Michael Sullivan.

439
00:39:32,729 --> 00:39:39,629
But one of the things he found was that if you are pro 110, your engagement levels go up massively.

440
00:39:40,449 --> 00:39:45,149
Like the anti 110 posters don't see any engagement boost.

441
00:39:45,149 --> 00:39:51,629
And I can tell you, like as as an anti 110 voice now, there's no positive to it.

442
00:39:51,629 --> 00:39:53,089
It's all negative, all downside.

443
00:39:53,329 --> 00:39:55,929
Anything you post, even if you don't mention 110,

444
00:39:56,209 --> 00:39:58,269
you just get people brigading and criticizing

445
00:39:58,269 --> 00:40:01,209
and calling you corrupt suit coiner, a pervert, everything.

446
00:40:01,749 --> 00:40:06,129
So there's zero upside to saying anything negative

447
00:40:06,129 --> 00:40:09,369
or neutral about 110, but there's a massive upside

448
00:40:09,369 --> 00:40:12,129
and engagement boost to being pro 110.

449
00:40:12,609 --> 00:40:16,429
So there are people that just last week flipped over

450
00:40:16,429 --> 00:40:19,969
and started speaking pro 110 and criticizing core

451
00:40:19,969 --> 00:40:20,429
and everything.

452
00:40:20,429 --> 00:40:24,209
And two of them have been doing altcoin projects.

453
00:40:24,509 --> 00:40:29,749
Two that I've seen were launching altcoin projects and one of them promoted ordinals before too.

454
00:40:29,949 --> 00:40:33,069
So it's not like it's all clean.

455
00:40:33,549 --> 00:40:39,729
And I think there's another risk too, which is I see some bot accounts supporting it now too that are heavily into altcoins.

456
00:40:39,929 --> 00:40:46,209
So you have to also factor in the possibility in the game theory that some people supporting this just want an airdrop to dump.

457
00:40:46,209 --> 00:40:54,129
yeah i guess that's there's that aspect but the the thing about the engagement there

458
00:40:54,129 --> 00:41:02,069
how did it come to that though why what made the core side so impopular online why why is

459
00:41:02,069 --> 00:41:08,629
why is that why oh it if if it is as you say like with people calling you names and stuff

460
00:41:08,629 --> 00:41:16,189
and calling other people names what went wrong there what is it is it not at all on them like

461
00:41:16,189 --> 00:41:18,489
what's your analysis of mine?

462
00:41:19,029 --> 00:41:19,749
It's on them too.

463
00:41:19,869 --> 00:41:22,389
I said in another pod with Jake Rook

464
00:41:22,389 --> 00:41:24,409
that it takes two to clap.

465
00:41:24,849 --> 00:41:30,509
And, you know, the core devs are not innocent.

466
00:41:30,989 --> 00:41:32,889
Some of them, a lot of them, actually,

467
00:41:33,129 --> 00:41:34,929
I don't know, like counting off the top of my head,

468
00:41:34,989 --> 00:41:37,649
maybe 10 of them were instigating a lot of this

469
00:41:37,649 --> 00:41:41,489
and being pretty combative online and everything

470
00:41:41,489 --> 00:41:45,869
and taking a very dismissive and insulting tone to people.

471
00:41:46,189 --> 00:41:50,189
saying, you know, you're not, you shouldn't run a node, you're not an economic node,

472
00:41:50,389 --> 00:41:51,809
and you don't know anything.

473
00:41:52,149 --> 00:41:53,269
You know, there's tons of this.

474
00:41:53,269 --> 00:41:57,729
So it definitely takes two to start a war or it takes two hands to clap.

475
00:41:58,449 --> 00:42:03,249
But I think it's just the human psychology that we are looking, we're always looking

476
00:42:03,249 --> 00:42:05,749
for a big boogeyman to fight.

477
00:42:05,889 --> 00:42:09,949
You always want to find the giant so you can be David and slay Goliath.

478
00:42:10,169 --> 00:42:14,269
And, you know, Core is an easy target because they're very bad at communication.

479
00:42:14,269 --> 00:42:20,349
they're yeah they're just very bad at communication but it's not all of them it's just a few that

480
00:42:20,349 --> 00:42:26,349
happen to be on x and are snarky and arrogant but if you look there's like hundreds and hundreds of

481
00:42:26,349 --> 00:42:31,749
developers and a lot of them just quietly work on testing and bug fixing and just doing boring

482
00:42:31,749 --> 00:42:37,449
things so it's the same for i say i would say blockstream and it's been the same with blockstream

483
00:42:37,449 --> 00:42:43,209
since forever like if you look at the block size wars they need to demonize some big group that has

484
00:42:43,209 --> 00:42:48,989
capital, but that you can demonize every group. Like you're starting to, you're starting to see

485
00:42:48,989 --> 00:42:53,969
people demonize the treasury companies. When Dylan Leclerc came out and said, you know,

486
00:42:53,969 --> 00:42:59,909
I'm against it. Well, now they're going after MetaPlanet. So it's just anyone that speaks out,

487
00:43:00,049 --> 00:43:06,469
your whole organization is lumped into that big boogeyman category. And the perfect example of

488
00:43:06,469 --> 00:43:09,169
This is the concept of big Bitcoin, right?

489
00:43:09,169 --> 00:43:16,509
It's like us versus them and they are big and, you know, we're going to win because we're righteous and we're the small underdog.

490
00:43:17,769 --> 00:43:18,629
Yeah, but hold on.

491
00:43:18,629 --> 00:43:33,906
Dylan Leclerc is on the board for UTXO management I think he on an advisory board but regardless he works for Bailey and he has worked for Bailey for a long time And UTXO management owned by Bailey is one of the companies funding the Taproot Wizards

492
00:43:34,286 --> 00:43:35,906
Like they are the spammers.

493
00:43:36,806 --> 00:43:42,286
So I think critiques of Dylan Leclerc's opinion are based on that.

494
00:43:42,486 --> 00:43:45,046
Like, why are you telling us what you think?

495
00:43:45,146 --> 00:43:47,846
Nobody cares because you are the spammer.

496
00:43:47,846 --> 00:43:48,586
Like literally.

497
00:43:48,886 --> 00:43:57,186
not literally though like this is another thing that happened in the block size wars which was

498
00:43:57,186 --> 00:44:03,926
you get people attacking any organization that has someone on the on the on the board so i think

499
00:44:03,926 --> 00:44:10,646
axa invested in blockstream and the builderberg group has invested in axa so they kind of draw

500
00:44:10,646 --> 00:44:15,106
this line down like you know you know that meme the crazy guy with all the lines on the board

501
00:44:15,106 --> 00:44:17,366
It's like, yeah, there's a connection over here.

502
00:44:17,526 --> 00:44:21,426
Therefore, obviously Bilderberg is controlling Blockstream, right?

503
00:44:21,586 --> 00:44:23,386
But that's not how governance works.

504
00:44:23,706 --> 00:44:27,906
Like each company has its own board of directors with independent directors.

505
00:44:28,186 --> 00:44:30,306
And it's not like they can just do whatever they want.

506
00:44:30,386 --> 00:44:31,986
The directors have to make a decision.

507
00:44:32,166 --> 00:44:36,306
And it's not like an investor could come in and say, hey, do this.

508
00:44:36,406 --> 00:44:41,266
Of course, there are cases where investors, you have activist investors that might try

509
00:44:41,266 --> 00:44:42,746
to do something and influence things.

510
00:44:42,746 --> 00:44:45,266
But at the end of the day, that's not how it works.

511
00:44:45,346 --> 00:44:49,046
The board itself has to produce the governance for the entity.

512
00:44:49,306 --> 00:44:51,686
And Dylan is just an advisor to UTXO.

513
00:44:52,546 --> 00:44:54,506
So that has nothing to do with his opinion.

514
00:44:54,606 --> 00:44:55,786
He's saying he runs a node.

515
00:44:55,886 --> 00:44:58,726
He's a sovereign individual running a node and he's against this.

516
00:44:58,966 --> 00:45:05,646
But, you know, I guess if you don't work for any company, then you're pure of heart and mind and you can say what you want.

517
00:45:05,646 --> 00:45:11,926
But if you work for a company or you make money somehow, then you're evil because someone is pulling the strings in the background.

518
00:45:12,746 --> 00:45:30,486
Okay, I mean, that's the extreme view, but there are incentive problems with big Bitcoin. Like if shitcoiners fund core developers, core developers will be more apologetic to shitcoin narratives.

519
00:45:30,486 --> 00:45:33,646
Like, I don't see how that couldn't be the case.

520
00:45:33,726 --> 00:45:38,686
And this consortium thing with strategy, like with Coinbase and BlackRock and all of this stuff.

521
00:45:39,226 --> 00:45:44,006
I don't see how you can't see that as a clear incentive problem.

522
00:45:45,386 --> 00:45:46,426
Okay, we'll get into that.

523
00:45:46,466 --> 00:45:54,906
But first, it's the demonization of everyone that is working for another company that I think is a very big problem.

524
00:45:54,906 --> 00:46:00,366
So I've said, the people have said in my comments that you're a spammer, right?

525
00:46:00,486 --> 00:46:02,226
And I say, I'm not a spammer.

526
00:46:02,246 --> 00:46:04,686
And they say, you're forcing me to store spam on my node.

527
00:46:04,746 --> 00:46:05,686
I'm like, no, I'm not.

528
00:46:05,806 --> 00:46:08,646
And the reason is because I don't support BIP 110.

529
00:46:09,126 --> 00:46:11,106
But the anger is misdirected.

530
00:46:11,106 --> 00:46:12,746
Why are you angry at me?

531
00:46:12,826 --> 00:46:14,486
I'm just another guy running a node.

532
00:46:15,326 --> 00:46:17,366
Be angry at the Ordinal's guys, right?

533
00:46:17,666 --> 00:46:21,226
Yes, David Bailey funds them and invested in them.

534
00:46:21,446 --> 00:46:25,786
But the real people you should still be angry at are the guys doing it, right?

535
00:46:25,786 --> 00:46:35,646
Like ultimately David Bailey, maybe he is directly promoting it, but, you know, he's not the one spamming you either.

536
00:46:36,206 --> 00:46:39,946
So you got to be angry at the right people, first of all.

537
00:46:41,386 --> 00:46:44,526
Yeah, but if you're funding the thing, you are the guy spamming.

538
00:46:44,626 --> 00:46:47,326
Like if they didn't have any money to spam, they couldn't spam.

539
00:46:47,526 --> 00:46:53,626
And also platforming and creating the whole debate, is ordinals a real thing or not?

540
00:46:53,626 --> 00:46:55,246
Like all of this is artificial.

541
00:46:55,786 --> 00:47:15,106
Right. But at which point? It's like chain analysis and tracking transactions, right? Like you can say, well, go to back and you can see it's the same guy. It's not the same guy. It's the same like, well, how far removed does Dylan have to be? Like if he resigns from the advisory board of UTXO management, is he clean now? I don't know.

542
00:47:15,106 --> 00:47:18,426
Well, if he stopped working for Bailey altogether, he would be cleaner.

543
00:47:18,726 --> 00:47:20,606
He doesn't work for Bailey. He's an advisor.

544
00:47:20,606 --> 00:47:25,626
on okay isn't he an employer of bitcoin magazine and like i don't want to trash talk

545
00:47:25,626 --> 00:47:32,386
dylan leclerc it's too much i'm i'm just we're just using him as an example of of why people have

546
00:47:32,386 --> 00:47:37,386
this opinion so this so this is dylan if you're watching this i am sorry if it sounded like i

547
00:47:37,386 --> 00:47:44,786
attacked you it's that is not my intention at all i i this is just an example i think at this point

548
00:47:44,786 --> 00:47:49,286
i stopped going to the bitcoin conference like any bailey conference because i think they've

549
00:47:49,286 --> 00:47:55,326
They've been obvious scammers for too long and having actual feds on stage.

550
00:47:55,766 --> 00:47:59,806
And like there is so much there, this whole NACA debacle.

551
00:48:00,186 --> 00:48:03,286
I cannot see these people as good guys anymore.

552
00:48:03,286 --> 00:48:09,426
And I respect the people who also join me in boycotting their conferences.

553
00:48:10,206 --> 00:48:17,786
I do not like, but I won't stop talking to anyone who has ever spoken at a Bailey conference.

554
00:48:17,986 --> 00:48:19,166
That's not the point.

555
00:48:19,286 --> 00:48:20,766
There is nuance here.

556
00:48:21,206 --> 00:48:25,546
But if you still work for Bailey at this in 2026,

557
00:48:26,026 --> 00:48:30,486
I have a hard time respecting that you choose to do that

558
00:48:30,486 --> 00:48:33,706
because you could find a better job for a better employer.

559
00:48:34,246 --> 00:48:35,586
Like, probably.

560
00:48:36,686 --> 00:48:37,006
That's fair.

561
00:48:37,466 --> 00:48:39,246
And I can see your points.

562
00:48:39,546 --> 00:48:41,346
Like, they do let the...

563
00:48:41,346 --> 00:48:43,246
They have ordinals at the conference, I think,

564
00:48:43,346 --> 00:48:44,266
in one of the years.

565
00:48:44,366 --> 00:48:45,006
I forgot which one.

566
00:48:45,006 --> 00:48:47,246
But, you know, that's...

567
00:48:47,246 --> 00:48:47,506
I don't know.

568
00:48:47,506 --> 00:48:49,606
It's like, where do you draw the line?

569
00:48:50,046 --> 00:48:53,126
Like, how far back do you have to be associated with?

570
00:48:53,266 --> 00:48:58,466
And even if you cut association, are you going to be absolved of your sins by the plebs?

571
00:48:58,546 --> 00:48:59,026
I don't know.

572
00:48:59,666 --> 00:48:59,846
Right?

573
00:48:59,966 --> 00:49:07,966
Like, I think I'll always be deemed to be corrupted or captured because I worked for Blockstream.

574
00:49:08,166 --> 00:49:09,246
You know, that's not going away.

575
00:49:10,806 --> 00:49:16,146
No, but I mean, everyone has to decide that for themselves.

576
00:49:16,146 --> 00:49:38,706
And I have my moral compass. You have yours. And David Bailey has his broken one. And we have to, I think forgiveness is a good thing, too. And the fool me once and fool me twice thing is also good to live by. If someone, if a former shitcoiner becomes a shit becomes a bitcoiner, you should welcome them into the Bitcoin community.

577
00:49:38,706 --> 00:49:44,106
But if they start shitcoining again, then that's not a person worth talking to.

578
00:49:44,246 --> 00:49:52,706
Like, there has to be some way to, for lack of a better word, block or filter out.

579
00:49:52,806 --> 00:49:53,906
Filter out is a good term.

580
00:49:54,166 --> 00:49:58,126
The bad seeds, because some people are just not worth your time.

581
00:49:58,726 --> 00:50:01,586
So what's your mechanism for that?

582
00:50:01,706 --> 00:50:05,846
Like, how do you filter out bad people from your life in general?

583
00:50:05,846 --> 00:50:09,826
like not only talking Bitcoin here, but is there a method to that?

584
00:50:10,546 --> 00:50:11,906
I mean, just ignore them.

585
00:50:12,106 --> 00:50:17,026
So if you don't like what Bailey's doing, then don't support him.

586
00:50:17,186 --> 00:50:20,726
And if you really hate it, then I guess you do what people are doing now,

587
00:50:20,846 --> 00:50:22,686
which is trash talk him online.

588
00:50:23,106 --> 00:50:24,826
That doesn't really change anything.

589
00:50:25,146 --> 00:50:27,046
All the shitcoiners, they're still here.

590
00:50:27,366 --> 00:50:29,526
The Ethereum Foundation still holds Bitcoin.

591
00:50:30,166 --> 00:50:33,446
So I think I'd rather just direct my energy to better things.

592
00:50:33,446 --> 00:50:35,606
And I tried not to talk about the 110.

593
00:50:35,906 --> 00:50:41,066
It was almost by accident because I was on the podcast with Jake Roach and he asked me a lot of questions.

594
00:50:41,206 --> 00:50:45,966
And I just felt like I had to answer them because I just like I thought 110 is ridiculous.

595
00:50:46,426 --> 00:50:50,886
And I bit my tongue and didn't say anything for a while, but it just came out.

596
00:50:51,106 --> 00:50:53,666
And then I figured, well, I might as well just speak my piece now.

597
00:50:55,006 --> 00:50:57,226
But by and large, I'd rather just ignore everything.

598
00:50:57,226 --> 00:51:03,646
I will still go to a Bitcoin conference if I have something interesting, like an announcement for Nation State stuff.

599
00:51:04,206 --> 00:51:07,166
I don't want to boycott his conference.

600
00:51:07,686 --> 00:51:08,966
It's still a good conference.

601
00:51:09,186 --> 00:51:10,006
Plebs still go there.

602
00:51:11,066 --> 00:51:18,686
I think the best example of separating different things and compartmentalizing is when I think Saylor was asked,

603
00:51:18,786 --> 00:51:20,246
why do you go on all these altcoin podcasts?

604
00:51:20,626 --> 00:51:25,066
And I believe his answer was, well, if you want to reach people, you have to go on these other podcasts.

605
00:51:25,066 --> 00:51:26,506
but to each his own.

606
00:51:26,586 --> 00:51:28,686
You can also ignore all the podcasts too

607
00:51:28,686 --> 00:51:29,726
that talk about altcoins

608
00:51:29,726 --> 00:51:30,666
or you can go there

609
00:51:30,666 --> 00:51:33,326
and maybe some crypto guy is going to listen

610
00:51:33,326 --> 00:51:34,326
and figure out,

611
00:51:34,426 --> 00:51:35,586
okay, maybe I should read

612
00:51:35,586 --> 00:51:37,446
everything divided by 21 million,

613
00:51:37,906 --> 00:51:39,346
infinity divided by 21 million

614
00:51:39,346 --> 00:51:40,586
or something else, right?

615
00:51:40,586 --> 00:51:42,646
There's always room for redemption

616
00:51:42,646 --> 00:51:45,386
if you're willing to participate and reach out.

617
00:51:45,606 --> 00:51:46,746
But where I draw the line is

618
00:51:46,746 --> 00:51:48,066
I'm not going to promote ordinals

619
00:51:48,066 --> 00:51:49,726
at a Bitcoin mag conference.

620
00:51:50,106 --> 00:51:51,846
Like I'll go and do my thing

621
00:51:51,846 --> 00:51:52,966
and that's it.

622
00:51:52,966 --> 00:52:11,663
Yeah and I largely agree because I think guilt by association is a left winger thing anyway Like I don really like guilt by association but but but at some point you by giving your name to a conference you sort of legitimize that conference

623
00:52:11,663 --> 00:52:16,703
and if you don't like what that's conference stands for then then not participating is a way

624
00:52:16,703 --> 00:52:22,703
to the there is a point to a boycott like so yeah i i don't think you would go to an al-qaeda

625
00:52:22,703 --> 00:52:29,183
conference for instance or ridiculous example but yeah yeah i have my limits like i will boycott a

626
00:52:29,183 --> 00:52:36,403
I did. I boycotted many conferences that had Craig Wright after the economy and when things escalated.

627
00:52:37,023 --> 00:52:39,823
But I would just tell them, like, if you have Craig Wright, I'm not going.

628
00:52:40,263 --> 00:52:44,183
Right. But I think, you know, you'll never get rid of all the crypto altcoin stuff.

629
00:52:44,303 --> 00:52:48,223
I've gone to ConsenSys before, too. And there's tons of stuff there.

630
00:52:48,303 --> 00:52:54,383
I went to LaBitConf in Argentina. And even though it's LaBitConf, if you go to the exhibition floor, it's like all crypto.

631
00:52:54,723 --> 00:52:58,883
And they love Ethereum in Argentina. But I want to get the message out about Bitcoin.

632
00:52:58,883 --> 00:53:09,083
So I make my choices, but generally, unless it's really bad, like Craig Wright level bad, where he's suing developers and suing HODL or not, then I'm not going to boycott.

633
00:53:10,863 --> 00:53:14,923
No, and yeah, I went to love Bitcoin for the year after you did, I think.

634
00:53:15,103 --> 00:53:26,723
And I also noticed that they really, and I thought it was so sad because a country with the hyperinflation is the country that needs Bitcoin the most and definitely does not need shit coins.

635
00:53:27,463 --> 00:53:27,643
Yeah.

636
00:53:27,883 --> 00:53:28,343
Yeah.

637
00:53:28,883 --> 00:53:32,723
So, yeah. Speaking of conferences, when's the next Nevermind gig?

638
00:53:32,823 --> 00:53:33,103
Lugano.

639
00:53:34,043 --> 00:53:40,203
It's in Lugano, right? So, and I think we have managed to have this conversation without breaking up the band.

640
00:53:40,303 --> 00:53:44,963
We'll see if we're on different chains by then.

641
00:53:45,483 --> 00:53:47,843
But, yeah, we should talk about that too.

642
00:53:48,083 --> 00:53:52,263
So, I've seen, I've asked people what happens if there's a fork.

643
00:53:52,443 --> 00:53:56,763
And a lot of plebs have said, yeah, well, then I don't care.

644
00:53:56,823 --> 00:53:58,623
I don't want to use the corrupted chain anymore.

645
00:53:58,883 --> 00:54:01,743
But there are reasonable people on the 110 side too.

646
00:54:02,163 --> 00:54:04,463
Like I'm not going to demonize everyone that supports 110.

647
00:54:04,743 --> 00:54:08,603
Like our friend Luke DeWolf, he said, if there is a fork, then that's it.

648
00:54:08,903 --> 00:54:13,723
Arthur Van Pelt, you know, he's very pro 110, but he's also said, if there's a fork, I'm out.

649
00:54:13,943 --> 00:54:14,143
Right.

650
00:54:14,203 --> 00:54:19,223
So I think that is a healthy attitude to this whole thing where you have a limit.

651
00:54:19,663 --> 00:54:25,203
But I hear other people saying, well, if there's a proof of work change, then so be it.

652
00:54:25,363 --> 00:54:25,483
Right.

653
00:54:25,483 --> 00:54:32,043
Right. So there's different degrees of extremities on the 110 side. And I think,

654
00:54:32,203 --> 00:54:35,683
I hope that you're not going to fork off and have an altcoin.

655
00:54:36,683 --> 00:54:43,423
No, I am not going to discuss that before I see how this thing plays out though. Because like,

656
00:54:43,423 --> 00:54:49,623
I don't want to base my decisions without the complete data set. And I want to make

657
00:54:49,623 --> 00:54:56,523
principle decisions and it does matter how how this plays out and I guess we'll see in a couple

658
00:54:56,523 --> 00:55:03,823
of weeks here but at the moment I'm I'm not taking any not making any statements about what I'll do

659
00:55:03,823 --> 00:55:08,963
after the fork like the the thing that's on the table now is is the soft fork and not a hard fork

660
00:55:08,963 --> 00:55:15,903
or anything like that so we'll see how that plays out and take it from there okay did you have any

661
00:55:15,903 --> 00:55:17,303
Anything else you want to talk about?

662
00:55:17,423 --> 00:55:21,803
I think you listed off a bunch at the beginning, and one was my inconsistencies.

663
00:55:24,443 --> 00:55:28,103
No, yeah, I mean, I think we addressed most of that.

664
00:55:29,203 --> 00:55:31,823
Yeah, people have been calling you inconsistent.

665
00:55:32,743 --> 00:55:35,983
I've seen online, but maybe that's just part of the trolling, too.

666
00:55:35,983 --> 00:55:38,983
Do you think that you've been inconsistent?

667
00:55:40,203 --> 00:55:42,543
No, and that's because there's a lot of nuance here.

668
00:55:42,543 --> 00:55:49,163
So I see people retweeting stuff I posted in 2025 when I was speaking out against what

669
00:55:49,163 --> 00:55:49,923
Core was doing.

670
00:55:50,323 --> 00:55:53,163
And you have to factor in the time dimension there.

671
00:55:53,323 --> 00:55:57,683
They had not yet made their decision to uncap OpReturn.

672
00:55:57,863 --> 00:56:02,143
And I was telling, trying to tell them, maybe you shouldn't do this, as were other people

673
00:56:02,143 --> 00:56:07,723
at that time, because the result was pretty much predictable that you are going to get

674
00:56:07,723 --> 00:56:12,423
a lot of angry people because they're feeling like you forced them to do something.

675
00:56:12,543 --> 00:56:18,663
But once they made the change, then I stopped complaining or voicing my opinion because it's already done.

676
00:56:18,663 --> 00:56:24,943
And I think around that time, I was starting to set up production ready to with Jimmy and Parker and John.

677
00:56:25,243 --> 00:56:31,223
So the solution for me is we have to get financing for a new client.

678
00:56:31,423 --> 00:56:34,803
And again, for everyone in the back, production ready is not a client.

679
00:56:35,123 --> 00:56:37,563
It is a funding org like Brink, like OpenSats.

680
00:56:37,563 --> 00:56:49,483
And I still believe that it's better to have more funding organizations than a few, because like you were saying, the money can have some influence in some ways, right?

681
00:56:49,563 --> 00:56:53,163
So the only real way to mitigate that is to do it yourself.

682
00:56:53,303 --> 00:56:54,043
And that's what we did.

683
00:56:54,103 --> 00:56:55,243
We set up this funding org.

684
00:56:55,383 --> 00:57:00,663
We've raised a pretty good amount of money, but then Bitcoin came down and we need to raise more now.

685
00:57:00,883 --> 00:57:03,363
So I still think that's the way forward.

686
00:57:03,363 --> 00:57:08,403
A lot of people are angry that Bitcoin Core didn't listen and they didn't do what they said.

687
00:57:08,503 --> 00:57:11,543
But there is no obligation for Bitcoin Core to do what you say.

688
00:57:11,663 --> 00:57:16,743
It is ultimately their own project and they decide to work within the rules of their own project.

689
00:57:17,003 --> 00:57:22,323
And they can do things that are right or wrong and that is subjective, but it's still their project.

690
00:57:23,163 --> 00:57:29,503
And I think a lot of people are angry because, you know, they didn't do what we said, but they have no obligation to do what you say.

691
00:57:29,503 --> 00:57:36,783
the only way to do it is you do it or you fund someone to do it yourself so i think the i i still

692
00:57:36,783 --> 00:57:43,383
believe they shouldn't have uncapped op return but at the same time i understand and this is where

693
00:57:43,383 --> 00:57:48,783
nuance really matters that it didn't matter either because it was just policy there was no consensus

694
00:57:48,783 --> 00:57:57,703
rule change so for just a policy change they alienated a large chunk of real people and i

695
00:57:57,703 --> 00:58:02,463
don't know if that can be healed and i think there were are there are mistakes being made on the not

696
00:58:02,463 --> 00:58:08,183
side too where knots is sort of being wrapped up into 110 and that's going to alienate a lot of

697
00:58:08,183 --> 00:58:14,263
people too like it's being seen as the same thing i would have preferred it if knots didn't push this

698
00:58:14,263 --> 00:58:24,983
110 change and we be more low time preference and just slowly you know diversify against one major

699
00:58:24,983 --> 00:58:30,263
client and that would give production ready time to fund developers and build another conservative

700
00:58:30,263 --> 00:58:35,423
client too so you'd have a nice split between all different types of nodes on the network which i

701
00:58:35,423 --> 00:58:42,043
believe is more resilient to change so a policy change in core would not really affect not snowed

702
00:58:42,043 --> 00:58:47,323
runners or people that run the client that production ready will sponsor and that would be

703
00:58:47,323 --> 00:58:54,923
the best outcome. I think the current, you know, mandatory soft work is not a good solution in any

704
00:58:54,923 --> 00:59:04,543
way. Yeah. So, so I guess that's an update on what's going on with the production ready. Is

705
00:59:04,543 --> 00:59:09,923
there anything else about production ready or, or Jan 3 for, for that matter? Like what's going on

706
00:59:09,923 --> 00:59:14,363
with Jan 3? What's going on with the Aqua wallet? Let's not talk about Jan 3 and Aqua right now.

707
00:59:14,363 --> 00:59:16,723
You're just going to direct the angry people over.

708
00:59:17,103 --> 00:59:22,423
But production ready, the problem is we're all so busy with our main things.

709
00:59:22,623 --> 00:59:28,843
So we had a call a couple of days ago talking about 110 and the next things that we should do.

710
00:59:28,943 --> 00:59:34,423
And I think we agreed we're going to hire some people just to do admin, help with coordinating fundraising.

711
00:59:34,903 --> 00:59:44,343
We've had a few volunteers that we're talking with now to help with other things like running our X account and preparing slide decks and other things like that, too.

712
00:59:44,363 --> 00:59:46,703
So we're going to try to get it back on track.

713
00:59:46,703 --> 00:59:51,663
But at the same time, we kind of realized that all eyes are focused on the 110 thing now.

714
00:59:51,823 --> 00:59:54,723
And anything we do is just a sideshow at this point.

715
00:59:54,963 --> 01:00:01,463
So we'll probably kick things into high gear in September or something like that.

716
01:00:01,543 --> 01:00:01,823
We'll see.

717
01:00:03,683 --> 01:00:06,183
Yeah, and we'll see each other in October.

718
01:00:06,883 --> 01:00:10,543
I should ask you the same question that you asked me 10 minutes back.

719
01:00:10,603 --> 01:00:12,763
Is there anything else you want to talk about?

720
01:00:14,363 --> 01:00:22,643
Well, I would say for you personally, like what or maybe you're you're kind of you don't post that much about 110, actually.

721
01:00:22,643 --> 01:00:27,043
But there are a lot of people that are that they know Adam and Blockstream.

722
01:00:27,423 --> 01:00:39,823
Like as a 110 supporter, are there any 110 supporters that kind of speak out against the larger group and say, well, you shouldn't slander Adam or you shouldn't demonize Blockstream or, you know, dial it back and be more civil?

723
01:00:40,043 --> 01:00:50,260
I don know I haven seen any of it I only seen the brunt of the attacks but I haven seen any calm rational voices out there saying hey guys let chill out and be more civil

724
01:00:51,300 --> 01:00:55,700
Well, there's a lot of people crying out for more civility

725
01:00:55,700 --> 01:00:59,400
or arguing for more civility, absolutely, in the groups.

726
01:00:59,980 --> 01:01:03,520
And a lot of people have a lot of questions for Adam,

727
01:01:03,660 --> 01:01:08,680
and Adam is one of the people that is viewed as one of those

728
01:01:08,680 --> 01:01:12,480
that has become increasingly arrogant the last year.

729
01:01:12,800 --> 01:01:15,120
So there's that.

730
01:01:15,420 --> 01:01:20,340
But there's definitely talk within the BIP 110 groups

731
01:01:20,340 --> 01:01:22,520
that people should be more civil.

732
01:01:22,800 --> 01:01:27,320
I mean, that's, of course, what the more mature people in the group think,

733
01:01:27,460 --> 01:01:30,180
that civility is the way and anger is not,

734
01:01:30,360 --> 01:01:32,1000
especially not anger directed at people.

735
01:01:33,120 --> 01:01:36,620
You can be angry with ideas and stuff like that

736
01:01:36,620 --> 01:01:39,400
and angry with incentives and how things are playing out.

737
01:01:39,400 --> 01:01:44,740
But I mean, I have my method for, I shit post a lot.

738
01:01:44,940 --> 01:01:45,860
Yes, I do.

739
01:01:46,040 --> 01:01:49,720
And sometimes I blurt out shit that I maybe shouldn't have.

740
01:01:50,080 --> 01:01:52,480
But also I try not to attack people

741
01:01:52,480 --> 01:01:57,240
because I think slaying bad ideas is more important than slaying heroes.

742
01:01:58,120 --> 01:01:58,240
I agree.

743
01:01:58,840 --> 01:01:58,1000
Yeah.

744
01:01:59,540 --> 01:02:03,940
Well, do you think the perception of that anger

745
01:02:03,940 --> 01:02:07,100
hinders the 110 movement?

746
01:02:08,180 --> 01:02:11,280
Like if you're a business or mining pool or a miner

747
01:02:11,280 --> 01:02:14,120
and there is all this anger abuzz

748
01:02:14,120 --> 01:02:16,460
and there's murmurings of proof of work changes,

749
01:02:17,340 --> 01:02:18,880
how do you think they view this?

750
01:02:20,080 --> 01:02:22,800
I do think there's damage done there

751
01:02:22,800 --> 01:02:25,060
by the way people communicate, absolutely.

752
01:02:25,420 --> 01:02:28,400
And of course, Luke himself has a very, very

753
01:02:28,400 --> 01:02:31,600
special way of communicating.

754
01:02:31,600 --> 01:02:39,660
And when he doesn't feel like he has to engage with an argument, he just writes liar and goes on.

755
01:02:40,040 --> 01:02:45,420
And I mean, but if you know Luke's history, you know he's always been like that.

756
01:02:45,500 --> 01:02:50,080
And he has a very specific way of talking.

757
01:02:50,400 --> 01:02:55,680
And if you can see through that and see the guy behind it, then it's easier.

758
01:02:55,940 --> 01:02:57,060
But yeah, I mean.

759
01:02:57,360 --> 01:02:59,380
Well, he's escalated a bit now, too.

760
01:02:59,380 --> 01:03:01,020
So he's also adding pedo.

761
01:03:01,600 --> 01:03:11,800
Yeah, but he is very passionate about the fork and he is very passionate about specifically the op-return mempool policy default change.

762
01:03:11,800 --> 01:03:19,540
And he thinks, I personally think that the op-if thing is just as big of a problem, if not a bigger problem.

763
01:03:19,960 --> 01:03:30,440
And I don't really see why op-return, like, yeah, let's not open that can of worms, the op-return thing.

764
01:03:30,440 --> 01:03:33,740
because I didn't like the CSAM argument to begin with.

765
01:03:33,820 --> 01:03:35,820
I think that that argument is weak.

766
01:03:35,900 --> 01:03:37,240
I think there are better arguments

767
01:03:37,240 --> 01:03:39,740
for why op returns shouldn't be big

768
01:03:39,740 --> 01:03:41,980
than going that direction.

769
01:03:42,460 --> 01:03:43,840
But I mean, as I said before,

770
01:03:43,940 --> 01:03:46,800
there has been good and bad communication from both sides.

771
01:03:46,800 --> 01:03:48,100
And from the core side,

772
01:03:48,280 --> 01:03:52,600
you have people that come off as very arrogant

773
01:03:52,600 --> 01:03:56,280
and calling BIP-1-10ers lemmings and idiots

774
01:03:56,280 --> 01:03:58,080
and not technical enough.

775
01:03:58,080 --> 01:04:03,060
I went to this BTC++ in Vienna, which was an interesting conference to go to.

776
01:04:03,440 --> 01:04:12,200
And as expected, a lot of the developers there, or I shouldn't say a lot of them, but some of them were even hostile to me.

777
01:04:12,320 --> 01:04:15,740
And they thought that I made bad arguments and I wasn't taking them.

778
01:04:15,740 --> 01:04:17,460
When was this? Last year?

779
01:04:18,020 --> 01:04:20,220
No, back in May, I believe.

780
01:04:21,260 --> 01:04:22,120
In Munich.

781
01:04:22,740 --> 01:04:25,580
And I had a talk about why Bitcoin needs to be money.

782
01:04:25,580 --> 01:04:31,400
and reception was so-and-so, but a very interesting conference to go to.

783
01:04:31,560 --> 01:04:37,960
And I do talk to those developers and I do talk to people on both sides here.

784
01:04:37,960 --> 01:04:42,960
It's just that I am taking this stance from a more of a principled perspective

785
01:04:43,540 --> 01:04:49,800
that I think everything we can and should do to keep the narrative Bitcoin is money.

786
01:04:50,040 --> 01:04:54,300
Like that's the thing I want to see ossified, that Bitcoin is and should be money

787
01:04:54,300 --> 01:04:56,360
and to fight the bad narratives.

788
01:04:57,140 --> 01:05:00,180
I think the risks are sort of worth it

789
01:05:00,180 --> 01:05:03,200
because that's the bigger overarching thing here.

790
01:05:03,260 --> 01:05:06,640
And I think there's a blind spot that developers have,

791
01:05:06,640 --> 01:05:11,820
which is the incentive structure behind those buying the hardware

792
01:05:11,820 --> 01:05:12,820
and running the software.

793
01:05:12,1000 --> 01:05:18,260
A lot of developers aren't really read up on how money works at all

794
01:05:18,260 --> 01:05:22,320
or why money needs to be quality money.

795
01:05:22,320 --> 01:05:27,460
and the Austrian perspective on what money is and what money ought to be.

796
01:05:27,720 --> 01:05:31,960
And so I think there's a lot of developers that are, they think they know.

797
01:05:32,500 --> 01:05:36,740
The way I've had it described to me is that Core is a project

798
01:05:36,740 --> 01:05:41,140
where their main goal is to adapt to how the network behaves.

799
01:05:41,140 --> 01:05:46,100
And they don't really have this principled perspective

800
01:05:46,100 --> 01:05:48,620
that Bitcoin ought to be this or Bitcoin ought to be that.

801
01:05:48,860 --> 01:05:51,480
And that has sort of, which maybe they did in the past.

802
01:05:51,480 --> 01:05:58,580
But right now there's a lot of damage control that they're doing because the network behaves in certain ways.

803
01:05:58,780 --> 01:06:04,740
And I think that's where the big difference of opinion is that, well, if people are shitcoining on Bitcoin,

804
01:06:04,940 --> 01:06:08,540
why aren't you just like doing everything in your power to fight that?

805
01:06:08,640 --> 01:06:10,280
Bitcoin should not be for these people.

806
01:06:10,360 --> 01:06:11,760
They shouldn't be here at all.

807
01:06:12,320 --> 01:06:18,560
And yeah, I guess that's where they, like you have miners who are very fiat minded.

808
01:06:18,560 --> 01:06:31,180
You have developers who are sort of indifferent to what Bitcoin is used for, especially if they're funded by grants in fiat from outside and don't have Bitcoin stacks themselves.

809
01:06:31,460 --> 01:06:39,080
And then you have the plebs who only care about Bitcoin being money and Bitcoin being their savings account for generations to come.

810
01:06:39,340 --> 01:06:44,960
And that's where the clashes are in the community and the different aspects of it.

811
01:06:44,960 --> 01:06:54,300
yeah i think a lot of some of the core devs did say something like you know it doesn't matter or

812
01:06:54,300 --> 01:07:01,240
you know it's just all data and i think we should do things to mitigate spam because it does make it

813
01:07:01,240 --> 01:07:06,120
harder to run nodes you can take different if you go back to the opportune thing and the mempool

814
01:07:06,120 --> 01:07:10,860
improvements that they were undertaking it was to improve decentralization of bitcoin but i think

815
01:07:10,860 --> 01:07:16,140
at the same time, you could argue that mitigating spam is also a way to improve decentralization

816
01:07:16,140 --> 01:07:21,260
because more people can run a node more easily. And I think the two things are not at odds with

817
01:07:21,260 --> 01:07:27,140
one another. Like you can do both. But I believe that the focus is just not on mitigating spam

818
01:07:27,140 --> 01:07:34,660
when clearly there is a demand for some developers to do it. But I believe what they look at,

819
01:07:34,940 --> 01:07:38,160
they don't, okay, I don't want to speak for everyone, but they may or may not look at Bitcoin

820
01:07:38,160 --> 01:07:43,680
as money, but they definitely look at Bitcoin as code because they are developers. So I think this

821
01:07:43,680 --> 01:07:48,160
is another point that I don't know if you and I disagree, but definitely Luke DeWolf and I disagree,

822
01:07:48,640 --> 01:07:55,080
which is I say Bitcoin, the monetary property of Bitcoin is emergent, but Bitcoin is really

823
01:07:55,080 --> 01:08:00,560
software. At the end of the day, the base of Bitcoin is software and information. And it is

824
01:08:00,560 --> 01:08:08,020
impossible to limit all forms of data in Bitcoin. Even if you had Bit110, you'll still get all these

825
01:08:08,020 --> 01:08:15,320
ways to bypass it and embed data. And I don't think it degrades Bitcoin as money. It can make

826
01:08:15,320 --> 01:08:21,420
it harder for someone to run a node. But you opted into this when you decided to run a node because

827
01:08:21,420 --> 01:08:28,660
that's what nodes do. They don't differentiate between anything. And yes, spam is obviously

828
01:08:28,660 --> 01:08:34,440
non-monetary data, but it is still data and Bitcoin is data. It's the first class citizen data,

829
01:08:34,440 --> 01:08:41,660
but it is all data and it's very difficult to stop anything that's not a pure bitcoin transaction

830
01:08:41,660 --> 01:08:46,400
because there's tons of stuff in there there's opertern there's scripts there's ways to stuff

831
01:08:46,400 --> 01:08:51,920
things in in tap leaves there's just like a million ways to store data in bitcoin and you're

832
01:08:51,920 --> 01:08:56,380
never going to stop at all and i think you just have to come to terms that none of this makes

833
01:08:56,380 --> 01:09:03,300
bitcoin worse as money and you have to get this idea out of your head that my node has to be pure

834
01:09:03,300 --> 01:09:06,740
because once you start down that route of thinking,

835
01:09:06,1000 --> 01:09:08,700
it's like OCD.

836
01:09:08,960 --> 01:09:09,900
Nothing is going to clean.

837
01:09:09,980 --> 01:09:11,720
You have to keep washing your hands constantly.

838
01:09:12,060 --> 01:09:14,520
What about a transaction from a terrorist?

839
01:09:15,340 --> 01:09:15,640
I don't know.

840
01:09:16,740 --> 01:09:20,280
To be fair, I don't think anyone on the Bit.1.10 side

841
01:09:20,280 --> 01:09:22,280
thinks that Bit.1.10 is going to stop spam.

842
01:09:22,280 --> 01:09:26,080
They think that it's going to reduce spam.

843
01:09:26,217 --> 01:09:39,157
Yeah, I'm sending a message. And also the whole Bitcoin's quality as money, the cost of the initial block download, which is a cost that would grow forever, regardless of what happens.

844
01:09:39,497 --> 01:09:48,617
Like if that is a very, very underrated metric in this because Bitcoin is worse money if it's more expensive to do the initial block download.

845
01:09:49,317 --> 01:09:50,397
I agree with you on that.

846
01:09:50,617 --> 01:09:52,457
Yes, period. That's just a fact.

847
01:09:52,457 --> 01:09:55,097
everyone notices when you hit this point in time,

848
01:09:55,177 --> 01:09:57,017
your node slows down the sinking.

849
01:09:57,357 --> 01:09:59,157
That is all the ordinal garbage there too.

850
01:09:59,337 --> 01:10:00,217
So yeah, it is true.

851
01:10:00,637 --> 01:10:02,417
But at the same time, you can't really stop it.

852
01:10:02,557 --> 01:10:04,057
Someone, let me think, who was it?

853
01:10:04,737 --> 01:10:05,537
Okay, I forgot the name,

854
01:10:05,597 --> 01:10:06,597
but he was showing this chart.

855
01:10:06,737 --> 01:10:07,457
Like, look it,

856
01:10:07,837 --> 01:10:09,677
you have all this operaturn garbage here.

857
01:10:10,097 --> 01:10:12,697
And then, you know, Core30 came out here.

858
01:10:12,817 --> 01:10:14,997
And it's obvious, like, you know, what happened,

859
01:10:14,997 --> 01:10:16,997
which is developers stopped fighting spam.

860
01:10:17,317 --> 01:10:20,617
But that's just because the ordinal craze started then.

861
01:10:20,617 --> 01:10:22,577
Like that could have started three years ago.

862
01:10:22,917 --> 01:10:26,577
Just because it started then does not mean something empirically changed.

863
01:10:27,317 --> 01:10:29,797
And your other point was it reduces spam.

864
01:10:29,957 --> 01:10:34,237
It actually doesn't because we already have several new mechanisms to embed spam.

865
01:10:34,517 --> 01:10:44,417
So all it's done is it's encouraged developers that want to show you to develop new innovative ways to spam, which will be used by some other project.

866
01:10:45,297 --> 01:10:47,637
But you can't know that before it happens.

867
01:10:47,737 --> 01:10:49,737
And you can't know that from empiricism.

868
01:10:49,737 --> 01:10:59,457
Like you can make a guess, but whether it reduces what would have been or not, this is like Bastiat's broken window thing, the seen and the unseen, right?

869
01:10:59,497 --> 01:11:03,517
You can't really make observations and draw conclusions about that.

870
01:11:03,577 --> 01:11:07,477
You have to do this from first principle since it's about economics.

871
01:11:08,137 --> 01:11:10,537
It's very hard to know why people did something.

872
01:11:10,937 --> 01:11:14,897
But one tell should be that most of the spammers don't like BIP-110.

873
01:11:14,897 --> 01:11:19,437
Like that, to me, sends a clear signal that spammers don't like BIP-110.

874
01:11:19,737 --> 01:11:25,477
So obviously they would like it if it made it less costly for them to spam.

875
01:11:25,637 --> 01:11:27,257
But I don't think that's the case.

876
01:11:27,337 --> 01:11:29,717
I do think it makes it slightly more costly.

877
01:11:29,977 --> 01:11:30,837
And it does.

878
01:11:31,037 --> 01:11:33,737
They will be forced to change their business models.

879
01:11:33,737 --> 01:11:40,377
What people thought were like forever rare sets and stuff are not as forever anymore.

880
01:11:40,557 --> 01:11:45,517
And these change it that makes people change their mind about stuff.

881
01:11:45,517 --> 01:11:55,817
But you see, it doesn't matter because it's just like a long time ago, we would have discussions like, why didn't someone 51% attack an altcoin and just grind it into the ground?

882
01:11:55,917 --> 01:11:57,177
The security is so low.

883
01:11:57,317 --> 01:12:00,037
The cost to attack it is so low because it doesn't matter.

884
01:12:00,037 --> 01:12:09,977
They can always, you know, make a hard fork and, you know, put a block as then the they can mark a block as this is the real chain because they're centralized.

885
01:12:10,277 --> 01:12:15,217
All these scam projects are centralized, too, which you can see they they're they can adapt quickly to the threat.

886
01:12:15,517 --> 01:12:17,117
So it's a totally different market.

887
01:12:17,317 --> 01:12:18,637
Their market is to scam.

888
01:12:18,857 --> 01:12:21,077
And you can make it more costly for them to scam,

889
01:12:21,257 --> 01:12:22,837
but that won't make them stop scamming.

890
01:12:22,957 --> 01:12:25,697
There will be Taproot Wizards 2 and 3 and 4.

891
01:12:25,997 --> 01:12:28,117
And, you know, for the sake of trolling,

892
01:12:28,177 --> 01:12:29,437
they might do it at some upgrade,

893
01:12:29,537 --> 01:12:30,557
like some covenants upgrade,

894
01:12:30,677 --> 01:12:33,397
and say these are covenant assets or whatever,

895
01:12:33,877 --> 01:12:35,597
covenant wizards, because they are scammers.

896
01:12:36,237 --> 01:12:50,129
And the benefit for them to scam is not to harm the network or whatever It to make money And they happy to pay fees to scam because the money they make far exceeds the cost they pay

897
01:12:50,269 --> 01:12:55,889
no matter how high a barrier you erect to try to prohibit them. So to me, it's not about the

898
01:12:55,889 --> 01:13:01,389
broken window theory. It's about probability. Is there a chance that some group is going to

899
01:13:01,389 --> 01:13:06,369
launch Covenant Wizards? I would say it's like an 80% chance because they're going to make some

900
01:13:06,369 --> 01:13:12,469
money off of selling some NFTs, somehow tying into covenants. And just going back like five

901
01:13:12,469 --> 01:13:17,809
steps in our conversation, it wasn't even Taproot that enabled Taproot wizards. It was Segwit that

902
01:13:17,809 --> 01:13:24,109
did it because they're using the Taproot Segwit envelope, right? So if you wanted to stop all of

903
01:13:24,109 --> 01:13:28,269
that stuff, then, you know, we shouldn't have activated Segwit or at least without the discount.

904
01:13:28,589 --> 01:13:34,269
But no matter what you think, all of that is done now. And there should be due care in everything

905
01:13:34,269 --> 01:13:39,249
with the network to not damage or harm anything that has come before, which I think is also

906
01:13:39,249 --> 01:13:43,809
another technical criticism of 1.10, which is it breaks a mini script and some other

907
01:13:43,809 --> 01:13:44,849
things in various wallets.

908
01:13:44,909 --> 01:13:49,469
And the justification I see is, well, it's only a few wallets, but that is not the level

909
01:13:49,469 --> 01:13:50,029
of due care.

910
01:13:50,209 --> 01:13:54,169
I think a professional development group that is maintaining a Bitcoin.

911
01:13:54,169 --> 01:13:54,609
Well, it's not entirely true either.

912
01:13:54,849 --> 01:13:59,289
Like the big one was Nunchuck and it turned out to not be a non-issue.

913
01:13:59,889 --> 01:14:01,189
I think it's Liana too.

914
01:14:01,989 --> 01:14:02,889
Is it Liana too?

915
01:14:03,049 --> 01:14:03,309
Yeah.

916
01:14:03,309 --> 01:14:07,489
Anyway, once again, this is why it's temporary.

917
01:14:08,809 --> 01:14:12,469
And another perspective there is, like, who is Bitcoin for?

918
01:14:12,669 --> 01:14:14,429
Is Bitcoin for wallet developers?

919
01:14:15,209 --> 01:14:15,789
No, it's not.

920
01:14:15,909 --> 01:14:17,269
It's for Bitcoiners.

921
01:14:17,509 --> 01:14:20,549
And wallet developers will have to adapt to whatever Bitcoin is.

922
01:14:20,549 --> 01:14:25,269
And the other thing you said about when you signed up, you signed up for these consensus rules.

923
01:14:25,269 --> 01:14:35,489
Yes, but you also signed up for the overarching, you know, social dynamics of Bitcoin and that these consensus rules can and will change at one point.

924
01:14:35,649 --> 01:14:37,189
You signed up for that, too.

925
01:14:37,589 --> 01:14:39,589
Like you signed up for the entire package.

926
01:14:39,769 --> 01:14:42,369
You signed up for the risk of a Bit.1.10 playing out.

927
01:14:42,929 --> 01:14:43,549
Yeah, that's fair.

928
01:14:44,129 --> 01:14:47,809
But when you sign up for the consensus rules, you sign up for the consensus rules.

929
01:14:47,809 --> 01:14:57,569
And that's why the bar for any fork that changes consensus rules should be like 95%, because you want to make sure that you're not going out of consensus.

930
01:14:57,849 --> 01:15:01,269
You're not forcing a change on anybody that signed up for that rule set.

931
01:15:02,029 --> 01:15:05,469
But, you know, you're saying Bitcoin is for Bitcoin users, not wallet developers.

932
01:15:05,629 --> 01:15:07,029
Well, who do you think uses the wallets?

933
01:15:07,149 --> 01:15:08,409
It's Bitcoiners.

934
01:15:08,749 --> 01:15:13,049
So it's some Bitcoiners somewhere using some wallet built on this foundation that was established.

935
01:15:13,449 --> 01:15:16,429
And now you want to rug them because spam is important.

936
01:15:16,429 --> 01:15:18,609
I don't want to rug them, but I want like Liana.

937
01:15:18,749 --> 01:15:19,709
Not you, but.

938
01:15:20,089 --> 01:15:20,489
No, no, no.

939
01:15:20,529 --> 01:15:26,469
But I want wallet developers to develop on the Bitcoin that is the real Bitcoin.

940
01:15:26,469 --> 01:15:32,989
Like if Bitcoin changes, they are the ones that, and they should be the ones that are forced to change.

941
01:15:33,529 --> 01:15:34,369
They shouldn't resist.

942
01:15:34,949 --> 01:15:39,109
But Bitcoin changed to enable those wallet developers to do these things.

943
01:15:39,369 --> 01:15:41,789
And we all agree with those changes right now.

944
01:15:41,809 --> 01:15:44,809
Right now, this very moment, you agree with all those changes.

945
01:15:44,809 --> 01:15:50,809
I'd say we all tolerate those changes right now, but we don't agree with, like consensus is not really agreement.

946
01:15:50,809 --> 01:16:03,182
It the lowest bar of tolerance maybe I mean I coming up with terms here but I say I don view BIP as

947
01:16:03,182 --> 01:16:09,762
necessarily a consensus rule change since it's temporary. And it is what it says it is,

948
01:16:09,762 --> 01:16:17,882
is a temporary restriction of certain fields. Somebody somewhere decided this temporary period

949
01:16:17,882 --> 01:16:20,542
and when that temporary period expires.

950
01:16:20,842 --> 01:16:22,722
And I didn't agree to any of that.

951
01:16:23,082 --> 01:16:24,882
And the question that begs to be asked

952
01:16:24,882 --> 01:16:27,882
is what happens after that temporary thing expires?

953
01:16:28,782 --> 01:16:30,482
Is there going to be another temporary thing?

954
01:16:30,782 --> 01:16:33,282
Like, or do we go back and use core?

955
01:16:33,422 --> 01:16:34,802
Or do we follow Luke?

956
01:16:35,042 --> 01:16:36,302
Like what really happens?

957
01:16:36,402 --> 01:16:38,162
And nobody has that answer.

958
01:16:38,262 --> 01:16:40,062
If you ask mechanics, like, I don't know.

959
01:16:41,242 --> 01:16:43,302
No, but do we even need to know?

960
01:16:43,442 --> 01:16:45,082
What happens after the expiry

961
01:16:45,082 --> 01:16:47,702
is that the old consensus rules kick in again.

962
01:16:47,702 --> 01:16:54,722
It's just that hopefully we would have demotivated the spammers so much so that there's not as many of them left.

963
01:16:55,402 --> 01:16:57,182
But we can't know that for certain, right?

964
01:16:57,482 --> 01:17:00,262
No, and if we need to do another one, then we'll do another one.

965
01:17:00,602 --> 01:17:02,742
I see. There you go. So where's the end to it?

966
01:17:02,822 --> 01:17:05,082
So if you go to Mechanics' grenade example.

967
01:17:05,082 --> 01:17:06,542
The end is when the spammers go away.

968
01:17:07,082 --> 01:17:08,442
Spammers will never go away.

969
01:17:08,702 --> 01:17:15,562
No, they will never go away, but when they're a reasonable amount of them instead of just a shit ton of them.

970
01:17:15,562 --> 01:17:22,722
Like, I don't know where, but I think it's not relevant for the discussion around the temporary fork.

971
01:17:22,722 --> 01:17:26,002
Because, like, we're trying to do send a message here.

972
01:17:27,322 --> 01:17:31,302
You know that Joker meme where he has that pile of money that's just burning it off?

973
01:17:31,622 --> 01:17:32,582
Like, that's the thing.

974
01:17:33,202 --> 01:17:41,102
Go send a message, but don't disrupt the network and make it so that people that are using Bitcoin as money have to care about what you think.

975
01:17:41,722 --> 01:17:43,242
That's the ideal in my mind.

976
01:17:43,242 --> 01:17:48,722
But, you know, you said like, well, if there's a need for another temporary soft fork, then you just said it.

977
01:17:48,802 --> 01:17:50,182
There is no end to this.

978
01:17:50,282 --> 01:17:54,382
So we just cede control over to Luke and the guys.

979
01:17:54,622 --> 01:17:56,262
And that is the future of Bitcoin.

980
01:17:57,442 --> 01:18:04,882
By the way, the Miniscript thing that it allegedly breaks, which I haven't verified, I've heard different things about this.

981
01:18:04,882 --> 01:18:24,822
But for a Liana wallet user that uses some miniscript transaction that is super complicated to do some super complicated stuff, that potential user is definitely technical enough to be able to move whatever coins was in that address before or after the temporary soft fork.

982
01:18:24,822 --> 01:18:29,462
And these transactions aren't frozen right now.

983
01:18:29,902 --> 01:18:40,402
If you make one during, and it shouldn't break stuff that was made before, if I understand it correctly, it shouldn't break any transaction that was made before the mandatory signaling period.

984
01:18:40,982 --> 01:18:46,922
So you would have to deliberately make a transaction that you know is at risk of being invalid.

985
01:18:47,262 --> 01:18:50,222
And that's just a fuck around and find out thing, isn't it?

986
01:18:50,222 --> 01:18:56,862
yeah but I think the burden of proof is on the people that want a change so you need to show me

987
01:18:56,862 --> 01:19:06,142
clearly that here's this transaction pre-fork on testnet and post-fork on testnet and it works and

988
01:19:06,142 --> 01:19:22,934
I can recover my coins because otherwise you infringing on the sovereignty of a sovereign individual that did something with Bitcoin Infringing is too strong of a word here I think because the only thing anyone did was buy hardware and run software

989
01:19:23,474 --> 01:19:31,974
So, I mean, you can even go so deep as to question if you can really own a Bitcoin

990
01:19:31,974 --> 01:19:36,254
since it's just a string of information that you know and you can act as if you own it,

991
01:19:36,294 --> 01:19:37,974
but can you actually own information?

992
01:19:37,974 --> 01:19:48,274
Like maybe that's going into too much of woo-woo territory, but the worst thing that can happen potentially to these people is that they will have to wait a year to make the transaction.

993
01:19:48,534 --> 01:19:51,054
And I mean, a block could take a year.

994
01:19:51,414 --> 01:19:54,654
Like the risk that it does is very low.

995
01:19:54,734 --> 01:20:00,694
But when you sign up for Bitcoin, you know that there is a risk that your transaction won't be included in a block for a long time.

996
01:20:00,694 --> 01:20:06,514
If you pay too low of a fee and all of a sudden the fee spikes to 300 sats for BeVipe for a year.

997
01:20:06,514 --> 01:20:13,674
like that that's the same mechanic i mean you could rbf it but you just said if if needed

998
01:20:13,674 --> 01:20:19,854
we will make it last another year depending on what happens with the spammers so and then we

999
01:20:19,854 --> 01:20:25,054
would have to form consensus around that and but there is no consensus right now either so

1000
01:20:25,054 --> 01:20:31,194
not right now but we haven't started signaling yet we haven't started mandatory signaling yet

1001
01:20:31,194 --> 01:20:36,094
we have started signaling exactly yeah yeah but we haven't started mandatory signaling and that's a

1002
01:20:36,094 --> 01:20:37,294
There's a big difference there.

1003
01:20:37,474 --> 01:20:40,994
Anyway, yeah, we'll both see how this plays out.

1004
01:20:41,174 --> 01:20:43,494
And what is it like two weeks from now or something?

1005
01:20:43,694 --> 01:20:44,474
It's pretty close.

1006
01:20:44,474 --> 01:20:45,434
August 8th.

1007
01:20:45,454 --> 01:20:45,694
Yeah.

1008
01:20:46,434 --> 01:20:47,414
Yeah, we'll see.

1009
01:20:47,574 --> 01:20:52,114
I mean, it's not the ideal situation, but I would say nothing's going to happen.

1010
01:20:52,574 --> 01:20:54,954
It'll be, it'll fizzle out.

1011
01:20:55,374 --> 01:20:58,494
And I've talked to some 110 miners too.

1012
01:20:58,554 --> 01:21:02,594
I talked to a lot of people and a lot of them have, some of them have said, you know, if

1013
01:21:02,594 --> 01:21:08,134
If the minority fork lasts more than a few hours, then I'm out.

1014
01:21:08,554 --> 01:21:10,694
So, you know, I don't know.

1015
01:21:10,734 --> 01:21:15,954
You should talk to the miners, too, that are mining 110 and really get a gauge on what their actual commitment is to it.

1016
01:21:17,534 --> 01:21:19,554
Yeah, I should.

1017
01:21:19,934 --> 01:21:21,354
And I will if I have the time.

1018
01:21:21,554 --> 01:21:27,034
Maybe I don't have the time because I don't think I'll do another interview before the fork happens, to be honest.

1019
01:21:27,034 --> 01:21:31,634
I'm traveling to the U.S. here next week, so we'll see how that happens.

1020
01:21:31,634 --> 01:21:37,574
anyway samson it's always a pleasure to discuss these things with you and i hope that we haven't

1021
01:21:37,574 --> 01:21:42,634
that we're not at risk of breaking up never mind anytime soon and uh i'm still good if you're good

1022
01:21:42,634 --> 01:21:48,294
yeah absolutely and i've never been in a band where i've had the same opinions as the other

1023
01:21:48,294 --> 01:21:55,754
band members and i so especially not about non-band related stuff but yeah always good

1024
01:21:55,754 --> 01:22:00,794
to talk to you and and see you in lugano looking forward to it a lot sounds good see you in lugano

1025
01:22:00,794 --> 01:22:07,294
Yeah, great. This has been the Bitcoin Infinity Show, special summer nighttime edition.

1026
01:22:07,954 --> 01:22:11,594
And like, subscribe and brush your teeth and go and check out production ready.

1027
01:22:11,874 --> 01:22:12,734
Take care. Bye.

1028
01:22:13,494 --> 01:22:13,894
Bye.