Why BIP-110 Will Fail | Giacomo Zucco | Bitcoin Infinity Show #194

1
00:00:00,320 --> 00:00:03,800
Giacomo, welcome back to the Bitcoin Infinity Show. Nice to have you here.

2
00:00:04,180 --> 00:00:05,640
Knut, thank you for having me back.

3
00:00:06,820 --> 00:00:15,980
Yes, we have covered the pros and cons of both NOTS and BIP110 here on the Infinity Show a couple of times.

4
00:00:16,080 --> 00:00:18,500
We have several people from both sides.

5
00:00:19,000 --> 00:00:20,320
And I wanted to hear your take.

6
00:00:20,640 --> 00:00:29,000
You're officially opposed to BIP110, I hear, which is funny because I'm officially pro-BIP110.

7
00:00:29,000 --> 00:00:34,440
So let's dissect maybe the first time we have a difference of opinion in anything.

8
00:00:35,180 --> 00:00:35,360
Yeah.

9
00:00:35,760 --> 00:00:37,540
Not entirely true, maybe.

10
00:00:38,260 --> 00:00:43,080
There have been other cases, but they were always very productive.

11
00:00:43,440 --> 00:00:53,880
I think in this case as well, we also had the privilege to start agreeing because we both came from the same anti-spam kind of rents two years, three years ago.

12
00:00:53,880 --> 00:00:55,840
So we started from the same position.

13
00:00:56,360 --> 00:01:04,840
And so it's easier to assume good faith, which I notice is always a very, very hard thing to do when two people come from completely different assumptions.

14
00:01:05,200 --> 00:01:07,820
They don't even acknowledge that the other position exists.

15
00:01:08,180 --> 00:01:17,620
Then there is a cultural shock of meeting the other position, which is so outrageous that it must be caused by some conspiracy or some ill intent.

16
00:01:17,620 --> 00:01:29,040
And in our case, I think it's pretty, we discussed these, we went back and forth both together, sometimes discussing together on many issues and sub-issues.

17
00:01:29,220 --> 00:01:33,540
So I think it's easier for us to still man each other's position.

18
00:01:34,100 --> 00:01:47,440
Yeah, absolutely. And I know you had a long call with Hodlonot the day before he was on and I had a long talk with him and he, you sort of convinced him to,

19
00:01:47,440 --> 00:01:48,740
I mean, he contacted you.

20
00:01:48,860 --> 00:01:53,000
That's a good thing to remind people of.

21
00:01:53,260 --> 00:01:57,060
And you sort of convinced him to be against BIP-110.

22
00:01:57,300 --> 00:02:00,880
And now it seems like he's back to supporting it.

23
00:02:00,880 --> 00:02:03,700
Yeah, my evil influence is not durable.

24
00:02:04,120 --> 00:02:05,380
It's only temporary.

25
00:02:05,700 --> 00:02:10,180
I would have to recontact him right before the activation to make sure my influence.

26
00:02:10,700 --> 00:02:10,940
Yeah.

27
00:02:11,400 --> 00:02:13,600
So let's see about the framing here.

28
00:02:13,740 --> 00:02:15,560
So I think we both agree.

29
00:02:15,560 --> 00:02:22,660
I mean, don't hesitate to interrupt me if I'm wrong in any of these assumptions.

30
00:02:23,080 --> 00:02:30,020
But I think we both come from a place that Bitcoin is money, that that is the use case,

31
00:02:30,740 --> 00:02:34,720
and that all other use cases that are built on top,

32
00:02:34,720 --> 00:02:44,240
or they should also, like the only time that they're sort of morally justified is when they

33
00:02:44,240 --> 00:02:51,540
make Bitcoin better money, such as Lightning, for instance, being built on top, anchoring itself to

34
00:02:51,540 --> 00:02:56,860
the base time chain. Yeah, I interrupted you just to maybe change the example because Lightning is

35
00:02:56,860 --> 00:03:02,540
a clearly monetary application on top. It's needed for money. It's making Bitcoin better money. I

36
00:03:02,540 --> 00:03:06,740
think that there are other applications that are clearly non-monetary, which can still

37
00:03:06,740 --> 00:03:11,100
make Bitcoin better money for other reasons, for example, even if very marginal.

38
00:03:11,480 --> 00:03:16,620
For example, if you take something like OpenTest Stamps, it adds potentially absolutely zero

39
00:03:16,620 --> 00:03:23,460
overhead to node operators, so it doesn't interfere seriously with the operation of

40
00:03:23,460 --> 00:03:28,600
the monetary function, but it can increase a little bit the demand for block space, which

41
00:03:28,600 --> 00:03:36,660
which can be considered something useful for the monetary, for the resistance to reorgs and fee sniping.

42
00:03:36,880 --> 00:03:41,600
It's very, very marginal, but it's a good example of something that doesn't hurt and can help.

43
00:03:42,260 --> 00:03:53,680
Another way can help besides this kind of argument about the fees is helping the acceptance of the Bitcoin infrastructure within the context of traditional system integration.

44
00:03:53,680 --> 00:04:02,400
So I've shielded open timestamps a lot, and I find it in use cases, which is a typical example of non-monetary, but good.

45
00:04:03,300 --> 00:04:08,120
Yeah, I think here is where we're already here.

46
00:04:08,200 --> 00:04:10,060
I think our opinions slightly differ.

47
00:04:10,200 --> 00:04:12,540
So let's dissect this from the very bit.

48
00:04:12,660 --> 00:04:16,460
So open timestamps, I think this is, and correct me if I'm wrong here,

49
00:04:16,460 --> 00:04:25,040
But I think the reason that op-return was set at 42 bytes in the beginning, it was later increased to 83, right?

50
00:04:25,700 --> 00:04:26,460
Standardness, yes.

51
00:04:26,460 --> 00:04:26,880
Core, at least.

52
00:04:26,960 --> 00:04:29,420
We have to be super pedantic about this because…

53
00:04:29,420 --> 00:04:29,640
Yeah, yeah, yeah.

54
00:04:29,680 --> 00:04:31,180
The standard policy.

55
00:04:31,420 --> 00:04:39,200
So it was never in the consensus where you could set it to whatever you want, but the standard or the default was 43 or 42 up until…

56
00:04:39,200 --> 00:04:50,800
And the reason it was 42, if I'm right about this, is that a hash of a document or a hash of anything really only took 42 bytes.

57
00:04:51,800 --> 00:04:54,780
Let's say something plus an identifier.

58
00:04:55,320 --> 00:05:01,180
So the idea was you can just put an identifier like this is a hash of this service plus the hash itself.

59
00:05:02,380 --> 00:05:02,800
Yes.

60
00:05:02,800 --> 00:05:06,700
And 42 bytes, it's extremely small.

61
00:05:06,700 --> 00:05:11,400
And what you could do with that was prove that something existed at a certain point in time.

62
00:05:12,420 --> 00:05:20,820
Correct me if I'm wrong, but can you do anything else really in terms of proving something than the existence of that thing?

63
00:05:21,180 --> 00:05:23,700
No, this is a very important distinction.

64
00:05:24,160 --> 00:05:28,740
Open timestamps and timestamping and Merkle routes in general are just proof of existence.

65
00:05:29,200 --> 00:05:31,060
They are not proof of not existence.

66
00:05:31,060 --> 00:05:46,580
That's the reason why they scale so well, because one single hash can prove the existence of millions of documents, because you just create a Merkle tree and you just publish the Merkle route and you keep the Merkle path and you can prove the existence of billions of documents.

67
00:05:46,860 --> 00:05:54,260
Ricardo Casatta and Peter Todd timestamped the entire internet archives with metadata in one Bitcoin transaction.

68
00:05:54,460 --> 00:06:00,960
So timestamping is super scalable and it's private in the sense that you don't leak any information about the documents.

69
00:06:01,060 --> 00:06:06,660
On the other hand, to prove something more like the non-existent of some competing transaction,

70
00:06:07,000 --> 00:06:08,060
that's the hard part.

71
00:06:08,360 --> 00:06:13,480
And that's why we need Bitcoin, where every node has to download every transaction made

72
00:06:13,480 --> 00:06:15,160
by any other nodes forever.

73
00:06:15,600 --> 00:06:21,580
So the unscalable part of Bitcoin comes from the proof of publication or proof of non-existence

74
00:06:21,580 --> 00:06:24,460
or proof of non-contradiction.

75
00:06:24,640 --> 00:06:25,860
You can call it in different ways.

76
00:06:26,060 --> 00:06:27,940
Todd calls it single-use seals.

77
00:06:27,940 --> 00:06:36,860
But you're right that the timestamping is only doing proof of existence, which is super scalable and super low.

78
00:06:37,520 --> 00:06:39,680
So let me see if I understood that.

79
00:06:39,780 --> 00:06:43,560
Proof of non-existence is way harder than proof of existence.

80
00:06:43,720 --> 00:06:43,920
Yeah.

81
00:06:45,200 --> 00:06:46,040
Yeah, correct.

82
00:06:46,040 --> 00:06:48,480
Which might be why some people are religious and some are not.

83
00:06:48,480 --> 00:06:56,720
anyway this is and and then you said that this this can at least theoretically create some more

84
00:06:56,720 --> 00:07:03,380
demand for block space usage or for bitcoin usage really it's a very weak argument this one about

85
00:07:03,380 --> 00:07:08,960
the demand is non-zero i think but very weak mostly because it creates a demand but which

86
00:07:08,960 --> 00:07:14,320
so what does the demand it creates more fees for miners that creates more incentive to mine blocks

87
00:07:14,320 --> 00:07:20,480
that create a higher cost or basically re-organ the chain.

88
00:07:20,640 --> 00:07:22,700
So it gives you more security faster.

89
00:07:23,080 --> 00:07:27,420
But then again, to enter the block, now you have to spend more to compete with this demand.

90
00:07:27,600 --> 00:07:29,880
So you're basically back from the start.

91
00:07:30,020 --> 00:07:33,180
I don't want to say this effect is zero, but it's very negligible.

92
00:07:33,180 --> 00:07:40,840
If OpenTest Times had either even a very small cost on Bitcoin, I would consider it a waste.

93
00:07:40,840 --> 00:07:46,980
Luckily, it has potentially zero cost because not only you can stamp the whole world with

94
00:07:46,980 --> 00:07:53,000
one op return, but you can stamp the whole world with zero op return with something called,

95
00:07:53,000 --> 00:07:58,600
for example, pay to contract or sign to contract and now with Taproot and Tapret.

96
00:07:58,600 --> 00:08:03,060
So you can do that with zero byte on the blockchain.

97
00:08:03,060 --> 00:08:09,660
The reason that I would consider it bad is because if it didn't provide any benefit is

98
00:08:09,660 --> 00:08:14,760
because there's still some spammy level, which means that you have to do a transaction.

99
00:08:15,280 --> 00:08:19,680
So if nobody wanted to do a transaction and you want to timestamp something, you can do

100
00:08:19,680 --> 00:08:24,900
it with zero byte on top, but you do have to make a transaction, which maybe you were

101
00:08:24,900 --> 00:08:28,580
not going to do if there was not a timestamp request.

102
00:08:28,740 --> 00:08:34,020
So we cannot really say in full honesty that timestamp has zero footprint, but it's very

103
00:08:34,020 --> 00:08:34,600
negligible.

104
00:08:34,600 --> 00:08:44,380
As long as somebody is transacting in blocks, then you can use any transaction to timestamp infinite amount of data virtually for zero cost.

105
00:08:45,840 --> 00:08:51,160
So would it be fair to say that the footprint is negligible?

106
00:08:51,520 --> 00:08:52,960
I can never say that word.

107
00:08:54,320 --> 00:08:54,920
Negligible.

108
00:08:55,720 --> 00:08:57,480
Careful because it could be canceled.

109
00:08:57,760 --> 00:08:58,600
It's an N word.

110
00:08:58,680 --> 00:08:59,500
Let's say the N word.

111
00:08:59,500 --> 00:09:07,340
but that could also be said for the increased block space demand which would also be very small

112
00:09:07,340 --> 00:09:13,740
so so like the the they sort of cancel each other out they do plus so i think it's more than that

113
00:09:13,740 --> 00:09:22,820
so the the impact is virtually zero the the increase in fear rate that could help the security

114
00:09:22,820 --> 00:09:29,580
is non-zero, but is small. And then it also outcompete your transaction to enter the security

115
00:09:29,580 --> 00:09:36,380
model. So it basically cancel out. Yeah. All right. So that's, I mean, here's the other point

116
00:09:36,380 --> 00:09:42,500
I'd like to address about this. And this is the security budget thing, right? So I see a lot of

117
00:09:42,500 --> 00:09:50,160
Bitcoiners take it as a fact that it's good for Bitcoin if miners make more money. And I don't

118
00:09:50,160 --> 00:09:56,660
necessarily agree with that because we have the difficulty adjustment algorithm, which sort of

119
00:09:56,660 --> 00:10:03,740
ensures that this is always as close to a zero-sum game in terms of like the margins are always super

120
00:10:03,740 --> 00:10:08,680
small for miners and they're supposed to be because you get the competition anyway. And I mean,

121
00:10:08,920 --> 00:10:16,360
for now, like still most of the revenue is from the subsidy, right? Yes. And not the fees. I heard

122
00:10:16,360 --> 00:10:21,600
somewhere i think it's this shit coin semi shit coinery podcast where someone said like the the

123
00:10:21,600 --> 00:10:28,680
the ordinals and the brc20s are like two percent of minor total minor revenue by some by some

124
00:10:28,680 --> 00:10:36,680
calculation at this point uh however like bitcoin is already orders of magnitude more secure than it

125
00:10:36,680 --> 00:10:43,560
needs to be arguably because like we have what is it petahashes now like how many are there that

126
00:10:43,560 --> 00:10:51,140
If you realize how many guesses per microsecond that is, it's just an enormous number.

127
00:10:51,220 --> 00:10:55,100
So I don't get at all why people would want miners to make more money.

128
00:10:55,260 --> 00:10:56,460
I don't really see that.

129
00:10:56,560 --> 00:10:57,100
Do you agree?

130
00:10:57,100 --> 00:10:58,300
I agree with you.

131
00:10:58,540 --> 00:11:10,480
I think the whole security budget discussion is severely flawed because it assumes that either Bitcoin has some specific hash rate or somehow it doesn't work, it breaks.

132
00:11:10,520 --> 00:11:11,280
It doesn't break.

133
00:11:11,280 --> 00:11:14,640
what there is is a continuity of cost.

134
00:11:14,800 --> 00:11:19,540
So how expensive is it to unroll or to basically reorg one block?

135
00:11:19,760 --> 00:11:23,160
How expensive it is to do two or three or four?

136
00:11:23,560 --> 00:11:27,120
This is a linear cost growth that can become exponential

137
00:11:27,120 --> 00:11:29,200
if you compete with the rest of the network.

138
00:11:29,660 --> 00:11:33,020
The probability basically decreases exponentially to have success.

139
00:11:33,480 --> 00:11:37,580
And the amount of this decrease, the strength of this exponential

140
00:11:37,580 --> 00:11:39,920
depends on the total hash rate.

141
00:11:39,920 --> 00:11:46,920
But the point is that if the hash rate is low, that just means that you have to wait more to reach the same level of security.

142
00:11:47,080 --> 00:11:48,380
You just need more confirmation.

143
00:11:48,820 --> 00:11:53,280
So there's never a breaking point in which you don't have security anymore.

144
00:11:53,480 --> 00:11:59,040
And there is a circular argument there because if people don't want to pay for on-chain security,

145
00:11:59,420 --> 00:12:05,160
so if people are not leaving fees to miner, that means that people don't need on-chain security fast.

146
00:12:05,280 --> 00:12:08,380
Maybe because the second layers are so good that they don't need it.

147
00:12:08,380 --> 00:12:14,660
If they don't need it, we cannot say it's an emergency that you have to wait more to reach the same level of immutability.

148
00:12:15,080 --> 00:12:18,860
So I think it's a circular argument, the one about the security budget.

149
00:12:19,700 --> 00:12:30,320
I think Luke Dasher has an argument here too about miner centralization, that that basically needs that if blocks are mined by the same cabal of miners, you need to wait for more blocks.

150
00:12:30,320 --> 00:12:39,760
We have one hash per second or three exahash doesn't change anything. If you don't have competition, the amount of hash rate doesn't matter.

151
00:12:41,040 --> 00:12:50,100
Yeah, so we basically have the same opinion on payments to miners and security budgets. So that's out of the way now.

152
00:12:50,100 --> 00:13:14,380
That's it. Let's just be just as a caveat, but it will not change the discussion anyway. But I just want to say that for accuracy. I buy the Eric Voskul argument that fees should eventually overcome subsidy. That's a good thing. So I want not high fees, but I want fees that are higher than the subsidy. The reason for that is that the subsidy is not censorship resistant, while the fees are.

153
00:13:14,380 --> 00:13:29,560
Meaning, if the government is paying miners to create empty blocks or blocks with just the Coinbase but with zero transaction or only with OFAC transactions, the miners are not forfeiting the subsidy if they do that, but they are forfeiting the black market fees.

154
00:13:29,940 --> 00:13:43,300
So the only defense by the black market is to increase the fees until the miners will capitulate because the fees are more than the cost of being kidnapped by the government or the subsidy by the government to censor Bitcoin.

155
00:13:43,300 --> 00:13:45,060
So that's a good argument.

156
00:13:45,060 --> 00:13:47,700
So the fact that halving is important

157
00:13:47,700 --> 00:13:58,834
and inflation should go down to zero And this is an argument actually against tail emission and stuff like that So it good that subsidy goes to zero

158
00:13:59,254 --> 00:14:02,514
And it's also good that fees take over.

159
00:14:02,894 --> 00:14:06,974
But we don't need an absolute level of high fees for some reason.

160
00:14:07,714 --> 00:14:12,234
No, and the question here, like with so many other things in Bitcoin,

161
00:14:12,454 --> 00:14:15,614
is a question of when and when it's necessary.

162
00:14:15,614 --> 00:14:18,634
and it might not be necessary for the next 100 years.

163
00:14:18,834 --> 00:14:19,574
Like, who knows?

164
00:14:19,894 --> 00:14:22,294
I mean, I find that the biggest flaw in the argument

165
00:14:22,294 --> 00:14:25,794
about security budget is thinking that Bitcoin

166
00:14:25,794 --> 00:14:28,294
will not double in value every four years.

167
00:14:28,534 --> 00:14:31,494
If it does, then the problem goes away

168
00:14:31,494 --> 00:14:33,514
because the miners get paid exactly the same,

169
00:14:33,634 --> 00:14:35,094
like in fiat terms, at least.

170
00:14:35,514 --> 00:14:37,334
Yeah, in this case, I'm actually sad.

171
00:14:37,674 --> 00:14:38,394
That's all the halving does.

172
00:14:38,714 --> 00:14:41,054
I'm actually sad that Bitcoin will probably

173
00:14:41,054 --> 00:14:42,874
more than double every four years.

174
00:14:42,874 --> 00:14:46,474
And so we will not have fast enough.

175
00:14:46,594 --> 00:14:47,394
No, I'm joking.

176
00:14:47,714 --> 00:14:52,214
But I think that eventually it's good that the subsidy gets completely overruled by the fees.

177
00:14:52,394 --> 00:14:56,494
And that's a part, I think it's part of the censorship resistance design of Bitcoin.

178
00:14:57,574 --> 00:14:58,514
But you're right.

179
00:14:58,694 --> 00:15:00,454
It could not happen for many, many years.

180
00:15:01,614 --> 00:15:02,814
No, and how could it not?

181
00:15:02,814 --> 00:15:16,214
I mean, at some point you get into a scenario where you are incentivized to mine, not for the rewards, but simply to secure your own stack, right?

182
00:15:16,834 --> 00:15:18,454
Do you buy that theory too?

183
00:15:19,294 --> 00:15:21,314
Well, no, not really.

184
00:15:21,634 --> 00:15:29,934
I mean, the personal incentive for a miner to mine, to just secure your own stack is very, very marginal.

185
00:15:29,934 --> 00:15:40,614
In the sense that if nobody's mining, then what you want to prevent is from people to re-orging before you received your stack.

186
00:15:41,134 --> 00:15:48,934
So as long as people will not really push this kind of, let's say that you have two years or 10 years of hodling,

187
00:15:49,474 --> 00:15:54,854
the idea that you are mining to prevent a 10 years re-org seems a little bit broken to me.

188
00:15:54,854 --> 00:16:07,374
If miners can do a 10-year reorg, probably that's already something where probably something I don't like, but something extreme as checkpoints may emerge from the market as a response.

189
00:16:08,914 --> 00:16:12,294
Yeah. Can we see the current hash rate?

190
00:16:12,534 --> 00:16:17,334
Yeah, 953.32 exahashes per second.

191
00:16:18,514 --> 00:16:22,554
And to just give people a picture in their mind of what an exahash is.

192
00:16:22,554 --> 00:16:24,414
So exah, how many zeros is that?

193
00:16:24,854 --> 00:16:29,334
So it's giga is nine.

194
00:16:30,494 --> 00:16:31,914
Terra is 12.

195
00:16:32,454 --> 00:16:32,854
12.

196
00:16:33,214 --> 00:16:34,534
So peta is 15.

197
00:16:34,674 --> 00:16:35,934
Exa would be 18 zeros.

198
00:16:36,634 --> 00:16:43,794
So 953 followed by 18 zeros guesses on the correct hash per second.

199
00:16:44,234 --> 00:16:46,974
It's a ginormous number.

200
00:16:46,974 --> 00:16:52,194
It's like by far the most secure thing on earth in that sense.

201
00:16:52,194 --> 00:17:03,694
So I think the fears about miners not getting paid enough is very exaggerated, given the fact that they are mining and doing a lot of it.

202
00:17:03,694 --> 00:17:17,574
So the second point there, and we're still on the first base layer here, is that things like the Lightning Network are monetary use cases, so therefore they're legit.

203
00:17:17,574 --> 00:17:42,054
And here I might have a contention or two, and that is that if it now turns out that Segwit and Taproot led to this spam attack and that in the long run that leads to the slippery slope that will turn Bitcoin into ETH 2.0 and kill the entire thing, then Lightning wasn't worth it.

204
00:17:42,054 --> 00:18:02,774
And how do we know that? Well, we can't until after it's happened. So while I love Lightning and the fact that I'm able to use Bitcoin in a very convenient way, I still think velocity of money is a very Keynesian metric to use when evaluating whether something is good money or not.

205
00:18:02,774 --> 00:18:16,854
Well, slow down a little bit because I think you're packing a lot of assumptions into this, including the connection between these soft forks and the spam attacks, which is something, it's a valid link there.

206
00:18:16,974 --> 00:18:22,874
There is for sure some facilitation, especially I think from Segwit discount, but we can analyze that better.

207
00:18:22,874 --> 00:18:31,314
Then you're moving to the fact that this attack will basically bring this etherification of Bitcoin, which is something that I think we should analyze a little bit better in the specifics.

208
00:18:31,314 --> 00:18:36,994
and then the death of the entire thing, which is a very extreme kind of assumption, a final assumption.

209
00:18:36,994 --> 00:18:46,994
I agree that the velocity of money is not the main point, and I agree it could be achieved just by the original Hal Fini vision of having custodials like Cypherpunk,

210
00:18:47,734 --> 00:18:53,934
anonymous custodials, just doing stuff, eventually rug-pulling people here and there.

211
00:18:53,934 --> 00:19:04,314
But overall, it can work better than gold because gold was very costly to settle while Bitcoin is less costly.

212
00:19:04,554 --> 00:19:09,534
So you could have this kind of banking system on top of Bitcoin, which is what Alfini was imagining.

213
00:19:10,034 --> 00:19:16,354
But the thing is that with Lightning and other layer two within the Lightning Network,

214
00:19:16,354 --> 00:19:32,934
You can have this kind of like have your cake and eat it too or the opposite, which is basically almost same secure, good security comparable to Bitcoin plus also some velocity of money if you really need it.

215
00:19:32,934 --> 00:19:39,074
And I think that the point is that people only see lighting as an improvement in velocity

216
00:19:39,074 --> 00:19:43,574
or like speed, small payments, cheap, small, fast payment.

217
00:19:44,014 --> 00:19:44,454
That's true.

218
00:19:44,794 --> 00:19:46,614
But lighting also does other two things.

219
00:19:46,994 --> 00:19:51,354
First, lighting is objectively more private, can be objectively more private.

220
00:19:51,814 --> 00:19:55,034
And second, lighting can be more censorship resistant.

221
00:19:55,474 --> 00:20:01,334
You can have lighting transaction happening even if miners collude to sensor blocks for

222
00:20:01,334 --> 00:20:06,354
years, channels that are already open and ARCs that are already open can, well, not really ARCs,

223
00:20:06,434 --> 00:20:13,514
channels that are already open can go on working. And lighting can also work if the internet is

224
00:20:13,514 --> 00:20:19,194
basically cut off of the nation for a few years. Of course, you cannot open channels, you cannot

225
00:20:19,194 --> 00:20:25,214
close, so you have security issues and raise conditions, but lighting can work. So I think

226
00:20:25,214 --> 00:20:29,594
The lighting is an example of not really wanting to pursue velocity.

227
00:20:30,134 --> 00:20:37,034
I think lighting is a patch on a bug of Bitcoin, which is a necessary bug,

228
00:20:37,374 --> 00:20:41,454
which is unresolvable at the fundamental level, but can be mitigated.

229
00:20:41,474 --> 00:20:43,494
And the bug is called global consensus.

230
00:20:43,754 --> 00:20:47,714
Bitcoin system that which assumes that all the nodes have to download

231
00:20:47,714 --> 00:20:51,274
information that they don't directly need, but just to stay in sync with all

232
00:20:51,274 --> 00:20:51,894
the other nodes.

233
00:20:52,134 --> 00:20:54,914
So every time one node does something, a transaction,

234
00:20:55,214 --> 00:20:58,514
All the other nodes need to record it forever.

235
00:20:59,014 --> 00:21:04,654
This in itself is a censorship problem, privacy problem, and scalability problem all packed together.

236
00:21:05,034 --> 00:21:10,414
I think Lightning is an example of minimizing this, which is also at the very root of the spam problem.

237
00:21:11,634 --> 00:21:22,994
Yeah, and the fact that fees are low at the moment is, I think, a huge part of that is because Lightning works and people are using it and not transacting on chain.

238
00:21:22,994 --> 00:21:28,554
So we agree there on all points, I'd say.

239
00:21:29,394 --> 00:21:30,914
Also, what else?

240
00:21:30,914 --> 00:21:35,074
Well, in the case, I mean, I think we disagreed here,

241
00:21:35,174 --> 00:21:37,194
unless I managed to change your mind a little bit,

242
00:21:37,274 --> 00:21:39,714
because I see Lightning as not only monetary,

243
00:21:40,274 --> 00:21:45,014
but I see that as a completion, like a fixing of the monetary issues of base layer.

244
00:21:45,434 --> 00:21:48,634
So base layer, I think, is bad money in general.

245
00:21:48,814 --> 00:21:52,894
Of course, we need it to settle big amounts and to open channels and to close channels.

246
00:21:52,994 --> 00:21:57,894
But I think that Lightning fixes a fundamental flaw in Bitcoin design, which is global consensus.

247
00:21:58,034 --> 00:22:01,874
So maybe this position is a bit stronger than the one you were starting from.

248
00:22:02,114 --> 00:22:04,274
No, I totally agree with that position.

249
00:22:04,514 --> 00:22:12,414
And I was about to go there that like, especially the privacy route, that is like one of the real benefits of Lightning.

250
00:22:13,094 --> 00:22:20,574
I'd just like to point out that the whole velocity of money thing might not be the best argument for it or the best metric.

251
00:22:20,574 --> 00:22:28,134
So in the future, and here we sort of come to the meat of the thing, because I know I've met them in Logano.

252
00:22:28,274 --> 00:22:35,074
You hang out with a lot of developers and they have a lot of ideas about what to do with atomic swaps and this and that,

253
00:22:35,214 --> 00:22:41,034
and using all of these fancy code salad things to allegedly improve Bitcoin as money.

254
00:22:42,114 --> 00:22:49,774
And the way I see it is like, where do you draw the line between a shitcoin use case and an actual monetary use case?

255
00:22:49,774 --> 00:23:04,394
And I, for instance, I don't think stablecoins should be built on Bitcoin if they leave a footprint, because the footprint will be there forever, and thereby making it costlier to run a node and therefore making Bitcoin a worse form of money.

256
00:23:04,394 --> 00:23:19,534
And a stablecoin is really just fiat. So I don't see a good argument for ever wanting a stablecoin to be even anchored to Bitcoin. But I think this is somewhere where we disagree.

257
00:23:19,774 --> 00:23:21,114
What would you say?

258
00:23:21,374 --> 00:23:23,674
Well, I'm not even sure we disagree so much here.

259
00:23:23,774 --> 00:23:33,654
I have a very, very, usually I tend to have very strong opinions, but on this I have a very nuanced opinion in the sense that I see a fundamental problem with stable coins.

260
00:23:33,954 --> 00:23:41,774
So a fiat denominated credit, which is traded permissionlessly to some degree on a secondary market.

261
00:23:41,814 --> 00:23:42,834
So what are stable coins?

262
00:23:42,834 --> 00:23:50,754
It's fiat credit, but instead of being on a database like PayPal or Venmo, this fiat credit uses the blockchain rule.

263
00:23:51,294 --> 00:24:03,274
So if you have a database like Venmo or PayPal, and you try to allow an underage Nigerian boy moving money, then PayPal will stop you because the government will stop PayPal.

264
00:24:03,634 --> 00:24:10,494
If you do the same with USDT, the government will try to tell Tether to stop, and Tether will say, oh, it's a blockchain.

265
00:24:10,494 --> 00:24:12,294
I only control the primary market.

266
00:24:12,634 --> 00:24:16,194
This is the secondary market is happening on an open protocol, which is decentralized.

267
00:24:16,514 --> 00:24:17,614
I can do nothing about that.

268
00:24:17,954 --> 00:24:19,154
So it's a blockchain scam.

269
00:24:19,674 --> 00:24:21,714
Now, do I like blockchain scams?

270
00:24:22,154 --> 00:24:27,674
No, traditionally, I despise them because they take what I love, which is Bitcoin, and they

271
00:24:27,674 --> 00:24:31,954
use Bitcoin to generate confusion, which is the opposite of what I love, which is education

272
00:24:31,954 --> 00:24:33,914
on Bitcoin, in order to profit.

273
00:24:34,194 --> 00:24:35,594
So I dislike shit coins.

274
00:24:35,594 --> 00:24:43,854
But these specific shitcoins is a shitcoin which is not aiming at defrauding investors because it's not promising any gain.

275
00:24:44,194 --> 00:24:47,594
You give me a dollar and if you're lucky, you get back a dollar minus the fees.

276
00:24:47,914 --> 00:24:49,994
So it's not a get rich quick scheme.

277
00:24:50,254 --> 00:24:53,814
It doesn't defraud investors, but it does defraud regulators.

278
00:24:54,334 --> 00:25:01,974
Now, when a scam, which is using the thing I love, which is blockchain, well, Bitcoin, in order to create a buzzword like blockchain,

279
00:25:01,974 --> 00:25:08,274
to confuse and scam things I don't love, like regulators, in that case, I become a little bit

280
00:25:08,274 --> 00:25:13,854
more sympathetic. I can still see that somebody may be adversarial toward this scam towards the

281
00:25:13,854 --> 00:25:19,694
government, mostly because it's taking some energy out of Bitcoin, like mindshare liquidity.

282
00:25:20,194 --> 00:25:24,734
We say that one of the reasons fees are low is that there is lighting. That's true. But the other

283
00:25:24,734 --> 00:25:29,914
is that there is stable coins. So many people that would be using Bitcoin instead and also learn

284
00:25:29,914 --> 00:25:35,294
about inflation resistance are stuck with fiat credit because it's just more familiar.

285
00:25:35,714 --> 00:25:38,154
It has less volatility in the short term.

286
00:25:38,514 --> 00:25:40,834
So it's as a brand, better brand recognition.

287
00:25:41,374 --> 00:25:46,914
So I agree with you that sable coins are problematic to use a woke term.

288
00:25:47,354 --> 00:25:51,594
And I will not have any problem with a bitcoiner having a strong stance against them.

289
00:25:51,794 --> 00:25:52,614
I'm more tolerant.

290
00:25:52,614 --> 00:25:58,494
I agree with you that if such a problematic use case is taking any resource out of Bitcoin,

291
00:25:58,494 --> 00:26:01,474
it should be opposed in any realistic way.

292
00:26:02,234 --> 00:26:06,174
But some things, some ways to do this stuff,

293
00:26:06,534 --> 00:26:09,454
not only doesn't consume Bitcoin's resources,

294
00:26:09,594 --> 00:26:10,314
but it can add.

295
00:26:10,634 --> 00:26:14,114
For example, the things I tried to work on a little bit,

296
00:26:14,274 --> 00:26:18,234
a few years with RGB, is USDT on Lightning.

297
00:26:18,654 --> 00:26:22,434
Now, USDT on Lightning, there is an old talk by Maximo Lovsky

298
00:26:22,434 --> 00:26:27,534
in Berlin Conference 2018, the first Lightning Conference.

299
00:26:27,534 --> 00:26:36,754
It increases liquidity and privacy for Bitcoin lighting users because right now, let's say that I want to pay you.

300
00:26:37,154 --> 00:26:39,394
There is a liquidity gap in our path.

301
00:26:39,614 --> 00:26:48,574
If there is a USDT-based connection, now you can have USDT routing that will help the SAT routing and vice versa, of course.

302
00:26:48,834 --> 00:26:54,554
Plus, you have more privacy because the chain analysis look at the opening of a channel and the closing of a channel.

303
00:26:54,554 --> 00:27:00,114
if they also have to consider that maybe there is some invisible USDT transfer across the channel,

304
00:27:00,474 --> 00:27:04,114
all the heuristics to analyze also get disrupted.

305
00:27:04,614 --> 00:27:10,754
So the USDT on lighting specifically is a way to basically to do three things.

306
00:27:11,114 --> 00:27:13,594
Improve lighting liquidity, which is good for Bitcoin users.

307
00:27:13,954 --> 00:27:16,514
Improve lighting privacy, which is good for Bitcoin users.

308
00:27:16,514 --> 00:27:22,994
and reduce the credibility of the base layer shitcoins that Tether is using right now,

309
00:27:23,234 --> 00:27:26,694
like Solana, Polygon, Ethereum, which gets legitimized.

310
00:27:26,774 --> 00:27:31,634
Actually, I will say something controversial, especially as somebody paid by Tether.

311
00:27:32,154 --> 00:27:34,954
Tether kept shitcoins alive the last cycle.

312
00:27:35,694 --> 00:27:40,754
If not for USDT, shitcoins may be way more dead than they are.

313
00:27:40,814 --> 00:27:57,608
So that a bad thing Tether moving ESDT to lighting will help lighting users and will also to some degree help destroying the direct competitors the long competitors to sets which are Solana

314
00:27:57,608 --> 00:28:04,888
and Tron. And those are also scams created to scam the investor, not the regulator. Well, both,

315
00:28:04,888 --> 00:28:07,568
but more importantly the investor.

316
00:28:08,468 --> 00:28:14,328
Okay, so here I take a more purist point of view, I guess,

317
00:28:14,808 --> 00:28:17,448
because first of all, I sort of like the shit coins

318
00:28:17,448 --> 00:28:19,588
in the sense that they're not messing with Bitcoin.

319
00:28:20,228 --> 00:28:23,488
And also, there's a comparison here to,

320
00:28:23,908 --> 00:28:25,748
I think it's Rothbard, it could be me,

321
00:28:25,808 --> 00:28:29,428
he pointed out that other use cases for gold

322
00:28:29,428 --> 00:28:31,988
than just the medium of exchange use case

323
00:28:31,988 --> 00:28:34,908
are actually making it a worse form of money.

324
00:28:35,048 --> 00:28:39,068
So when it's used in industry or as jewelry, it gets mispriced.

325
00:28:39,448 --> 00:28:42,368
And this is something I fear could happen to Bitcoin too.

326
00:28:42,648 --> 00:28:46,888
If you introduce these rails and you say it provides liquidity,

327
00:28:47,168 --> 00:28:49,828
yeah, but if the liquidity is based on a bubble,

328
00:28:49,828 --> 00:28:53,068
then that might just lead to more confusion and more volatility.

329
00:28:54,048 --> 00:28:57,388
And there might be side effects we don't see here.

330
00:28:57,588 --> 00:28:58,948
I get that it's a trade-off,

331
00:28:58,948 --> 00:29:01,708
but also I'd like to take the point of view

332
00:29:01,708 --> 00:29:03,348
of the Nigerian boy

333
00:29:03,348 --> 00:29:06,648
that is not able to open a bank account

334
00:29:06,648 --> 00:29:07,648
in my point of view

335
00:29:07,648 --> 00:29:08,728
it would be way better

336
00:29:08,728 --> 00:29:10,948
if he had just started accepting sats

337
00:29:10,948 --> 00:29:14,788
instead of going through this stablecoin phase

338
00:29:14,788 --> 00:29:15,748
it's sort of like

339
00:29:15,748 --> 00:29:17,248
I see it as

340
00:29:17,248 --> 00:29:19,248
alright, the boy is smoking

341
00:29:19,248 --> 00:29:20,748
because he's using fiat

342
00:29:20,748 --> 00:29:22,288
and here's Tether

343
00:29:22,288 --> 00:29:24,148
it's a nicotine patch

344
00:29:24,148 --> 00:29:26,028
so you can put the nicotine patch here

345
00:29:26,028 --> 00:29:29,988
and you won't get the lung cancer.

346
00:29:30,168 --> 00:29:32,908
No, but I'm still addicted to nicotine

347
00:29:32,908 --> 00:29:34,708
while I have the patch, right?

348
00:29:35,108 --> 00:29:38,048
Whilst Bitcoin is sort of the remedy to the whole thing.

349
00:29:38,688 --> 00:29:43,128
So like to me, the thing I have a huge problem with

350
00:29:43,128 --> 00:29:45,468
when mixing fiat and Bitcoin together,

351
00:29:46,208 --> 00:29:49,988
and this is also like, it sort of misses the point.

352
00:29:49,988 --> 00:29:53,028
We're trying to obsolete fiat, right?

353
00:29:53,108 --> 00:29:55,528
And if we bake fiat into Bitcoin,

354
00:29:56,028 --> 00:30:02,548
Isn't there a risk that we just prolong the existence of fiat and that we just perpetuate the problem?

355
00:30:03,168 --> 00:30:09,248
Like, I'm unsure about the trade-offs and if they're worth it.

356
00:30:09,728 --> 00:30:10,988
So that's my point of view.

357
00:30:10,988 --> 00:30:14,268
I'm also unsure. I think you make three valid arguments.

358
00:30:14,688 --> 00:30:20,608
Especially, I don't like very much the first argument, the one about alternate uses of gold,

359
00:30:20,608 --> 00:30:26,108
in the sense that stuff like USDT are not creating any alternate use for sets.

360
00:30:26,548 --> 00:30:27,588
Sets are still sets.

361
00:30:27,888 --> 00:30:32,368
They are still divisible amount of difficulty adjusted proof of work.

362
00:30:32,808 --> 00:30:37,328
What is creating is alternative use for, let's say, block space or lighting infrastructure.

363
00:30:37,808 --> 00:30:42,908
So it's like to say you're creating a different use for gold mines or for gold refineries

364
00:30:42,908 --> 00:30:43,488
or mints.

365
00:30:43,708 --> 00:30:46,168
That's not the same as gold itself.

366
00:30:46,288 --> 00:30:49,068
So the commodity set is not really influenced by this.

367
00:30:49,068 --> 00:31:11,888
The second point, I think, is way better. So you're saying, does it make sense to improve liquidity if it's based on something ephemeral and scammy like a fiat scheme that can just, so the dollar will hyperinflate or the regulators will close down, circle and thither, and then all this liquidity that we assume to have disappears because it's fragile, it's not Bitcoin-like.

368
00:31:11,888 --> 00:31:26,268
This is a good point, actually. It's a trade-off. I think that the privacy advantages, for example, could remain, but the liquidity advantages could backfire if they get removed suddenly. So I will agree with caution on that side.

369
00:31:26,268 --> 00:31:31,788
The last one is a very general ethical problem of harm reduction.

370
00:31:32,148 --> 00:31:33,228
I'm not super strong.

371
00:31:33,308 --> 00:31:34,688
I don't have a super strong opinion.

372
00:31:35,168 --> 00:31:43,668
If you are into heroin, I give you methadone and you increase the probability of your surviving

373
00:31:43,668 --> 00:31:46,208
heroin overdose increases for methadone.

374
00:31:46,568 --> 00:31:50,028
And maybe we can weigh off methadone better than heroin.

375
00:31:50,568 --> 00:31:51,048
Yes.

376
00:31:51,728 --> 00:31:55,048
Or maybe you just want to go cold turkey with heroin.

377
00:31:55,048 --> 00:32:00,368
That's noble. It may fail, but if it succeeded, that's better in the long term.

378
00:32:00,908 --> 00:32:04,848
Now, it seems like this is a very common discussion in libertarianism as well,

379
00:32:05,228 --> 00:32:07,768
like mitigation of the problem, harm reduction.

380
00:32:08,048 --> 00:32:11,688
It will postpone the real resolution, so it's bad,

381
00:32:12,028 --> 00:32:15,148
but it's also helping actual people in the meantime, which is good,

382
00:32:15,468 --> 00:32:19,048
which seems similar to the Marxist critics of charity.

383
00:32:19,408 --> 00:32:21,808
Many Marxists, they were saying, you should not do charity

384
00:32:21,808 --> 00:32:24,608
because you are helping the poor, and by doing that,

385
00:32:24,608 --> 00:32:28,988
You are postponing the revolution by decreasing the revolutionary momentum, right?

386
00:32:29,308 --> 00:32:35,048
So charity is bad because you are postponing the real solution with a fake one.

387
00:32:35,428 --> 00:32:37,888
This is a, I think it's a sensible argument.

388
00:32:38,388 --> 00:32:46,888
I don't think it's, I think that if a stable coin also harms Bitcoin in any way, that settles it.

389
00:32:47,028 --> 00:32:52,828
Since it's already a dubious case, if it also creates any problem in Bitcoin, I'm against.

390
00:32:52,828 --> 00:32:56,028
if I think there is an argument that it helps Bitcoin,

391
00:32:56,348 --> 00:32:57,948
like in the case of Lightning Network,

392
00:32:58,288 --> 00:33:00,988
especially because we're not deciding between that existing.

393
00:33:01,228 --> 00:33:03,328
That's a typical harm reduction problem.

394
00:33:03,668 --> 00:33:06,328
We're not deciding between something bad existing or not.

395
00:33:06,608 --> 00:33:07,568
We're deciding it.

396
00:33:07,848 --> 00:33:09,208
If something bad exists,

397
00:33:09,868 --> 00:33:12,828
would we rather have it this way or that way

398
00:33:12,828 --> 00:33:14,708
if we can hijack it or this way,

399
00:33:14,788 --> 00:33:17,148
which is also a discussion we have with Oprah Torn

400
00:33:17,148 --> 00:33:18,168
and this kind of stuff.

401
00:33:18,468 --> 00:33:20,468
So I think that if we have stable coins

402
00:33:20,468 --> 00:33:21,588
and as long as we do,

403
00:33:21,588 --> 00:33:28,228
having them on Lightning with a good way, like RGB, is better than having them on Solana,

404
00:33:28,548 --> 00:33:31,248
just because fewer people will be scammed by Solana.

405
00:33:32,188 --> 00:33:39,548
All right. So what about introducing yet another argument against that, the slippery slope argument,

406
00:33:39,708 --> 00:33:47,048
that if we allow these things to exist on Bitcoin, and if we make good arguments for why it's not as bad,

407
00:33:47,048 --> 00:33:52,568
And like you're saying now that this is at least scamming the regulators and whatnot.

408
00:33:52,728 --> 00:33:53,928
And we use that as an argument.

409
00:33:54,488 --> 00:34:04,728
Then we end up with, I don't know if you saw the video of Pete Rizzo interviewing that Ether 2.0 guy who wants to build Ether on Bitcoin.

410
00:34:05,068 --> 00:34:16,048
And they're claiming that Bitcoin maximalism is now, they're like warping the word and saying that it's now, you know, platform maximalism.

411
00:34:16,048 --> 00:34:18,788
It's the idea that we should build everything on Bitcoin.

412
00:34:18,928 --> 00:34:24,768
That's Bitcoin maximalism, which from my point of view, that's the opposite of Bitcoin maximalism.

413
00:34:25,488 --> 00:34:34,208
And we want people to build all the other shit on other stuff, because if we have perfectly sound money, then we can pay for all the other shit in sats.

414
00:34:34,728 --> 00:34:35,948
And that's the point of Bitcoin.

415
00:34:38,948 --> 00:34:43,228
So is there a slippery slope argument or is that too weak?

416
00:34:43,228 --> 00:35:00,788
Like, by okaying stuff like Tether on Bitcoin, aren't we encouraging other similar projects, the BitVM stuff and all of this stuff that is trying to build other shit?

417
00:35:01,188 --> 00:35:06,448
Aren't we encouraging the Citrius of the world and the counterparty or whatever they're called?

418
00:35:07,308 --> 00:35:08,808
Let me try to separate.

419
00:35:09,068 --> 00:35:10,948
So, first of all, the slip and slop in general.

420
00:35:10,948 --> 00:35:15,448
By allowing something, are we not allowing everything as a precedent?

421
00:35:15,628 --> 00:35:17,348
So precedents do exist.

422
00:35:17,508 --> 00:35:18,228
They are powerful.

423
00:35:18,628 --> 00:35:23,988
Actually, one of my arguments against BIP 110 will be one of bad precedents.

424
00:35:24,088 --> 00:35:25,968
So it will be a slippery slope argument.

425
00:35:26,548 --> 00:35:32,128
It becomes a fallacy if we just assume that everything that goes in a direction will necessarily

426
00:35:32,128 --> 00:35:33,888
cause everything in the same direction.

427
00:35:34,428 --> 00:35:35,728
That's the slippery slope fallacy.

428
00:35:35,728 --> 00:35:44,728
I think it's only a fallacy if we assume that we are ignoring the actual thresholds that we are discussing.

429
00:35:45,128 --> 00:35:51,808
So what we say is, I'm tolerant of where use cases scam the governments, not use cases scam the users.

430
00:35:52,108 --> 00:35:55,108
This is a fuzzy threshold, but it's a threshold.

431
00:35:55,448 --> 00:36:04,588
So it's very easy to say that, for example, Ethereum, ETH, is mostly a scam to the buyers because of the pre-mine, the rollbacks and everything.

432
00:36:04,588 --> 00:36:13,828
To some degree, people can launder money and avoid taxation with either, and I respect that, but it's mostly a scam to people.

433
00:36:14,028 --> 00:36:24,988
NFTs have been a huge tax avoidance scheme because you can create an NFT that costs nothing, and then you buy it from yourself, and now you're an artist and you recycle a lot of Bitcoins.

434
00:36:24,988 --> 00:36:29,248
So in that regard, NFTs are a good thing because they scam governments.

435
00:36:29,588 --> 00:36:37,108
But still, the damage that they have done to the credibility of Bitcoin, to the brain of people with a nonsense argument has been worse.

436
00:36:37,448 --> 00:36:40,968
So there is a threshold to be put about the scamminess.

437
00:36:42,328 --> 00:36:43,188
I think there are a few.

438
00:36:43,708 --> 00:36:47,668
So slippery slope is slippery because there is no discontinuity.

439
00:36:47,968 --> 00:36:53,028
I think that this slope is not slippery because you have a few discontinuous steps.

440
00:36:53,028 --> 00:36:58,448
So one step is the real purity argument, which says every scam is bad.

441
00:36:58,808 --> 00:37:02,468
Even to defend people from regulators, you should always tell the truth.

442
00:37:02,788 --> 00:37:05,248
I appreciate this level of this test.

443
00:37:05,908 --> 00:37:08,868
I think it's a good equilibrium point.

444
00:37:09,468 --> 00:37:15,028
I am very tempted to go above that because I like tax avoidance in general.

445
00:37:15,468 --> 00:37:21,408
And so when you assume that you can lie to the SS to hide Anne Frank, which I do assume,

446
00:37:21,408 --> 00:37:27,128
when you assume that then you have a second threshold which is basically when are you not

447
00:37:27,128 --> 00:37:33,848
just fooling the bad guys trying to hurt innocent people but you are fooling innocent people for a

448
00:37:33,848 --> 00:37:38,448
gain a zero zero negative gain this is the second threshold then there is a trust even if you are

449
00:37:38,448 --> 00:37:45,128
tolerant here you have a third threshold which is this kind of stuff do you accept it even when it

450
00:37:45,128 --> 00:37:50,648
hurts bitcoin technically creating overread negative externality or only when it creates

451
00:37:50,648 --> 00:37:54,948
positive interactions like liquidity or privacy, even if could be temporary.

452
00:37:54,948 --> 00:38:03,088
So I stop at this third step, say, okay, scams may be allowed against bad people.

453
00:38:03,588 --> 00:38:11,248
And then I allow them only when they, in using the Bitcoin infrastructure in some way,

454
00:38:11,588 --> 00:38:19,528
they do boost the Bitcoin infrastructure instead of basically damaging it in any kind or in

455
00:38:19,528 --> 00:38:19,968
any type.

456
00:38:19,968 --> 00:38:45,208
And this is, of course, a judgment call. We may disagree in the merit, but I don't think it's not slippery because it's very clear when I will say no and when I will stop supporting that. To me, it's very clear. And of course, anybody could misunderstand me in order to support something I do not support, but I can understand myself well enough to remember that there are a few discontinuities in this slope.

457
00:38:45,208 --> 00:38:50,468
so it's not a slippery slope but rather a non-slippery ladder with

458
00:38:50,468 --> 00:38:54,628
those adhesive tape thingies that make you not slip on the ladder yes

459
00:38:54,628 --> 00:39:03,528
all right um so maybe we should get into the meat of the BIP110 thing here is a good point to start

460
00:39:03,528 --> 00:39:10,188
what is the slippery slope argument against BIP110 yes so first of all I need to do

461
00:39:10,188 --> 00:39:20,088
a distinction item like 99% of my argument against BIP 110 is based on the assumption

462
00:39:20,088 --> 00:39:24,968
that it will fail. So I will mostly discuss that because that's my probabilistic assumption.

463
00:39:24,968 --> 00:39:31,468
I think that that failing will be bad for Bitcoin for reasons that we may agree about,

464
00:39:31,848 --> 00:39:36,948
but maybe we don't agree about the probability assignment to this event. So let's discuss first

465
00:39:36,948 --> 00:39:45,788
Let's answer your question first, because in the very, for me, unlikely case it does succeed, I'm also against for a different reason.

466
00:39:45,988 --> 00:39:48,848
And that's the reason of slippery slope and the precedent.

467
00:39:49,348 --> 00:40:03,468
Basically, my idea is that a Bitcoin, which can be changed in terms of fundamental rule, in a way that economically pushes all the nodes to be necessarily involved in that and can change arbitrarily,

468
00:40:03,468 --> 00:40:13,748
it's way more shitcoin-y as a set of problems than a Bitcoin that allows non-monetary use cases.

469
00:40:13,908 --> 00:40:20,768
Examples, if we create the precedent that every time we have ASICs or if we create the precedent

470
00:40:20,768 --> 00:40:26,208
that when we have GPU, we change the algorithm of mining to become GPU resistance like Lightning.

471
00:40:26,648 --> 00:40:28,888
And then, of course, GPU resistance doesn't exist.

472
00:40:28,888 --> 00:40:36,648
So we do that with FPGAs and ASICs like Monero does, forking every while just to prevent ASICs.

473
00:40:36,848 --> 00:40:52,168
Or if we don't like the monetary policy because security budgets care and then we change it like Peter Todd proposes with TaylorMission and Ethereum does it all the time with monetary policy changes, that's another kind of bad precedent.

474
00:40:52,168 --> 00:41:01,748
So rules that change for this way, for this kind of rules, fundamental rules that change easily create something which is not good money, in my opinion.

475
00:41:01,948 --> 00:41:13,508
Not because the change cannot be positive, but because the fact that the rules can change easily will create a precedent that can be used later for something worse than what is done now.

476
00:41:13,508 --> 00:41:18,948
So I think that my idea is right now there is no consensus.

477
00:41:19,408 --> 00:41:20,828
It's clear there is no consensus.

478
00:41:21,088 --> 00:41:24,288
I think it's very, unless there is consensus,

479
00:41:24,528 --> 00:41:28,728
if we eliminate from the set of people that must consent, everybody disagrees.

480
00:41:28,728 --> 00:41:31,488
In that case, there is full consensus like with climate change.

481
00:41:31,868 --> 00:41:34,368
So there is 100% consensus on climate change

482
00:41:34,368 --> 00:41:45,082
if you define every scientist which is opposed as a non So if you define any Bitcoiner like me opposed to 110 as a non

483
00:41:45,082 --> 00:41:47,322
we have 100% consensus.

484
00:41:47,322 --> 00:41:48,702
Otherwise we don't.

485
00:41:48,702 --> 00:41:50,402
And if we can make a change

486
00:41:50,402 --> 00:41:53,882
and the change is effectively enforced,

487
00:41:53,882 --> 00:41:56,102
even if it's good or in my opinion,

488
00:41:56,102 --> 00:41:57,702
not even that good in the merit,

489
00:41:57,702 --> 00:42:00,222
it's very confused and it's temporary,

490
00:42:00,222 --> 00:42:02,302
it doesn't change much, it doesn't achieve much.

491
00:42:02,302 --> 00:42:04,722
So I don't like the content of the fork,

492
00:42:04,762 --> 00:42:09,802
But even if the content is not bad, because I don't think it will hurt Bitcoin, the content itself,

493
00:42:10,162 --> 00:42:16,342
the fact that a confused minority of Bitcoiners managed to change consensus for everybody

494
00:42:16,342 --> 00:42:22,282
with a lot of opposition by notable Bitcoin power users and figures,

495
00:42:22,282 --> 00:42:27,382
that create a precedent that would be very attractive for attackers that want,

496
00:42:27,502 --> 00:42:31,162
the first that want to implement their pet projects in Bitcoin,

497
00:42:31,542 --> 00:42:35,142
including all the second layer stuff you were mentioning.

498
00:42:35,542 --> 00:42:38,402
CTV people, they learned that it was bad

499
00:42:38,402 --> 00:42:40,082
to create an activation clients

500
00:42:40,082 --> 00:42:42,982
because there was not, many people like CTV,

501
00:42:43,282 --> 00:42:44,682
including me, including Luke Dasher.

502
00:42:45,022 --> 00:42:46,762
Luke Dasher thinks that CTV should be-

503
00:42:46,762 --> 00:42:47,422
Including mechanic.

504
00:42:47,802 --> 00:42:48,442
Including mechanic.

505
00:42:48,722 --> 00:42:50,542
Most people think that CTV should be activated,

506
00:42:50,942 --> 00:42:52,382
but has not been activated.

507
00:42:52,882 --> 00:42:55,062
Jeremy Rubin created a client to activate it

508
00:42:55,062 --> 00:42:56,742
and we told him, fuck off.

509
00:42:56,982 --> 00:42:59,182
We are not activating anything until there is consensus

510
00:42:59,182 --> 00:43:01,182
because we are not sure yet.

511
00:43:01,642 --> 00:43:04,102
Then if the BIP-110 succeeded,

512
00:43:04,462 --> 00:43:07,542
that creates a strong incentive to Jeremy to say,

513
00:43:07,762 --> 00:43:10,582
who I am, like I'm the last of the losers.

514
00:43:10,862 --> 00:43:13,482
Now activate CTV without consensus.

515
00:43:13,482 --> 00:43:17,562
And then it will create the reasonable expectation

516
00:43:17,562 --> 00:43:19,502
for drive chain to be activated.

517
00:43:19,682 --> 00:43:23,042
And then maybe to TXH and other kinds of things.

518
00:43:23,342 --> 00:43:24,482
And these are still good changes,

519
00:43:24,622 --> 00:43:26,022
which I like in the merit.

520
00:43:26,022 --> 00:43:35,702
But then attackers would love to use this kind of momentum of easy to change rules to also make bad changes.

521
00:43:36,402 --> 00:43:45,922
And this I want to make, I want to try to still man an argument that we attacked as a bad argument for many, many years about spam.

522
00:43:46,362 --> 00:43:49,322
The fact that filtering spam is not censorship.

523
00:43:49,942 --> 00:43:53,402
We criticize this abuse of the world many, many times.

524
00:43:53,762 --> 00:43:55,082
Filtering spam is not censorship.

525
00:43:55,082 --> 00:44:11,062
But the same technique that can be used to filter spam, which is not censorship, can be used to prevent people from transacting with Bitcoin in a way that is forbidden in fiat world, which is financial censorship.

526
00:44:11,062 --> 00:44:33,342
So I think that the fact that our opponents in terms of knots versus core has been very, very sloppy into identifying spam filtering with censorship does not mean that there is not a good case that changing Bitcoin easily could be used to do actual censorship, like in preventing people from moving money that are illegal for some reason.

527
00:44:33,342 --> 00:44:38,782
So this is covering only the scenario which I find.

528
00:44:39,242 --> 00:44:42,382
So I don't think, so let me put it this way.

529
00:44:42,862 --> 00:44:53,342
I don't think BIP 110 can succeed because Bitcoin resists change by, which are not overwhelming majority of all the economy.

530
00:44:53,342 --> 00:44:58,282
and I think that the fact that it will fail will be bad

531
00:44:58,282 --> 00:45:01,302
because my friends and the people that will be more rational

532
00:45:01,302 --> 00:45:04,302
about the spam debates are on the wrong side

533
00:45:04,302 --> 00:45:07,802
and they will lose credibility and enthusiasm if this fails.

534
00:45:08,062 --> 00:45:10,642
So I'm opposed to the fork because of that.

535
00:45:10,642 --> 00:45:16,782
In the case it succeeds, it means I'm wrong about Bitcoin being super easy to change

536
00:45:16,782 --> 00:45:22,602
by vocal minority and that scares me because it means that it is a slippery slope argument.

537
00:45:23,022 --> 00:45:27,982
Maybe it happens this time, for example, for WASF, UASF Segwit.

538
00:45:28,402 --> 00:45:32,982
Well, I was against that many people, including Luke, convinced me to be in favor,

539
00:45:33,462 --> 00:45:37,042
mostly with the argument that, not Luke really, but other people convinced me,

540
00:45:37,302 --> 00:45:38,382
like this is a one-off.

541
00:45:38,862 --> 00:45:44,102
My friend Marco Amadori called it a Seldon crisis from the foundation cycle.

542
00:45:44,102 --> 00:45:48,942
So Ari Seldon created this plan for the future, and the plan just goes on,

543
00:45:48,942 --> 00:45:57,762
But sometimes the plan is broken and you do have to act one-off as an exception to fix the plan and put it back in rails.

544
00:45:58,082 --> 00:45:59,002
But it's just one-off.

545
00:45:59,382 --> 00:46:12,082
So if USSF Insecuite was a seldom crisis, so something where you had to derogate from the principle of full consensus just to save Bitcoin from the apocalypse, I did buy it.

546
00:46:12,082 --> 00:46:18,962
But I don't buy that now we are in another seldom crisis because I don't think there is any crisis.

547
00:46:19,102 --> 00:46:22,662
I think there is an intelligence crisis in the definition of spam.

548
00:46:22,802 --> 00:46:27,622
There is a governance crisis in Bitcoin Core, but there is no Bitcoin crisis, in my opinion.

549
00:46:28,322 --> 00:46:37,702
And there is maybe a crisis in terms of node resources, UTXO management, because we have to improve the sync time of a node.

550
00:46:37,702 --> 00:46:49,642
But this is not a seldom crisis like Bitmain threatening to fork Bitcoin and the New York agreement taking over the main implementation directly.

551
00:46:49,722 --> 00:46:52,602
That was an incredible moment in Bitcoin history.

552
00:46:52,862 --> 00:46:59,022
I could buy the idea that we could do a minority takeover because it was one off.

553
00:46:59,022 --> 00:47:11,702
I don't buy the idea that it would be a good thing that my opinion and most of the developers' opinion and most of the miners' opinion and most of the exchanges' opinion doesn't matter.

554
00:47:12,542 --> 00:47:17,282
And an important point I want to make here is a symmetry between status quo and change.

555
00:47:17,702 --> 00:47:24,602
So I'm okay if all the most powerful people in Bitcoin cannot enforce change.

556
00:47:24,802 --> 00:47:25,462
I like it.

557
00:47:25,462 --> 00:47:31,562
I don't like if the most powerful people in Bitcoin are powerless on stopping change.

558
00:47:31,902 --> 00:47:35,542
That's a completely different thing because change is the trouble for me.

559
00:47:35,942 --> 00:47:38,822
Status quo may not be perfect, but it is reliability.

560
00:47:39,322 --> 00:47:40,622
It is something that money needs.

561
00:47:41,022 --> 00:47:44,502
So the chemical property of gold may not be perfect.

562
00:47:44,642 --> 00:47:52,122
Maybe you can improve them somehow, but they are stable from the beginning of super neutron star collisions.

563
00:47:52,502 --> 00:47:53,102
They are stable.

564
00:47:53,102 --> 00:47:54,702
You know that gold is gold.

565
00:47:54,702 --> 00:48:00,602
you know, that all their malleability, the electronegativity, all the characteristics

566
00:48:00,602 --> 00:48:06,662
are stable. So stability for Bitcoin-based rules are more important than the specifics of the rule.

567
00:48:07,082 --> 00:48:12,402
And changing them without the entire economy supporting the change would be a very scary

568
00:48:12,402 --> 00:48:18,942
precedence for me. Okay, so I'm going to try to steelman the argument against all of this stuff,

569
00:48:18,942 --> 00:48:24,242
because I don't view BIP-110 as a change of the rules.

570
00:48:24,422 --> 00:48:26,842
I view it as a temporary tightening of the rules,

571
00:48:26,922 --> 00:48:28,582
which is not changing the rules

572
00:48:28,582 --> 00:48:33,782
in the sense that every single BIP-110 compliant block

573
00:48:33,782 --> 00:48:37,182
is also compliant with everything in the non-BIP-110.

574
00:48:37,782 --> 00:48:40,222
So it's not actually changing anything.

575
00:48:40,542 --> 00:48:43,822
If anything, it's just taking Bitcoin back to what it was

576
00:48:43,822 --> 00:48:47,002
before all these changes were introduced by Core.

577
00:48:47,002 --> 00:48:51,282
and you can say that these are not consensus changes

578
00:48:51,282 --> 00:48:52,302
these are mempool changes

579
00:48:52,302 --> 00:48:54,222
but they were clearly changes

580
00:48:54,222 --> 00:48:59,062
that the entire community was not on board with

581
00:48:59,062 --> 00:49:02,382
like 20% of nodes are not nodes now

582
00:49:02,382 --> 00:49:04,642
because of the behavior of core

583
00:49:04,642 --> 00:49:07,062
and that they changed definitions

584
00:49:07,062 --> 00:49:08,982
and did all sorts of things

585
00:49:08,982 --> 00:49:12,022
I think the biggest issue for most of us

586
00:49:12,022 --> 00:49:15,542
definitely for me is this defeatist attitude

587
00:49:15,542 --> 00:49:17,162
that you can't do anything about it.

588
00:49:17,242 --> 00:49:20,362
When you have clear signals from Vitalik, for instance,

589
00:49:20,502 --> 00:49:23,742
and other people from way back when in the first Opera Term Wars

590
00:49:23,742 --> 00:49:27,582
where they say that they chose to go and build their own stuff

591
00:49:27,582 --> 00:49:33,482
because they feared that they would be subject to change in Bitcoin in the long term.

592
00:49:33,482 --> 00:49:39,562
So to me, the biggest thing in Bitcoin that cannot ever change

593
00:49:39,562 --> 00:49:42,262
is the users being in charge,

594
00:49:42,502 --> 00:49:45,102
like everything else being downstream of the users.

595
00:49:45,542 --> 00:49:52,522
is the core thing that, pun intended, or pun not intended, but that cannot change.

596
00:49:52,722 --> 00:49:59,642
And it was always the case that putting spam on chain was more risky for the guy doing that

597
00:49:59,642 --> 00:50:02,022
than putting a normal transaction.

598
00:50:02,522 --> 00:50:06,142
Because it's sort of like this South Park episode that I always come back to,

599
00:50:06,202 --> 00:50:11,322
the death camp of tolerance, that points out the difference between tolerating something

600
00:50:11,322 --> 00:50:12,442
and approving of something.

601
00:50:12,442 --> 00:50:18,822
We tolerate spam. We don't approve of it. And at a certain point, we don't tolerate it anymore

602
00:50:18,822 --> 00:50:23,662
because it becomes such a big problem that we have to do something about it. And this, to me,

603
00:50:23,862 --> 00:50:31,822
is Bitcoin not changing. This is Bitcoin's immune system acting exactly as it was intended. It's

604
00:50:31,822 --> 00:50:38,822
the users being in charge. And I also think about the fork, the risk of the fork, you say you don't

605
00:50:38,822 --> 00:50:44,882
believe the fork will happen. And I think there's a Pascal's wager thing here. Like if we don't

606
00:50:44,882 --> 00:50:50,202
believe it will happen, then there's a smaller likelihood that it will. But if we do believe

607
00:50:50,202 --> 00:50:56,862
that it will happen and we do signal that we are pro this thing, just temporary restricting things

608
00:50:56,862 --> 00:51:03,842
to make it slightly more expensive for spammers, making sure that they know that they're not

609
00:51:03,842 --> 00:51:10,122
welcome here, we don't want Citria here, we want these people out of our chain that is

610
00:51:10,122 --> 00:51:20,402
there for monetary use only, then if we believe that that will happen, there's a higher likelihood

611
00:51:20,402 --> 00:51:21,402
that it will happen.

612
00:51:21,402 --> 00:51:22,962
That's Pascal's wager of it all.

613
00:51:22,962 --> 00:51:31,402
And I think this is at the core of the debate,

614
00:51:31,402 --> 00:51:34,622
is who initiated change, really?

615
00:51:35,102 --> 00:51:38,922
Was it the BIP-110 people, or is BIP-110 an immune reaction

616
00:51:38,922 --> 00:51:43,702
to core making changes that weren't wanted in the first place?

617
00:51:44,122 --> 00:51:49,042
And it's maybe not even about the mempool policy thing

618
00:51:49,042 --> 00:51:51,122
and the op-return being blown off.

619
00:51:51,122 --> 00:51:58,282
it's more like changing definitions and stuff and and the rot that has been in course for years now

620
00:51:58,282 --> 00:52:04,462
and it becoming more woke and more like i don't think nfts are bad and all of these quotes right

621
00:52:04,462 --> 00:52:11,602
the monetary maximalists or whatever you may call us sort of uh see that and and see that as the as

622
00:52:11,602 --> 00:52:18,142
the danger and and bit 110 is just bitcoin reacting to changes that weren't wanted and so

623
00:52:18,142 --> 00:52:23,862
So in terms of that, if you see levels of mempool policy as the lightest thing,

624
00:52:24,042 --> 00:52:28,602
and then soft fork is harder, but the real change is a hard fork.

625
00:52:29,282 --> 00:52:34,622
And if now the other side decides to hard fork off, then so be it.

626
00:52:35,502 --> 00:52:40,522
I don't think anyone on the BIP110 side intends to fork off.

627
00:52:40,522 --> 00:52:46,422
We just intend to do what Bitcoiners always do, run whatever software we want.

628
00:52:46,422 --> 00:52:51,782
I know you run, for instance, both Notts and Core and LibreLite at the same time.

629
00:52:52,362 --> 00:52:54,262
So, and this is fine.

630
00:52:54,442 --> 00:52:55,282
I mean, we're...

631
00:52:55,282 --> 00:52:59,822
But not Core V30, because that pisses me off for governance reasons.

632
00:53:00,422 --> 00:53:03,102
Yeah, and Core V30 pissed off a lot of people.

633
00:53:03,262 --> 00:53:07,142
And this is why there wouldn't have been a BIP-110 if that hadn't happened.

634
00:53:07,362 --> 00:53:07,962
I agree with this.

635
00:53:07,962 --> 00:53:11,342
And BIP-110, so the thing I see is like, where's the risk?

636
00:53:11,342 --> 00:53:18,082
if this is temporary and it's restricting so that it's basically just telling every developer and

637
00:53:18,082 --> 00:53:23,862
every miner and whatever who was building this and that vault solution or whatever they were

638
00:53:23,862 --> 00:53:29,762
building that was technically advanced and really fancy, they just have to wait for two years. I

639
00:53:29,762 --> 00:53:36,142
mean, Bitcoin is not made for wallet developers. It's not made for people who want to build stuff

640
00:53:36,142 --> 00:53:41,722
on it. Like people who build stuff on it must know what it is and build for users. It's the

641
00:53:41,722 --> 00:53:47,402
other way around. Like we have no obligation to cater to developers. Like why would we? If the

642
00:53:47,402 --> 00:53:51,902
users aren't in charge, then this is not Bitcoin anymore. That's the way I see it.

643
00:53:52,362 --> 00:53:56,662
Let me try to break it down because of several different points. The first one is the difference

644
00:53:56,662 --> 00:54:02,022
between change and well, the first one is the difference between permanent and temporary. I'm

645
00:54:02,022 --> 00:54:07,062
open to this distinction in the sense that a victory of a temporary soft fork, which is

646
00:54:07,062 --> 00:54:14,362
controversial, I would consider it less bad as a precedent of a victory of a permanent soft fork,

647
00:54:14,362 --> 00:54:23,742
which is controversial. So I agree that temporary measure does reduce the concern a bit because

648
00:54:23,742 --> 00:54:28,742
what if we were wrong? What if the alarm was about nothing? What if the solution is imperfect?

649
00:54:28,742 --> 00:54:35,002
it. Okay, we just wait and we just deactivate. That's I agree that this is a good point. But I

650
00:54:35,002 --> 00:54:41,782
think that's cancelled out. Because if you assume that it's just needed temporarily to send a

651
00:54:41,782 --> 00:54:47,802
message, then you're also implicitly saying that we are in this case, I will go into the second

652
00:54:47,802 --> 00:54:53,782
argument, which is a waste of scarce resource, which is coordination about a soft fork to

653
00:54:53,782 --> 00:54:58,782
something which is just temporary. So all this buzz. And then after two years, we'll be back

654
00:54:58,782 --> 00:55:04,462
where we started plus social signaling, which I give a non-zero way to. I think social signaling

655
00:55:04,462 --> 00:55:09,962
is important, but I think it's unstable. Like social signaling is something that people could

656
00:55:09,962 --> 00:55:15,502
be civilizations on. So I will not dismiss it, especially in social circles that have

657
00:55:15,502 --> 00:55:20,662
name and faces and physical gathering like Bitcoin Core. If you allow Bitcoin Core to

658
00:55:20,662 --> 00:55:27,702
to accept whatever NFTs, that's bad because you're giving a signal to scammers and to shit corners.

659
00:55:27,702 --> 00:55:33,002
But that said, while I think social signaling is very strong,

660
00:55:33,016 --> 00:55:40,476
In mid space, we realized after a few decades of internet that social signaling is very weak

661
00:55:40,476 --> 00:55:45,176
on the internet because on the internet, you don't show your face, you don't show your name,

662
00:55:45,176 --> 00:55:50,876
and that's a cypherpunk dream. So you cannot be hurt physically or socially. So you do whatever

663
00:55:50,876 --> 00:55:57,616
you want and social stigma will not stop you. So if we say we should not accept the Bitcoin core

664
00:55:57,616 --> 00:56:02,756
physical meetings or conference are friendly towards shitcore scams, I think that's a threshold

665
00:56:02,756 --> 00:56:05,296
we can try to enforce with some effectiveness.

666
00:56:05,296 --> 00:56:13,476
If we say the network will socially reject something that it cannot technically reject,

667
00:56:13,796 --> 00:56:20,956
I think that's wishful thinking because anonymous people on the internet will not be stopped

668
00:56:20,956 --> 00:56:21,476
by a signal.

669
00:56:21,836 --> 00:56:29,456
So the second the temporary soft fork expires, maybe we will have used that soft fork to

670
00:56:29,456 --> 00:56:34,996
send the signal to Bitcoin Core and whatever, but the network in the sense of anonymous people on

671
00:56:34,996 --> 00:56:41,916
the internet trolling us with spam, they may even be emboldened by the challenge. Many of them are,

672
00:56:41,916 --> 00:56:47,456
and they would come back more. I think they will spam Bitcoin during, they will spam Bitcoin

673
00:56:47,456 --> 00:56:53,356
during the activation, just using BIP-110 compliant method of spam, which there are plenty,

674
00:56:53,356 --> 00:56:57,736
and they will spend more when it finishes just because they can.

675
00:56:58,176 --> 00:57:03,556
So this is the first distinction, temporary versus perpetual.

676
00:57:03,896 --> 00:57:07,356
I agree it's less frightening, but it's also less effective.

677
00:57:07,716 --> 00:57:09,876
So I think it cancels out a little bit.

678
00:57:10,216 --> 00:57:13,776
Let me move then to the second point, which is soft fork versus hard fork.

679
00:57:13,776 --> 00:57:16,596
You're saying not really a change, more of a tightening.

680
00:57:17,476 --> 00:57:23,156
Yes, that's like saying that we prefer the present of a soft fork than of an hard fork.

681
00:57:23,156 --> 00:57:28,356
I agree with you, our fork would be very bad as a precedent, subfork less so, but still,

682
00:57:28,536 --> 00:57:31,156
subfork can be used to mess with Bitcoin in important ways.

683
00:57:31,616 --> 00:57:37,956
Some of those are all these second layer things that can be enabled by subfork and other things

684
00:57:37,956 --> 00:57:41,236
will be blacklists or many other bad things.

685
00:57:41,556 --> 00:57:47,576
So subforks can also be bad and there is no reason to say they're not a change, which

686
00:57:47,576 --> 00:57:52,696
goes to the third argument, which is I want to change the rule, not to change the system.

687
00:57:52,696 --> 00:57:59,076
Now, I want to do something tricky now, which is using the argument, the Roger Ver fallacy.

688
00:57:59,216 --> 00:58:00,716
We'll see this is a fallacy, possibly.

689
00:58:01,236 --> 00:58:09,596
Roger Ver and friends, during the block size wars, they were saying, and I remember so many blog posts and articles about that.

690
00:58:09,856 --> 00:58:10,956
We are not changing Bitcoin.

691
00:58:11,416 --> 00:58:12,576
You are changing Bitcoin.

692
00:58:12,576 --> 00:58:16,796
because even if we are proposing to increase the block size,

693
00:58:17,356 --> 00:58:23,496
the actual economics of Bitcoin were in a way which was low on chain fees.

694
00:58:23,836 --> 00:58:25,736
Now, the situation has changed.

695
00:58:26,016 --> 00:58:27,096
Now fees are high.

696
00:58:27,096 --> 00:58:32,636
So if we change the code and the rules, we will maintain the spirit of Bitcoin.

697
00:58:32,876 --> 00:58:35,976
If we don't, by keeping the rules the same,

698
00:58:36,296 --> 00:58:41,316
you are proposing to change Bitcoin because actually now the new conditions are different.

699
00:58:41,316 --> 00:58:49,896
This is a very similar argument. I think that it's an interesting rhetoric tool, but it's not really super helpful to understand the problem.

700
00:58:50,336 --> 00:58:57,576
But, okay, interruption there, because Roger was talking about a hard fork, not a soft fork. There's a crucial difference there.

701
00:58:57,636 --> 00:59:04,816
I agree, and it makes a difference, but the trick to say, I want to change the rules to keep the situation the same, is similar.

702
00:59:04,816 --> 00:59:13,096
That doesn't mean it's wrong. I just want to point out it's similar. And I want to point out I didn't buy there, I didn't buy then, not because it was a Zarf fork.

703
00:59:13,096 --> 00:59:30,576
No, but if you're making the argument, like comparing a hard fork proposal to a soft fork, you must also compare it to a mempool policy change, I think, and say that just going along with whatever core wanted is also using that same type of argument.

704
00:59:30,576 --> 00:59:35,316
changing something because that's exactly what it is.

705
00:59:35,576 --> 00:59:36,036
I agree.

706
00:59:36,396 --> 00:59:42,556
We need to change this policy because otherwise these spammers will use even worse.

707
00:59:42,836 --> 00:59:48,456
So they're giving in to a change in the attitude of Bitcoin's users.

708
00:59:51,156 --> 00:59:52,696
I'm just saying the same argument.

709
00:59:53,096 --> 00:59:56,316
I think, well, it's not so important in the debate, I think, but I think it's different.

710
00:59:56,316 --> 01:00:02,216
The Bitcoin core propaganda right now was never, we need to open up a mempool so that

711
01:00:02,216 --> 01:00:03,256
Bitcoin stays the same.

712
01:00:03,576 --> 01:00:06,616
They never pretended to be the real conservative ones, I think.

713
01:00:06,696 --> 01:00:07,896
Well, maybe there are some exceptions.

714
01:00:08,316 --> 01:00:13,696
They must say that the network changes, so we have to change policy in response.

715
01:00:14,956 --> 01:00:15,236
Exactly.

716
01:00:15,596 --> 01:00:16,876
But that's the Roger Ver argument.

717
01:00:17,036 --> 01:00:17,756
That's what I'm saying.

718
01:00:17,896 --> 01:00:18,736
That was slightly different.

719
01:00:18,876 --> 01:00:23,396
It was the network changes, so we need to change in order not to change.

720
01:00:23,396 --> 01:00:26,736
So that was the flipping of the conservative position.

721
01:00:27,056 --> 01:00:33,936
So in Bitcoin, since we want, so I think there is a very powerful attraction to stability

722
01:00:33,936 --> 01:00:35,776
because money must be stable.

723
01:00:36,276 --> 01:00:42,296
So whatever seems more conservative or stable puts you on the highest ground in Bitcoin

724
01:00:42,296 --> 01:00:45,096
because you are basically remaining the same.

725
01:00:45,296 --> 01:00:46,936
So you are giving money stability.

726
01:00:46,936 --> 01:00:54,916
so Roger was specifically saying by changing the rules with an art fork which is way more

727
01:00:54,916 --> 01:01:01,636
we are preserving the economic status why core is saying by changing the mempool we are just

728
01:01:01,636 --> 01:01:07,276
surrendering the president status and we're moving to something new which is unavoidable or

729
01:01:07,276 --> 01:01:12,556
for somebody even desirable so that's I think that's a difference it's not so important in the

730
01:01:12,556 --> 01:01:18,616
debate, but I think there is a difference there. But my main point is that we should basically,

731
01:01:18,616 --> 01:01:26,436
we should not, we should not, we should call a spade a spade. So this is a change. And the fact

732
01:01:26,436 --> 01:01:31,816
that this change is trying to put the network in the same situation it was before inscriptions,

733
01:01:32,516 --> 01:01:40,296
it's a valid point. It's a less, so let's say in the slope, in the ladder, there is a discontinuity

734
01:01:40,296 --> 01:01:44,656
you can say. You can say, no, Giacomo, this is not a slippery slope. This is not a bad precedence

735
01:01:44,656 --> 01:01:51,496
because we will only do soft forks which put Bitcoin back to a state in which it already was

736
01:01:51,496 --> 01:01:56,936
before. So that's a legit thing. It's something that reduces my concern over a victory,

737
01:01:57,116 --> 01:02:02,636
but it doesn't put it to zero because I still think that some people, I accept this difference.

738
01:02:03,136 --> 01:02:08,856
This is a changing of the rules, which is something which creates a scary precedent for me

739
01:02:08,856 --> 01:02:15,476
in order to remain to a shelling point that was already present on the network before.

740
01:02:15,816 --> 01:02:20,716
So any bad thing that wants to happen in the future, we can still make a distinction.

741
01:02:21,296 --> 01:02:27,216
No, wait, we were doing a changing on the rules only to repristinate a state of the system.

742
01:02:27,216 --> 01:02:32,276
We will not allow a changing of the rules in minority fashion in order to change the

743
01:02:32,276 --> 01:02:32,956
state of the system.

744
01:02:33,036 --> 01:02:34,296
That's a good argument.

745
01:02:35,176 --> 01:02:36,236
I accept this argument.

746
01:02:36,236 --> 01:02:44,096
I don't think it's definitive, but it is a partial mitigation of the slippery slope concern that I have.

747
01:02:45,236 --> 01:02:52,956
Yeah, and to emphasize that, I think the whole this is setting a bad precedent argument is that there's more to it.

748
01:02:53,556 --> 01:02:56,256
Because you still require consensus, right?

749
01:02:56,336 --> 01:03:04,036
You still require, in BIP 110, it's 55% minor consensus, and then the thing happens, right?

750
01:03:04,036 --> 01:03:06,616
Even without, it happens anyway.

751
01:03:07,236 --> 01:03:11,096
It happens anyway because users are just going to make blocks involved.

752
01:03:11,096 --> 01:03:17,616
But the thing is, it doesn't say anything about OFAC compliance or anything like that.

753
01:03:17,776 --> 01:03:23,696
Trying to gain support for a fork that nobody in Bitcoin wants is still going to be super hard.

754
01:03:23,796 --> 01:03:27,016
Because this is a change that people actually want.

755
01:03:27,116 --> 01:03:28,736
It's not a change that people don't want.

756
01:03:29,296 --> 01:03:32,256
And yeah, I guess we'll see.

757
01:03:32,256 --> 01:03:36,176
Yeah, but I mean, people are retarded.

758
01:03:36,196 --> 01:03:37,496
I mean, I said that 9%.

759
01:03:37,496 --> 01:03:51,296
Let me go to my, so I acknowledge the fact that a status quo achieving change of the rules is better than an unbounded change.

760
01:03:51,456 --> 01:03:52,316
Okay, that's the difference.

761
01:03:52,696 --> 01:03:54,876
But then you say the real thing we want.

762
01:03:55,156 --> 01:03:59,856
So if you were saying the real thing I don't want to change is the state of Bitcoin before inscriptions.

763
01:03:59,856 --> 01:04:20,996
I may say, okay, that's a shelling point that maybe we can agree. Not everybody will agree, but we can try to push for that. But then you say the real estate I want to conserve is users in charge. And that's very scary for me because people are retarded. And people are retarded if they vote, one person, one vote, they are retarded and they vote for socialism.

764
01:04:20,996 --> 01:04:28,316
And if you put a weight, a coefficient on the votes, and this coefficient is hash rate, you have the mining cartels.

765
01:04:28,656 --> 01:04:32,796
And if the coefficient is GitHub commits, you have the core elite.

766
01:04:33,196 --> 01:04:40,336
And if the coefficient is Twitter retweets or ratios, you can have votes or whatever.

767
01:04:40,796 --> 01:04:43,996
And you have the podcastocracy.

768
01:04:45,296 --> 01:04:46,456
I'm pro that, of course.

769
01:04:46,456 --> 01:04:50,296
Of course, yeah, because you're pro podcastocracy.

770
01:04:50,296 --> 01:04:55,736
But wait, because Levera is a very powerful podcaster.

771
01:04:55,736 --> 01:05:04,456
Yeah, but he's not a podcastocrat. He's a podcast... what was that? Tater.

772
01:05:06,696 --> 01:05:10,536
Well, but he may be tempted to become one if you have the power to change Bitcoin.

773
01:05:10,536 --> 01:05:15,656
So I think that the idea that this is a very Luke idea that I always found odd.

774
01:05:15,656 --> 01:05:24,436
But with Luke, I'm always very careful because he has a very careful cathedral of definitions in his minds that tend to be internally very consistent.

775
01:05:24,936 --> 01:05:34,536
But I never bought the idea that there is a happy ending in a democratic Bitcoin where users are in charge.

776
01:05:34,616 --> 01:05:35,616
I don't trust users.

777
01:05:35,956 --> 01:05:40,856
I think users, most of Bitcoin users were in favor of COVID restrictions.

778
01:05:40,856 --> 01:05:48,256
even if many Bitcoin activists were not, users are retarded. Sometimes even activists are retarded.

779
01:05:48,636 --> 01:05:55,296
They're easy to scare. They're easy to misguide. They're easy to send following, including me.

780
01:05:55,656 --> 01:06:02,416
So I trust myself a little bit more than I trust everybody else. So if you were telling me

781
01:06:02,416 --> 01:06:06,696
users, that's very scary for me. Sounds like democracy to some degree.

782
01:06:06,696 --> 01:06:29,476
Okay, okay. So let me try to argue against that, because I don't mean like a democracy. Of course I don't, because that's retarded. We know all the people are retarded. And here we go into economic nodes versus just listening nodes and whatnot, and even the arguments about prune nodes and whatever, and what constitutes a user.

783
01:06:29,476 --> 01:06:45,996
But at the end of the day, I think like a company like Coinbase running a very significant economic node, they have their clients, they have their customers and the needs and wants of their customers to they have to keep that in mind.

784
01:06:45,996 --> 01:06:51,796
The reason I love Bitcoin is that it's the closest thing to a free market thing there is.

785
01:06:52,336 --> 01:06:56,196
Miners are clearly employed by the network to secure it.

786
01:06:56,296 --> 01:07:00,616
And in order to do that, we pay them in Bitcoin to do us a service.

787
01:07:01,136 --> 01:07:06,736
And that's why I love it, because it's totally based on free market dynamics.

788
01:07:06,916 --> 01:07:08,736
We pay for services.

789
01:07:08,736 --> 01:07:20,442
by using one wallet rather than another we clearly signal to the market that we like that one better I wouldn call it a democracy

790
01:07:20,822 --> 01:07:29,802
The users being in charge, I would call that a reflection of as close to a totally free market economy we can get rather than calling it a democracy.

791
01:07:30,042 --> 01:07:33,022
So that's the framing I have.

792
01:07:33,122 --> 01:07:37,362
The more skin in the game you put in, the more influence you have.

793
01:07:37,362 --> 01:07:42,142
And I'd say every single person on earth is an economic node.

794
01:07:42,722 --> 01:07:49,882
They are very differently powerful, of course, but someone signaling on Twitter this or that does have an impact on people.

795
01:07:50,002 --> 01:07:58,302
It does have an impact on the network because some guy running a very significant economic node may change his mind about this or that.

796
01:07:58,402 --> 01:08:05,702
So you can't really disclude anyone from the equation, not even no coiners or shit coiners that are doing the damage in the first place.

797
01:08:05,702 --> 01:08:11,602
So like at the end of the day, I think everything is down, which is why I think plebslop is more important than devslop.

798
01:08:12,142 --> 01:08:15,942
Like at the end of the day, it's all about the will of the users.

799
01:08:16,162 --> 01:08:20,082
And sure, they may be retarded and make wrong decisions, but at least it's their decision.

800
01:08:21,542 --> 01:08:22,662
Yeah, let me refine.

801
01:08:22,782 --> 01:08:35,302
So thank you for helping me refining my argument, which was so that the comparison to democracy, of course, was misguided because democracy is a system where the majority of retarded people can actually take other people's property.

802
01:08:35,302 --> 01:08:36,982
or hurt them physically.

803
01:08:37,462 --> 01:08:40,262
So it's something where the returners can express

804
01:08:40,262 --> 01:08:43,302
in the most hurtful way and the most irreversible ways.

805
01:08:43,382 --> 01:08:44,022
So it's very bad.

806
01:08:44,342 --> 01:08:47,662
Bitcoin is, as of now, a completely voluntary system.

807
01:08:47,662 --> 01:08:52,162
So everything we're discussing, including NFTs, shitcoins,

808
01:08:52,582 --> 01:08:54,462
monetary maximalists, platform maximalists,

809
01:08:54,542 --> 01:08:58,982
everything right now is going on the basis of not enforcing anything

810
01:08:58,982 --> 01:09:01,262
physically hurting people or stealing stuff.

811
01:09:01,582 --> 01:09:02,822
So that's already better.

812
01:09:03,162 --> 01:09:04,602
So Bitcoin is a market process.

813
01:09:04,602 --> 01:09:09,782
So let's leave democracy aside because it's a bad comparison.

814
01:09:10,242 --> 01:09:10,942
Let's put it this way.

815
01:09:11,322 --> 01:09:15,242
I don't think that people are retarded only when they express preference in democracy,

816
01:09:15,242 --> 01:09:17,762
which maximize the damages of retardeness.

817
01:09:18,122 --> 01:09:21,522
I think people are retarded always, including in market processes.

818
01:09:22,062 --> 01:09:25,682
Market processes are always better than non-market processes.

819
01:09:26,122 --> 01:09:31,142
So non-market processes are rape, slavery, plundering, and fraud.

820
01:09:31,662 --> 01:09:33,922
Non-market processes are always bad.

821
01:09:33,922 --> 01:09:51,402
Market processes have the way to be bad and good and to learn from the mistake and become better and better. So the market process is good. People, actors in the market, they are still retarded. So it's not because something is appreciated by economic notes that I have to go along with that.

822
01:09:51,402 --> 01:10:00,242
During Segwit 2X, actually, our enemy, the New York agreement, was fully anarcho-capitalist debate of ideas.

823
01:10:00,622 --> 01:10:04,902
They were not threatening very much to send cops to hurt me if I don't know what.

824
01:10:04,902 --> 01:10:05,142
Disagree.

825
01:10:05,742 --> 01:10:06,342
Why?

826
01:10:06,602 --> 01:10:10,442
Because I don't view fraud as a free market thing.

827
01:10:11,082 --> 01:10:12,962
Fraud is a breach of contract.

828
01:10:13,162 --> 01:10:17,502
And if you're deliberately trying to scam people, you're not a free market actor.

829
01:10:17,582 --> 01:10:18,162
You're a scammer.

830
01:10:18,162 --> 01:10:24,402
like you're you're you're deliberately planning a breach of contract somewhere and of course there's

831
01:10:24,402 --> 01:10:30,562
the the distinction is is fuzzy to say the least because where do you draw the line between a scam

832
01:10:30,562 --> 01:10:36,162
and a non-scam but in terms of the new york agreement i think it's an uh obvious takeover

833
01:10:36,162 --> 01:10:41,922
attempt to set the precedent to make it costlier to run nodes and then you end up with ethereum

834
01:10:41,922 --> 01:10:48,002
like 10 full nodes in the entire world and a cabal of people controlling the whole thing i mean

835
01:10:48,002 --> 01:10:55,622
Everyone, only the big players was, I mean, this is where I fell in love with Bitcoin because the users, the customers were in charge.

836
01:10:56,122 --> 01:10:59,042
It's clearly showed that we could win battles like that.

837
01:10:59,102 --> 01:11:02,222
It didn't show that we had won the war.

838
01:11:02,742 --> 01:11:08,822
It's probably a perpetual war, if you can frame it like a war, but since it's voluntary, but at least we could resist the attack.

839
01:11:09,062 --> 01:11:09,842
The users could.

840
01:11:09,842 --> 01:11:14,242
Most of the users wanted bigger blocks because they were retarded.

841
01:11:14,242 --> 01:11:18,002
And like most of the people I knew in the community wanted bigger blocks.

842
01:11:18,542 --> 01:11:19,462
And most of the people...

843
01:11:19,462 --> 01:11:20,602
That's not the impression I got.

844
01:11:21,122 --> 01:11:25,322
I got the impression that most people did not want, and that's why we won.

845
01:11:25,482 --> 01:11:28,282
We did the user of Activated Soft Fork and everything.

846
01:11:28,602 --> 01:11:30,002
I think that's not the case.

847
01:11:30,142 --> 01:11:36,702
My analysis of the block size wars is that people who understood Bitcoin and the trade-off didn't want bigger blocks.

848
01:11:37,122 --> 01:11:42,562
People who didn't understand the trade-off, which were majority of, if you count the number, of course.

849
01:11:42,562 --> 01:11:47,082
And there were also majority of the businesses, including Coinbase and all the others.

850
01:11:47,422 --> 01:11:52,282
So economic majority and user majority, they were in favor of big blocks.

851
01:11:52,663 --> 01:11:53,562
But Bitcoin...

852
01:11:53,562 --> 01:11:59,482
I agree with economic majority, but they had incentives to be pro this because it would

853
01:11:59,482 --> 01:12:02,043
make their market position even stronger.

854
01:12:02,222 --> 01:12:05,163
They would create monopolies like BitPay and Coinbase and so on.

855
01:12:05,222 --> 01:12:07,022
I'm not saying they were not incentivized.

856
01:12:07,142 --> 01:12:07,902
I'll say that they were.

857
01:12:08,142 --> 01:12:11,002
So the market, part of the market was highly in favor.

858
01:12:11,002 --> 01:12:16,282
Miners, of course, free market players that were in favor of becoming more monopolistic.

859
01:12:16,702 --> 01:12:18,502
So the incumbents were mostly pro.

860
01:12:19,043 --> 01:12:25,722
People that were against were mostly a game out of a very high sophisticated location on trade-offs in the future,

861
01:12:26,022 --> 01:12:28,302
which was a relative minority if you counted the hats.

862
01:12:28,722 --> 01:12:35,822
But I think the reason we won is because Bitcoin gives a disproportionate advantage to status quo.

863
01:12:36,282 --> 01:12:40,202
So I think that if we wanted to, so for example, now I want to reduce the block size.

864
01:12:40,202 --> 01:12:45,943
I really want you. I don't think I will win because people are retarded. And if I explain

865
01:12:45,943 --> 01:12:51,943
to them why we want a smaller block size, they will not get it. So I will never get a strong

866
01:12:51,943 --> 01:12:57,763
majority of the economics with me because Bitcoin favors status quo. So I think that block size

867
01:12:57,763 --> 01:13:04,423
wars has been depicted as something where the users win. But then you say, what is a user?

868
01:13:04,523 --> 01:13:08,943
Because you have civil attack. You can just pretend to be 1000 users. So you do Ashers. No,

869
01:13:08,943 --> 01:13:12,242
because the miners were in favor of 2x and they lost.

870
01:13:12,643 --> 01:13:13,883
So economic nodes.

871
01:13:14,242 --> 01:13:15,423
But actually, if you think about that,

872
01:13:15,622 --> 01:13:19,663
Coinbase is a huge economic node delegated by the users and they lost.

873
01:13:20,122 --> 01:13:23,943
So what really won was not these ill-defined users.

874
01:13:24,403 --> 01:13:28,883
What really won was some users, possibly a minority in many, many metrics,

875
01:13:29,482 --> 01:13:31,362
if not in technical expertise.

876
01:13:31,362 --> 01:13:33,822
It was the overwhelming majority of technical expertise,

877
01:13:34,222 --> 01:13:37,543
but a minority in heads, the minority of voices on Reddit,

878
01:13:37,543 --> 01:13:42,883
the minority of voices on Bitcoin talk, the minority of hash rate, and the minority of

879
01:13:42,883 --> 01:13:48,283
businesses accepting Bitcoin. It was the majority of people not giving a fuck. So let's say, let's

880
01:13:48,283 --> 01:13:56,023
put it like this. People not giving a fuck in Bitcoin, they default with the resistance,

881
01:13:56,143 --> 01:14:01,443
with the status quo. And that's a superpower of everybody defending the status quo. I think that

882
01:14:01,443 --> 01:14:11,383
if we try to say the users are in charge, you may always find a subset of users as big as small

883
01:14:11,383 --> 01:14:16,263
blockers. They will try to do something stupid with Bitcoin, including maybe, I don't know,

884
01:14:16,582 --> 01:14:22,122
replacing a CDSA with quantum resistance stuff. Many users right now will do that change because

885
01:14:22,122 --> 01:14:26,242
they are retarded, because they don't know quantum mechanics. And so they will believe everything

886
01:14:26,242 --> 01:14:31,763
they read on the newspaper. Okay, here's why I dislike that framing. And that is because it

887
01:14:31,763 --> 01:14:38,962
sort of takes for granted that people not giving a fuck weren't acting, that they were just not

888
01:14:38,962 --> 01:14:43,582
giving a fuck and not worrying about the thing. But inaction is also an action. As you know,

889
01:14:43,643 --> 01:14:49,702
from Praxeology, you can deliberately not give a fuck. And I think the users were deliberately not

890
01:14:49,702 --> 01:14:55,783
giving a fuck because they saw the trade-off and they realized that doing a hard fork and setting

891
01:14:55,783 --> 01:15:00,383
a precedent for increasing the block size over and over again was super dangerous.

892
01:15:00,383 --> 01:15:03,302
And that's why they refused to do so.

893
01:15:03,302 --> 01:15:06,302
So I don't buy that they...

894
01:15:07,163 --> 01:15:12,523
It's sort of like the parallel to COVID here is the Swedish government, which was a very

895
01:15:12,523 --> 01:15:16,202
retarded government at the moment, which was great because they didn't do shit.

896
01:15:16,462 --> 01:15:22,543
So in that case, I do buy that it was because they were retarded that they didn't act and

897
01:15:22,543 --> 01:15:24,002
therefore we didn't have mask mandates.

898
01:15:24,002 --> 01:15:24,482
It's great.

899
01:15:24,482 --> 01:15:36,222
But in this case, I think, how could you quantify who was deliberately being inactive and who was just not giving a fuck about their nodes?

900
01:15:36,602 --> 01:15:39,062
Like, there is no way to quantify that.

901
01:15:39,622 --> 01:15:42,903
So you have to make the assumption that it's a deliberate choice.

902
01:15:43,443 --> 01:15:52,122
I have assumption, but I think they are very realistic assumption on the fact that the user of Bitcoin, which will affect the economy, is not a Bitcoiner.

903
01:15:52,122 --> 01:15:57,403
Just like the user of a motorcycle is not a biker and the user of a rock is not a rocker.

904
01:15:57,722 --> 01:16:00,143
So the BitConer is part of a specific subculture.

905
01:16:00,582 --> 01:16:04,423
The subculture with the memes and everything was clearly won.

906
01:16:04,763 --> 01:16:11,122
The subcultural war representative, the meme war was won by us because we had Samson and

907
01:16:11,122 --> 01:16:13,463
the Dragon's Day and we were just better at memeing.

908
01:16:13,943 --> 01:16:18,122
And to some degree, because technical reality was in our favor and that helps the memes

909
01:16:18,122 --> 01:16:23,963
sometimes because if you can meme the technical reality, you can have an advantage. But the

910
01:16:23,963 --> 01:16:30,203
reality is that even if we were better at winning the subculture, the total amount of users of

911
01:16:30,203 --> 01:16:36,143
Bitcoin, including everybody that will receive any Bitcoin or not, as you said, even the coiners

912
01:16:36,143 --> 01:16:43,362
are users to some degree with a very low economic impact, even shit coiners, all these users were

913
01:16:43,362 --> 01:16:48,562
clearly not even aware that the block size world was even happening because many people use Bitcoin

914
01:16:48,562 --> 01:16:53,602
even back then without being on scaling Bitcoin conference or on Reddit or on Bitcoin talk.

915
01:16:53,943 --> 01:16:59,742
And most of the, I would say that if I have to say, if you define people using Bitcoin to some

916
01:16:59,742 --> 01:17:09,542
degree, I think probably by 2017, 15% of 50% of them barely knew there was a block size world going

917
01:17:09,542 --> 01:17:19,523
on. And of the other 50%, probably 30% have no clear definition of even the problem. And then of

918
01:17:19,523 --> 01:17:24,943
the people with strong definition of the problem, it's like majority of people were big blockers

919
01:17:24,943 --> 01:17:30,802
in terms of any metric you can define except for technical proficiency on GitHub. So developers,

920
01:17:30,802 --> 01:17:37,742
they were small blockers overhandingly. Miners and businesses, they were big blockers overhandingly.

921
01:17:37,742 --> 01:17:40,143
Then you had the hodlers, and that's an important thing.

922
01:17:40,523 --> 01:17:43,183
Then you have Bitfinex creating the future market.

923
01:17:43,643 --> 01:17:46,203
And then you realize, and that was a very important thing.

924
01:17:46,523 --> 01:17:52,423
Then you realize that hodlers, they tend to, most hodlers, both by pro quota.

925
01:17:52,602 --> 01:17:57,582
So with an economic weight of how much they had in terms of willingness to,

926
01:17:57,982 --> 01:17:59,862
so let me reframe even better.

927
01:17:59,862 --> 01:18:10,042
people with a lot of money and with a lot of risk risk uh with low risk aversion in betting

928
01:18:10,042 --> 01:18:17,403
they were overwhelmingly skeptical of 2x not really against it just skeptical it was going

929
01:18:17,403 --> 01:18:24,143
to happen that's what basically at the end killed it but i i would absolutely i i think your framing

930
01:18:24,143 --> 01:18:29,523
of the block size wars as a moment in which people are strangely not retarded anymore,

931
01:18:29,763 --> 01:18:33,523
and the majority of users really understand the problem and really can set the trade-off

932
01:18:33,523 --> 01:18:38,703
and choose for the better trade-off globally is very optimistic.

933
01:18:39,163 --> 01:18:41,923
I think that people are very good at choosing local optima,

934
01:18:41,923 --> 01:18:47,222
and that's why free market is the best because it allows people to experiment with local optima,

935
01:18:47,763 --> 01:19:00,749
but people are very bad at making decisions in general including us because we have partial information because we don have complete information because we have a rational ignorance of stuff that we are basically a division

936
01:19:00,749 --> 01:19:07,289
of labor. So not everybody's an expert on block size and stuff like that. Yeah. To clarify my

937
01:19:07,289 --> 01:19:12,649
position, it's not to say that everyone's not retarded. All I'm saying is that it's impossible

938
01:19:12,649 --> 01:19:19,669
to quantify who was retarded or not. I agree with that. I think that we still have an heuristics

939
01:19:19,669 --> 01:19:24,129
that in general, most people were not really understanding the trade-off.

940
01:19:24,329 --> 01:19:28,789
The point you're making about free market being very good for local things,

941
01:19:28,949 --> 01:19:32,069
I would count running a node as such a local thing

942
01:19:32,069 --> 01:19:36,729
and that the guy intending to run one and doing his homework

943
01:19:36,729 --> 01:19:40,429
and why that's important and what software to run,

944
01:19:40,589 --> 01:19:43,749
there's less retardateness than in a lot of other things

945
01:19:43,749 --> 01:19:45,109
when you come to that stage.

946
01:19:45,109 --> 01:19:47,329
I partially disagree.

947
01:19:47,329 --> 01:19:59,569
I mean, yes, compared to elections for sure, but running a node has a very low impact on things that people can measure as a very large feedback loop.

948
01:19:59,569 --> 01:20:14,949
For example, if you don't run a node, you may lose privacy by connecting to a server of somebody else, but you will not realize, you will not have a feedback loop of your action until the cops will basically steal your stuff because you leaked an IP.

949
01:20:14,949 --> 01:20:24,309
And if you don't run a node, you may have miners, basically miners colluding to let you accept inflation or theft in Bitcoin.

950
01:20:24,609 --> 01:20:28,909
But you will realize that only when that actually happened, which never happened in Bitcoin so far.

951
01:20:29,269 --> 01:20:38,069
So not running a node is something that will hurt you only far in the future and in some scenario which are bad enough that you will want to prevent that.

952
01:20:38,069 --> 01:21:02,329
But if I, so let me put it this way. If I do run Liber Relay and I do run Nots and I, my life doesn't change, if not intellectually due to that, because I didn't find any block in Datum yet. So I didn't generate a clean block with Nots. I don't use Liber Relay for mining, but I didn't create any block.

953
01:21:02,329 --> 01:21:10,049
I don't, my fee estimation, unlike people in Korea saying, is not worse on notes than it is on

954
01:21:10,049 --> 01:21:15,509
Liberale. It's not even significantly different. So I have the same fee estimation, the same block

955
01:21:15,509 --> 01:21:22,189
production, which is zero, less sadly, because I'm a shitty miner. And doesn't nothing, I don't have,

956
01:21:22,609 --> 01:21:26,889
reality is not giving me back any feedback loop on running my dot. That doesn't mean it's not

957
01:21:26,889 --> 01:21:32,169
important. It's important for staff that are very either far in the future, like privacy leaks,

958
01:21:32,329 --> 01:21:35,529
or low probability like minor collusion, but it's still important.

959
01:21:36,429 --> 01:21:43,049
So you don't consider people calling you an arrogant asshole for running LibreLy on X market signal?

960
01:21:43,569 --> 01:21:45,229
Yes, but yes, it is.

961
01:21:45,229 --> 01:21:51,149
But interestingly enough, I will receive that signal if I run, if I really,

962
01:21:51,309 --> 01:21:53,209
so you don't even know if I really run LibreLy.

963
01:21:53,209 --> 01:21:56,349
No, no, you can say that you do just to piss them off.

964
01:21:56,629 --> 01:21:59,849
So the real point is go on Twitter with an opinion on this.

965
01:21:59,849 --> 01:22:03,469
That's the point that will change my life for the better or the worse during the day.

966
01:22:03,769 --> 01:22:05,949
But running the node will change nothing.

967
01:22:06,189 --> 01:22:16,889
Now, this is interestingly, so now a very interesting game that we like to play right now is who on the two parts of the debate are more like big blockers.

968
01:22:17,089 --> 01:22:19,669
And everybody is saying, no, you, no, you, no, you.

969
01:22:19,669 --> 01:22:40,029
I think there are very equally heavenly distributed points in this because in some ways, clearly, core is the big blockers and BIP110 is the small blockers, especially in the sense that nodes don't matter, don't even write a node and stuff like that.

970
01:22:40,029 --> 01:22:47,589
then there is the ways that BIP 110 proponents are the big blockers,

971
01:22:47,809 --> 01:22:51,009
which are change the rule in order not to change the economics,

972
01:22:51,469 --> 01:22:54,969
which we discussed before, different because of fork and temporary.

973
01:22:55,449 --> 01:23:00,409
And then there is developers, evil, common people, perhaps good.

974
01:23:00,409 --> 01:23:05,629
That was a very big blocker, anti-intellectual attitude during the block size wars,

975
01:23:05,709 --> 01:23:09,529
which, by the way, I was very tempted for because I tend to be anti-intellectual.

976
01:23:09,529 --> 01:23:31,049
So whenever I see the plebs against the elite, I tend to side with the plebs instinctively, but not in this case for the specifics. And then there are a few other things. For example, the fact that big business was siding with somebody in this case, clearly big business is siding with core, not even that much, but less than before.

977
01:23:31,049 --> 01:23:37,769
there's not like a clear user resistant software by big business but it could be and and perhaps

978
01:23:38,409 --> 01:23:45,529
and let's say small users are siding with with the bap so they're interesting comparison but

979
01:23:45,529 --> 01:23:50,969
they're not clear cut it's not that one of the side is clearly roger verlike and the other is

980
01:23:50,969 --> 01:23:56,729
clearly the opposite this is a shuffling of the players and the shuffling of the rhetorics the

981
01:23:56,729 --> 01:24:02,329
rhetorical point and of the arguments, I think. Yes, history doesn't repeat and it doesn't even

982
01:24:02,329 --> 01:24:08,929
fucking rhyme. Not this time, not this time. No, and I agree with that completely. I just,

983
01:24:09,349 --> 01:24:16,009
from my point of view, like, even if all it accomplishes is like a hit on the nose on these

984
01:24:16,009 --> 01:24:20,649
spammers, I think it's worth doing it because I don't think people hate them enough. Like,

985
01:24:20,649 --> 01:24:24,689
and the scamminess and the shit that is being built

986
01:24:24,689 --> 01:24:27,289
and the rot that is happening everywhere.

987
01:24:27,429 --> 01:24:29,409
And you can see, maybe it's just my feed.

988
01:24:29,789 --> 01:24:30,789
What do I know?

989
01:24:30,869 --> 01:24:35,129
But I see like the Bitcoin Magazine people in particular,

990
01:24:35,429 --> 01:24:37,929
a lot of people from that camp and similar camps

991
01:24:37,929 --> 01:24:39,649
are now like doing,

992
01:24:40,369 --> 01:24:43,829
to me it looks like another wave of shitcoins

993
01:24:43,829 --> 01:24:45,609
and another wave of shitcoinery.

994
01:24:45,929 --> 01:24:49,089
It's the same narratives as it was back in 2017.

995
01:24:49,089 --> 01:24:54,549
It's just that now it's much more destructive because they're trying to do all of it on Bitcoin.

996
01:24:55,249 --> 01:25:00,269
And like, to me, it's just sending a signal, even if you call it a virtue signal.

997
01:25:00,709 --> 01:25:03,089
Like, yeah, I do want a virtue signal.

998
01:25:03,369 --> 01:25:10,469
I want to send a signal of virtue to the network that we do not want this.

999
01:25:10,469 --> 01:25:11,829
Like, we are Bitcoiners.

1000
01:25:11,829 --> 01:25:22,649
We are here not because of short-sighted, high-time preference, fiat gain thingies by scamming people and building this or that.

1001
01:25:23,009 --> 01:25:29,829
We're here because we want, as you said, the status quo being...

1002
01:25:30,529 --> 01:25:35,469
What words did you use that there's a proclivity for status quo or that there's a...

1003
01:25:35,469 --> 01:25:38,969
Well, asymmetric preference for the status quo.

1004
01:25:39,149 --> 01:25:41,009
Asymmetric preference for status quo.

1005
01:25:41,009 --> 01:25:49,869
That's what I like because the opposite of that is an asymmetric preference for the statist quo, which is what fiat leads to, right?

1006
01:25:49,969 --> 01:25:50,209
Agreed.

1007
01:25:50,349 --> 01:25:58,429
So I think anything I can do in my power to help the former and fight the latter is to me worth it.

1008
01:25:58,469 --> 01:25:59,809
And that's why I'm pro this thing.

1009
01:26:00,409 --> 01:26:07,949
Well, let me, so I agree that virtue signaling on something which is virtuous is good.

1010
01:26:08,489 --> 01:26:10,349
The problem is at what cost?

1011
01:26:10,349 --> 01:26:15,889
For example, I was virtue signaling by running notes, mostly virtue signaling.

1012
01:26:16,229 --> 01:26:18,589
They didn't change the word, but I was signaling something.

1013
01:26:19,189 --> 01:26:26,289
And people were, but if you do that, your fee estimation may be slightly off of one micro

1014
01:26:26,289 --> 01:26:27,769
set every five years.

1015
01:26:28,249 --> 01:26:29,789
Okay, I'm still virtue signaling.

1016
01:26:30,029 --> 01:26:31,449
The cost is irrelevant.

1017
01:26:31,909 --> 01:26:37,709
So even the low payoff from my virtue signaling is enough to justify it against the cost.

1018
01:26:37,709 --> 01:26:43,829
But if you do that, maybe the relay of the minor relay will centralize.

1019
01:26:43,969 --> 01:26:45,309
But this is irrelevant.

1020
01:26:45,469 --> 01:26:52,449
It's like if you do this, Cytria may not change idea on using fake pipe keys and keep using

1021
01:26:52,449 --> 01:26:58,329
open return for a fucking super edge case in the future when that will even be a thing

1022
01:26:58,329 --> 01:26:58,829
in the market.

1023
01:26:59,329 --> 01:26:59,709
Okay.

1024
01:26:59,989 --> 01:27:01,209
I mean, I'm sorry for that.

1025
01:27:01,269 --> 01:27:01,809
I don't care.

1026
01:27:02,109 --> 01:27:02,769
I run notes.

1027
01:27:02,769 --> 01:27:16,369
The difference is that if you virtual signal with a change of consensus and you fail in achieving a super strong economic consensus, you stop accepting Bitcoin blocks as valid.

1028
01:27:17,069 --> 01:27:18,349
Well, no, that's a high cost.

1029
01:27:18,749 --> 01:27:20,629
That's too high a cost for virtual signal.

1030
01:27:21,049 --> 01:27:29,049
And if you do that, not only you, but all the people that thinks like you about spam and about this shitcoin that goes on, they will all fork off.

1031
01:27:29,049 --> 01:27:35,769
And then, of course, they will just probably switch back, but they will be reputationally and culturally weakened.

1032
01:27:36,310 --> 01:27:41,789
And all the enemies will be emboldened by the fact that they will just tell you, I told you so.

1033
01:27:42,149 --> 01:27:51,729
So the demise of VIP 110 will be, and I think will be, a strong point in favor of this shitcoinery,

1034
01:27:52,089 --> 01:27:58,109
just because we have been tricked into virtue signaling at the highest possible cost.

1035
01:27:58,109 --> 01:28:07,589
I think it's not by chance that while we were fighting spam with notes and filters, people were just teasing us, just fork off, just fork off.

1036
01:28:07,769 --> 01:28:12,909
And we were answering, no, consensus is static, spam is dynamic, so filters are the best.

1037
01:28:12,969 --> 01:28:15,049
And they were, fork off, just fork, do it.

1038
01:28:15,189 --> 01:28:16,529
They were like, do it, do it.

1039
01:28:16,549 --> 01:28:18,810
If you have the balls, do it, change consensus.

1040
01:28:19,269 --> 01:28:23,689
And that was not because they were kind to tell us what, they were not trying to help.

1041
01:28:23,689 --> 01:28:27,969
They will try precisely to lead us into a trap.

1042
01:28:28,349 --> 01:28:31,209
And I think that most of the movement fell into this trap.

1043
01:28:32,049 --> 01:28:33,570
Yeah, they were bullying.

1044
01:28:33,849 --> 01:28:36,209
But still, this is not a hard fork.

1045
01:28:36,369 --> 01:28:37,249
This is a soft fork.

1046
01:28:37,769 --> 01:28:38,570
It's better.

1047
01:28:39,289 --> 01:28:42,969
Whoever initiates the hard fork is the one forking off.

1048
01:28:43,229 --> 01:28:44,989
Like, not the people running a soft fork.

1049
01:28:45,109 --> 01:28:49,969
Like, all of the blocks we will mine on are compliant with the other.

1050
01:28:49,969 --> 01:28:55,949
I don't think this is even a debate because it's not forking off.

1051
01:28:55,949 --> 01:29:04,849
This is another beautiful Luke speak, which can be made internally consistent, but it's clearly at odds with any common sense definition of Bitcoin.

1052
01:29:05,669 --> 01:29:10,609
Fork is usually when you change the rules to allow stuff that was not valid before.

1053
01:29:11,609 --> 01:29:16,889
Keeping my core node is not an art fork from any practically useful definition.

1054
01:29:16,889 --> 01:29:20,429
Keeping my node as is, is not a hard fork.

1055
01:29:20,810 --> 01:29:27,509
Of course, if we redefine Bitcoin as a Bitcoin, which already includes BAP 110, but then if

1056
01:29:27,509 --> 01:29:32,989
we don't, so for example, push torque activates drive chain tomorrow, BAP 300, 301.

1057
01:29:33,269 --> 01:29:35,749
I don't, I'm not hard forking.

1058
01:29:35,889 --> 01:29:39,310
I think this definition of hard fork becomes very useless very fast.

1059
01:29:39,789 --> 01:29:41,589
Okay, but here's the question then.

1060
01:29:41,589 --> 01:29:53,089
So the activation date comes, and you're a miner, and you can either choose to start mining BIP-110 compliant blocks, or you can mine whatever blocks.

1061
01:29:53,530 --> 01:30:03,830
And if you do the latter, you are at risk of losing a whole bunch of blocks later down the line, but you're not if you just stay compliant with it.

1062
01:30:03,830 --> 01:30:08,870
And the cost of that is just this maximum 2% extra fees.

1063
01:30:08,870 --> 01:30:11,169
And what miner would risk that?

1064
01:30:11,389 --> 01:30:15,889
And what's the argument against this just activating because of that?

1065
01:30:16,189 --> 01:30:16,310
Sure.

1066
01:30:16,669 --> 01:30:20,870
So at the very beginning, the miners will not do it because it's risky for nothing.

1067
01:30:21,070 --> 01:30:22,330
So just stay compliant.

1068
01:30:22,729 --> 01:30:26,189
But the fork is not asking you to only do that.

1069
01:30:26,310 --> 01:30:27,609
So there are two things that you can do.

1070
01:30:27,729 --> 01:30:29,909
One is to create a block which is compliant.

1071
01:30:30,290 --> 01:30:43,256
And the second is to create a block on top of other blocks that are compliant the second part is the hard part because it costs me nothing to create the compliant It costs me 2 to create the compliant block

1072
01:30:43,336 --> 01:30:46,677
So I would prefer a compliant block so I don't risk to be orphaned.

1073
01:30:46,677 --> 01:30:51,656
But if the longest chain, the heaviest chain is now non-compliant,

1074
01:30:52,296 --> 01:30:57,996
whether I am now compliant on top or not, I'm still not compliant, right?

1075
01:30:57,996 --> 01:31:09,496
So this is the thing that as soon as there's a non-compliant block, that's where the risk happens. But who would mind that non-compliant block? Would it be Mara? Probably.

1076
01:31:09,496 --> 01:31:11,296
Well, I mean, just wait.

1077
01:31:11,457 --> 01:31:15,776
I mean, so this can stale the fork for very long.

1078
01:31:16,156 --> 01:31:20,876
But to assume that for all the duration of the rule, which is one year,

1079
01:31:21,336 --> 01:31:24,917
nobody, even out of chance, even a troll with a bid X,

1080
01:31:25,316 --> 01:31:30,556
will find ever an uncompliant block just because at the risk of being orphaned,

1081
01:31:30,776 --> 01:31:32,656
I think that's a very optimistic assumption.

1082
01:31:32,796 --> 01:31:33,116
I hope.

1083
01:31:33,457 --> 01:31:34,937
So it's not zero probability.

1084
01:31:35,156 --> 01:31:36,756
I hope it works out.

1085
01:31:36,756 --> 01:31:47,296
And that will be what I would call a success, which would trigger in me the minor concerns about the president, which, as I said, are not as big as the ones about the failure.

1086
01:31:47,776 --> 01:31:51,396
But I think it's a very, I mean, we can all, I can pray.

1087
01:31:51,736 --> 01:31:55,216
I know you don't, but that's, I think you should start.

1088
01:31:55,697 --> 01:31:56,457
You think I don't.

1089
01:31:56,917 --> 01:31:57,356
Exactly.

1090
01:31:57,636 --> 01:31:59,356
I think you should start, Nude, because.

1091
01:31:59,417 --> 01:32:00,316
You assume I don't.

1092
01:32:00,316 --> 01:32:08,316
because if you're hoping that this risk will not be taken from the activation date

1093
01:32:08,316 --> 01:32:12,736
until the end of the year by any miner able to do one block,

1094
01:32:13,536 --> 01:32:16,756
that's a very, very, very bold assumption.

1095
01:32:17,336 --> 01:32:20,276
Even because some people will just create a block,

1096
01:32:20,276 --> 01:32:25,177
some people may put energy into this just to piss us off,

1097
01:32:25,177 --> 01:32:34,677
And some governments may confiscate a shrate just to divide the Bitcoin community.

1098
01:32:34,917 --> 01:32:45,116
I'm not sure they have a plan right now, but if I was my enemy, I would probably maximize the damage to the Bitcoin community by mining an uncompliant block immediately.

1099
01:32:45,496 --> 01:32:52,516
So some of the voices that are more critical of shitcoin and Bitcoin are basically reputationally or economically forked off the network.

1100
01:32:52,957 --> 01:32:55,536
So it's very hard for me that it will not happen.

1101
01:32:55,896 --> 01:32:58,716
Luke's argument, of course, and I don't know if we have time to go there,

1102
01:32:58,716 --> 01:33:01,236
but Luke's argument would be no, because nobody is,

1103
01:33:01,556 --> 01:33:03,356
only pedophile will mind the blocks.

1104
01:33:03,697 --> 01:33:05,957
But that's not, I don't think it's correct,

1105
01:33:06,096 --> 01:33:11,177
because you can make a block which is not compliant with zero pedopornography.

1106
01:33:11,496 --> 01:33:13,177
It's just, you just have to avoid the fork.

1107
01:33:13,697 --> 01:33:16,076
And so it would be something that I think will happen.

1108
01:33:16,336 --> 01:33:19,776
And when it will happen, I think that core people will,

1109
01:33:19,776 --> 01:33:20,756
will like

1110
01:33:20,756 --> 01:33:21,656
30 people

1111
01:33:21,656 --> 01:33:22,096
will

1112
01:33:22,096 --> 01:33:22,816
will

1113
01:33:22,816 --> 01:33:23,796
will flex

1114
01:33:23,796 --> 01:33:24,156
and

1115
01:33:24,156 --> 01:33:24,736
and and

1116
01:33:24,736 --> 01:33:25,376
and gloat

1117
01:33:25,376 --> 01:33:25,937
and and

1118
01:33:25,937 --> 01:33:26,376
and be

1119
01:33:26,376 --> 01:33:26,736
happy

1120
01:33:26,736 --> 01:33:27,356
and be

1121
01:33:27,356 --> 01:33:27,776
credible

1122
01:33:27,776 --> 01:33:28,677
because

1123
01:33:28,677 --> 01:33:29,156
they were

1124
01:33:29,156 --> 01:33:29,476
like

1125
01:33:29,476 --> 01:33:30,156
I think

1126
01:33:30,156 --> 01:33:30,556
that after

1127
01:33:30,556 --> 01:33:31,036
blocks has

1128
01:33:31,036 --> 01:33:31,376
worse

1129
01:33:31,376 --> 01:33:32,496
we won

1130
01:33:32,496 --> 01:33:33,396
mostly because

1131
01:33:33,396 --> 01:33:33,816
of status

1132
01:33:33,816 --> 01:33:34,056
quo

1133
01:33:34,056 --> 01:33:34,516
preference

1134
01:33:34,516 --> 01:33:35,596
and we

1135
01:33:35,596 --> 01:33:36,596
received an

1136
01:33:36,596 --> 01:33:37,417
underserved

1137
01:33:37,417 --> 01:33:38,376
credibility

1138
01:33:38,376 --> 01:33:39,996
in developers

1139
01:33:39,996 --> 01:33:40,776
out of that

1140
01:33:40,776 --> 01:33:41,836
because the

1141
01:33:41,836 --> 01:33:42,656
winners are

1142
01:33:42,656 --> 01:33:43,616
always considered

1143
01:33:43,616 --> 01:33:44,856
better than

1144
01:33:44,856 --> 01:33:45,296
they are

1145
01:33:45,296 --> 01:33:45,937
because they

1146
01:33:45,937 --> 01:33:46,136
are the

1147
01:33:46,136 --> 01:33:46,457
winners

1148
01:33:46,457 --> 01:33:47,036
so there

1149
01:33:47,036 --> 01:33:47,276
is this

1150
01:33:47,276 --> 01:33:47,516
right

1151
01:33:47,516 --> 01:33:47,917
history

1152
01:33:47,917 --> 01:33:48,677
yeah

1153
01:33:49,776 --> 01:34:04,276
Yes, I mean, Giacomo, this has been fantastic. Regardless of what side you're on here, in August, a good investment would be in any company sending popcorn for sats. I'm sure I'm waiting for that.

1154
01:34:04,976 --> 01:34:08,236
Long popcorn. Oh, wait, Krut. Let me, if we have one minute.

1155
01:34:08,236 --> 01:34:08,776
Yeah, yeah, yeah.

1156
01:34:08,776 --> 01:34:14,656
I wanted to show the screen because I think that I wanted to, let me say window.

1157
01:34:15,457 --> 01:34:15,616
Okay.

1158
01:34:18,316 --> 01:34:18,816
Okay.

1159
01:34:19,197 --> 01:34:21,716
So I wanted to share a couple of meme.

1160
01:34:22,917 --> 01:34:23,316
All right.

1161
01:34:23,457 --> 01:34:24,336
One is this one.

1162
01:34:24,636 --> 01:34:30,136
I think that I feel like this a lot because you say this was shared by Elon Musk as well.

1163
01:34:31,437 --> 01:34:32,076
I've seen it.

1164
01:34:32,076 --> 01:34:32,656
Yeah.

1165
01:34:32,656 --> 01:34:37,276
In 2000, this is 2008, but for me, it was like 2024.

1166
01:34:38,437 --> 01:34:42,796
I was very aligned with the left and now it is fellow noses.

1167
01:34:43,256 --> 01:34:44,736
So running notes.

1168
01:34:45,236 --> 01:34:47,876
So I was like, spam is bad.

1169
01:34:47,996 --> 01:34:48,437
Oh, okay.

1170
01:34:48,677 --> 01:34:51,056
Maybe it's not, maybe spam.

1171
01:34:51,536 --> 01:34:53,876
I mean, I was already running liberal relays.

1172
01:34:53,876 --> 01:34:59,876
So I was close to the center because I said, yeah, the argument about incentive compatibility is a good argument.

1173
01:34:59,876 --> 01:35:02,917
but spam definition that they're using is retarded.

1174
01:35:03,437 --> 01:35:07,917
And then basically people were saying, just fork off.

1175
01:35:08,276 --> 01:35:11,816
And me and you and Mechanic and Luke, we were responding,

1176
01:35:12,216 --> 01:35:16,496
no, we won't because forking, because spam is a dynamic problem

1177
01:35:16,496 --> 01:35:20,677
and filters are dynamic, but consensus is static.

1178
01:35:20,796 --> 01:35:22,576
So we won't fork, we won't take debate.

1179
01:35:22,937 --> 01:35:28,196
And then these running people are you, my VIP 110 friends.

1180
01:35:28,196 --> 01:35:36,516
And now I close to the center because, yeah, you know, I'm still not, I'm still anti-spam, but I feel like I'm not running.

1181
01:35:36,596 --> 01:35:37,296
I'm just staying here.

1182
01:35:37,677 --> 01:35:46,376
And then for the last few months, people are calling me shitcoin enablers and spammer and Procore and Walk and Pedo and whatever,

1183
01:35:46,696 --> 01:35:51,056
which is basically me feeling moving to the right.

1184
01:35:51,256 --> 01:35:52,796
But I stayed there.

1185
01:35:53,136 --> 01:35:54,356
I think I just stayed there.

1186
01:35:54,356 --> 01:35:59,036
And it was the whole anti-spam movement to run to the left.

1187
01:35:59,396 --> 01:36:07,996
I'm still, so I think if I read my tweets in 2024, where I was agreeing with Luke and Mechanic and many others,

1188
01:36:08,216 --> 01:36:12,376
I was saying the exactly same things in the merit that I'm saying now about forking.

1189
01:36:12,636 --> 01:36:20,836
And the second, which is a more advanced version of this, is this one, which is not only I stayed in the same position

1190
01:36:20,836 --> 01:36:24,596
and BIP 110 people are running to my left.

1191
01:36:25,196 --> 01:36:31,076
But also I perceive that they are radicalizing me in the other direction

1192
01:36:31,076 --> 01:36:33,576
because, for example, I disagree.

1193
01:36:33,996 --> 01:36:35,056
I make you an example.

1194
01:36:35,177 --> 01:36:37,216
I disagree with Peter Todd on many things,

1195
01:36:37,616 --> 01:36:40,016
tail emission, geopolitics, many, many things.

1196
01:36:40,677 --> 01:36:41,156
Genocide.

1197
01:36:41,756 --> 01:36:42,276
Genocide.

1198
01:36:42,276 --> 01:36:48,716
And I hang out with Peter discussing Bitcoin since 2016.

1199
01:36:48,716 --> 01:36:51,677
He was the first person I started to do that with.

1200
01:36:52,096 --> 01:36:57,276
I never used friendship or closeness as a criteria to agree with him.

1201
01:36:57,576 --> 01:36:58,917
So I never said he's a friend.

1202
01:36:59,296 --> 01:37:00,856
So whatever he's saying is not retarded.

1203
01:37:01,016 --> 01:37:01,957
I always did the opposite.

1204
01:37:02,417 --> 01:37:06,156
I always stayed very clear on that, which is something I do with other friends.

1205
01:37:06,156 --> 01:37:10,036
Like I'm friends with Bruce Fenton and I think he's a shit corners and I think he's wrong.

1206
01:37:10,316 --> 01:37:12,417
I was friends with Antonopoulos before COVID.

1207
01:37:12,556 --> 01:37:16,256
Then it became a little bit more personal and he was wrong on shit corners and was still

1208
01:37:16,256 --> 01:37:17,816
hanging out with Antonopoulos.

1209
01:37:17,816 --> 01:37:27,616
So now if people come to me and they tell me, if you are, if you keep, which is something a little bit like this, I'm still doing the same thing.

1210
01:37:28,437 --> 01:37:32,276
Making a freaking meetup with Peter freaking Todd.

1211
01:37:32,576 --> 01:37:33,596
I still do the same.

1212
01:37:34,116 --> 01:37:37,096
His position may be more radical on spam.

1213
01:37:37,196 --> 01:37:37,656
Not really.

1214
01:37:37,917 --> 01:37:38,816
They're always the same.

1215
01:37:39,016 --> 01:37:41,296
They're literally the same since I know in 2016.

1216
01:37:41,856 --> 01:37:47,336
His geopolitical position on genocide and killing Russian babies is, that's notably worse.

1217
01:37:47,336 --> 01:37:49,696
and I tell him they are notably worse,

1218
01:37:50,316 --> 01:37:53,636
but so are other positions in the Bitcoin space

1219
01:37:53,636 --> 01:37:54,656
that I disagree upon.

1220
01:37:54,917 --> 01:37:56,996
For example, Luke, I think it's probably

1221
01:37:56,996 --> 01:37:59,756
for that penalty for masturbation or something.

1222
01:37:59,876 --> 01:38:00,516
I think it's wrong.

1223
01:38:00,796 --> 01:38:02,396
I think you should not give that penalty

1224
01:38:02,396 --> 01:38:03,576
for masturbation.

1225
01:38:03,937 --> 01:38:05,596
Still, I stay there.

1226
01:38:06,396 --> 01:38:09,736
And if the best way to push me,

1227
01:38:09,856 --> 01:38:13,177
and that's the contrarian problem that I run into,

1228
01:38:13,177 --> 01:38:15,636
the best way to actually radicalize me

1229
01:38:15,636 --> 01:38:23,996
against BIP 110 is to force me to change my ideas of preference based on the new thing,

1230
01:38:24,457 --> 01:38:29,917
the new current thing. I'm still repeating what I think. I'm easy to convince otherwise

1231
01:38:29,917 --> 01:38:36,096
if there is anybody that has a good argument to convince me otherwise. But let me try to

1232
01:38:36,096 --> 01:38:45,156
stop sharing. But I feel radicalized, not by you, of course, but this is a message to the fellow

1233
01:38:45,156 --> 01:38:47,596
So, let me go back to the Pascalian.

1234
01:38:47,636 --> 01:38:51,756
I don't think it was actually a Pascalian wager in the proper sense.

1235
01:38:51,756 --> 01:38:55,696
But what you were saying is basically this is like a Schrodinger observation.

1236
01:38:56,177 --> 01:39:01,576
If you are against something that can increase the probability of failure just by being against.

1237
01:39:01,816 --> 01:39:02,596
I realize that.

1238
01:39:03,036 --> 01:39:08,636
So, if plebs, if you think that I'm important for BIP 110, I don't think I am.

1239
01:39:08,776 --> 01:39:12,516
I think that if your fork relies on me, you are screwed anyway.

1240
01:39:12,516 --> 01:39:22,376
But if you think it's important to have me there, stop trying to police me about what I do and where I meet and only stay on the arguments.

1241
01:39:22,696 --> 01:39:24,496
Because that's super triggering to me.

1242
01:39:24,796 --> 01:39:28,796
That's one of the reasons I became so radicalized against Core.

1243
01:39:29,196 --> 01:39:32,196
Because they were saying to me, you cannot run Nutz.

1244
01:39:33,116 --> 01:39:34,457
What? I cannot what?

1245
01:39:34,596 --> 01:39:37,356
So that's really triggering to my contrarianism.

1246
01:39:37,816 --> 01:39:41,216
So that's absolutely not what Nutz is doing.

1247
01:39:41,216 --> 01:39:48,856
and this kind of debate actually helped me smoothing out my position.

1248
01:39:49,136 --> 01:39:50,417
I didn't think I changed it,

1249
01:39:50,756 --> 01:39:53,477
but I think you made a few good arguments

1250
01:39:53,477 --> 01:39:56,536
mitigating my concerns in case of victory.

1251
01:39:57,477 --> 01:40:00,216
I think I'm still very...

1252
01:40:00,756 --> 01:40:04,396
I still assume defeat as very, very probable

1253
01:40:04,396 --> 01:40:08,136
and I still think that defeat will be bad for the anti-spam movement.

1254
01:40:08,136 --> 01:40:11,756
but I think you assured me that if I'm wrong

1255
01:40:11,756 --> 01:40:15,896
and if he wins, probably the president can be insulated

1256
01:40:15,896 --> 01:40:19,616
for many reasons that will not make it very concerning for the future.

1257
01:40:20,216 --> 01:40:21,256
You convinced me, I think.

1258
01:40:22,556 --> 01:40:24,696
Well, happy that you say that.

1259
01:40:25,616 --> 01:40:29,616
You know, I love having you as a sparring partner

1260
01:40:29,616 --> 01:40:33,256
and a friend to point out to me when I'm being retarded

1261
01:40:33,256 --> 01:40:37,177
and on some of the points, sure, I'm slightly retarded,

1262
01:40:37,177 --> 01:40:44,796
not entirely convinced that I'm entirely retarded about this whole thing. I think guilt by association

1263
01:40:44,796 --> 01:40:53,937
is something that we can let lefties do. And we shouldn't be, you know, hostile to one another

1264
01:40:53,937 --> 01:41:00,016
for guilt of association. I mean, I do a podcast, I talk to people, I think diplomacy is a very

1265
01:41:00,016 --> 01:41:07,156
important thing if we want to bridge any gap ever. Sure, there are exceptions and there are

1266
01:41:07,156 --> 01:41:11,996
people you shouldn't platform for instance i i try to not interact with shit coiners anymore on

1267
01:41:11,996 --> 01:41:16,496
twitter because of the whole never pick a fight with a pig because you both get dirty and the pig

1268
01:41:16,496 --> 01:41:22,977
likes it all they want is your attention so i try to not uh comment or or like or retweet or anything

1269
01:41:22,977 --> 01:41:27,216
or point out how stupid they are even though i love pointing out when people are wrong on the

1270
01:41:27,216 --> 01:41:33,437
internet that's why we're both primarily on x and not nostr i think yeah everybody's too right on

1271
01:41:33,437 --> 01:41:35,457
Noster. Yeah, but I

1272
01:41:35,457 --> 01:41:37,437
absolutely love this conversation. I think it's

1273
01:41:37,437 --> 01:41:39,396
one of the most constructive

1274
01:41:39,396 --> 01:41:41,516
ones we've had and take from

1275
01:41:41,516 --> 01:41:43,316
it what you will. More

1276
01:41:43,316 --> 01:41:45,376
pro, more against. Comment

1277
01:41:45,376 --> 01:41:47,396
and like and subscribe and

1278
01:41:47,396 --> 01:41:49,356
brush your damn teeth and I hope

1279
01:41:49,356 --> 01:41:51,417
to see you soon again, Giacomo. I don't know when

1280
01:41:51,417 --> 01:41:53,236
the next time is. Probably Prague, right?

1281
01:41:53,716 --> 01:41:54,716
Yes, we will be in Prague.

1282
01:41:55,116 --> 01:41:57,556
Yeah, fantastic. And then

1283
01:41:57,556 --> 01:41:59,516
after that, I'm looking

1284
01:41:59,516 --> 01:42:01,236
forward to spending another week in Lugano,

1285
01:42:01,236 --> 01:42:03,417
one of my favorite places in the entire universe.

1286
01:42:03,736 --> 01:42:05,656
Well, Luke is so forward to have you back.

1287
01:42:05,796 --> 01:42:08,356
Students were already excited.

1288
01:42:09,696 --> 01:42:10,596
Fantastic to hear.

1289
01:42:11,096 --> 01:42:14,196
And give my hugs to Mir and everyone else at Plan B.

1290
01:42:14,616 --> 01:42:16,937
And till next time, cheerio.