1
00:00:00,320 --> 00:00:03,780
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
00:00:16,100 --> 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 --> 00:01:17,620
So we started from the same position. 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. They don't even acknowledge that the other position exists. 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.

13
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.

14
00:01:29,040 --> 00:01:33,560
So I think it's easier for us to still man each other's position.

15
00:01:34,580 --> 00:01:44,380
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.

16
00:01:44,380 --> 00:01:48,740
and you sort of convinced him to, I mean, he contacted you.

17
00:01:48,860 --> 00:01:53,000
That's a good thing to remind people of.

18
00:01:53,260 --> 00:01:57,060
And you sort of convinced him to be against BIP-110.

19
00:01:57,300 --> 00:02:00,880
And now it seems like he's back to supporting it.

20
00:02:00,960 --> 00:02:03,680
Yeah, my evil influence is not durable.

21
00:02:04,120 --> 00:02:05,380
It's only temporary.

22
00:02:05,680 --> 00:02:08,240
I would have to recontact him right before the activation

23
00:02:08,240 --> 00:02:10,200
to make sure my influence.

24
00:02:10,680 --> 00:02:10,960
Yeah.

25
00:02:11,420 --> 00:02:13,600
So let's see about the framing here.

26
00:02:13,600 --> 00:02:42,600
So I think we both agree. And I mean, don't hesitate to interrupt me if I'm wrong in any of these assumptions. But I think we both come from a place of that Bitcoin is money, that that is the use case, and that all other use cases that are built on top or all that they should also like the only time that they're sort of morally justified.

27
00:02:43,600 --> 00:02:49,580
when they make Bitcoin better money, such as Lightning, for instance, being built on top,

28
00:02:50,060 --> 00:02:53,460
anchoring itself to the base time chain.

29
00:02:53,680 --> 00:02:57,180
Yeah, I interrupted you just to maybe change the example because Lightning is a clearly

30
00:02:57,180 --> 00:03:02,760
monetary application on top. It's needed for money. It's making Bitcoin better money. I think

31
00:03:02,760 --> 00:03:07,900
that there are other applications that are clearly non-monetary, which can still make Bitcoin better

32
00:03:07,900 --> 00:03:12,880
money for other reasons, for example, even if very marginal. For example, if you take something

33
00:03:12,880 --> 00:03:20,540
like OpenTestamps, it adds potentially absolutely zero head, basically overhead to node operators.

34
00:03:20,540 --> 00:03:25,220
So it doesn't interfere seriously with the operation of the monetary function, but it

35
00:03:25,220 --> 00:03:31,460
can increase a little bit the demand for block space, which can be considered something

36
00:03:31,460 --> 00:03:36,660
useful for the monetary, for the resistance to reorgs and fee sniping.

37
00:03:36,860 --> 00:03:40,900
It's very, very marginal, but it's a good example of something that doesn't hurt and

38
00:03:40,900 --> 00:03:46,580
can help. Another way can help besides this kind of argument about the fees is helping the

39
00:03:47,140 --> 00:03:54,020
acceptance of the Bitcoin infrastructure within the context of traditional system integration.

40
00:03:54,020 --> 00:03:59,860
So I've shielded open timestamps a lot and I find it a use case, which is a typical example

41
00:03:59,860 --> 00:04:05,620
of non-monetary but good. Yeah, I think here is where we

42
00:04:05,620 --> 00:04:08,120
we're already here.

43
00:04:08,200 --> 00:04:10,060
I think our opinions slightly differ.

44
00:04:10,200 --> 00:04:12,520
So, like, let's dissect this from the very bit.

45
00:04:12,620 --> 00:04:15,060
So, open timestamps, I think this is,

46
00:04:15,220 --> 00:04:16,460
and correct me if I'm wrong here,

47
00:04:16,500 --> 00:04:21,160
but I think the reason that op return was set at 42 bytes

48
00:04:21,160 --> 00:04:25,040
in the beginning, it was later increased to 83, right?

49
00:04:25,700 --> 00:04:26,460
Standardness, yes.

50
00:04:26,460 --> 00:04:26,880
Core, at least.

51
00:04:26,960 --> 00:04:29,420
We have to be super pedantic about this because...

52
00:04:29,420 --> 00:04:29,640
Yeah, yeah, yeah.

53
00:04:29,680 --> 00:04:31,180
The standard policy.

54
00:04:31,420 --> 00:04:33,040
So, it was never in the consensus

55
00:04:33,040 --> 00:04:34,620
where you could set it to whatever you want,

56
00:04:34,620 --> 00:04:39,000
but the standard or the default was 43 or 42 up until.

57
00:04:39,240 --> 00:04:42,180
And the reason it was 42, if I'm right about this,

58
00:04:42,640 --> 00:04:50,800
is that a hash of a document or a hash of anything really only took 42 bytes.

59
00:04:51,800 --> 00:04:54,780
Let's say something plus an identifier.

60
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.

61
00:05:01,180 --> 00:05:08,900
yes and and 42 42 bytes it's extremely small and what you could do with that was prove that

62
00:05:08,900 --> 00:05:14,640
something existed at a certain point in time you can correct me if i'm wrong but can you do anything

63
00:05:14,640 --> 00:05:21,700
else really with in terms of proving something than the existence of that thing no like it's

64
00:05:21,700 --> 00:05:26,220
it's very this is a very important distinction open timestamps and timestamping and merkel

65
00:05:26,220 --> 00:05:31,840
routes in general are just proof of existence. They are not proof of not existence. That's the

66
00:05:31,840 --> 00:05:37,720
reason why they scale so well, because one single hash can prove the existence of millions of

67
00:05:37,720 --> 00:05:42,700
documents, because you just create a Merkle tree, and you just publish the Merkle route, and you keep

68
00:05:42,700 --> 00:05:47,840
the Merkle path, and you can prove the existence of billions of documents. Ricardo Casatta and

69
00:05:47,840 --> 00:05:55,060
Peter Todd timestamped the entire internet archives with metadata in one Bitcoin transaction. So

70
00:05:55,060 --> 00:05:59,720
So timestamping is super scalable and it's private in the sense that you don't leak any

71
00:05:59,720 --> 00:06:00,960
information about the documents.

72
00:06:01,400 --> 00:06:06,660
On the other hand, to prove something more like the non-existent of some competing transaction,

73
00:06:07,000 --> 00:06:08,060
that's the hard part.

74
00:06:08,360 --> 00:06:13,480
And that's why we need Bitcoin, where every node has to download every transaction made

75
00:06:13,480 --> 00:06:15,160
by any other nodes forever.

76
00:06:15,160 --> 00:06:21,580
So the unscalable part of Bitcoin comes from the proof of publication or proof of non-existence

77
00:06:21,580 --> 00:06:25,860
or proof of non-contradiction, you can call it in different ways.

78
00:06:26,060 --> 00:06:27,940
Todd calls it single-use seals.

79
00:06:28,480 --> 00:06:33,180
But you're right that the timestamping is only doing proof of existence,

80
00:06:33,180 --> 00:06:36,840
which is super scalable and super low.

81
00:06:37,520 --> 00:06:39,700
So let me see if I understood that.

82
00:06:39,780 --> 00:06:43,460
Proof of non-existence is way harder than proof of existence.

83
00:06:43,720 --> 00:06:43,900
Yeah.

84
00:06:45,240 --> 00:06:46,040
Yeah, correct.

85
00:06:46,040 --> 00:06:48,480
Which might be why some people are religious and some are not.

86
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

87
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

88
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

89
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

90
00:07:14,320 --> 00:07:20,480
that create a higher cost or basically reorg in the chain.

91
00:07:20,640 --> 00:07:22,700
So it gives you more security faster.

92
00:07:23,100 --> 00:07:27,420
But then again, to enter the block, now you have to spend more to compete with this demand.

93
00:07:27,620 --> 00:07:29,880
So you're basically back from the start.

94
00:07:30,020 --> 00:07:33,180
I don't want to say this effect is zero, but it's very negligible.

95
00:07:33,180 --> 00:07:40,840
If OpenTestTEMP had either even a very small cost on Bitcoin, I would consider it a waste.

96
00:07:40,840 --> 00:07:46,980
Luckily, it has potentially zero cost because not only you can stamp the whole world with

97
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,

98
00:07:53,000 --> 00:07:58,600
for example, pay to contract or sign to contract and now with Taproot and Tapret.

99
00:07:58,600 --> 00:08:03,060
So you can do that with zero byte on the blockchain.

100
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

101
00:08:09,660 --> 00:08:14,760
because there's still some spammy level, which means that you have to do a transaction.

102
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

103
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

104
00:08:24,900 --> 00:08:28,580
not going to do if there was not a timestamp request.

105
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

106
00:08:34,020 --> 00:08:34,600
negligible.

107
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.

108
00:08:45,820 --> 00:08:51,160
So would it be fair to say that the footprint is negligible?

109
00:08:51,520 --> 00:08:52,960
I can never say that word.

110
00:08:54,320 --> 00:08:54,920
Negligible.

111
00:08:55,700 --> 00:08:57,480
Careful because it could be canceled.

112
00:08:57,760 --> 00:08:58,580
It's N-word.

113
00:08:58,660 --> 00:08:59,480
Let's say the N-word.

114
00:08:59,480 --> 00:09:07,340
but that could also be said for the increased block space demand which would also be very small

115
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

116
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

117
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

118
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

119
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

120
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

121
00:09:50,160 --> 00:09:56,660
necessarily agree with that because we have the difficulty adjustment algorithm, which sort of

122
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

123
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,

124
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

125
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

126
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

127
00:10:28,680 --> 00:10:36,140
calculation at this point uh however like bitcoin is already all orders of magnitude more secure

128
00:10:36,140 --> 00:10:43,340
than it needs to be arguably because like we have what is it petahashes now like how many are there

129
00:10:43,340 --> 00:10:51,140
If you realize how many guesses per microsecond that is, it's just an enormous number.

130
00:10:51,240 --> 00:10:55,100
So I don't get at all why people would want miners to make more money.

131
00:10:55,260 --> 00:10:56,460
I don't really see that.

132
00:10:56,560 --> 00:10:57,100
Do you agree?

133
00:10:57,620 --> 00:10:58,300
I agree with you.

134
00:10:58,540 --> 00:11:05,700
I think the whole security budget discussion is severely flawed because it assumes that

135
00:11:05,700 --> 00:11:10,480
either Bitcoin has some specific hash rate or somehow it doesn't work, it breaks.

136
00:11:10,520 --> 00:11:11,280
It doesn't break.

137
00:11:11,280 --> 00:11:14,640
What there is is a continuity of cost.

138
00:11:14,800 --> 00:11:19,540
So how expensive is it to unroll or to basically reorg one block?

139
00:11:19,760 --> 00:11:23,160
How expensive it is to do two or three or four?

140
00:11:23,560 --> 00:11:29,200
This is a linear cost growth that can become exponential if you compete with the rest of the network.

141
00:11:29,660 --> 00:11:33,020
The probability basically decreases exponentially to have success.

142
00:11:33,480 --> 00:11:39,920
And the amount of this decrease, the strength of this exponential depends on the total hash rate.

143
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.

144
00:11:47,080 --> 00:11:48,380
You just need more confirmation.

145
00:11:48,820 --> 00:11:53,280
So there's never a breaking point in which you don't have security anymore.

146
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,

147
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.

148
00:12:05,280 --> 00:12:08,380
Maybe because the second layers are so good that they don't need it.

149
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.

150
00:12:15,080 --> 00:12:18,860
So I think it's a circular argument, the one about the security budget.

151
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.

152
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.

153
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.

154
00:12:50,100 --> 00:13:08,880
That's it. That's 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.

155
00:13:08,880 --> 00:13:14,340
The reason for that is that the subsidy is not censorship resistant while the fees are.

156
00:13:14,720 --> 00:13:23,820
Meaning, if the government is paying miners to create empty blocks or blocks with just a Coinbase but with zero transaction or only with off-back transactions,

157
00:13:24,300 --> 00:13:29,560
the miners are not forfeiting the subsidy if they do that, but they are forfeiting the black market fees.

158
00:13:29,560 --> 00:13:35,180
So the only defense by the black market is to increase the fees until the miners will

159
00:13:35,180 --> 00:13:40,320
capitulate because the fees are more than the cost of being kidnapped by the government

160
00:13:40,320 --> 00:13:43,900
or the subsidy by the government to censor Bitcoin.

161
00:13:43,900 --> 00:13:45,100
So that's a good argument.

162
00:13:45,100 --> 00:13:58,820
So the fact that halving is important 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

163
00:13:59,140 --> 00:14:02,480
And it's also good that fees take over.

164
00:14:02,780 --> 00:14:06,940
But we don't need an absolute level of high fees for some reason.

165
00:14:07,700 --> 00:14:12,220
No, and the question here, like with so many other things in Bitcoin,

166
00:14:12,440 --> 00:14:15,600
is a question of when and when it's necessary.

167
00:14:15,600 --> 00:14:18,620
and it might not be necessary for the next 100 years.

168
00:14:18,820 --> 00:14:19,560
Like, who knows?

169
00:14:19,880 --> 00:14:23,660
I mean, I find that the biggest flaw in the argument about security budget

170
00:14:23,660 --> 00:14:28,280
is thinking that Bitcoin will not double in value every four years.

171
00:14:28,500 --> 00:14:31,480
If it does, then the problem goes away

172
00:14:31,480 --> 00:14:35,060
because the miners get paid exactly the same, like in fiat terms, at least.

173
00:14:35,060 --> 00:14:37,340
Yeah, in this case, I'm actually sad.

174
00:14:37,660 --> 00:14:38,360
That's all the halving does.

175
00:14:38,700 --> 00:14:42,840
I'm actually sad that Bitcoin will probably more than double every four years.

176
00:14:42,840 --> 00:14:46,460
And so we will not have fast enough.

177
00:14:46,580 --> 00:14:47,380
No, I'm joking.

178
00:14:47,680 --> 00:14:52,200
But I think that eventually it's good that the subsidy gets completely overruled by the fees.

179
00:14:52,380 --> 00:14:56,480
And that's a part, I think it's part of the censorship resistance design of Bitcoin.

180
00:14:57,560 --> 00:14:58,500
But you're right.

181
00:14:58,660 --> 00:15:00,440
It could not happen for many, many years.

182
00:15:01,200 --> 00:15:02,780
No, and how could it not?

183
00:15:02,780 --> 00:15:16,180
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?

184
00:15:16,800 --> 00:15:18,440
Do you buy that theory too?

185
00:15:19,280 --> 00:15:21,280
Well, no, not really.

186
00:15:22,280 --> 00:15:29,920
I mean, the personal incentive for a miner to mine, to just secure your own stack is very, very marginal.

187
00:15:29,920 --> 00:15:40,600
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.

188
00:15:41,120 --> 00:15:48,920
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,

189
00:15:49,440 --> 00:15:54,820
the idea that you are mining to prevent a 10 years re-org seems a little bit broken to me.

190
00:15:54,820 --> 00:16:07,361
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.

191
00:16:08,420 --> 00:16:12,260
Yeah. Can we see the current hash rate?

192
00:16:12,520 --> 00:16:17,320
Yeah, 953.32 exahashes per second.

193
00:16:18,500 --> 00:16:22,540
And to just give people a picture in their mind of what an exahash is.

194
00:16:22,540 --> 00:16:24,400
So exah, how many zeros is that?

195
00:16:24,820 --> 00:16:29,300
Exa is, so it's giga is nine.

196
00:16:30,760 --> 00:16:31,900
Terra is 12.

197
00:16:32,440 --> 00:16:33,520
12, so Exa.

198
00:16:33,520 --> 00:16:35,900
Petra is 15, Exa would be 18 zeros.

199
00:16:35,900 --> 00:16:43,780
So 953 followed by 18 zeros, guesses on the correct hash per second.

200
00:16:44,500 --> 00:16:46,940
It's a ginormous number.

201
00:16:47,400 --> 00:16:52,180
It's like by far the most secure thing on earth in that sense.

202
00:16:52,180 --> 00:17:03,680
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.

203
00:17:03,680 --> 00:17:17,540
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.

204
00:17:17,540 --> 00:17:42,040
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.

205
00:17:42,040 --> 00:18:02,741
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.

206
00:18:02,741 --> 00:18:16,841
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.

207
00:18:16,960 --> 00:18:22,861
There is for sure some facilitation, especially I think from Segwit discount, but we can analyze that better.

208
00:18:22,861 --> 00:18:31,300
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.

209
00:18:31,300 --> 00:18:33,420
and then the death of the entire thing,

210
00:18:33,521 --> 00:18:36,960
which is a very extreme kind of assumption, a final assumption.

211
00:18:37,540 --> 00:18:40,080
I agree that the velocity of money is not the main point

212
00:18:40,080 --> 00:18:44,361
and I agree it could be achieved just by the original Hal Finney vision

213
00:18:44,361 --> 00:18:48,940
of having custodials like cypherpunk, anonymous custodials,

214
00:18:49,420 --> 00:18:53,920
just doing stuff, eventually rug pulling people here and there.

215
00:18:54,261 --> 00:18:57,980
But overall, it can work better than gold

216
00:18:57,980 --> 00:19:04,300
because gold was very costly to settle while Bitcoin is less costly.

217
00:19:04,521 --> 00:19:07,101
So you could have this kind of banking system on top of Bitcoin,

218
00:19:07,300 --> 00:19:09,521
which is what Alfini was imagining.

219
00:19:10,001 --> 00:19:11,300
But the thing is that with Lightning,

220
00:19:11,460 --> 00:19:16,361
you can have with Lightning and other layer two within the Lightning network,

221
00:19:16,361 --> 00:19:23,640
you can have this kind of like have your Kate and ET2 or the opposite,

222
00:19:24,120 --> 00:19:26,920
which is basically almost same secure, good security,

223
00:19:26,920 --> 00:19:32,920
comparable to Bitcoin plus also some velocity of money if you really need it.

224
00:19:32,920 --> 00:19:39,040
And I think that the point is that people only see lightning as an improvement in velocity

225
00:19:39,040 --> 00:19:43,560
or like speed, small payments, cheap, small, fast payment.

226
00:19:43,720 --> 00:19:44,440
That's true.

227
00:19:44,780 --> 00:19:46,580
But lightning also does other two things.

228
00:19:46,960 --> 00:19:51,341
First, lightning is objectively more private, can be objectively more private.

229
00:19:51,800 --> 00:19:55,001
And second, lightning can be more censorship resistant.

230
00:19:55,001 --> 00:20:01,720
You can have a lightning transaction happening even if miners collude to sensor blocks for years.

231
00:20:02,420 --> 00:20:09,220
Channels that are already open and ARCs that are already open can, well, not really ARCs, channels that are already open can go on working.

232
00:20:10,200 --> 00:20:17,001
And lightning can also work if the internet is basically cut off of the nation for a few years.

233
00:20:17,220 --> 00:20:24,501
Of course, you cannot open channels, you cannot close, so you have security issues and raise conditions, but lightning can work.

234
00:20:24,501 --> 00:20:29,501
So I think the lighting is an example of not really wanting to pursue velocity.

235
00:20:29,501 --> 00:20:37,601
The thing is, lighting is a patch on a bug of Bitcoin, which is a necessary bug, which

236
00:20:37,601 --> 00:20:41,620
is unresolvable at the fundamental level, but can be mitigated.

237
00:20:41,620 --> 00:20:44,101
And the bug is called global consensus.

238
00:20:44,101 --> 00:20:48,560
Bitcoin system that which assumes that all the nodes have to download information that

239
00:20:48,560 --> 00:20:52,261
they don't directly need, but just to stay in sync with all the other nodes.

240
00:20:52,261 --> 00:20:58,501
So every time one node does something, a transaction, all the other nodes need to record it forever.

241
00:20:59,001 --> 00:21:04,620
This in itself is a censorship problem, privacy problem, and scalability problem all packed together.

242
00:21:04,620 --> 00:21:10,420
I think Lightning is an example of minimizing this, which is also at the very root of the spam problem.

243
00:21:11,720 --> 00:21:19,841
Yeah, and the fact that fees are low at the moment is, I think, a huge part of that is because Lightning works

244
00:21:19,841 --> 00:21:21,940
and people are using it and not

245
00:21:21,940 --> 00:21:22,980
transacting on the chain.

246
00:21:23,480 --> 00:21:25,820
So we agree there

247
00:21:25,820 --> 00:21:27,980
on all points

248
00:21:27,980 --> 00:21:28,540
I'd say.

249
00:21:30,480 --> 00:21:32,160
Well, in the

250
00:21:32,160 --> 00:21:33,841
case, I mean, I think

251
00:21:33,841 --> 00:21:35,780
we disagree here unless I

252
00:21:35,780 --> 00:21:37,800
manage to change your mind a little bit because I see

253
00:21:37,800 --> 00:21:39,700
Lightning as not only monetary

254
00:21:39,700 --> 00:21:41,841
but I see that as a completion

255
00:21:41,841 --> 00:21:43,761
like a fixing of the monetary

256
00:21:43,761 --> 00:21:45,900
issues of base layer. So base

257
00:21:45,900 --> 00:21:47,361
layer I think is bad money

258
00:21:47,361 --> 00:21:49,660
in general. Of course we need it

259
00:21:49,841 --> 00:21:52,880
to settle big amounts and to open channels and to close channels.

260
00:21:53,180 --> 00:21:56,761
But I think that Lightning fixes a fundamental flaw in Bitcoin design,

261
00:21:56,861 --> 00:21:57,861
which is global consensus.

262
00:21:58,001 --> 00:22:01,841
So maybe this position is a bit stronger than the one you were starting from.

263
00:22:01,841 --> 00:22:04,261
No, I totally agree with that position.

264
00:22:04,521 --> 00:22:08,620
And I was about to go there that, like, especially the privacy route,

265
00:22:08,741 --> 00:22:12,380
that that is like one of the real benefits of Lightning.

266
00:22:13,080 --> 00:22:16,120
I'd just like to point out that the whole velocity of money thing

267
00:22:16,120 --> 00:22:19,300
might not be the biggest, the best argument for it.

268
00:22:19,300 --> 00:22:24,940
or the best metric. So in the future, like, and here we sort of come to the meat of the thing,

269
00:22:25,140 --> 00:22:29,841
because I know I've met them in Logano, you hang out with a lot of developers,

270
00:22:29,841 --> 00:22:35,060
and they have a lot of ideas about what to do with atomic swaps and this and that,

271
00:22:35,160 --> 00:22:41,021
and using all of these fancy code salad things to allegedly improve Bitcoin as money.

272
00:22:41,761 --> 00:22:48,660
And the way I see it is like, where do you draw the line between a shitcoin use case and an actual

273
00:22:48,660 --> 00:22:54,160
monetary use case. And I, for instance, I don't think stable coins should be built on Bitcoin

274
00:22:54,160 --> 00:22:59,940
if they leave a footprint, because the footprint will be there forever, and thereby making it

275
00:22:59,940 --> 00:23:05,800
costlier to run a node and therefore making Bitcoin a worse form of money. And a stable coin

276
00:23:05,800 --> 00:23:13,960
is really just fiat. So I don't see a good argument for ever wanting a stable coin to be

277
00:23:13,960 --> 00:23:15,180
even anchored to Bitcoin.

278
00:23:15,320 --> 00:23:16,001
But what would,

279
00:23:16,180 --> 00:23:18,320
I think this is somewhere

280
00:23:18,320 --> 00:23:19,501
where we disagree.

281
00:23:20,220 --> 00:23:21,101
What would you say?

282
00:23:21,341 --> 00:23:22,521
Well, I'm not even sure

283
00:23:22,521 --> 00:23:23,660
we disagree so much here.

284
00:23:23,761 --> 00:23:24,940
I have a very, very,

285
00:23:25,241 --> 00:23:26,900
usually I tend to have

286
00:23:26,900 --> 00:23:27,700
very strong opinions,

287
00:23:27,820 --> 00:23:28,341
but on these,

288
00:23:28,440 --> 00:23:29,741
I have a very nuanced opinion

289
00:23:29,741 --> 00:23:30,960
in the sense that I,

290
00:23:31,080 --> 00:23:32,781
I see a fundamental problem

291
00:23:32,781 --> 00:23:33,640
with stable coins.

292
00:23:33,920 --> 00:23:35,380
So fiat denominated credit,

293
00:23:35,761 --> 00:23:37,060
fiat denominated credit,

294
00:23:37,400 --> 00:23:39,820
which is traded permissionlessly

295
00:23:39,820 --> 00:23:41,761
to some degree on a secondary market.

296
00:23:41,800 --> 00:23:42,820
So what are stable coins?

297
00:23:43,140 --> 00:23:43,940
It's fiat credit.

298
00:23:43,960 --> 00:23:50,741
But instead of being on a database like PayPal or Venmo, this fiat credit uses the blockchain rule.

299
00:23:51,261 --> 00:24:03,261
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.

300
00:24:03,640 --> 00:24:10,480
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.

301
00:24:10,480 --> 00:24:12,281
I only control the primary market.

302
00:24:12,281 --> 00:24:16,180
This is the secondary market is happening on an open protocol, which is decentralized.

303
00:24:16,501 --> 00:24:17,601
I can do nothing about that.

304
00:24:17,940 --> 00:24:19,140
So it's a blockchain scam.

305
00:24:19,640 --> 00:24:21,700
Now, do I like blockchain scams?

306
00:24:22,101 --> 00:24:27,660
No, traditionally, I despise them because they take what I love, which is Bitcoin, and they

307
00:24:27,660 --> 00:24:31,940
use Bitcoin to generate confusion, which is the opposite of what I love, which is education

308
00:24:31,940 --> 00:24:33,900
on Bitcoin, in order to profit.

309
00:24:34,180 --> 00:24:35,560
So I dislike shitcoins.

310
00:24:35,900 --> 00:24:41,460
But this specific shitcoins is a shitcoin which is not aiming at defrauding investors

311
00:24:41,460 --> 00:24:43,841
because it's not promising any gain.

312
00:24:44,160 --> 00:24:47,580
You give me a dollar and if you're lucky, you get back a dollar minus the fees.

313
00:24:47,700 --> 00:24:49,980
So it's not a get rich quick scheme.

314
00:24:49,980 --> 00:24:53,800
It doesn't defraud investors, but it does defraud regulators.

315
00:24:54,320 --> 00:24:58,120
Now, when a scam, which is using the thing I love, which is blockchain,

316
00:24:58,380 --> 00:25:01,960
Bitcoin, in order to create a buzzword like blockchain,

317
00:25:02,380 --> 00:25:06,420
to confuse and scam things I don't love, like regulators,

318
00:25:06,761 --> 00:25:08,920
in that case, I become a little bit more sympathetic.

319
00:25:08,920 --> 00:25:19,680
I can still see that somebody may be adversarial towards this scam towards the government, mostly because it's taking some energy out of Bitcoin, like mine share liquidity.

320
00:25:20,101 --> 00:25:23,360
We say that one of the reasons fees are low is that there is lighting.

321
00:25:23,480 --> 00:25:23,980
That's true.

322
00:25:24,220 --> 00:25:26,620
But the other is that there is stable coins.

323
00:25:26,940 --> 00:25:35,241
So many people that would be using Bitcoin instead and also learn about inflation resistance are stuck with fiat credit because it's just more familiar.

324
00:25:35,241 --> 00:25:38,101
It has less volatility in the short term.

325
00:25:38,101 --> 00:25:40,820
So it's a better brand recognition.

326
00:25:41,380 --> 00:25:48,220
So I agree with you that stable coins are problematic, to use a woke term, and I will

327
00:25:48,220 --> 00:25:51,560
not have any problem with a Bitcoiner having a strong stance against them.

328
00:25:51,761 --> 00:25:52,601
I'm more tolerant.

329
00:25:52,820 --> 00:25:58,480
I agree with you that if such a problematic use case is taking any resource out of Bitcoin,

330
00:25:58,880 --> 00:26:01,460
it should be opposed in any realistic way.

331
00:26:01,460 --> 00:26:10,300
But some things, some ways to do this stuff, not only doesn't consume Bitcoin's resources, but it can add.

332
00:26:10,300 --> 00:26:18,200
For example, the things I tried to work on a little bit, a few years with RGB is USDT on Lightning.

333
00:26:18,601 --> 00:26:27,521
Now, USDT on Lightning, there is an old talk by Maxim Molloski in Berlin Conference 2018, the first Lightning Conference.

334
00:26:27,521 --> 00:26:36,741
It increases liquidity and privacy for Bitcoin lighting users because right now, let's say that I want to pay you.

335
00:26:37,120 --> 00:26:39,380
There is a liquidity gap in our path.

336
00:26:39,640 --> 00:26:48,560
If there is a USDT-based connection, now you can have USDT routing that will help the SAT routing and vice versa, of course.

337
00:26:48,820 --> 00:26:54,541
Plus, you have more privacy because the chain analysis look at the opening of a channel and the closing of a channel.

338
00:26:54,541 --> 00:27:00,101
if they also have to consider that maybe there is some invisible USDT transfer across the channel,

339
00:27:00,460 --> 00:27:04,080
all the heuristics to analyze also get disrupted.

340
00:27:04,580 --> 00:27:10,741
So the USDT on lighting specifically is a way to basically to do three things.

341
00:27:11,101 --> 00:27:13,560
Improve lighting liquidity, which is good for Bitcoin users.

342
00:27:13,940 --> 00:27:16,480
Improve lighting privacy, which is good for Bitcoin users.

343
00:27:16,480 --> 00:27:22,980
and reduce the credibility of the base layer sheet coins that Tether is using right now,

344
00:27:23,200 --> 00:27:26,680
like Solana, Polygon, Ethereum, which gets legitimized.

345
00:27:26,781 --> 00:27:31,620
Actually, I will say something controversial, especially as somebody paid by Tether.

346
00:27:32,140 --> 00:27:34,920
Tether kept sheet coins alive the last cycle.

347
00:27:35,680 --> 00:27:40,720
If not for USDT, sheet coins may be way more dead than they are.

348
00:27:40,800 --> 00:27:57,621
So that a bad thing Tether moving ESDT to Lightning will help Lightning users and will also to some degree help destroying the direct competitors the long competitors to sets which are Solana

349
00:27:57,621 --> 00:28:04,901
and Tron. And those are also scams created to scam the investor, not the regulator. Well, both,

350
00:28:04,901 --> 00:28:07,581
but more importantly the investor.

351
00:28:08,481 --> 00:28:14,341
Okay, so here I take a more purist point of view, I guess,

352
00:28:14,821 --> 00:28:17,461
because first of all, I sort of like the shit coins

353
00:28:17,461 --> 00:28:19,601
in the sense that they're not messing with Bitcoin.

354
00:28:20,241 --> 00:28:23,501
And also, there's a comparison here to,

355
00:28:23,921 --> 00:28:25,761
I think it's Rothbard, it could be me,

356
00:28:25,821 --> 00:28:29,441
he pointed out that other use cases for gold

357
00:28:29,441 --> 00:28:32,001
than just the medium of exchange use case

358
00:28:32,001 --> 00:28:34,921
are actually making it a worse form of money.

359
00:28:35,061 --> 00:28:39,081
So when it's used in industry or as jewelry, it gets mispriced.

360
00:28:39,461 --> 00:28:42,381
And this is something I fear could happen to Bitcoin too.

361
00:28:42,661 --> 00:28:46,901
If you introduce these rails and you say it provides liquidity,

362
00:28:47,181 --> 00:28:49,841
yeah, but if the liquidity is based on a bubble,

363
00:28:49,841 --> 00:28:53,081
then that might just lead to more confusion and more volatility.

364
00:28:54,061 --> 00:28:57,401
And there might be side effects we don't see here.

365
00:28:57,601 --> 00:28:58,961
I get that it's a trade-off,

366
00:28:58,961 --> 00:29:01,721
but also I'd like to take the point of view

367
00:29:01,721 --> 00:29:03,361
of the Nigerian boy

368
00:29:03,361 --> 00:29:06,661
that is not able to open a bank account

369
00:29:06,661 --> 00:29:07,661
in my point of view

370
00:29:07,661 --> 00:29:08,741
it would be way better

371
00:29:08,741 --> 00:29:10,961
if he had just started accepting sats

372
00:29:10,961 --> 00:29:14,801
instead of going through this stablecoin phase

373
00:29:14,801 --> 00:29:15,761
it's sort of like

374
00:29:15,761 --> 00:29:17,261
I see it as

375
00:29:17,261 --> 00:29:19,261
alright, the boy is smoking

376
00:29:19,261 --> 00:29:20,761
because he's using fiat

377
00:29:20,761 --> 00:29:22,301
and here's Tether

378
00:29:22,301 --> 00:29:24,161
it's a nicotine patch

379
00:29:24,161 --> 00:29:26,041
so you can put the nicotine patch here

380
00:29:26,041 --> 00:29:30,001
and you won't get the lung cancer.

381
00:29:30,181 --> 00:29:32,921
No, but I'm still addicted to nicotine

382
00:29:32,921 --> 00:29:34,721
while I have the patch, right?

383
00:29:35,121 --> 00:29:38,061
Whilst Bitcoin is sort of the remedy to the whole thing.

384
00:29:38,701 --> 00:29:43,141
So like to me, the thing I have a huge problem with

385
00:29:43,141 --> 00:29:45,481
when mixing fiat and Bitcoin together,

386
00:29:46,221 --> 00:29:50,001
and this is also like, it sort of misses the point.

387
00:29:50,001 --> 00:29:53,041
We're trying to obsolete fiat, right?

388
00:29:53,121 --> 00:29:55,541
And if we bake fiat into Bitcoin,

389
00:29:56,041 --> 00:30:02,561
Isn't there a risk that we just prolong the existence of fiat and that we just perpetuate the problem?

390
00:30:03,181 --> 00:30:09,261
Like, I'm unsure about the trade-offs and if they're worth it.

391
00:30:09,721 --> 00:30:11,001
So that's my point of view.

392
00:30:11,001 --> 00:30:14,281
I'm also unsure. I think you make three valid arguments.

393
00:30:14,701 --> 00:30:20,621
Especially, I don't like very much the first argument, the one about alternate uses of gold,

394
00:30:20,621 --> 00:30:26,101
in the sense that stuff like USDT are not creating any alternate use for sets.

395
00:30:26,541 --> 00:30:27,601
Sets are still sets.

396
00:30:27,901 --> 00:30:32,381
They are still a divisible amount of difficulty adjusted proof of work.

397
00:30:32,381 --> 00:30:37,361
What is creating is alternative use for, let's say, block space or lighting infrastructure.

398
00:30:37,821 --> 00:30:43,501
So it's like to say you're creating a different use for gold mines or for gold refineries or mints.

399
00:30:43,721 --> 00:30:46,181
That's not the same as gold itself.

400
00:30:46,301 --> 00:30:49,081
So the commodity set is not really influenced by this.

401
00:30:49,081 --> 00:31:11,901
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.

402
00:31:11,901 --> 00:31:26,281
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 in that side.

403
00:31:26,281 --> 00:31:31,801
The last one is a very general ethical problem of harm reduction.

404
00:31:32,161 --> 00:31:33,241
I'm not super strong.

405
00:31:33,321 --> 00:31:34,701
I don't have a super strong opinion.

406
00:31:35,181 --> 00:31:43,681
If you are into heroin, I give you methadone, and you increase the probability of your surviving

407
00:31:43,681 --> 00:31:49,221
heroin overdose increases for methadone, and maybe we can weigh enough methadone better

408
00:31:49,221 --> 00:31:50,041
than heroin.

409
00:31:50,581 --> 00:31:55,061
Yes, or maybe you just want to go cold turkey with heroin.

410
00:31:55,061 --> 00:32:00,381
That's noble. It may fail, but if it succeeded, that's better in the long term.

411
00:32:00,921 --> 00:32:04,861
Now, it seems like this is a very common discussion in libertarianism as well,

412
00:32:05,241 --> 00:32:07,781
like mitigation of the problem, harm reduction.

413
00:32:08,101 --> 00:32:11,701
It will postpone the real resolution, so it's bad,

414
00:32:12,041 --> 00:32:15,161
but it's also helping actual people in the meantime, which is good,

415
00:32:15,461 --> 00:32:19,061
which seems similar to the Marxist critics of charity.

416
00:32:19,421 --> 00:32:21,821
Many Marxists, they were saying, you should not do charity

417
00:32:21,821 --> 00:32:24,621
because you are helping the poor, and by doing that,

418
00:32:24,621 --> 00:32:29,001
You are postponing the revolution by decreasing the revolutionary momentum, right?

419
00:32:29,321 --> 00:32:35,061
So charity is bad because you are postponing the real solution with a fake one.

420
00:32:35,441 --> 00:32:37,901
This is a, I think it's a sensible argument.

421
00:32:38,401 --> 00:32:46,901
I don't think it's, I think that if a stable coin also harms Bitcoin in any way, that settles it.

422
00:32:47,041 --> 00:32:52,841
Since it's already a dubious case, if it also creates any problem in Bitcoin, I'm against.

423
00:32:52,841 --> 00:32:56,041
if I think there is an argument that it helps Bitcoin,

424
00:32:56,361 --> 00:32:57,961
like in the case of Lightning Network,

425
00:32:58,301 --> 00:33:01,001
especially because we're not deciding between that existing.

426
00:33:01,241 --> 00:33:03,341
That's a typical harm reduction problem.

427
00:33:03,681 --> 00:33:06,341
We're not deciding between something bad existing or not.

428
00:33:06,621 --> 00:33:07,581
We're deciding it.

429
00:33:07,861 --> 00:33:09,221
If something bad exists,

430
00:33:09,881 --> 00:33:12,841
would we rather have it this way or that way

431
00:33:12,841 --> 00:33:14,721
if we can hijack it or this way,

432
00:33:14,801 --> 00:33:17,161
which is also a discussion we have with Oprah Torn

433
00:33:17,161 --> 00:33:18,181
and this kind of stuff.

434
00:33:18,481 --> 00:33:20,481
So I think that if we have stable coins

435
00:33:20,481 --> 00:33:21,601
and as long as we do,

436
00:33:21,601 --> 00:33:28,241
having them on Lightning with a good way, like RGB, is better than having them on Solana,

437
00:33:28,561 --> 00:33:31,261
just because fewer people will be scammed by Solana.

438
00:33:32,201 --> 00:33:39,561
All right. So what about introducing yet another argument against that, the slippery slope argument,

439
00:33:39,721 --> 00:33:47,061
that if we allow these things to exist on Bitcoin, and if we make good arguments for why it's not as bad,

440
00:33:47,061 --> 00:33:52,581
And like you're saying now that this is at least scamming the regulators and whatnot.

441
00:33:52,741 --> 00:33:53,941
And we use that as an argument.

442
00:33:54,501 --> 00:34:04,741
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.

443
00:34:05,081 --> 00:34:16,061
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.

444
00:34:16,061 --> 00:34:18,801
It's the idea that we should build everything on Bitcoin.

445
00:34:18,941 --> 00:34:24,781
That's Bitcoin maximalism, which from my point of view, that's the opposite of Bitcoin maximalism.

446
00:34:25,501 --> 00:34:34,221
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.

447
00:34:34,741 --> 00:34:35,961
And that's the point of Bitcoin.

448
00:34:38,961 --> 00:34:43,241
So is there a slippery slope argument or is that too weak?

449
00:34:43,241 --> 00:35:00,801
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?

450
00:35:01,201 --> 00:35:06,461
Aren't we encouraging the Citrius of the world and the counterparty or whatever they're called?

451
00:35:07,321 --> 00:35:08,821
Let me try to separate.

452
00:35:09,081 --> 00:35:10,961
So, first of all, the slip and slop in general.

453
00:35:10,961 --> 00:35:15,461
By allowing something, are we not allowing everything as a precedent?

454
00:35:15,641 --> 00:35:17,361
So precedents do exist.

455
00:35:17,521 --> 00:35:18,241
They are powerful.

456
00:35:18,641 --> 00:35:24,001
Actually, one of my arguments against BIP 110 will be one of bad precedents.

457
00:35:24,101 --> 00:35:25,981
So it will be a slippery slope argument.

458
00:35:26,561 --> 00:35:32,141
It becomes a fallacy if we just assume that everything that goes in a direction will necessarily

459
00:35:32,141 --> 00:35:33,901
cause everything in the same direction.

460
00:35:34,441 --> 00:35:35,741
That's the slippery slope fallacy.

461
00:35:35,741 --> 00:35:44,741
I think it's only a fallacy if we assume that we are ignoring the actual thresholds that we are discussing.

462
00:35:45,141 --> 00:35:51,821
So what we say is, I'm tolerant of where use cases scam the governments, not use cases scam the users.

463
00:35:52,121 --> 00:35:55,121
This is a fuzzy threshold, but it's a threshold.

464
00:35:55,481 --> 00:36:04,601
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.

465
00:36:05,081 --> 00:36:13,841
To some degree, people can launder money and avoid taxation with either, and I respect that, but it's mostly a scam to people.

466
00:36:14,141 --> 00:36:25,001
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.

467
00:36:25,001 --> 00:36:29,261
So in that regard, NFTs are a good thing because they scam governments.

468
00:36:29,601 --> 00:36:37,121
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.

469
00:36:37,461 --> 00:36:40,981
So there is a threshold to be put about the scamminess.

470
00:36:42,341 --> 00:36:43,201
I think there are a few.

471
00:36:43,721 --> 00:36:47,681
So slippery slope is slippery because there is no discontinuity.

472
00:36:48,001 --> 00:36:53,041
I think that this slope is not slippery because you have a few discontinuous steps.

473
00:36:53,041 --> 00:36:58,441
So one step is the real purity argument, which says every scam is bad.

474
00:36:58,821 --> 00:37:02,481
Even to defend people from regulators, you should always tell the truth.

475
00:37:02,801 --> 00:37:05,261
I appreciate this level of this test.

476
00:37:05,921 --> 00:37:08,881
I think it's a good equilibrium point.

477
00:37:09,481 --> 00:37:15,061
I am very tempted to go above that because I like tax avoidance in general.

478
00:37:15,481 --> 00:37:21,421
And so when you assume that you can lie to the SS to hide Anne Frank, which I do assume,

479
00:37:21,421 --> 00:37:27,141
when you assume that then you have a second threshold which is basically when are you not

480
00:37:27,141 --> 00:37:33,861
just fooling the bad guys trying to hurt innocent people but you are fooling innocent people for a

481
00:37:33,861 --> 00:37:38,461
gain a zero zero negative gain this is the second threshold then there is a trust even if you are

482
00:37:38,461 --> 00:37:45,141
tolerant here you have a third threshold which is this kind of stuff do you accept it even when it

483
00:37:45,141 --> 00:37:50,661
hurts bitcoin technically creating overread negative externality or only when it creates

484
00:37:50,661 --> 00:37:54,961
positive interactions like liquidity or privacy, even if could be temporary.

485
00:37:54,961 --> 00:38:03,101
So I stop at this third step, say, okay, scams may be allowed against bad people.

486
00:38:03,601 --> 00:38:11,261
And then I allow them only when they, in using the Bitcoin infrastructure in some way,

487
00:38:11,601 --> 00:38:19,541
they do boost the Bitcoin infrastructure instead of basically damaging it in any kind or in

488
00:38:19,541 --> 00:38:19,981
any type.

489
00:38:19,981 --> 00:38:22,201
And this is, of course, a judgment call.

490
00:38:22,481 --> 00:38:31,001
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.

491
00:38:31,381 --> 00:38:32,341
To me, it's very clear.

492
00:38:32,781 --> 00:38:38,161
And of course, anybody could misunderstand me in order to support something I do not support.

493
00:38:38,501 --> 00:38:45,221
But I can understand myself well enough to remember that there are a few discontinuities in this loop.

494
00:38:45,221 --> 00:38:50,201
Welcome to Knut's super awesome Bitcoin school.

495
00:38:50,461 --> 00:38:52,261
Should you use fiat money?

496
00:38:52,541 --> 00:38:53,221
Of course not.

497
00:38:53,721 --> 00:38:54,361
It's fake.

498
00:38:54,681 --> 00:38:56,881
It's counterfeited by the state.

499
00:38:57,181 --> 00:38:58,861
And you should buy Bitcoin instead.

500
00:38:59,261 --> 00:39:00,061
How do you buy Bitcoin?

501
00:39:00,501 --> 00:39:03,421
Well, you can buy them off a friend or you can go to an exchange.

502
00:39:03,761 --> 00:39:07,421
We recommend you go to bullbitcoin.com and buy them over there.

503
00:39:07,421 --> 00:39:12,281
They also got an awesome mobile wallet if you should ever want to use your Bitcoin.

504
00:39:12,281 --> 00:39:16,381
So go to bullbitcoin.com and use code infinity for a discount.

505
00:39:16,521 --> 00:39:19,921
If you don't want to sell your Bitcoin, but you want to keep them for a long time,

506
00:39:20,041 --> 00:39:22,281
you should put them in some kind of cold storage.

507
00:39:22,661 --> 00:39:24,561
For that, we recommend BitVault.

508
00:39:24,881 --> 00:39:28,341
BitVault is a wallet that protects you against physical attacks,

509
00:39:28,521 --> 00:39:32,221
and they put your Bitcoin in a multi-sig time lock clever solution.

510
00:39:32,501 --> 00:39:37,741
So you should check them out at bitvault.sv and use code infinity for a discount.

511
00:39:37,901 --> 00:39:41,021
To put your Bitcoin in cold storage, you also need a hardware wallet.

512
00:39:41,021 --> 00:39:43,081
We recommend the Bitbox.

513
00:39:43,341 --> 00:39:46,721
Bitbox is a great hardware wallet that has been around since forever.

514
00:39:47,121 --> 00:39:51,841
It's super easy to use, but also has advanced features and it's privacy focused.

515
00:39:51,981 --> 00:39:55,801
So go to bitbox.swiss and use code infinity for a discount.

516
00:39:56,061 --> 00:40:01,821
If you need further advice on how to do any of all of this, you should go to thebitcoinadvisor.com.

517
00:40:02,181 --> 00:40:04,761
There are friends from Australia and they're great.

518
00:40:04,761 --> 00:40:15,881
They have a multi-sig setup, a collaborative multi-sig, so that you can make sure that your descendants and your heirs inherit your Bitcoin when your time is due.

519
00:40:16,201 --> 00:40:20,361
So go to thebitcoinadvisor.com and use code Infinity for a discount.

520
00:40:20,621 --> 00:40:29,981
So to recap, get rid of the fiat and remember bullbitcoin.com, bitvolt.sv, bitbox.swiss and thebitcoinadvisor.com.

521
00:40:29,981 --> 00:40:34,561
Use code Infinity everywhere and don't forget to brush your teeth. Over and out.

522
00:40:34,561 --> 00:40:42,401
So it's not a slippery slope, but rather a non-slippery ladder with those adhesive tape thingies that make you not slip on the ladder.

523
00:40:42,721 --> 00:40:42,961
Yes.

524
00:40:45,041 --> 00:40:45,821
All right.

525
00:40:46,301 --> 00:40:50,701
So maybe we should get into the meat of the BIP-110 thing here.

526
00:40:50,761 --> 00:40:51,881
It's a good point to start.

527
00:40:52,301 --> 00:40:56,001
What is the slippery slope argument against BIP-110?

528
00:40:56,721 --> 00:40:57,041
Yes.

529
00:40:57,041 --> 00:40:59,901
So first of all, I need to do a distinction.

530
00:40:59,901 --> 00:41:09,461
I am like 99% of my argument against BIP 110 is based on the assumption that it will fail.

531
00:41:09,861 --> 00:41:13,321
So I will mostly discuss that because that's my probabilistic assumption.

532
00:41:13,701 --> 00:41:19,821
I think that that failing will be bad for Bitcoin for reasons that we may agree about,

533
00:41:20,201 --> 00:41:23,601
but maybe we don't agree about the probability assignment to this event.

534
00:41:23,601 --> 00:41:28,941
So let's discuss first, let's answer your question first, because in the very, for me,

535
00:41:28,941 --> 00:41:31,221
unlikely case, it does succeed.

536
00:41:31,581 --> 00:41:34,161
I'm also against for a different reason.

537
00:41:34,401 --> 00:41:47,361
And that the reason of slippery slope and the precedent 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

538
00:41:47,361 --> 00:41:56,941
necessarily involved in that and can change arbitrarily, it's way more shitcoin-y as a

539
00:41:56,941 --> 00:42:04,581
set of problems than a Bitcoin that allows non-monetary use cases. Examples, if we create

540
00:42:04,581 --> 00:42:10,401
the precedent that every time we have ASICs or if we create the precedent that when we have GPU,

541
00:42:10,701 --> 00:42:15,721
we change the algorithm of mining to become GPU resistance like Lightning. And then, of course,

542
00:42:15,961 --> 00:42:21,741
GPU resistance doesn't exist. So we do that with FPGAs and ASICs like Monero does,

543
00:42:22,101 --> 00:42:28,101
forking every while just to prevent ASICs. Or if we don't like the monetary policy because

544
00:42:28,101 --> 00:42:32,881
security budgets care, and then we change it like Peter Todd proposes with Telemission,

545
00:42:32,881 --> 00:42:40,521
and Ethereum does it all the time with monetary policy changes, that's another kind of bad precedent.

546
00:42:40,941 --> 00:42:46,781
So rules that change for this way, for this kind of rules, fundamental rules that change easily,

547
00:42:46,961 --> 00:42:50,101
create something which is not good money, in my opinion.

548
00:42:50,461 --> 00:42:56,581
Not because the change cannot be positive, but because the fact that the rules can change easily

549
00:42:56,581 --> 00:43:01,841
will create a precedent that can be used later for something worse than what is done now.

550
00:43:01,841 --> 00:43:07,301
So I think that my idea is right now there is no consensus.

551
00:43:07,661 --> 00:43:09,181
It's clear there is no consensus.

552
00:43:09,461 --> 00:43:12,641
I think it's very, unless there is consensus,

553
00:43:12,881 --> 00:43:15,781
if we eliminate from the set of people that must consent,

554
00:43:16,101 --> 00:43:16,921
everybody would disagree.

555
00:43:17,201 --> 00:43:19,841
In that case, there is full consensus like with climate change.

556
00:43:20,221 --> 00:43:22,721
So there is 100% consensus on climate change

557
00:43:22,721 --> 00:43:27,321
if you define every scientist which is opposed as a non-scientist.

558
00:43:27,321 --> 00:43:35,121
So if you define any Bitcoiner like me, opposed to 110, as a non-Bitcoiner, we have 100% consensus.

559
00:43:35,661 --> 00:43:36,741
Otherwise, we don't.

560
00:43:37,081 --> 00:43:45,961
And if we can make a change, and the change is effectively enforced, even if it's good, or in my opinion, not even that good in the mix.

561
00:43:46,021 --> 00:43:50,581
It's very confused, and it's temporary, it doesn't change much, it doesn't achieve much.

562
00:43:50,661 --> 00:43:52,761
So I don't like the content of the fork.

563
00:43:52,761 --> 00:44:22,741
But even if the content is not bad, because I don't think it will hurt Bitcoin, the content itself, the fact that a confused minority of Bitcoiners managed to change consensus for everybody with a lot of opposition by notable Bitcoin power users and figures, that create a precedent that would be very attractive for attackers that want the first that want to implement their pet projects in Bitcoin, including all the second layer stuff.

564
00:44:22,761 --> 00:44:28,401
you were mentioning. CTV people, they learned that it was bad to create an activation clients

565
00:44:28,401 --> 00:44:33,901
because there was not. Many people like CTV, including me, including Luke Dasher. Luke Dasher

566
00:44:33,901 --> 00:44:35,761
thinks that CTV should be- Including mechanic.

567
00:44:36,121 --> 00:44:40,721
Including mechanic. Most people think that CTV should be activated, but has not been activated.

568
00:44:41,221 --> 00:44:46,541
Jeremy Rubin created a client activated and we told him, fuck off. We are not activating anything

569
00:44:46,541 --> 00:44:52,441
until there is consensus because we are not sure yet. Then if the BIP 110 succeeded,

570
00:44:52,441 --> 00:44:55,881
that creates a strong incentive to Jeremy to say,

571
00:44:56,081 --> 00:44:58,921
who I am, like I'm the last of the losers.

572
00:44:59,201 --> 00:45:01,821
Now activate CTV without consensus.

573
00:45:02,041 --> 00:45:05,881
And then it will create the reasonable expectation

574
00:45:05,881 --> 00:45:07,821
for drive chain to be activated.

575
00:45:07,821 --> 00:45:11,361
And then maybe to TXH and other kinds of things.

576
00:45:11,681 --> 00:45:14,341
And these are still good changes, which I like in the merit.

577
00:45:14,721 --> 00:45:19,281
But then attackers would love to use this kind of momentum

578
00:45:19,281 --> 00:45:24,041
of easy to change rules to also make bad changes.

579
00:45:24,741 --> 00:45:25,721
And this I want to make,

580
00:45:26,021 --> 00:45:28,721
I want to try to still man an argument

581
00:45:28,721 --> 00:45:32,021
that we attacked as a bad argument

582
00:45:32,021 --> 00:45:34,261
for many, many years about spam.

583
00:45:34,261 --> 00:45:37,661
The fact that filtering spam is not censorship.

584
00:45:38,281 --> 00:45:41,741
We criticize this abuse of the world many, many times.

585
00:45:42,101 --> 00:45:43,421
Filtering spam is not censorship.

586
00:45:43,901 --> 00:45:47,921
But the same technique that can be used to filter spam,

587
00:45:47,921 --> 00:45:55,581
which is not censorship, can be used to prevent people from transacting with Bitcoin in a way

588
00:45:55,581 --> 00:46:01,241
that is forbidden in fiat world, which is financial censorship. So I think that the fact

589
00:46:01,241 --> 00:46:07,821
that our opponents in terms of knots versus core has been very, very sloppy into identifying

590
00:46:07,821 --> 00:46:13,341
spam filtering with censorship does not mean that there's not a good case that changing Bitcoin

591
00:46:13,341 --> 00:46:19,761
easily could be used to do actual censorship, like in preventing people from moving money

592
00:46:19,761 --> 00:46:21,681
that are illegal for some reason.

593
00:46:21,681 --> 00:46:27,101
So this is covering only the scenario which I find.

594
00:46:27,601 --> 00:46:30,701
So I don't think, so let me put it this way.

595
00:46:31,201 --> 00:46:40,221
I don't think BIP 110 can succeed because Bitcoin resists change by, which are not overwhelming

596
00:46:40,221 --> 00:46:41,661
majority of all the economy.

597
00:46:41,661 --> 00:46:46,621
and I think that the fact that it will fail will be bad

598
00:46:46,621 --> 00:46:49,621
because my friends and the people that will be more rational

599
00:46:49,621 --> 00:46:52,621
about the spam debates are on the wrong side

600
00:46:52,621 --> 00:46:56,141
and they will lose credibility and enthusiasm if this fails.

601
00:46:56,401 --> 00:46:58,981
So I'm opposed to the fork because of that.

602
00:46:58,981 --> 00:47:02,741
In the case it succeeds, it means I'm wrong about Bitcoin

603
00:47:02,741 --> 00:47:06,981
being super easy to change by vocal minority

604
00:47:06,981 --> 00:47:10,941
and that scares me because it means that it is a slippery slope argument.

605
00:47:11,361 --> 00:47:16,301
Maybe it happens this time, for example, for WASF, UASF Segwit.

606
00:47:16,721 --> 00:47:21,321
Well, I was against that many people, including Luke, convinced me to be in favor,

607
00:47:21,801 --> 00:47:25,381
mostly with the argument that, not Luke really, but other people convinced me,

608
00:47:25,641 --> 00:47:26,721
like this is a one-off.

609
00:47:27,201 --> 00:47:32,421
My friend Marco Amadori called it a Seldon crisis from the foundation cycle.

610
00:47:32,481 --> 00:47:37,281
So Ari Seldon created this plan for the future, and the plan just goes on,

611
00:47:37,281 --> 00:47:46,101
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.

612
00:47:46,421 --> 00:47:47,341
But it's just one-off.

613
00:47:47,721 --> 00:48:00,421
So if USSF 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.

614
00:48:00,421 --> 00:48:26,041
But I don't buy that now we are in another sudden crisis and without, because I don't think there is any crisis. I think there is a, there is an intelligence crisis in the definition of spam. There is a governance crisis in Bitcoin core, but there is no Bitcoin crisis in my opinion. And there is maybe a crisis in terms of node resources, UTXO management, because we have to improve the sync time of a node.

615
00:48:26,041 --> 00:48:37,961
But this is not a seldom crisis like Bitmain threatening to fork Bitcoin and the New York agreement taking over the main implementation directly.

616
00:48:38,061 --> 00:48:40,941
That was an incredible moment in Bitcoin history.

617
00:48:41,201 --> 00:48:47,341
I could buy the idea that we could do a minority takeover because it was one-off.

618
00:48:47,341 --> 00:49:00,041
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.

619
00:49:00,881 --> 00:49:05,621
And an important point I want to make here is a symmetry between status quo and change.

620
00:49:06,041 --> 00:49:12,921
So I'm okay if all the most powerful people in Bitcoin cannot enforce change.

621
00:49:13,141 --> 00:49:13,801
I like it.

622
00:49:13,801 --> 00:49:19,901
I don't like if the most powerful people in Bitcoin are powerless on stopping change.

623
00:49:20,241 --> 00:49:23,881
That's a completely different thing because change is the trouble for me.

624
00:49:24,241 --> 00:49:27,161
Status quo may not be perfect, but it is reliability.

625
00:49:27,661 --> 00:49:28,941
It is something that money needs.

626
00:49:29,341 --> 00:49:32,841
So the chemical property of gold may not be perfect.

627
00:49:32,981 --> 00:49:40,461
Maybe you can improve them somehow, but they are stable from the beginning of super neutron star collisions.

628
00:49:40,841 --> 00:49:41,441
They are stable.

629
00:49:41,441 --> 00:49:43,021
You know that gold is gold.

630
00:49:43,021 --> 00:49:48,921
you know, that all their malleability, the electronegativity, all the characteristics

631
00:49:48,921 --> 00:49:54,981
are stable. So stability for Bitcoin-based rules are more important than the specifics of the rule.

632
00:49:55,401 --> 00:50:00,721
And changing them without the entire economy supporting the change will be a very scary

633
00:50:00,721 --> 00:50:07,281
precedence for me. Okay, so I'm going to try to steelman the argument against all of this stuff,

634
00:50:07,281 --> 00:50:12,561
because I don't view BIP-110 as a change of the rules.

635
00:50:12,741 --> 00:50:15,161
I view it as a temporary tightening of the rules,

636
00:50:15,261 --> 00:50:16,921
which is not changing the rules

637
00:50:16,921 --> 00:50:22,101
in the sense that every single BIP-110 compliant block

638
00:50:22,101 --> 00:50:25,521
is also compliant with everything in the non-BIP-110.

639
00:50:26,101 --> 00:50:28,561
So it's not actually changing anything.

640
00:50:28,861 --> 00:50:32,161
If anything, it's just taking Bitcoin back to what it was

641
00:50:32,161 --> 00:50:35,341
before all these changes were introduced by Core.

642
00:50:35,341 --> 00:50:39,621
and you can say that these are not consensus changes

643
00:50:39,621 --> 00:50:40,621
these are mempool changes

644
00:50:40,621 --> 00:50:42,561
but they were clearly changes

645
00:50:42,561 --> 00:50:47,381
that the entire community was not on board with

646
00:50:47,381 --> 00:50:50,701
like 20% of nodes are not nodes now

647
00:50:50,701 --> 00:50:52,961
because of the behavior of core

648
00:50:52,961 --> 00:50:55,381
and that they changed definitions

649
00:50:55,381 --> 00:50:57,301
and did all sorts of things

650
00:50:57,301 --> 00:51:00,341
I think the biggest issue for most of us

651
00:51:00,341 --> 00:51:03,881
definitely for me is this defeatist attitude

652
00:51:03,881 --> 00:51:05,481
that you can't do anything about it.

653
00:51:05,481 --> 00:51:08,701
When you have clear signals from Vitalik, for instance,

654
00:51:08,861 --> 00:51:12,081
and other people from way back when in the first Opera Term Wars

655
00:51:12,081 --> 00:51:15,901
where they say that they chose to go and build their own stuff

656
00:51:15,901 --> 00:51:21,821
because they feared that they would be subject to change in Bitcoin in the long term.

657
00:51:22,021 --> 00:51:27,901
So to me, the biggest thing in Bitcoin that cannot ever change

658
00:51:27,901 --> 00:51:30,601
is the users being in charge,

659
00:51:30,841 --> 00:51:33,441
like everything else being downstream of the users.

660
00:51:33,441 --> 00:51:38,421
is the core thing that, pun intended, or pun not intended,

661
00:51:38,581 --> 00:51:40,861
but that cannot change.

662
00:51:41,041 --> 00:51:44,941
And it was always the case that putting spam on chain

663
00:51:44,941 --> 00:51:47,981
was more risky for the guy doing that

664
00:51:47,981 --> 00:51:50,341
than putting a normal transaction.

665
00:51:50,841 --> 00:51:53,521
Because it's sort of like this South Park episode

666
00:51:53,521 --> 00:51:55,681
that I always come back to, the death camp of tolerance,

667
00:51:55,681 --> 00:51:59,641
that points out the difference between tolerating something

668
00:51:59,641 --> 00:52:00,781
and approving of something.

669
00:52:01,021 --> 00:52:02,341
We tolerate spam.

670
00:52:02,341 --> 00:52:08,481
we don't approve of it and at a certain point we don't tolerate it anymore because it becomes such

671
00:52:08,481 --> 00:52:14,621
a big problem that we have to do something about it and this to me is bitcoin not changing this is

672
00:52:14,621 --> 00:52:21,521
bitcoin bitcoin's immune system acting exactly as it was intended it's the users being in charge

673
00:52:21,521 --> 00:52:27,561
and i also think there about the fork the risk of the fork you say you uh you don't believe the

674
00:52:27,561 --> 00:52:34,061
fork will happen. And I think there's a Pascal's wager thing here. Like if we don't believe it will

675
00:52:34,061 --> 00:52:39,301
happen, then there's a smaller likelihood that it will. But if we do believe that it will happen,

676
00:52:39,301 --> 00:52:46,461
and we do signal that we are pro this thing, just temporary restricting things to make it

677
00:52:46,461 --> 00:52:53,041
slightly more expensive for spammers, making sure that they know that they're not welcome here. We

678
00:52:53,041 --> 00:52:59,601
don't want Citria here, we want these people out of our chain that is there for monetary

679
00:52:59,601 --> 00:53:09,061
use only, then if we believe that that will happen, there's a higher likelihood that it

680
00:53:09,061 --> 00:53:15,481
will happen. That's the Pascal's wager of it all. And I think this is at the core of

681
00:53:15,481 --> 00:53:22,961
the debate is who initiated change really?

682
00:53:23,441 --> 00:53:27,241
Was it the BIP-110 people or is BIP-110 an immune reaction

683
00:53:27,241 --> 00:53:32,041
to core making changes that weren't wanted in the first place?

684
00:53:32,481 --> 00:53:37,381
And it's maybe not even about the mempool policy thing

685
00:53:37,381 --> 00:53:39,441
and the op-return being blown off.

686
00:53:40,041 --> 00:53:43,121
It's more like changing definitions and stuff

687
00:53:43,121 --> 00:53:46,621
and the rot that has been in course for years now,

688
00:53:47,001 --> 00:53:49,361
and it becoming more woke and more like,

689
00:53:49,501 --> 00:53:52,801
I don't think NFTs are bad and all of these quotes, right?

690
00:53:52,861 --> 00:53:55,961
The monetary maximalists or whatever you may call us

691
00:53:55,961 --> 00:54:00,421
sort of see that and see that as the danger.

692
00:54:00,421 --> 00:54:05,481
And BIP-110 is just Bitcoin reacting to changes that weren't wanted.

693
00:54:06,141 --> 00:54:08,461
And so in terms of that,

694
00:54:08,721 --> 00:54:12,181
if you see levels of mempool policy as like the lightest thing,

695
00:54:12,181 --> 00:54:16,941
and then soft fork is harder, but the real change is a hard fork.

696
00:54:17,621 --> 00:54:22,941
And if now the other side decides to hard fork off, then so be it.

697
00:54:23,161 --> 00:54:28,861
Like, I don't think anyone on the BIP110 side intends to fork off.

698
00:54:29,081 --> 00:54:32,621
We just intend to, you know, do what Bitcoiners always do,

699
00:54:32,761 --> 00:54:34,761
run whatever software we want.

700
00:54:35,021 --> 00:54:40,101
I know you run, for instance, both Notts and Core and LibreLite at the same time.

701
00:54:40,101 --> 00:54:42,601
So, and this is fine.

702
00:54:42,781 --> 00:54:43,101
I mean, we're...

703
00:54:43,821 --> 00:54:47,621
But not Corv30 because that pisses me off for governance.

704
00:54:48,381 --> 00:54:51,441
Yeah, and Corv30 pissed off a lot of people.

705
00:54:51,601 --> 00:54:55,481
And this is why there wouldn't have been a BIP-110 if that hadn't happened.

706
00:54:55,681 --> 00:54:56,281
I agree with this.

707
00:54:56,281 --> 00:54:59,681
And BIP-110, so the thing I see is like, where's the risk?

708
00:54:59,761 --> 00:55:06,001
If this is temporary and it's restricting so that it's basically just telling every developer

709
00:55:06,001 --> 00:55:08,901
and every miner and whatever who was building this

710
00:55:08,901 --> 00:55:12,681
and that vault solution or whatever they were building

711
00:55:12,681 --> 00:55:16,441
that was technically advanced and really fancy,

712
00:55:16,441 --> 00:55:18,041
they just have to wait for two years.

713
00:55:18,041 --> 00:55:21,721
I mean, Bitcoin is not made for wallet developers.

714
00:55:21,721 --> 00:55:25,181
It's not made for people who want to build stuff on it.

715
00:55:25,181 --> 00:55:28,421
Like people who build stuff on it must know what it is

716
00:55:28,421 --> 00:55:29,561
and build for users.

717
00:55:29,561 --> 00:55:30,661
It's the other way around.

718
00:55:30,661 --> 00:55:33,021
Like we have no obligation to cater to

719
00:55:33,042 --> 00:55:38,782
developers. Like why would we? If the users aren't in charge, then this is not Bitcoin anymore.

720
00:55:39,122 --> 00:55:44,022
That's the way I see it. Let me try to break it down because of several different points. The

721
00:55:44,022 --> 00:55:48,042
first one is the difference between change and well, the first one is the difference between

722
00:55:48,042 --> 00:55:53,582
permanent and temporary. I am open to this distinction in the sense that a victory of a

723
00:55:53,582 --> 00:55:59,962
temporary soft fork, which is controversial, I would consider it less bad as a precedent

724
00:55:59,962 --> 00:56:05,482
of a victory of a permanent soft fork, which is controversial.

725
00:56:05,982 --> 00:56:11,662
So I agree that temporary measure does reduce the concern a bit

726
00:56:11,662 --> 00:56:13,462
because what if we were wrong?

727
00:56:13,682 --> 00:56:15,682
What if the alarm was about nothing?

728
00:56:15,782 --> 00:56:17,062
What if the solution is imperfect?

729
00:56:17,522 --> 00:56:19,822
Okay, we just wait and we just deactivate.

730
00:56:20,282 --> 00:56:24,622
I agree that this is a good point, but I think that's canceled out

731
00:56:24,622 --> 00:56:30,502
because if you assume that it's just needed temporarily to send a message,

732
00:56:30,922 --> 00:56:34,882
then you're also implicitly saying that we are, in this case,

733
00:56:34,922 --> 00:56:39,702
I would go into the second argument, which is a waste of scarce resource,

734
00:56:39,702 --> 00:56:43,342
which is coordination about a soft fork to something which is just temporary.

735
00:56:43,482 --> 00:56:47,862
So all this buzz and then after two years, we'll be back where we started,

736
00:56:48,062 --> 00:56:51,722
plus a social signaling, which I give a non-zero way to.

737
00:56:51,722 --> 00:56:55,202
I think social signaling is important, but I think it's unstable.

738
00:56:55,742 --> 00:56:59,602
Like social signaling is something that people could be civilizations on.

739
00:57:00,022 --> 00:57:07,182
So I will not dismiss it, especially in social circles that have name and faces and physical gathering like Bitcoin Core.

740
00:57:07,362 --> 00:57:15,982
If you allow Bitcoin Core to accept whatever NFTs, that's bad because you're giving a signal to scammers and to shitcoiners.

741
00:57:15,982 --> 00:57:29,682
But that said, while I think social signaling is very strong in mid space, we realized after a few decades of internet that social signaling is very weak on the internet.

742
00:57:29,962 --> 00:57:35,142
Because on the internet, you don't show your face, you don't show your name, and that's a cypherpunk dream.

743
00:57:35,342 --> 00:57:38,142
So you cannot be hurt physically or socially.

744
00:57:38,302 --> 00:57:42,282
So you do whatever you want and social stigma will not stop you.

745
00:57:42,282 --> 00:57:53,642
So if we say we should not accept the Bitcoin core physical meetings or conference are friendly towards shitcore scams, I think that's a threshold we can try to enforce with some effectiveness.

746
00:57:53,642 --> 00:58:09,802
If we say the network will socially reject something that it cannot technically reject, I think that's wishful thinking because anonymous people on the internet will not be stopped by a signal.

747
00:58:09,802 --> 00:58:19,742
So the second the soft fork is temporary soft fork expires, maybe we will have used that soft fork to send the signal to Bitcoin Core and whatever.

748
00:58:20,242 --> 00:58:29,182
But the network in the sense of anonymous people on the internet trolling us with spam, they may even be emboldened by the challenge.

749
00:58:29,182 --> 00:58:32,402
Many of them are, and they would come back more.

750
00:58:32,762 --> 00:58:37,682
I think they will spam Bitcoin during, they will spam Bitcoin during the activation, just

751
00:58:37,682 --> 00:58:43,502
using BIP-110 compliant method of spam, which there are plenty, and they will spam more

752
00:58:43,502 --> 00:58:46,082
when it finishes just because they can.

753
00:58:46,582 --> 00:58:51,882
So let me, so this is the first distinction, temporary versus perpetual.

754
00:58:52,242 --> 00:58:55,682
I agree it's less frightening, but it's also less effective.

755
00:58:56,042 --> 00:58:58,222
So that's, I think it cancels out a little bit.

756
00:58:58,222 --> 00:59:02,142
Let me move then to the second point, which is soft fork versus hard fork.

757
00:59:02,342 --> 00:59:04,942
You're saying not really a change, more of a tightening.

758
00:59:05,462 --> 00:59:11,502
I think, yes, that's like saying that we prefer the president of a soft fork than of an hard fork.

759
00:59:11,602 --> 00:59:12,322
I agree with you.

760
00:59:12,662 --> 00:59:14,542
Hard fork would be very bad as a president.

761
00:59:14,962 --> 00:59:15,842
Soft fork less so.

762
00:59:16,262 --> 00:59:19,502
But still, soft fork can be used to mess with Bitcoin in important ways.

763
00:59:19,962 --> 00:59:24,762
Some of those are all these second layer things that can be enabled by soft fork.

764
00:59:24,762 --> 00:59:29,562
and other things will be blacklists or many other bad things.

765
00:59:29,882 --> 00:59:35,462
So softwares can also be bad and there is no reason to say they are not a change.

766
00:59:35,462 --> 00:59:41,042
Which goes to the third argument, which is I want to change the rule, not to change the system.

767
00:59:41,442 --> 00:59:47,402
Now, I want to do something tricky now, which is using the argument, the Roger Ver fallacy.

768
00:59:47,522 --> 00:59:49,062
We'll see it's a fallacy, possibly.

769
00:59:49,582 --> 00:59:54,262
Roger Ver and friends, during the Block Size Wars, they were saying,

770
00:59:54,262 --> 00:59:57,942
And I remember so many blog posts and articles about that.

771
00:59:58,302 --> 00:59:59,302
We are not changing Bitcoin.

772
00:59:59,782 --> 01:00:00,922
You are changing Bitcoin.

773
01:00:01,282 --> 01:00:08,202
Because even if we are proposing to increase the block size, the actual economics of Bitcoin

774
01:00:08,202 --> 01:00:11,822
were in a way which was low on chain fees.

775
01:00:12,182 --> 01:00:14,082
Now, the situation has changed.

776
01:00:14,362 --> 01:00:15,422
Now, fees are high.

777
01:00:15,742 --> 01:00:20,982
So if we change the code and the rules, we will maintain the spirit of Bitcoin.

778
01:00:20,982 --> 01:00:29,662
If we don't, by keeping the rules the same, you are proposing to change Bitcoin because actually now the new conditions are different.

779
01:00:29,982 --> 01:00:31,202
This is a very similar argument.

780
01:00:31,362 --> 01:00:38,242
I think that it's just, it's an interesting rhetoric tool, but it's not really super helpful to understand the problem.

781
01:00:38,662 --> 01:00:44,082
But, okay, interruption there because Roger was talking about a hard fork, not a soft fork.

782
01:00:44,202 --> 01:00:45,922
There's a crucial difference there.

783
01:00:45,922 --> 01:00:53,142
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.

784
01:00:53,322 --> 01:00:54,262
That doesn't mean it's wrong.

785
01:00:54,622 --> 01:00:56,062
I just want to point out it's similar.

786
01:00:56,562 --> 01:01:01,442
And I want to point out I didn't buy there, I didn't buy then, not because it was a hard fork.

787
01:01:01,442 --> 01:01:18,902
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 like using that same type of argument.

788
01:01:18,902 --> 01:01:23,662
changing something because that's exactly what it is.

789
01:01:23,922 --> 01:01:24,362
I agree.

790
01:01:24,362 --> 01:01:30,902
We need to change this policy because otherwise these spammers will use even worse.

791
01:01:31,182 --> 01:01:36,782
So they're giving up, giving in to a change in the attitude of Bitcoin's users.

792
01:01:39,482 --> 01:01:41,042
I'm just saying the same argument.

793
01:01:41,222 --> 01:01:44,642
I think, well, it's not so important the debate, I think, but I think it's different.

794
01:01:44,642 --> 01:01:50,542
The Bitcoin core propaganda right now was never, we need to open up a mempool so that

795
01:01:50,542 --> 01:01:51,582
Bitcoin stays the same.

796
01:01:51,882 --> 01:01:54,962
They never pretended to be the real conservative ones, I think.

797
01:01:55,042 --> 01:01:56,242
Well, maybe there are some exceptions.

798
01:01:56,662 --> 01:02:02,042
They mostly say that the network changes, so we have to change policy in response.

799
01:02:03,302 --> 01:02:03,602
Exactly.

800
01:02:03,942 --> 01:02:05,222
But that's the Roger Ver argument.

801
01:02:05,362 --> 01:02:06,102
That's what I'm saying.

802
01:02:06,222 --> 01:02:07,062
That was slightly different.

803
01:02:07,222 --> 01:02:11,742
It was the network changes, so we need to change in order not to change.

804
01:02:11,742 --> 01:02:15,082
So that was the flipping of the conservative position.

805
01:02:15,402 --> 01:02:22,282
So in Bitcoin, since we want, so I think there is a very powerful attraction to stability

806
01:02:22,282 --> 01:02:24,122
because money must be stable.

807
01:02:24,622 --> 01:02:30,582
So whatever seems more conservative or stable puts you on the highest ground in Bitcoin

808
01:02:30,582 --> 01:02:33,422
because you are basically remaining the same.

809
01:02:33,742 --> 01:02:35,262
So you are giving money stability.

810
01:02:36,242 --> 01:02:38,922
So, Roj de Verbe was specifically saying,

811
01:02:39,462 --> 01:02:43,222
by changing the rules with an hard fork, which is way more,

812
01:02:43,602 --> 01:02:46,322
we are preserving the economic status.

813
01:02:46,722 --> 01:02:48,622
Why Cor is saying, by changing the mempool,

814
01:02:49,002 --> 01:02:51,802
we are just surrendering the precedent status

815
01:02:51,802 --> 01:02:55,162
and we're moving to something new, which is unavoidable

816
01:02:55,162 --> 01:02:57,362
or for somebody even desirable.

817
01:02:57,962 --> 01:02:59,722
So, I think that's a difference.

818
01:02:59,822 --> 01:03:01,522
It's not so important in the overall debate,

819
01:03:01,922 --> 01:03:03,202
but I think there is a difference there.

820
01:03:03,202 --> 01:03:11,702
But my main point is that we should basically, we should not, we should not, we should call a spade a spade.

821
01:03:12,202 --> 01:03:13,762
So this is a change.

822
01:03:14,242 --> 01:03:22,542
And the fact that this change is trying to put the network in the same situation it was before inscriptions, it's a valid point.

823
01:03:22,742 --> 01:03:29,242
It's a less, so let's say in the slope, in the ladder, there is a discontinuity you can say.

824
01:03:29,242 --> 01:03:31,542
You can say, no, Giacomo, this is not a slippery slope.

825
01:03:31,842 --> 01:03:32,982
This is not a bad precedence.

826
01:03:33,202 --> 01:03:40,502
Because we will only do soft forks, which put Bitcoin back to a state in which it already was before.

827
01:03:40,502 --> 01:03:42,502
So that's a legit thing.

828
01:03:42,582 --> 01:03:45,282
It's something that reduces my concern over a victory.

829
01:03:45,462 --> 01:03:47,002
But it doesn't put it to zero.

830
01:03:47,302 --> 01:03:50,982
Because I still think that some people, I accept this difference.

831
01:03:51,462 --> 01:03:57,202
This is a changing of the rules, which is something which creates a scary presence for me.

832
01:03:57,202 --> 01:04:03,822
in order to remain to a shelling point that was already present on the network before.

833
01:04:04,162 --> 01:04:09,042
So any bad thing that wanted to happen in the future, we can still make a distinction.

834
01:04:09,642 --> 01:04:15,542
No, wait, we were doing a changing on the rules only to repristinate a state of the system.

835
01:04:15,542 --> 01:04:20,622
We will not allow a changing of the rules in minority fashion in order to change the

836
01:04:20,622 --> 01:04:21,282
state of the system.

837
01:04:21,382 --> 01:04:22,622
That's a good argument.

838
01:04:23,522 --> 01:04:24,582
I accept this argument.

839
01:04:24,582 --> 01:04:32,422
I don't think it's definitive, but it is a partial mitigation of the slippery slope concern that I have.

840
01:04:33,502 --> 01:04:41,302
Yeah, and to emphasize that, I think the whole this is setting a bad precedent argument is that there's more to it.

841
01:04:41,822 --> 01:04:44,582
Because you still require consensus, right?

842
01:04:44,682 --> 01:04:52,382
You still require, in BIP-110, it's 55% minor consensus, and then the thing happens, right?

843
01:04:52,382 --> 01:04:54,942
Even without it happens anyway.

844
01:04:55,582 --> 01:04:59,442
It happens anyway because users are just going to make blocks involved.

845
01:04:59,442 --> 01:05:05,962
But the thing is, it doesn't say anything about OFAC compliance or anything like that.

846
01:05:06,102 --> 01:05:12,022
Trying to gain support for a fork that nobody in Bitcoin wants is still going to be super hard

847
01:05:12,022 --> 01:05:15,362
because this is a change that people actually want.

848
01:05:15,482 --> 01:05:17,082
It's not a change that people don't want.

849
01:05:17,642 --> 01:05:20,602
And yeah, I guess we'll see.

850
01:05:20,602 --> 01:05:24,562
Yeah, but I mean, people are regarded.

851
01:05:24,562 --> 01:05:25,822
I mean, I said at 9%.

852
01:05:25,822 --> 01:05:39,642
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.

853
01:05:39,762 --> 01:05:40,642
Okay, that's the difference.

854
01:05:41,042 --> 01:05:48,182
But then you say, the real thing we want, so if you were saying the real thing I don't want to change is the state of Bitcoin before inscriptions.

855
01:05:48,182 --> 01:05:52,042
I may say, okay, that's a shelling point that maybe we can agree.

856
01:05:52,142 --> 01:05:54,822
Not everybody will agree, but we can try to push for that.

857
01:05:55,102 --> 01:05:58,842
But then you say the real estate I want to conserve is users in charge.

858
01:05:59,122 --> 01:06:02,762
And that's very scary for me because people are retarded.

859
01:06:03,262 --> 01:06:09,342
And people are retarded if they vote, one person, one vote, they are retarded and they vote for socialism.

860
01:06:09,762 --> 01:06:16,662
And if you put a weight, a coefficient on the votes, and this coefficient is hash rate, you have the mining cartels.

861
01:06:16,662 --> 01:06:21,142
And if the coefficient is GitHub commits, you have the core elite.

862
01:06:21,542 --> 01:06:28,682
And if the coefficient is Twitter retweets or rashes, you can have bots or whatever.

863
01:06:29,142 --> 01:06:32,662
And you have the podcastocracy.

864
01:06:33,642 --> 01:06:34,802
I'm pro that, of course.

865
01:06:35,042 --> 01:06:38,662
Of course, yeah, because you're pro podcastocracy.

866
01:06:39,402 --> 01:06:44,062
But wait, because Levera is a very powerful podcaster.

867
01:06:44,062 --> 01:06:52,822
Yeah, but he's not a podcastocrat, he's a podcast... what was that? Tater.

868
01:06:54,902 --> 01:06:58,622
Well, but he may be tempted to become one if you have the power to change Bitcoin.

869
01:06:59,042 --> 01:07:04,162
So I think that the idea that this is a very Luke idea that I always found odd.

870
01:07:04,922 --> 01:07:12,762
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.

871
01:07:12,762 --> 01:07:22,862
But I never bought the idea that there is a happy ending in a democratic Bitcoin where users are in charge.

872
01:07:22,962 --> 01:07:23,942
I don't trust users.

873
01:07:24,302 --> 01:07:29,202
I think users, most of Bitcoin users were in favor of COVID restrictions.

874
01:07:29,722 --> 01:07:34,282
Even if many Bitcoin activists were not, users are retarded.

875
01:07:34,762 --> 01:07:50,425
Sometimes even activists are retarded They easy to scare They easy to misguide They are easy to send following including me So I trust myself a little bit more than I trust everybody else So if you were telling

876
01:07:50,425 --> 01:07:57,764
me users, that's very scary for me. Sounds like democracy to some degree. Okay. So let me try to

877
01:07:57,764 --> 01:08:01,964
argue against that because I don't mean like a democracy. Of course I don't because that's

878
01:08:01,964 --> 01:08:09,224
retarded we know all the people are retarded uh uh so the and here we go into you know economic

879
01:08:09,224 --> 01:08:15,625
nodes versus just listening nodes and and whatnot and even the arguments about prune nodes and

880
01:08:15,625 --> 01:08:22,245
whatever and what constitutes a user but at the end of the day i think like a company like coinbase

881
01:08:22,245 --> 01:08:28,925
or running a very significant economic node they have they have their clients they have their

882
01:08:28,925 --> 01:08:34,344
customers and the needs and wants of their customers to, they have to keep that in mind.

883
01:08:34,444 --> 01:08:40,144
Like the reason I love Bitcoin is that it's the closest thing to a free market thing there is.

884
01:08:40,724 --> 01:08:46,745
Miners are clearly employed by the network to secure it. And in order to do that, we pay them

885
01:08:46,745 --> 01:08:54,625
in Bitcoin to do us a service. And that's why I love it because it's totally based on free market

886
01:08:54,625 --> 01:09:03,584
dynamics. We pay for services. By using one wallet rather than another, we clearly signal

887
01:09:03,584 --> 01:09:10,444
to the market that we like that one better. I wouldn't call it a democracy. The users being

888
01:09:10,444 --> 01:09:16,344
in charge, I would call that a reflection of as close to a totally free market economy we can get

889
01:09:16,344 --> 01:09:22,844
rather than calling it a democracy. So that's the framing I have. The more skin in the game you put

890
01:09:22,844 --> 01:09:30,505
in, the more influence you have. And I'd say every single person on earth is an economic node.

891
01:09:31,064 --> 01:09:36,505
They are very differently powerful, of course, but someone signaling on Twitter this or that

892
01:09:36,505 --> 01:09:42,885
does have an impact on people. It does have an impact on the network because some guy running

893
01:09:42,885 --> 01:09:47,664
a very significant economic node may change his mind about this or that. So you can't really

894
01:09:47,664 --> 01:09:53,344
disclude anyone from the equation, not even no coiners or shit coiners that are doing the damage

895
01:09:53,344 --> 01:09:57,925
in the first place. So like at the end of the day, I think everything is down, which is why I think

896
01:09:57,925 --> 01:10:03,885
plebslop is more important than devslop. Like at the end of the day, it's all about the will of the

897
01:10:03,885 --> 01:10:08,444
users. And sure, they may be retarded and make wrong decisions, but at least it's their decision.

898
01:10:09,564 --> 01:10:14,704
Yeah, let me refine. So thank you for helping me refining my argument, which was so that the

899
01:10:14,704 --> 01:10:25,324
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 or hurt them physically.

900
01:10:25,324 --> 01:10:31,644
So it's something where the retardedness can express in the most hurtful way and the most irreversible ways.

901
01:10:31,764 --> 01:10:32,385
So it's very bad.

902
01:10:32,685 --> 01:10:36,005
Bitcoin is, as of now, a completely voluntary system.

903
01:10:36,005 --> 01:10:49,605
So everything we're discussing, including NFTs, shit coins, monetary maximalists, platform maximalists, everything right now is going on the basis of not enforcing anything physically hurting people or stealing stuff.

904
01:10:49,944 --> 01:10:51,185
So that's already better.

905
01:10:51,524 --> 01:10:52,944
So Bitcoin is a market process.

906
01:10:53,264 --> 01:10:58,125
So let's leave democracy aside because it's a bad comparison.

907
01:10:58,605 --> 01:10:59,305
Let's put it this way.

908
01:10:59,305 --> 01:11:03,584
I don't think that people are retarded only when they express preference in democracy,

909
01:11:03,784 --> 01:11:06,125
which maximize the damages of retardeness.

910
01:11:06,485 --> 01:11:09,885
I think people are retarded always, including in market processes.

911
01:11:10,404 --> 01:11:14,024
Market processes are always better than no market processes.

912
01:11:14,485 --> 01:11:19,485
So no market processes are rape, slavery, plundering, and fraud.

913
01:11:20,005 --> 01:11:22,284
No market processes are always bad.

914
01:11:22,764 --> 01:11:27,764
Market processes have the way to be bad and good and to learn from the mistake

915
01:11:27,764 --> 01:11:29,164
and become better and better.

916
01:11:29,305 --> 01:11:31,404
So the market process is good.

917
01:11:32,084 --> 01:11:34,464
People, actors in the market, they are still retarded.

918
01:11:34,464 --> 01:11:39,764
So it's not because something is appreciated by economic notes that I have to go along with that.

919
01:11:40,164 --> 01:11:48,605
During Segwit 2X, actually, our enemy, the New York agreement, was fully anarcho-capitalist debate of ideas.

920
01:11:48,985 --> 01:11:53,344
They were not threatening very much to send cops to earn me if I don't...

921
01:11:53,344 --> 01:11:53,505
Disagree.

922
01:11:54,444 --> 01:11:54,704
Why?

923
01:11:54,944 --> 01:11:58,804
Because I don't view fraud as a free market thing.

924
01:11:58,804 --> 01:12:05,865
Like if you fraud is a breach of contract and if you're deliberately trying to scam people, you're not a free market actor.

925
01:12:05,964 --> 01:12:11,125
You're a scammer. You're like you're you're you're deliberately planning a breach of contract somewhere.

926
01:12:11,564 --> 01:12:19,625
And of course, there's the distinction is is fuzzy, to say the least, because where do you draw the line between a scam and a non scam?

927
01:12:19,625 --> 01:12:28,444
But in terms of the New York agreement, I think it's an obvious takeover attempt to set the precedent to make it costlier to run nodes.

928
01:12:28,625 --> 01:12:35,324
And then you end up with Ethereum, like 10 full nodes in the entire world and a cabal of people controlling the whole thing.

929
01:12:35,824 --> 01:12:43,985
I mean, 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.

930
01:12:44,444 --> 01:12:47,385
It's clearly showed that we could win battles like that.

931
01:12:47,385 --> 01:12:50,564
It didn't show that we had won the war.

932
01:12:51,105 --> 01:12:54,164
It's probably a perpetual war, if you can frame it like a war,

933
01:12:54,285 --> 01:12:57,164
but since it's voluntary, but at least we could resist the attack.

934
01:12:57,404 --> 01:12:58,184
The users could.

935
01:12:58,725 --> 01:13:02,605
Most of the users wanted bigger blocks because they were retarded.

936
01:13:02,944 --> 01:13:06,365
And like most of the people I knew in the community wanted bigger blocks.

937
01:13:06,904 --> 01:13:07,725
And most of the people...

938
01:13:07,725 --> 01:13:08,965
That's not the impression I got.

939
01:13:09,424 --> 01:13:12,404
I got the impression that most people did not want,

940
01:13:12,605 --> 01:13:16,625
and that's why we won with the user of activated soft fork and everything.

941
01:13:16,625 --> 01:13:40,625
I think that's not the case. My analysis of the block size wars is that people who understood Bitcoin and the trade-off didn't want bigger blocks. People who didn't understand the trade-off, which were majority, if you count the number, of course. And they were also majority of the businesses, including Coinbase and all the others. So economic majority and user majority, they were in favor of big blocks.

942
01:13:40,625 --> 01:13:50,385
I agree with the economic majority, but they had incentives to be pro this because it would make their market position even stronger.

943
01:13:50,605 --> 01:13:53,505
They would create monopolies like BitPay and Coinbase and so on.

944
01:13:53,584 --> 01:13:55,365
I'm not saying they were not incentivized.

945
01:13:55,505 --> 01:13:56,245
I'll say that they were.

946
01:13:56,505 --> 01:13:59,345
So the market, part of the market was highly in favor.

947
01:13:59,545 --> 01:14:04,605
Miners, of course, free market players that were in favor of becoming more monopolistic.

948
01:14:05,025 --> 01:14:06,865
So the incumbents were mostly pro.

949
01:14:07,424 --> 01:14:14,084
People that were against were mostly a game out of a very high sophisticated location on trade-offs on the future,

950
01:14:14,225 --> 01:14:16,645
which was a relative minority if you counted the hats.

951
01:14:17,064 --> 01:14:24,164
But I think the reason we won is because Bitcoin gives a disproportionate advantage to status quo.

952
01:14:24,625 --> 01:14:28,564
So I think that if we wanted to, so for example, now I want to reduce the block size.

953
01:14:28,745 --> 01:14:29,545
I really want to.

954
01:14:30,064 --> 01:14:32,824
I don't think I will win because people are retarded.

955
01:14:32,824 --> 01:14:36,745
and if I explain to them why we want a smaller block size,

956
01:14:37,184 --> 01:14:38,385
they will not get it.

957
01:14:38,385 --> 01:14:42,404
So I will never get a strong majority of the economics with me

958
01:14:42,404 --> 01:14:44,564
because Bitcoin favors status quo.

959
01:14:44,904 --> 01:14:47,904
So I think that block size wars has been depicted

960
01:14:47,904 --> 01:14:50,584
as something where the users win,

961
01:14:50,965 --> 01:14:52,765
but then you say, what is a user?

962
01:14:52,865 --> 01:14:53,885
Because you have Sybil attack.

963
01:14:53,965 --> 01:14:55,785
You can just pretend to be 1,000 users.

964
01:14:56,084 --> 01:14:56,985
So you do Ashers.

965
01:14:57,125 --> 01:15:00,605
No, because the miners were in favor of 2X and they lost.

966
01:15:00,985 --> 01:15:02,245
So economic notes.

967
01:15:02,245 --> 01:15:08,025
But actually, if you think about that, Coinbase is a huge economic node delegated by the users and they lost.

968
01:15:08,465 --> 01:15:12,304
So what really won was not these ill-defined users.

969
01:15:12,745 --> 01:15:19,704
What really won was some users, possibly a minority in many, many metrics, if not in technical expertise.

970
01:15:19,845 --> 01:15:25,865
It was a overwhelming majority of technical expertise, but a minority in heads, the minority of voices on Reddit,

971
01:15:25,865 --> 01:15:31,245
the minority of voices on Bitcoin talk, the minority of hash rate, and the minority of

972
01:15:31,245 --> 01:15:36,625
businesses accepting Bitcoin. It was the majority of people not giving a fuck. So let's say, let's

973
01:15:36,625 --> 01:15:44,285
put it like this. People not giving a fuck in Bitcoin, they default with the resistance,

974
01:15:44,505 --> 01:15:49,645
with the status quo. And that's the superpower of everybody defending the status quo. I think

975
01:15:49,645 --> 01:15:58,404
that if we try to say the user are in charge, you may always find a subset of users as big as

976
01:15:58,404 --> 01:16:04,605
small blockers. They will try to do something stupid with Bitcoin, including maybe, I don't know,

977
01:16:04,924 --> 01:16:10,485
replacing a CDSA with quantum resistance stuff. Many users right now will do that change because

978
01:16:10,485 --> 01:16:14,584
they are retarded, because they don't know quantum mechanics. And so they will believe everything

979
01:16:14,584 --> 01:16:20,125
they read on the newspaper. Okay, here's why I dislike that framing. And that is because it

980
01:16:20,125 --> 01:16:27,324
sort of takes for granted that people not giving a fuck weren't acting, that they were just not

981
01:16:27,324 --> 01:16:31,944
giving a fuck and not worrying about the thing. But inaction is also an action, as you know,

982
01:16:31,985 --> 01:16:38,045
from Praxeology, you can deliberately not give a fuck. And I think the users were deliberately not

983
01:16:38,045 --> 01:16:44,144
giving a fuck because they saw the trade-off and they realized that doing a hard fork and setting

984
01:16:44,144 --> 01:16:48,745
a precedent for increasing the block size over and over again was super dangerous.

985
01:16:48,745 --> 01:16:51,644
And that's why they refuse to do so.

986
01:16:51,644 --> 01:16:54,644
So I don't buy that they...

987
01:16:55,305 --> 01:17:00,884
It's sort of like the parallel to COVID here is the Swedish government, which was a very

988
01:17:00,884 --> 01:17:04,545
retarded government at the moment, which was great because they didn't do shit.

989
01:17:04,805 --> 01:17:10,904
So in that case, I do buy that it was because they were retarded that they didn't act and

990
01:17:10,904 --> 01:17:12,365
therefore we didn't have mask mandates.

991
01:17:12,365 --> 01:17:12,824
It's great.

992
01:17:12,824 --> 01:17:24,565
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?

993
01:17:24,944 --> 01:17:27,424
Like, there is no way to quantify that.

994
01:17:27,985 --> 01:17:31,245
So you have to make the assumption that it's a deliberate choice.

995
01:17:31,805 --> 01:17:40,465
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.

996
01:17:40,465 --> 01:17:45,745
Just like the user of a motorcycle is not a biker and the user of a rock is not a rocker.

997
01:17:46,084 --> 01:17:48,485
So the BitConer is part of a specific subculture.

998
01:17:48,924 --> 01:17:52,785
The subculture with the memes and everything was clearly won.

999
01:17:53,105 --> 01:17:59,485
The subcultural war representative, the meme war was won by us because we had Samson and

1000
01:17:59,485 --> 01:18:01,824
the Dragons' Den and we were just better at memeing.

1001
01:18:02,305 --> 01:18:06,465
And to some degree, because technical reality was in our favor and that helps the memes

1002
01:18:06,465 --> 01:18:12,324
sometimes, because if you can meme the technical reality, you can have an advantage. But the

1003
01:18:12,324 --> 01:18:18,545
reality is that even if we were better at winning the subculture, the total amount of users of

1004
01:18:18,545 --> 01:18:24,485
Bitcoin, including everybody that will receive any Bitcoin or not, as you said, even the coiners

1005
01:18:24,485 --> 01:18:31,725
are users to some degree with a very low economic impact, even shit coiners, all these users were

1006
01:18:31,725 --> 01:18:37,404
not even aware that the block size war was even happening because many people use Bitcoin even back

1007
01:18:37,404 --> 01:18:42,865
then without being on Scaling Bitcoin Conference or on Reddit or on Bitcoin Talk. And most of the,

1008
01:18:42,944 --> 01:18:49,324
I would say that if I have to say, if you define people using Bitcoin to some degree, I think

1009
01:18:49,324 --> 01:18:59,684
probably by 2017, 50% of them barely knew there was a block size war going on. And of the other 50%,

1010
01:18:59,684 --> 01:19:07,924
percent probably uh 30 percent has no clear um definition of even the problem and then of the

1011
01:19:07,924 --> 01:19:12,805
people with strong definition of the problem is like majority of people were big blogger big

1012
01:19:12,805 --> 01:19:18,485
blockers in terms of any metric you can define except for technical proficiency on github so

1013
01:19:18,485 --> 01:19:25,285
developers they were small blockers overhandingly miners and businesses they were big blockers

1014
01:19:25,285 --> 01:19:30,485
overwhelmingly then you had the odlers and that's an important thing then you have bitfinex creating

1015
01:19:30,485 --> 01:19:35,605
the future market and then you realize and that was a very important thing then you realize that

1016
01:19:35,605 --> 01:19:42,725
hodlers they tend to most most others both by quote pro quota so with an economic weight of how

1017
01:19:42,725 --> 01:19:56,867
much they had in terms of willingness to so let me reframe even better people with a lot of money and with a lot of risk with low risk

1018
01:19:56,867 --> 01:20:02,527
aversion in betting, they were overwhelmingly skeptical of 2x.

1019
01:20:02,867 --> 01:20:06,167
Not really against it, just skeptical it was going to happen.

1020
01:20:06,667 --> 01:20:09,127
That's what basically at the end killed it.

1021
01:20:09,127 --> 01:20:11,407
But I would absolutely...

1022
01:20:11,407 --> 01:20:17,867
I think your framing of the block size wars as a moment in which people are strangely not retarded anymore

1023
01:20:17,867 --> 01:20:21,867
and the majority of users really understand the problem and really can set the trade-off

1024
01:20:21,867 --> 01:20:27,047
and choose for the better trade-off globally is very optimistic.

1025
01:20:27,507 --> 01:20:30,267
I think that people are very good at choosing local optima,

1026
01:20:30,267 --> 01:20:35,567
and that's why free market is the best because it allows people to experiment with local optima,

1027
01:20:36,087 --> 01:20:40,767
but people are very bad at making decisions in general, including us,

1028
01:20:40,767 --> 01:20:44,467
because we have partial information, because we don't have complete information,

1029
01:20:44,827 --> 01:20:49,487
because we have a rational ignorance of stuff that we are basically a division of labor.

1030
01:20:49,647 --> 01:20:53,067
So not everybody is an expert on block size and stuff like that.

1031
01:20:54,047 --> 01:20:58,447
Yeah, to clarify my position, it's not to say that everyone's not retarded.

1032
01:20:58,707 --> 01:21:04,547
All I'm saying is that it's impossible to quantify who was retarded or not.

1033
01:21:04,627 --> 01:21:05,467
I agree with that.

1034
01:21:05,467 --> 01:21:08,927
I think that we still have an heuristics that in general,

1035
01:21:08,927 --> 01:21:12,447
most people were not really understanding the trade-off.

1036
01:21:12,667 --> 01:21:17,127
The point you're making about free market being very good for local things,

1037
01:21:17,287 --> 01:21:20,387
I would count running a node as such a local thing

1038
01:21:20,387 --> 01:21:25,067
and that the guy intending to run one and doing his homework

1039
01:21:25,067 --> 01:21:28,767
and why that's important and what software to run,

1040
01:21:28,927 --> 01:21:32,087
there's less retardateness than in a lot of other things

1041
01:21:32,087 --> 01:21:33,447
when you come to that stage.

1042
01:21:33,447 --> 01:21:35,667
I partially disagree.

1043
01:21:35,667 --> 01:21:47,907
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.

1044
01:21:47,907 --> 01:22:03,287
For example, if you don't run a node, you may lose privacy by connecting to a server or 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.

1045
01:22:03,287 --> 01:22:12,647
And if you don't run a node, you may have miners, basically miners colluding to let you accept inflation or theft in Bitcoin.

1046
01:22:12,947 --> 01:22:17,247
But you will realize that only when that actually happened, which never happened in Bitcoin so far.

1047
01:22:17,607 --> 01:22:26,407
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 we want to prevent that.

1048
01:22:26,407 --> 01:22:50,667
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.

1049
01:22:50,667 --> 01:22:58,387
I don't, my fee estimation, unlike people in Korea saying, is not worse on notes than it is on

1050
01:22:58,387 --> 01:23:03,587
Liberale. It's not even significantly different. So I have the same fee estimation, I have the same

1051
01:23:03,587 --> 01:23:09,667
block production, which is zero, less sadly, because I'm a shitty miner. And doesn't, nothing,

1052
01:23:10,027 --> 01:23:14,687
I don't have, reality is not giving me back any feedback loop on running my dot. That doesn't mean

1053
01:23:14,687 --> 01:23:20,187
it's not important. It's important for staff that are very, either far in the future, like privacy

1054
01:23:20,187 --> 01:23:23,867
leaks or low probability like minor collusion, but it's still important.

1055
01:23:24,767 --> 01:23:30,307
So you don't consider people calling you an arrogant asshole for running Librely on X

1056
01:23:30,307 --> 01:23:31,387
market signal?

1057
01:23:31,927 --> 01:23:33,567
Yes, but yes, it is.

1058
01:23:33,567 --> 01:23:40,247
But interestingly enough, I will receive that signal if I run, if I really, so you don't

1059
01:23:40,247 --> 01:23:41,567
even know if I really run Librely.

1060
01:23:41,567 --> 01:23:43,307
No, no, no, you can say that you do.

1061
01:23:43,567 --> 01:23:44,807
The real thing is the performance.

1062
01:23:45,167 --> 01:23:48,187
So the real point is go on Twitter with an opinion on this.

1063
01:23:48,187 --> 01:23:51,807
That's the point that will change my life for the better or the worse during the day.

1064
01:23:52,107 --> 01:23:54,287
But running the node will change nothing.

1065
01:23:54,527 --> 01:24:05,227
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.

1066
01:24:05,427 --> 01:24:08,007
And everybody is saying, no, you, no, you, no, you.

1067
01:24:08,007 --> 01:24:28,367
I think there are very equally heavenly distributed points in this because in some ways, clearly, core is the big blockers and BIP-110 is the small blockers, especially in the sense that nodes don't matter, don't even write a node and stuff like that.

1068
01:24:28,367 --> 01:24:35,927
then there is the ways that BIP 110 proponents are the big blockers,

1069
01:24:36,147 --> 01:24:39,327
which are change the rule in order not to change the economics,

1070
01:24:39,807 --> 01:24:43,307
which we discussed before, different because of fork and temporary.

1071
01:24:43,787 --> 01:24:48,747
And then there is developers, evil, common people, perhaps good.

1072
01:24:48,747 --> 01:24:53,967
That was a very big blocker, anti-intellectual attitude during the block size wars,

1073
01:24:54,047 --> 01:24:57,867
which, by the way, I was very tempted for because I tend to be anti-intellectual.

1074
01:24:57,867 --> 01:25:19,387
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.

1075
01:25:19,387 --> 01:25:23,947
there's not like a clear user-resistant software by big business, but it could be.

1076
01:25:24,867 --> 01:25:31,747
And perhaps, and let's say, small users are siding with the BIP.

1077
01:25:31,867 --> 01:25:34,927
So they're interesting comparisons, but they're not clear cut.

1078
01:25:34,927 --> 01:25:40,627
It's not that one of the side is clearly Roger Verlake and the other is clearly the opposite.

1079
01:25:40,747 --> 01:25:47,727
This is a shuffling of the players and the shuffling of the rhetorical point and of the arguments, I think.

1080
01:25:47,727 --> 01:25:51,407
Yes, history doesn't repeat and it doesn't even fucking rhyme

1081
01:25:51,407 --> 01:25:52,887
Not this time, not this time

1082
01:25:52,887 --> 01:25:56,087
No, and I agree with that completely

1083
01:25:56,087 --> 01:25:58,907
I just, from my point of view

1084
01:25:58,907 --> 01:26:04,747
Even if all it accomplishes is a hit on the nose on these spammers

1085
01:26:04,747 --> 01:26:06,087
I think it's worth doing it

1086
01:26:06,087 --> 01:26:08,387
Because I don't think people hate them enough

1087
01:26:08,387 --> 01:26:13,027
And the scamminess and the shit that is being built

1088
01:26:13,027 --> 01:26:15,627
And the rot that is happening everywhere

1089
01:26:15,627 --> 01:26:17,747
and you can see, maybe it's just my feed.

1090
01:26:18,207 --> 01:26:19,127
What do I know?

1091
01:26:19,207 --> 01:26:23,467
But I see like the Bitcoin magazine people in particular,

1092
01:26:23,767 --> 01:26:26,267
a lot of people from that camp and similar camps

1093
01:26:26,267 --> 01:26:27,987
are now like doing,

1094
01:26:28,727 --> 01:26:32,167
to me it looks like another wave of shitcoins

1095
01:26:32,167 --> 01:26:33,947
and another wave of shitcoinery.

1096
01:26:34,267 --> 01:26:37,427
It's the same narratives as it was back in 2017.

1097
01:26:37,747 --> 01:26:40,547
It's just that now it's much more destructive

1098
01:26:40,547 --> 01:26:42,967
because they're trying to do all of it on Bitcoin.

1099
01:26:42,967 --> 01:26:48,627
And to me, it's just sending a signal, even if you call it a virtue signal.

1100
01:26:49,427 --> 01:26:51,427
Yeah, I do want a virtue signal.

1101
01:26:51,687 --> 01:26:58,807
I want to send a signal of virtue to the network that we do not want this.

1102
01:26:58,987 --> 01:27:00,167
We are Bitcoiners.

1103
01:27:00,287 --> 01:27:10,967
We are here not because of short-sighted, high-time preference, fiat gain thingies by scamming people and building this or that.

1104
01:27:10,967 --> 01:27:23,807
We're here because we want, as you said, the status quo being – what words did you use that there's a proclivity for status quo or that there's a –

1105
01:27:23,807 --> 01:27:27,307
Well, asymmetric preference for the status quo.

1106
01:27:27,467 --> 01:27:29,347
Asymmetric preference for status quo.

1107
01:27:29,447 --> 01:27:38,187
That's what I like because the opposite of that is an asymmetric preference for the status quo, which is what fiat leads to, right?

1108
01:27:38,287 --> 01:27:38,547
Agreed.

1109
01:27:38,547 --> 01:27:46,767
So I think anything I can do in my power to help the former and fight the latter is to me worth it.

1110
01:27:46,807 --> 01:27:48,127
And that's why I'm pro this thing.

1111
01:27:48,127 --> 01:27:56,287
Well, let me, so I agree that virtue signaling on something which is virtuous is good.

1112
01:27:56,847 --> 01:27:58,687
The problem is at what cost.

1113
01:27:59,107 --> 01:28:04,227
For example, I was virtue signaling by running notes, mostly virtue signaling.

1114
01:28:04,567 --> 01:28:06,927
They didn't change the word, but it was signaling something.

1115
01:28:06,927 --> 01:28:16,107
And people were, but if you do that, your fee estimation may be slightly off of one micro set every five years.

1116
01:28:16,587 --> 01:28:18,107
Okay, I'm still virtue signaling.

1117
01:28:18,347 --> 01:28:19,787
The cost is irrelevant.

1118
01:28:20,247 --> 01:28:26,047
So even the low payoff from my virtue signaling is enough to justify it against the cost.

1119
01:28:26,407 --> 01:28:32,167
But if you do that, maybe the relay of the minor relay will centralize.

1120
01:28:32,287 --> 01:28:33,647
But this is irrelevant.

1121
01:28:33,647 --> 01:28:47,187
It's like if you do this, Cytria may not change idea on using fake pipe keys and keep using up return for a fucking super edge case in the future when that will even be a thing in the market.

1122
01:28:47,667 --> 01:28:48,047
Okay.

1123
01:28:48,327 --> 01:28:49,567
I mean, I'm sorry for that.

1124
01:28:49,627 --> 01:28:50,147
I don't care.

1125
01:28:50,447 --> 01:28:51,107
I run nuts.

1126
01:28:51,107 --> 01:29:04,707
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.

1127
01:29:05,407 --> 01:29:06,687
Well, no, that's a high cost.

1128
01:29:07,087 --> 01:29:08,967
That's too high a cost for virtual signal.

1129
01:29:09,387 --> 01:29:17,367
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.

1130
01:29:17,367 --> 01:29:20,607
And then, of course, they will just probably switch back.

1131
01:29:20,607 --> 01:29:24,107
but they will be reputationally and culturally weakened.

1132
01:29:24,647 --> 01:29:30,127
And all the enemies will be emboldened by the fact that they will just tell you, I told you so.

1133
01:29:30,467 --> 01:29:40,067
So the demise of VIP 110 will be, and I think will be, a strong point in favor of this shitcoinery

1134
01:29:40,067 --> 01:29:46,447
just because we have been tricked into virtue signaling at the highest possible cost.

1135
01:29:46,447 --> 01:29:55,927
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.

1136
01:29:56,107 --> 01:30:01,247
And we were answering, no, consensus is static, spam is dynamic, so filters are the best.

1137
01:30:01,307 --> 01:30:03,387
And they were, fork off, just fork, do it.

1138
01:30:03,527 --> 01:30:04,867
They were like, do it, do it.

1139
01:30:04,887 --> 01:30:07,147
If you have the balls, do it, change consensus.

1140
01:30:07,607 --> 01:30:12,027
And that was not because they were kind to tell us what, they were not trying to help.

1141
01:30:12,027 --> 01:30:16,307
They will try precisely to lead us into a trap.

1142
01:30:16,687 --> 01:30:19,548
And I think that most of the movement felt into this trap.

1143
01:30:20,387 --> 01:30:21,907
Yeah, they were bullying.

1144
01:30:22,187 --> 01:30:24,548
But still, this is not a hard fork.

1145
01:30:24,707 --> 01:30:25,587
This is a soft fork.

1146
01:30:26,107 --> 01:30:26,887
It's better.

1147
01:30:27,627 --> 01:30:31,307
Whoever initiates the hard fork is the one forking off.

1148
01:30:31,567 --> 01:30:33,327
Like, not the people running a soft fork.

1149
01:30:33,447 --> 01:30:38,307
Like, all of the blocks we will mine on are compliant with the other.

1150
01:30:38,307 --> 01:30:44,187
I don't think this is even a debate because it's not working off.

1151
01:30:44,187 --> 01:30:53,187
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.

1152
01:30:54,007 --> 01:30:58,947
Fork is usually when you change the rules to allow stuff that was not valid before.

1153
01:30:59,947 --> 01:31:05,227
Keeping my core node is not an R4 from any practically useful definition.

1154
01:31:05,227 --> 01:31:08,767
Keeping my node as is, is not a hard fork.

1155
01:31:09,147 --> 01:31:15,847
Of course, if we redefine Bitcoin as a Bitcoin, which already includes BAP 110, but then if

1156
01:31:15,847 --> 01:31:21,327
we don't, so for example, push torque activates drive chain tomorrow, BAP 300, 301.

1157
01:31:21,607 --> 01:31:22,307
I don't.

1158
01:31:22,847 --> 01:31:24,087
I'm not hard forking.

1159
01:31:24,227 --> 01:31:27,647
I think this definition of hard fork becomes very useless very fast.

1160
01:31:28,127 --> 01:31:29,927
Okay, but here's the question then.

1161
01:31:29,927 --> 01:31:41,447
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.

1162
01:31:41,867 --> 01:31:52,167
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.

1163
01:31:52,167 --> 01:32:04,210
And the cost of that is just this maximum 2 extra fees And what miner would risk that And what the argument against this just activating because of that

1164
01:32:04,210 --> 01:32:09,210
Sure. So at the very beginning, the miners will not do it because it's risky for nothing.

1165
01:32:09,430 --> 01:32:10,670
So just stay compliant.

1166
01:32:11,070 --> 01:32:14,530
But the fork is not asking you to only do that.

1167
01:32:14,650 --> 01:32:15,930
So there are two things that you can do.

1168
01:32:16,070 --> 01:32:18,250
One is to create a block which is compliant.

1169
01:32:18,250 --> 01:32:24,330
And the second is to create a block on top of other blocks that are compliant.

1170
01:32:24,590 --> 01:32:29,130
The second part is the hard part because it costs me nothing to create a compliant block.

1171
01:32:29,190 --> 01:32:31,570
It costs me 2% to create a compliant block.

1172
01:32:31,650 --> 01:32:35,010
So I would prefer a compliant block so I don't risk to be orphaned.

1173
01:32:35,250 --> 01:32:46,330
But if the longest chain, the heaviest chain is now non-compliant, whether I am now compliant on top or not, I'm still not compliant, right?

1174
01:32:46,330 --> 01:32:57,810
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.

1175
01:32:57,810 --> 01:32:59,630
Well, I mean, just wait.

1176
01:32:59,790 --> 01:33:04,110
I mean, so this can stale the fork for very long.

1177
01:33:04,470 --> 01:33:18,690
But to assume that for all the duration of the rule, which is one year, nobody, even out of chance, even a troll with a bid X, will find ever an uncompliant block just because at the risk of being offered.

1178
01:33:18,970 --> 01:33:20,970
I think that's a very optimistic assumption.

1179
01:33:21,110 --> 01:33:21,430
I hope.

1180
01:33:21,790 --> 01:33:23,250
So it's not zero probability.

1181
01:33:23,490 --> 01:33:25,090
I hope it works out.

1182
01:33:25,090 --> 01:33:35,630
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.

1183
01:33:36,110 --> 01:33:39,710
But I think it's a very, I mean, we can all, I can pray.

1184
01:33:40,050 --> 01:33:43,550
I know you don't, but that's, I think you should start.

1185
01:33:44,050 --> 01:33:44,790
You think I don't.

1186
01:33:45,250 --> 01:33:45,690
Exactly.

1187
01:33:45,970 --> 01:33:47,690
I think you should start, Nude, because.

1188
01:33:47,730 --> 01:33:48,650
You assume I don't.

1189
01:33:48,650 --> 01:33:56,650
because if we are hoping that this risk will not be taken from the activation date

1190
01:33:56,650 --> 01:34:01,070
until the end of the year by any miner able to do one block,

1191
01:34:01,810 --> 01:34:05,070
that's a very, very, very bold assumption.

1192
01:34:05,670 --> 01:34:08,610
Even because some people will just create a block,

1193
01:34:08,610 --> 01:34:13,510
some people may put energy into this just to piss us off,

1194
01:34:13,510 --> 01:34:22,990
And some governments may confiscate a shrate just to divide the Bitcoin community.

1195
01:34:23,250 --> 01:34:26,590
I'm not sure they have a plan right now.

1196
01:34:26,850 --> 01:34:33,450
But if I was my enemy, I would probably maximize the damage to the Bitcoin community by mining an uncompliant block immediately.

1197
01:34:33,810 --> 01:34:40,850
So some of the voices that are more critical of shitcoin and Bitcoin are basically reputationally or economically forked off the network.

1198
01:34:41,290 --> 01:34:43,870
So it's very hard for me that it will not happen.

1199
01:34:44,230 --> 01:34:47,050
Luke's argument, of course, and I don't know if we have time to go there,

1200
01:34:47,130 --> 01:34:49,570
but Luke's argument would be no, because nobody is,

1201
01:34:49,870 --> 01:34:51,690
only pedophile will buy the blocks.

1202
01:34:52,090 --> 01:34:54,290
But that's not, I don't think it's correct,

1203
01:34:54,290 --> 01:34:59,510
because you can make a block which is not compliant with zero pedopornography.

1204
01:34:59,930 --> 01:35:01,510
You just have to avoid the fork.

1205
01:35:02,250 --> 01:35:04,410
And so it would be something that I think will happen.

1206
01:35:04,790 --> 01:35:08,130
And when it will happen, I think that core people will,

1207
01:35:08,130 --> 01:35:09,090
will like

1208
01:35:09,090 --> 01:35:09,990
30 people

1209
01:35:09,990 --> 01:35:10,430
will

1210
01:35:10,430 --> 01:35:11,130
will

1211
01:35:11,130 --> 01:35:12,110
will flex

1212
01:35:12,110 --> 01:35:12,470
and

1213
01:35:12,470 --> 01:35:13,070
and and

1214
01:35:13,070 --> 01:35:13,710
and gloat

1215
01:35:13,710 --> 01:35:14,250
and and

1216
01:35:14,250 --> 01:35:14,710
and be

1217
01:35:14,710 --> 01:35:15,070
happy

1218
01:35:15,070 --> 01:35:15,690
and be

1219
01:35:15,690 --> 01:35:16,090
credible

1220
01:35:16,090 --> 01:35:16,990
because

1221
01:35:16,990 --> 01:35:17,490
they were

1222
01:35:17,490 --> 01:35:17,790
like

1223
01:35:17,790 --> 01:35:18,470
I think

1224
01:35:18,470 --> 01:35:18,870
that after

1225
01:35:18,870 --> 01:35:19,350
blocks is

1226
01:35:19,350 --> 01:35:19,690
worse

1227
01:35:19,690 --> 01:35:20,810
we won

1228
01:35:20,810 --> 01:35:21,730
mostly because

1229
01:35:21,730 --> 01:35:22,130
of status

1230
01:35:22,130 --> 01:35:22,390
quo

1231
01:35:22,390 --> 01:35:22,830
preference

1232
01:35:22,830 --> 01:35:23,910
and we

1233
01:35:23,910 --> 01:35:24,910
received an

1234
01:35:24,910 --> 01:35:25,750
underserved

1235
01:35:25,750 --> 01:35:26,710
credibility

1236
01:35:26,710 --> 01:35:28,330
in developers

1237
01:35:28,330 --> 01:35:29,110
out of that

1238
01:35:29,110 --> 01:35:30,170
because the

1239
01:35:30,170 --> 01:35:30,990
winners are

1240
01:35:30,990 --> 01:35:31,930
always considered

1241
01:35:31,930 --> 01:35:33,190
better than

1242
01:35:33,190 --> 01:35:33,630
they are

1243
01:35:33,630 --> 01:35:34,250
because they

1244
01:35:34,250 --> 01:35:34,450
are the

1245
01:35:34,450 --> 01:35:34,770
winners

1246
01:35:34,770 --> 01:35:35,370
so there

1247
01:35:35,370 --> 01:35:35,590
is this

1248
01:35:35,590 --> 01:35:35,810
right

1249
01:35:35,810 --> 01:35:36,210
history

1250
01:35:36,210 --> 01:35:36,990
yeah

1251
01:35:38,130 --> 01:35:52,590
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.

1252
01:35:53,290 --> 01:35:56,570
Long popcorn. Oh, wait, Krut. Let me, if we have one minute.

1253
01:35:56,570 --> 01:35:57,310
Yeah, yeah, yeah.

1254
01:35:57,310 --> 01:36:03,950
I wanted to show the screen because I think that I wanted to, let me say, window. Okay.

1255
01:36:03,950 --> 01:36:14,190
okay so i wanted to share a couple of meme all right one is this one i think that i feel like

1256
01:36:14,190 --> 01:36:21,290
this a lot because you say this is was shared by elon musk as well uh in um i've seen it yeah in

1257
01:36:21,290 --> 01:36:29,430
in 2000 uh this is 2008 but for me it was like 2024 i was very aligned with the left and now it

1258
01:36:29,430 --> 01:36:33,050
his fellow noses, so running notes.

1259
01:36:33,550 --> 01:36:36,190
So I was like, spam is bad.

1260
01:36:36,310 --> 01:36:36,750
Oh, okay.

1261
01:36:37,010 --> 01:36:39,370
Maybe it's not, maybe spam.

1262
01:36:39,850 --> 01:36:45,150
I mean, I was already running Libre Relay, so I was close to the center because I said,

1263
01:36:45,150 --> 01:36:50,210
yeah, the argument about incentive compatibility is a good argument, but spam definition that

1264
01:36:50,210 --> 01:36:51,250
they're using is retarded.

1265
01:36:51,770 --> 01:36:59,410
And then basically, people were saying, just fork off and me and you and mechanic and look

1266
01:36:59,410 --> 01:37:08,990
We were responding, no, we won't because forking, because spam is a dynamic problem and filters are dynamic, but consensus is static.

1267
01:37:09,110 --> 01:37:10,910
So we won't fork, we won't take debate.

1268
01:37:10,910 --> 01:37:16,510
And then these running people are you, my VIP 110 friends.

1269
01:37:16,790 --> 01:37:25,630
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, I'm just staying here.

1270
01:37:25,630 --> 01:37:39,390
And then for the last few months, people are calling me shitcoin enablers and spammer and Procore and Walk and Pedo and whatever, which is basically me feeling moving to the right.

1271
01:37:39,610 --> 01:37:41,130
But I stayed there.

1272
01:37:41,450 --> 01:37:42,690
I think I just stayed there.

1273
01:37:43,050 --> 01:37:47,370
And it was the whole anti-spam movement to run to the left.

1274
01:37:47,370 --> 01:37:55,270
But I'm still, so I think if I read my tweets in 2024, where I was agreeing with Luke and

1275
01:37:55,270 --> 01:37:59,190
Mechanic and many others, I was saying the exactly same things in the merit that I'm

1276
01:37:59,190 --> 01:38:00,690
saying now about forking.

1277
01:38:00,690 --> 01:38:07,290
And the second, which is a more advanced version of this, is this one, which is not only I

1278
01:38:07,290 --> 01:38:16,130
stayed in the same position and BIP 110 people are running to my left, but also I perceive

1279
01:38:16,130 --> 01:38:19,410
that they are radicalizing me in the other direction.

1280
01:38:19,910 --> 01:38:21,910
Because, for example, I disagree.

1281
01:38:22,330 --> 01:38:23,390
I make you an example.

1282
01:38:23,510 --> 01:38:25,550
I disagree with Peter Todd on many things.

1283
01:38:25,950 --> 01:38:28,350
Tail, mission, geopolitics, many, many things.

1284
01:38:28,890 --> 01:38:29,490
Genocide.

1285
01:38:30,070 --> 01:38:30,510
Genocide.

1286
01:38:31,070 --> 01:38:37,030
And I hang out with Peter discussing Bitcoin since 2016.

1287
01:38:37,450 --> 01:38:40,010
He was the first person I started to do that with.

1288
01:38:40,010 --> 01:38:45,610
I never used friendship or closeness as a criteria to agree with him.

1289
01:38:45,610 --> 01:38:47,230
So I never said he's a friend.

1290
01:38:47,610 --> 01:38:49,190
So whatever he's saying is not retarded.

1291
01:38:49,330 --> 01:38:50,290
I always did the opposite.

1292
01:38:50,750 --> 01:38:54,490
I always stayed very clear on that, which is something I do with other friends.

1293
01:38:54,550 --> 01:38:58,350
Like I'm friends with Bruce Fenton and I think he's a shitcoiners and I think he's wrong.

1294
01:38:58,650 --> 01:39:00,730
I was friends with Antonopoulos before COVID.

1295
01:39:00,890 --> 01:39:04,590
Then it became a little bit more personal and he was wrong on shitcoins and was still

1296
01:39:04,590 --> 01:39:06,150
hanging out with Antonopoulos.

1297
01:39:06,530 --> 01:39:13,690
So now if people come to me and they tell me, if you are, if you keep, which is something

1298
01:39:13,690 --> 01:39:20,250
a little bit like this. I'm still doing the same thing, making a freaking meetup with Peter freaking

1299
01:39:20,250 --> 01:39:26,690
Todd. I still do the same. His position may be more radical on spam. Not really. They're always

1300
01:39:26,690 --> 01:39:32,330
the same. They're literally the same since I know in 2016. His geopolitical position on genocide and

1301
01:39:32,330 --> 01:39:38,030
killing Russian babies is, yeah, that's notably worse. And I tell him they are notably worse,

1302
01:39:38,630 --> 01:39:42,970
But so are other positions in the Bitcoin space that I disagree upon.

1303
01:39:43,250 --> 01:39:48,070
For example, Luke, I think it's probably for that penalty for masturbation or something.

1304
01:39:48,190 --> 01:39:48,850
I think it's wrong.

1305
01:39:48,850 --> 01:39:51,910
I think you should not give that penalty for masturbation.

1306
01:39:52,230 --> 01:39:53,930
Still, I stay there.

1307
01:39:54,790 --> 01:40:01,490
And if the best way to push me, and that's the contrarian problem that I run into,

1308
01:40:01,490 --> 01:40:13,710
The best way to actually radicalize me against BIP 110 is to force me to change my ideas of preference based on the new thing, the new current thing.

1309
01:40:14,250 --> 01:40:15,950
I'm still repeating what I think.

1310
01:40:16,130 --> 01:40:22,670
I'm easy to convince otherwise if there is anybody that has a good argument to convince me otherwise.

1311
01:40:23,170 --> 01:40:25,490
But let me try to stop sharing.

1312
01:40:26,090 --> 01:40:30,630
But I feel radicalized, not by you, of course.

1313
01:40:30,630 --> 01:40:33,970
but this is a message to the fellow plebs.

1314
01:40:34,150 --> 01:40:35,910
So let me go back to the Pascalian.

1315
01:40:35,970 --> 01:40:38,690
I don't think it was actually a Pascalian wager

1316
01:40:38,690 --> 01:40:40,090
in the proper sense

1317
01:40:40,090 --> 01:40:41,650
but what you were saying is basically

1318
01:40:41,650 --> 01:40:44,010
this is like a Schrodinger observation.

1319
01:40:44,430 --> 01:40:45,870
If you are against something

1320
01:40:45,870 --> 01:40:48,910
that can increase the probability of failure

1321
01:40:48,910 --> 01:40:49,890
just by being engaged.

1322
01:40:50,150 --> 01:40:50,930
I realized that.

1323
01:40:51,310 --> 01:40:52,370
So if plebs,

1324
01:40:52,590 --> 01:40:56,050
if you think that I'm important for BIP 110,

1325
01:40:56,170 --> 01:40:56,950
I don't think I am.

1326
01:40:56,950 --> 01:40:59,190
I think that if your fork relies on me,

1327
01:40:59,190 --> 01:41:05,630
we are screwed anyway. But if you think it's important to have me there, stop trying to police

1328
01:41:05,630 --> 01:41:12,070
me about what I do and what I, where I meet and only stay on the arguments because that's super

1329
01:41:12,070 --> 01:41:17,130
triggering to me. That's makes me, that's one of the reasons I became so radicalized against Core

1330
01:41:17,130 --> 01:41:24,030
because they were saying to me, you cannot run Nutz. What? I cannot what? So that's really

1331
01:41:24,030 --> 01:41:32,590
triggering to my contrarianism. So that's absolutely not what Nutz is doing. And this

1332
01:41:32,590 --> 01:41:38,910
kind of debate actually helped me smoothing out my position. I didn't think I changed it,

1333
01:41:38,910 --> 01:41:44,830
but I think you made a few good arguments mitigating my concerns in case of victory.

1334
01:41:45,630 --> 01:41:53,950
I think I'm still very, I still assume defeat as very, very probable. And I still think that

1335
01:41:53,950 --> 01:41:56,470
the defeat will be bad for the anti-spam movement.

1336
01:41:57,230 --> 01:42:01,050
But I think you assured me that if I'm wrong and if he wins,

1337
01:42:01,170 --> 01:42:05,190
probably the president can be insulated for many reasons

1338
01:42:05,190 --> 01:42:07,950
that will not make it very, very concerning for the future.

1339
01:42:08,390 --> 01:42:09,590
You convinced me, I think.

1340
01:42:10,950 --> 01:42:13,030
Well, happy that you say that.

1341
01:42:13,030 --> 01:42:19,150
You know, I love having you as a sparring partner and a friend

1342
01:42:19,150 --> 01:42:21,610
to point out to me when I'm being retarded.

1343
01:42:21,610 --> 01:42:25,490
and on some of the points, sure, I'm slightly retarded,

1344
01:42:25,630 --> 01:42:29,870
not entirely convinced that I'm entirely retarded about this whole thing.

1345
01:42:30,390 --> 01:42:37,610
I think guilt by association is something that we can let lefties do

1346
01:42:37,610 --> 01:42:43,670
and we shouldn't be hostile to one another for guilt of association.

1347
01:42:43,670 --> 01:42:46,750
I mean, I do a podcast, I talk to people.

1348
01:42:46,970 --> 01:42:49,850
I think diplomacy is a very important thing

1349
01:42:49,850 --> 01:42:52,050
if we want to bridge any gap ever.

1350
01:42:52,330 --> 01:42:54,690
Sure, there are exceptions,

1351
01:42:54,990 --> 01:42:56,730
and there are people you shouldn't platform.

1352
01:42:56,970 --> 01:42:58,990
For instance, I try to not interact

1353
01:42:58,990 --> 01:43:00,570
with shitcoiners anymore on Twitter

1354
01:43:00,570 --> 01:43:03,130
because of the whole never pick a fight with a pig

1355
01:43:03,130 --> 01:43:05,270
because you both get dirty and the pig likes it.

1356
01:43:05,350 --> 01:43:06,630
All they want is your attention.

1357
01:43:07,070 --> 01:43:11,310
So I try to not comment or like or retweet or anything

1358
01:43:11,310 --> 01:43:12,870
or point out how stupid they are.

1359
01:43:12,870 --> 01:43:14,510
Even though I love pointing out

1360
01:43:14,510 --> 01:43:15,790
when people are wrong on the internet,

1361
01:43:15,930 --> 01:43:19,290
that's why we're both primarily on X and not Nostra, I think.

1362
01:43:19,850 --> 01:43:22,090
Yeah, everybody's too right on Nostra.

1363
01:43:22,250 --> 01:43:25,170
Yeah, but I absolutely love this conversation.

1364
01:43:25,330 --> 01:43:28,730
I think it's one of the most constructive ones we've had.

1365
01:43:29,010 --> 01:43:30,530
And take from it what you will.

1366
01:43:31,150 --> 01:43:32,770
More pro, more against.

1367
01:43:33,350 --> 01:43:36,910
Comment and like and subscribe and brush your damn teeth.

1368
01:43:37,090 --> 01:43:39,050
And I hope to see you soon again, Giacomo.

1369
01:43:39,130 --> 01:43:40,470
I don't know when the next time is.

1370
01:43:40,530 --> 01:43:41,570
Probably Prague, right?

1371
01:43:42,050 --> 01:43:43,050
Yes, we will be in Prague.

1372
01:43:43,430 --> 01:43:44,710
Yeah, fantastic.

1373
01:43:44,710 --> 01:43:49,590
And then after that, I'm looking forward to spending another week in Lugano.

1374
01:43:49,590 --> 01:43:51,750
one of my favorite places in the entire universe.

1375
01:43:52,050 --> 01:43:53,990
Well, Luke is so forward to have you back.

1376
01:43:54,130 --> 01:43:56,690
Students were already excited.

1377
01:43:58,010 --> 01:43:58,930
Fantastic to hear.

1378
01:43:59,410 --> 01:44:02,510
And give my hugs to Mir and everyone else at Plan B.

1379
01:44:02,930 --> 01:44:05,230
And till next time, cheerio.