1
00:00:00,240 --> 00:00:03,680
Murch, welcome to the Bitcoin Infinity Show. Nice to have you here.

2
00:00:04,240 --> 00:00:05,760
Thank you, Knud. Thanks for having me.

3
00:00:06,640 --> 00:00:12,240
Yes, just before we started here, we were trying to figure out if we met in real life ever,

4
00:00:12,240 --> 00:00:16,960
and I don't believe we ever have. So I'm looking forward to this conversation and get to

5
00:00:16,960 --> 00:00:23,840
get to know you a little better. Where to start? So where to start this one? This is an interesting

6
00:00:23,840 --> 00:00:31,400
one you're a core developer yeah it's it's part of what i do i've been doing a lot of educational

7
00:00:31,400 --> 00:00:39,420
projects in the past decade i've also co-founded localhost research recently so now i'm sort of

8
00:00:39,420 --> 00:00:46,120
also helping run a well to be fair my my co-founder does more more of the back office but

9
00:00:46,120 --> 00:00:53,720
a little bit of the running of a non-profit that funds bitcoin development and so yeah i've been

10
00:00:53,720 --> 00:00:59,680
a Stack Exchange moderator since 2013, so I've been looking at a lot of technical questions.

11
00:01:00,220 --> 00:01:05,980
I've helped with the Optech project for a while, and we've been recording a lot of technical

12
00:01:05,980 --> 00:01:13,000
newsletters as podcasts every week. So I also contribute to Bitcoin Core, but it's only part

13
00:01:13,000 --> 00:01:18,820
of my time, is what I'm trying to say. Yes, but you're definitely a more technical person than I

14
00:01:18,820 --> 00:01:28,080
I'd say. So I think I agree with that. I think I think I'd like to start with a question I get a

15
00:01:28,080 --> 00:01:33,600
lot from from noobs. And that is the simple question. What is Bitcoin? What's your answer

16
00:01:33,600 --> 00:01:41,160
to that question? Yeah, Bitcoin is a decentralized network on the internet that allows us to have

17
00:01:41,160 --> 00:01:47,740
a censorship resistant digital cash. So it's sort of the native currency of the internet.

18
00:01:47,740 --> 00:01:56,180
okay yes i usually answer it's an agreement on a fixed set of rules and the longer answer is that

19
00:01:56,180 --> 00:02:02,300
the reason we agree on this specific set of rules is because these are the only rules known to man

20
00:02:02,300 --> 00:02:07,460
where it's practically the only rules known to man where it's more expensive to try to break the

21
00:02:07,460 --> 00:02:15,760
rules than to just follow the rules and would you agree with that i i think i'm not sure if i'd say

22
00:02:15,760 --> 00:02:19,240
cause and effect aren't a little intermingled here.

23
00:02:19,560 --> 00:02:22,240
But maybe my answer is more abstractly

24
00:02:22,240 --> 00:02:23,580
what we're trying to achieve,

25
00:02:23,720 --> 00:02:26,900
while how you describe it as a shared set of rules

26
00:02:26,900 --> 00:02:30,560
that we all agree on is more of an implementation,

27
00:02:31,260 --> 00:02:33,920
how we get what we want out of it.

28
00:02:34,180 --> 00:02:37,680
So I think they're both aspects of the whole picture.

29
00:02:38,340 --> 00:02:40,780
Maybe I need a little more of your answer in mind,

30
00:02:40,980 --> 00:02:42,340
but vice versa.

31
00:02:42,340 --> 00:03:04,200
Yeah, I'm trying to find the common ground here because I think a huge part of this debate between core and nuts and so on and about how dangerous spam is and so on and so forth, a lot of that has to do with what people think Bitcoin should be.

32
00:03:04,200 --> 00:03:15,180
And I think there's one camp that wants Bitcoin to be money only, and that is send, receive, do not lose value, sort of, or do not inflate. Nothing more than that.

33
00:03:15,180 --> 00:03:21,400
And then there's the other camp who wants to scale Bitcoin in all sorts of ways and add functionality.

34
00:03:22,260 --> 00:03:36,440
And I think sort of everyone agrees that that functionality has to have something to do with money or maybe it has to is wrong, but ought to have something to do with money and how money functions.

35
00:03:36,440 --> 00:03:45,420
So we scale in layers, but I think it's a little unfair to assign Bitcoin to be money only to one of those two groups.

36
00:03:45,580 --> 00:03:48,080
I think both of these groups want Bitcoin to be a money.

37
00:03:48,540 --> 00:03:56,060
One group thinks that scaling is not part of what makes it a better money, maybe, or not as much.

38
00:03:56,060 --> 00:04:17,140
The other group, I think, well, I don't want to put too much on it, but I think part of when you think about the technical system that achieves what we want from it to create a internet money is where is this going to be in 10 years?

39
00:04:17,140 --> 00:04:18,720
Where is this going to be in 20 years?

40
00:04:19,140 --> 00:04:20,960
What will make this future proof?

41
00:04:21,380 --> 00:04:27,780
And what are the inherent properties of this technical system that make it stable?

42
00:04:28,480 --> 00:04:34,680
And for example, I had this conversation with Luke DeWolf a few days ago on Twitter, where

43
00:04:34,680 --> 00:04:38,140
he said, it's only money and shouldn't be anything more.

44
00:04:38,260 --> 00:04:41,560
And censorship resistance is not a core property of Bitcoin.

45
00:04:41,560 --> 00:04:55,900
And for example, I would push back on that because if you cannot spend your money without adhering to some censor's agenda, then it becomes a lot less useful as money.

46
00:04:56,680 --> 00:05:03,240
So for me, censorship resistance is an inherent property that must be present in order for us to be able to use our money.

47
00:05:03,920 --> 00:05:08,620
And that is therefore a core property of what we need out of Bitcoin.

48
00:05:08,620 --> 00:05:12,740
so I think there's not a sharp line

49
00:05:12,740 --> 00:05:14,940
like you described it as two groups here

50
00:05:14,940 --> 00:05:16,760
I think it's a spectrum of

51
00:05:16,760 --> 00:05:19,620
how people perceive the project

52
00:05:19,620 --> 00:05:22,860
and what they include as core properties

53
00:05:22,860 --> 00:05:24,540
or useful properties

54
00:05:24,540 --> 00:05:27,920
so there's nuance here

55
00:05:27,920 --> 00:05:31,500
I would agree that there is everything from

56
00:05:31,500 --> 00:05:33,020
Bitcoin should ossify now

57
00:05:33,020 --> 00:05:36,560
and it should never be anything but send and receive

58
00:05:36,560 --> 00:05:38,600
and store value

59
00:05:38,600 --> 00:05:45,500
And everything on a line from that to Bitcoin should be Ethereum 2.0, basically.

60
00:05:45,940 --> 00:05:47,300
And everything in between.

61
00:05:48,060 --> 00:05:51,900
I don't think anybody here is asking for Bitcoin to be Ethereum 2.0.

62
00:05:52,160 --> 00:05:54,680
This is a talking point that gets brought up a lot.

63
00:05:54,800 --> 00:05:57,820
I think it's just a straw man and not very interesting.

64
00:05:58,200 --> 00:06:03,160
But maybe you can explain to me what would make Bitcoin Ethereum 2.0.

65
00:06:03,160 --> 00:06:11,160
Well, when I hear baps, I cringe, because baps, to me, sounds an awful lot like daps, which weren't really...

66
00:06:11,880 --> 00:06:12,760
What are baps?

67
00:06:13,420 --> 00:06:17,940
Well, apps on Bitcoin. This is what Citria is trying to build, for instance.

68
00:06:18,960 --> 00:06:25,160
But yeah, let's rewind this, because I really want to dissect this from...

69
00:06:25,820 --> 00:06:29,980
I want to go from the inside of the onion and out. I want all of it.

70
00:06:29,980 --> 00:06:40,220
So when I hear censorship resistance, I absolutely 100% agree that censorship resistance is crucial for Bitcoin to function.

71
00:06:40,700 --> 00:06:41,760
Otherwise, it wouldn't be Bitcoin.

72
00:06:42,300 --> 00:06:45,960
But to me, that means uncensorable transactions.

73
00:06:46,400 --> 00:06:52,460
It doesn't mean I get to do whatever I want in terms of what kind of other data I put on the chain.

74
00:06:52,920 --> 00:06:53,760
Would you agree with that?

75
00:06:54,780 --> 00:06:57,540
Transactions in this case means payments.

76
00:06:57,540 --> 00:06:58,220
Yes.

77
00:06:58,220 --> 00:06:59,800
Yes, I send...

78
00:06:59,800 --> 00:07:03,640
You want uncensorable payments, but not uncensorable transactions.

79
00:07:03,740 --> 00:07:05,440
I want uncensorable sats.

80
00:07:05,440 --> 00:07:07,120
Like, I want to send...

81
00:07:07,120 --> 00:07:09,740
Sats is the thing I send to other people,

82
00:07:10,220 --> 00:07:12,840
and then they give me something of value back.

83
00:07:13,240 --> 00:07:16,900
Including whatever you do on computers, including BAPs,

84
00:07:17,140 --> 00:07:19,500
including whatever I find valuable.

85
00:07:20,040 --> 00:07:21,440
The thing is, money...

86
00:07:22,160 --> 00:07:23,420
If Bitcoin is money,

87
00:07:24,000 --> 00:07:27,800
like, if we want to come to a damn near perfect form of money,

88
00:07:27,800 --> 00:07:30,700
or as flawless money as possible,

89
00:07:31,300 --> 00:07:33,460
then other use cases is completely,

90
00:07:34,220 --> 00:07:37,360
it's bad for its functionality as money,

91
00:07:37,500 --> 00:07:40,240
just as jewelry and industrial use cases

92
00:07:40,240 --> 00:07:41,920
are bad for gold as money

93
00:07:41,920 --> 00:07:45,220
because it messes with the price signal.

94
00:07:45,760 --> 00:07:49,060
Sure, it may make price go up for a while,

95
00:07:49,180 --> 00:07:50,800
but it's just added volatility

96
00:07:50,800 --> 00:07:53,100
because at some point there will be a rug pull

97
00:07:53,100 --> 00:07:55,600
and then the interest for this goes away.

98
00:07:55,840 --> 00:07:56,900
So what would you say,

99
00:07:56,900 --> 00:08:02,760
how would you define censorship resistance let's let's start there so censorship resistance for me

100
00:08:02,760 --> 00:08:08,940
means that people are going to be able to get their transactions into blocks as long as they

101
00:08:08,940 --> 00:08:18,100
are willing to pay the price to do so and they do not have to adhere to usually one specific

102
00:08:18,100 --> 00:08:24,320
group's agenda that is trying to prevent something the counter example for example would be

103
00:08:24,320 --> 00:08:44,860
If too much of the hash rate moves to the United States and the U.S. government gets some sort of power over what gets into block templates and forces the U.S. miners to enforce those restrictions, and suddenly everybody has to register their addresses with the U.S. government, that would become censorable.

104
00:08:45,300 --> 00:08:49,140
And we would not be able to just use Bitcoin the way we want.

105
00:08:49,140 --> 00:08:57,980
And I would like us to not need to adhere to outside forces idea of what Bitcoin can be used for.

106
00:08:58,700 --> 00:08:59,580
100% agree.

107
00:08:59,740 --> 00:09:04,540
Wasn't this, by the way, what Mara tried to do when they were trying to be OFAC compliant in that?

108
00:09:05,080 --> 00:09:07,460
And it blew up in their face wonderfully.

109
00:09:08,060 --> 00:09:08,720
Yes, wonderful.

110
00:09:09,160 --> 00:09:10,400
I absolutely agree with that.

111
00:09:10,400 --> 00:09:13,160
So to devil's advocate that.

112
00:09:13,400 --> 00:09:15,240
So I'm a Bitcoiner.

113
00:09:15,240 --> 00:09:20,080
I want to send Bitcoin to someone else because I want to buy a pair of jeans or whatever.

114
00:09:20,620 --> 00:09:24,580
I want to send sets to someone, but it costs me too much.

115
00:09:24,700 --> 00:09:30,100
So I refrain from buying the jeans because the fee is too high because the block is full of,

116
00:09:30,580 --> 00:09:36,740
because someone fooled another person that a picture on the internet can be owned.

117
00:09:37,460 --> 00:09:44,520
So therefore, this person has paid a lot since he was able to fool the other person that a picture could be owned.

118
00:09:44,520 --> 00:09:53,580
he managed to cram the block full of arbitrary data so now i am censored in a way because i cannot

119
00:09:53,580 --> 00:09:59,840
use my bitcoin to buy the jeans because i the fee is artificially high and not high because of a

120
00:09:59,840 --> 00:10:05,820
high demand for monetary transactions what's wrong with that i disagree with that because

121
00:10:05,820 --> 00:10:11,980
what is preventing you from spending your money is your preference of spending less for

122
00:10:11,980 --> 00:10:17,980
using your money rather than a censor deciding that you shouldn't be able to.

123
00:10:18,560 --> 00:10:23,880
So to talk about censorship resistance a little more, I think we need to open a couple other

124
00:10:23,880 --> 00:10:30,780
threads here. One is, why do we even have a scripting language in Bitcoin? What are we

125
00:10:30,780 --> 00:10:36,640
trying to achieve with that? And the second one is, why do we have a block size limit?

126
00:10:36,640 --> 00:10:46,020
because both of these lead to a people being able to do other stuff with bitcoin and b we have us

127
00:10:46,020 --> 00:10:52,900
having a blocks based market that drives up fees if there's a lot of demand yeah yeah sounds good

128
00:10:52,900 --> 00:11:00,540
okay so so far i i then again there's a lot of things to double click on there for instance like

129
00:11:00,540 --> 00:11:06,160
blocks blocks can be four megabytes now and in hindsight it would have been better if that would

130
00:11:06,160 --> 00:11:14,920
have been capped at one megabyte like i don't agree with that either okay so just i i'm unsure

131
00:11:14,920 --> 00:11:20,140
if i agree with that but i think i lean towards that but okay give me more information please

132
00:11:20,140 --> 00:11:24,780
where where do we start here scripting language explain where do we have a scripting language in

133
00:11:24,780 --> 00:11:31,060
bitcoin in the first place do you have an answer no i i bet you have a better answer than i do

134
00:11:31,060 --> 00:11:42,940
Well, the best lead we have on that is a conversation that Gavin Andreessen and Satoshi had, where Gavin was like, oh, scripting language makes it more complex and complexity is the opposite of security.

135
00:11:43,740 --> 00:11:54,780
And Satoshi said, well, I wanted to be able to express any form of transaction, monetary transactions like escrows, like future contracts and so forth.

136
00:11:54,780 --> 00:12:10,680
And the only way that I found to do this in the first version of Bitcoin that would basically set how Bitcoin would work forever was to introduce a scripting language in order to be able to flexibly later design these things.

137
00:12:11,800 --> 00:12:15,120
And I think this remains the goal.

138
00:12:15,120 --> 00:12:23,860
We have a flexible scripting language because we don't know exactly yet what people will use Bitcoin for in monetary ways.

139
00:12:23,860 --> 00:12:35,240
For example, an escrow is a very obvious monetary smart contract that is super useful, that gets basically used all the time.

140
00:12:35,700 --> 00:12:50,920
So the question is, if we don't want those sort of things, we wouldn't have to have a scripting language, but we would be set forever on basically the things we can do with just very basic standard Bitcoin transactions.

141
00:12:50,920 --> 00:12:59,120
or do we want to be able to build things like the lightning network or other scaling solutions that

142
00:12:59,120 --> 00:13:08,480
that crop up like arc or utx sharing mechanisms and so forth and if we do we do have to afford

143
00:13:08,480 --> 00:13:14,020
ourselves this flexible scripting language so the question is do we want to have a flexible

144
00:13:14,020 --> 00:13:20,440
scripting language in order to be able to express more predicates in the future that

145
00:13:20,440 --> 00:13:25,700
allow us to do nifty things on top of Bitcoin or don't we?

146
00:13:25,700 --> 00:13:34,440
How big a percentage of the Bitcoin users do you think thinks this is a priority?

147
00:13:34,440 --> 00:13:43,760
like how many how many bitcoiners actually care about shared utxos and and maybe shared

148
00:13:43,760 --> 00:13:59,526
how many bitcoiners use lightning yeah yeah that a good question i know of bitcoiners that a good response i think yeah because that is exactly a utxos sharing scheme Lightning is a UTXO sharing scheme Yeah Here the thing though with Lightning in particular

149
00:14:00,186 --> 00:14:03,166
So SegWit came with this discount, right?

150
00:14:03,166 --> 00:14:10,386
And the intended purpose of the discount was to incentivize people to consolidate their UTXO.

151
00:14:11,186 --> 00:14:13,246
So basically less UTXO bloat.

152
00:14:13,306 --> 00:14:14,086
Am I right about that?

153
00:14:14,506 --> 00:14:17,866
Well, there's several different reasons that led to the SegWit discount.

154
00:14:17,866 --> 00:14:24,046
first. Without the segwit discount, we wouldn't have been able to add another section to Bitcoin

155
00:14:24,046 --> 00:14:32,326
transactions that was not covered by the transaction ID. So adding the segwit discount indirectly

156
00:14:32,326 --> 00:14:39,346
enabled us to remove transaction malleability. Yes, that's a big one. Wait a minute. So the

157
00:14:39,346 --> 00:14:43,526
discount, that wouldn't have been possible without the discount. Are you saying that?

158
00:14:44,186 --> 00:14:47,326
Then we would have needed a hard fork in order to increase the block size.

159
00:14:47,326 --> 00:14:54,946
And then the second one is, yes, it intended to align the cost of inputs and outputs in a different way.

160
00:14:55,386 --> 00:15:02,006
Previously, if you look at pay-to-public key hash, an input is 148 bytes, an output is 34 bytes.

161
00:15:02,166 --> 00:15:07,966
So an input is four and a half times or so more expensive than an output,

162
00:15:08,266 --> 00:15:15,506
which could lead to many situations in which it was cheaper to create a second output than to add an input.

163
00:15:15,506 --> 00:15:19,246
and it tended to just bloat the UTXO set.

164
00:15:19,766 --> 00:15:23,906
Yeah, so it was to disincentivize also UTXO bloat.

165
00:15:24,646 --> 00:15:27,226
So UTXO bloat in two different ways.

166
00:15:27,226 --> 00:15:31,226
Make it cheaper, yeah, to spend UTXOs versus creating them, yeah.

167
00:15:31,826 --> 00:15:33,586
And also to incentivize people.

168
00:15:33,706 --> 00:15:36,166
Is it correct to say that it was also to incentivize people

169
00:15:36,166 --> 00:15:39,686
to consolidate UTXOs in a direct way?

170
00:15:39,686 --> 00:15:42,506
It definitely makes it cheaper, but only for new UTXOs, right?

171
00:15:42,626 --> 00:15:44,546
The old UTXOs still cost the same, right?

172
00:15:44,546 --> 00:15:51,686
So it's not really affecting people's will to consolidate old stuff because it's still expensive to spend, right?

173
00:15:51,846 --> 00:15:52,226
Okay.

174
00:15:52,806 --> 00:16:05,166
But in hindsight, could one say that it actually led to more UTXO bloat because of spam suddenly appearing in February 2023 or not?

175
00:16:06,086 --> 00:16:10,306
I feel that's a bit of a leading question.

176
00:16:10,466 --> 00:16:12,826
I don't think spam suddenly appeared in 2023.

177
00:16:12,826 --> 00:16:15,866
A new wave of spam appeared in 2023.

178
00:16:16,526 --> 00:16:18,606
We've had spam before multiple times.

179
00:16:18,726 --> 00:16:19,906
We had up return spam.

180
00:16:20,406 --> 00:16:21,566
We had dusting attacks.

181
00:16:22,186 --> 00:16:38,646
We had someone allegedly, some people, some blockchain researchers think that someone had been inflating Bitcoin transaction volume in order to keep the fee rates high in order to drum up support for PCash for a while.

182
00:16:38,646 --> 00:16:51,286
So transactions for the sake of transactions or transactions for non-monetary purposes have been around for 11 years, at least, probably more like since the beginning of Bitcoin.

183
00:16:51,986 --> 00:16:55,906
I would push back on the characterization that that is completely new.

184
00:16:55,906 --> 00:17:13,406
There's certainly been a lot more of it in the last two years. And the way that it was introduced certainly made use of the witness discount in order to store more data in the blockchain than would have been possible in outputs. I mean, that's obvious.

185
00:17:13,406 --> 00:17:24,726
the UTXO set growth was definitely affected by the BRC20 token stuff because BRC20 used

186
00:17:24,726 --> 00:17:32,186
uses an output for each input that creates a token or moves a token it has a regular payment output

187
00:17:32,186 --> 00:17:41,206
whose key doubles as the key for the token so they did create a lot of UTXOs and frankly BRC20

188
00:17:41,206 --> 00:17:42,526
is a terrible design.

189
00:17:42,526 --> 00:17:45,106
If I could switch a wand,

190
00:17:45,206 --> 00:17:46,246
I would love for it

191
00:17:46,246 --> 00:17:49,006
to never have been introduced to Bitcoin

192
00:17:49,006 --> 00:17:52,486
because it is obviously a poor design

193
00:17:52,486 --> 00:17:55,186
that encourages UTXO bloat.

194
00:17:55,466 --> 00:17:57,506
But all of those UTXOs are spendable.

195
00:17:58,706 --> 00:18:01,386
And they are above economic consolidate.

196
00:18:02,126 --> 00:18:05,226
They're like at 0.1 sat per VBite,

197
00:18:05,286 --> 00:18:07,786
it costs six sats to spend

198
00:18:07,786 --> 00:18:09,006
the pay-to-type root input.

199
00:18:09,006 --> 00:18:18,546
so they're all 294 plus which means they'd get 288 sats out if they spent them it is spendable

200
00:18:18,546 --> 00:18:26,306
utixos owned by people yeah so so brc20 tokens for those who don't know like it's a shitcoin on

201
00:18:26,306 --> 00:18:32,186
bitcoin that's what it is right it's it's it's another token built on top of bitcoin that requires

202
00:18:32,186 --> 00:18:36,146
a third-party website to even have any use of them.

203
00:18:37,006 --> 00:18:38,826
I mean, you could run Ord, I guess,

204
00:18:39,186 --> 00:18:41,586
or I don't even know if Ord supports BSC.

205
00:18:41,586 --> 00:18:44,666
Yeah, but it's not enough to run Bitcoin software.

206
00:18:44,906 --> 00:18:46,826
It is an overlay network, yes.

207
00:18:47,786 --> 00:18:51,066
Meaning that, in your mind,

208
00:18:51,126 --> 00:18:53,306
is there any other way to get rid of this

209
00:18:53,306 --> 00:18:54,826
than to just educate people

210
00:18:54,826 --> 00:18:57,006
on why these things are useless in the long run?

211
00:18:57,846 --> 00:18:58,886
Unfortunately, not.

212
00:18:58,886 --> 00:19:00,726
I think they're extremely dumb,

213
00:19:00,726 --> 00:19:04,126
And there's very little we can do about people doing that.

214
00:19:04,806 --> 00:19:08,186
Oh, so we're getting right at it.

215
00:19:09,226 --> 00:19:14,706
Yeah, I'm afraid this is where this conversation was always going to go.

216
00:19:14,706 --> 00:19:23,986
So when you see, for instance, a website I love that I use a lot is mempool.space.

217
00:19:24,666 --> 00:19:27,326
And I've been using it since forever.

218
00:19:27,526 --> 00:19:29,266
It's wonderful open source software.

219
00:19:29,266 --> 00:19:32,906
and where the devs are funded by grants

220
00:19:32,906 --> 00:19:36,086
and sponsors from voluntary payments

221
00:19:36,086 --> 00:19:37,826
from companies and people, right?

222
00:19:38,926 --> 00:19:41,366
I think it's a for-profit company, but yeah.

223
00:19:41,366 --> 00:19:42,826
It's a for-profit, yeah.

224
00:19:43,006 --> 00:19:45,146
They recently moved to El Salvador.

225
00:19:45,706 --> 00:19:49,226
So this is just a precursor here.

226
00:19:49,306 --> 00:19:51,186
I'm not trying to shit on memple.space here.

227
00:19:51,266 --> 00:19:54,866
But when you see them first visualizing

228
00:19:54,866 --> 00:19:58,026
these spam transactions as shit

229
00:19:58,026 --> 00:20:01,186
and then all of a sudden going over to calling it data

230
00:20:01,186 --> 00:20:04,946
and naming these things for what they are.

231
00:20:05,086 --> 00:20:08,826
I'm giving them validation sort of

232
00:20:08,826 --> 00:20:11,966
in terms of like calling them a BRC20 token

233
00:20:11,966 --> 00:20:13,126
or calling them a JPEG

234
00:20:13,126 --> 00:20:16,026
or visualizing a block in such a way

235
00:20:16,026 --> 00:20:18,066
that people think that there's a picture there

236
00:20:18,066 --> 00:20:20,106
when to Bitcoin itself,

237
00:20:20,246 --> 00:20:21,966
there is absolutely no picture there.

238
00:20:22,406 --> 00:20:23,846
And then you see that they're sponsored

239
00:20:23,846 --> 00:20:25,186
by the Taproot Wizard.

240
00:20:25,186 --> 00:20:30,926
like what what what thoughts run through your head now when you when you see stuff like that

241
00:20:30,926 --> 00:20:37,166
and and this is just one example of how shitcoiners have always tried to influence bitcoin right and

242
00:20:37,166 --> 00:20:42,146
i feel we had we're in this constant fight against them and what are your reactions to that what what

243
00:20:42,146 --> 00:20:49,386
do you think when you see that i think to be fair they uh rolled out mempool.space and mempool.space

244
00:20:49,386 --> 00:20:50,206
the same day.

245
00:20:50,846 --> 00:20:56,846
So they did offer these two colored glasses,

246
00:20:57,406 --> 00:20:59,886
different sets of colored glasses at the same time.

247
00:20:59,886 --> 00:21:03,546
So it strikes me more as a neutral stance.

248
00:21:05,026 --> 00:21:11,546
But yeah, I mean, so the data is definitely there.

249
00:21:12,686 --> 00:21:16,086
Call it what you want, if you want to call it data or not.

250
00:21:16,086 --> 00:21:19,906
But someone has put those bytes into the Bitcoin blockchain.

251
00:21:20,826 --> 00:21:27,886
And very clearly, there is a standard or a interpretation of how that data is to be interpreted.

252
00:21:28,726 --> 00:21:33,846
And if you subscribe to that interpretation, that data is absolutely there.

253
00:21:34,206 --> 00:21:41,466
Just like if you don't enforce SegWit, those SegWit transactions will all look like anyone can spend to you.

254
00:21:41,566 --> 00:21:44,186
And if you do enforce it, it's SegWit transactions.

255
00:21:44,186 --> 00:21:52,146
So I'm not saying that I have, just to be clear, maybe to set my stance here, I have never owned NFTs.

256
00:21:52,386 --> 00:21:54,506
I don't find it particularly interesting.

257
00:21:54,666 --> 00:21:56,946
I've never traded or otherwise.

258
00:21:57,206 --> 00:22:01,726
So a lot of people have been calling us shitcoin enablers or shitcoiners directly.

259
00:22:02,186 --> 00:22:04,086
I just want to be very clear here.

260
00:22:04,086 --> 00:22:13,626
I've never well I have owned altcoins due to forks and due to getting some at work for working

261
00:22:13,626 --> 00:22:20,486
on stuff but I've never been interested in altcoins or NFTs just to be very clear

262
00:22:20,486 --> 00:22:28,106
no me neither and I wasn't saying you had been like just for the record I wasn't accusing it's

263
00:22:28,106 --> 00:22:33,566
more for your audience than you just yeah I think it needs to be said apparently occasionally

264
00:22:33,566 --> 00:22:53,906
Because I think a lot of people take offense when it feels like Bitcoin Core has taken a path where instead of steering Bitcoin in the direction it was supposed to go, it's now steering into the direction that the users want it to go.

265
00:22:53,906 --> 00:23:03,306
But if the users aren't Bitcoiners anymore, but shitcoiners, do we really want to steer the ship in the direction the users want it to go?

266
00:23:03,566 --> 00:23:09,366
Like, I mean, I agree in principle, but I hate your label.

267
00:23:09,626 --> 00:23:14,906
So how do you know what the direction was that Bitcoin was supposed to go in?

268
00:23:14,986 --> 00:23:17,046
That's your personal preference.

269
00:23:17,246 --> 00:23:22,066
And how do you decide whether people are still Bitcoiners or not Bitcoiners when they use

270
00:23:22,066 --> 00:23:27,426
Bitcoin and they think Bitcoin is the most important invention, but they happen to like

271
00:23:27,426 --> 00:23:29,386
cat pictures on Bitcoin.

272
00:23:30,106 --> 00:23:31,246
Suddenly they're shit corners.

273
00:23:31,246 --> 00:23:35,626
that I think that while I understand that interpretation

274
00:23:35,626 --> 00:23:37,706
and it's closer to my personal stance,

275
00:23:38,166 --> 00:23:42,246
I think that needlessly biases our conversation here.

276
00:23:42,646 --> 00:23:43,786
So just to be clear.

277
00:23:44,506 --> 00:23:45,106
Yes, go ahead.

278
00:23:45,426 --> 00:23:47,666
I'll try to pull back on that,

279
00:23:47,746 --> 00:23:51,066
but it's hard for me because I hear a lot of technical people

280
00:23:51,066 --> 00:23:53,166
saying that all metaphors are misleading,

281
00:23:53,886 --> 00:23:56,806
but it's hard for a guy like me who only speaks in metaphor.

282
00:23:57,026 --> 00:23:58,246
I never do anything else.

283
00:23:58,326 --> 00:24:00,286
I don't know how to not speak in metaphor.

284
00:24:00,286 --> 00:24:04,166
for. All models are wrong, but some are useful, right?

285
00:24:05,906 --> 00:24:11,706
I think I have another framing then. Or I think I have an answer to your question. If it's in the

286
00:24:11,706 --> 00:24:18,966
title Bitcoin, a peer-to-peer electronic cash system, cash meaning settlement in that sense,

287
00:24:19,066 --> 00:24:25,826
right? There's a consensus around... Or not a payment that is facilitated by someone else.

288
00:24:25,826 --> 00:24:32,146
like direct exactly it's final settlement and it's peer-to-peer that's what cash means in on

289
00:24:32,146 --> 00:24:37,646
the white and i think all people agree on that that that's what that word means especially all

290
00:24:37,646 --> 00:24:44,066
bitcoin core devs that i know okay okay good so the metaphor here because that's my only means of

291
00:24:44,066 --> 00:24:51,426
communication would be that well if someone paints dick pics all over my dollar bill it's gonna get

292
00:24:51,426 --> 00:24:58,026
worse like i'm gonna have a harder time using it because not all merchants may and may accept it

293
00:24:58,026 --> 00:25:02,906
any longer if there's if if the dollar bill is full of dick pics would you agree with that

294
00:25:02,906 --> 00:25:08,146
metaphor somewhat or is that also just somewhat but you need to wear special glasses in order to

295
00:25:08,146 --> 00:25:12,466
see the dick so i think most merchants won't notice if you give them the the dollar bill

296
00:25:12,466 --> 00:25:19,906
so no i mean underlying like the the graffiti is only visible to the people that want to see it

297
00:25:19,906 --> 00:25:27,626
for the most part. I want to also push back that Bitcoin Core has taken a stance to enable this or

298
00:25:27,626 --> 00:25:34,826
facilitate this in any way or manner or form. I think that is a huge misunderstanding that has

299
00:25:34,826 --> 00:25:42,326
unnecessarily made this debate a lot more vitriolic. I challenge people that believe this

300
00:25:42,326 --> 00:25:48,186
to look through all of Bitcoin Core's pull requests and find me a single one that references

301
00:25:48,186 --> 00:25:54,246
NFTs, colored coins, overlay networks, or anything like that in any manner.

302
00:25:54,786 --> 00:26:00,746
And I'm certain that they will not find anyone that actually has ever talked about this in

303
00:26:00,746 --> 00:26:06,106
the Bitcoin Core repository, except in the context of people are doing something and

304
00:26:06,106 --> 00:26:07,166
it has this effect.

305
00:26:08,026 --> 00:26:17,986
And that like with Citreya as an example of making a part of their scheme to write

306
00:26:17,986 --> 00:26:19,786
data to payment outputs. That

307
00:26:19,786 --> 00:26:22,066
is the only reference that comes to

308
00:26:22,066 --> 00:26:22,666
mind for me.

309
00:26:23,266 --> 00:26:28,066
If we take the Citria case, as far

310
00:26:28,066 --> 00:26:30,166
as I understand it, it's like

311
00:26:30,166 --> 00:26:32,186
the approach Core has taken

312
00:26:32,186 --> 00:26:34,026
is like, alright, we'll

313
00:26:34,026 --> 00:26:35,826
talk to them and convince them to

314
00:26:35,826 --> 00:26:38,106
put the data in op return instead because

315
00:26:38,106 --> 00:26:39,166
it's much less harmful.

316
00:26:40,146 --> 00:26:42,106
How about we double click on

317
00:26:42,106 --> 00:26:44,206
the Citria case? Because it's often

318
00:26:44,206 --> 00:26:46,146
called the reason for the op return

319
00:26:46,146 --> 00:26:53,446
increase and it's not. It's an example of how the old up return limit can be detrimental at times.

320
00:26:54,186 --> 00:27:02,266
So Citria specifically needed to put data for settling, like for basically what is a penalty

321
00:27:02,266 --> 00:27:09,486
transaction in Lightning. For their system, they needed 144 bytes or so to go into a block very

322
00:27:09,486 --> 00:27:16,086
quickly and reliably. So their solution was, well, the standardness limit is 80 bytes for up return.

323
00:27:16,446 --> 00:27:22,026
So we'll put 80 bytes into up return and split the rest of the data into two payment outputs and put

324
00:27:22,026 --> 00:27:28,406
it there. And now they have 144 bytes in a transaction that is standard that will be in

325
00:27:28,406 --> 00:27:34,406
the next block if they pay enough. And they have all their data available for their penalty

326
00:27:34,406 --> 00:27:36,226
transaction mechanism, right?

327
00:27:36,746 --> 00:27:38,886
So what people noticed

328
00:27:38,886 --> 00:27:40,386
when they looked at this was like,

329
00:27:40,686 --> 00:27:51,312
huh they are trying to play by the implicit rules Now regardless of them doing something that we don necessarily think needs to be done

330
00:27:51,971 --> 00:27:55,971
they're trying to be good citizens and trying to play by the rules.

331
00:27:55,971 --> 00:28:02,091
And that leads them to putting data into payment outputs, which is the worst place for them, for the data.

332
00:28:03,072 --> 00:28:10,052
And that highlighted that the 80 byte up return limit had downsides, right?

333
00:28:10,052 --> 00:28:18,851
yeah so far so far i i agree taken that you think that these are legitimate transactions

334
00:28:18,851 --> 00:28:25,012
in the first place i mean they are from a from the viewpoint of they paid the fees but also what

335
00:28:25,012 --> 00:28:32,591
what does legitimate transaction mean here yeah that's that's sort of the at the pun intended core

336
00:28:32,591 --> 00:28:38,451
of the debate right what does no no i mean very literally they're valid they're even standard

337
00:28:38,451 --> 00:28:45,731
yeah right so and we can't prevent them unless we very specifically introduce some some mechanism

338
00:28:45,731 --> 00:28:53,951
to identify them and like citria is not allowed to spend money or something right which seems

339
00:28:53,951 --> 00:29:02,231
very difficult to me yeah and so what makes these transactions illegitimate illegitimate here okay

340
00:29:02,231 --> 00:29:24,231
So a South Park episode comes to mind and it's one called the death camp of tolerance where Mr. Garrison tries to get fired for being gay because he has figured out that he may get like a million dollars in compensation if the school fires him for being gay.

341
00:29:24,231 --> 00:29:28,471
So he starts doing the most perverted gay shit he can come up with.

342
00:29:29,072 --> 00:29:32,651
And the worse it gets, the more people just call him courageous.

343
00:29:33,411 --> 00:29:39,492
And the whole point of the episode is to point out the difference between tolerance and approval.

344
00:29:40,411 --> 00:29:46,451
So I would say for Citria, for instance, I don't relay their transactions with my node.

345
00:29:46,792 --> 00:29:49,211
And I don't approve of them.

346
00:29:49,211 --> 00:29:51,951
But I tolerate them once they end up in a block.

347
00:29:51,951 --> 00:29:55,611
because I understand that I need to in order for,

348
00:29:55,951 --> 00:30:00,611
because enough other people did for Bitcoin to be Bitcoin, sort of.

349
00:30:00,931 --> 00:30:02,411
So I need to follow suit.

350
00:30:03,631 --> 00:30:04,951
But I think there's a difference between tolerance.

351
00:30:04,951 --> 00:30:06,512
I would like to push back here already.

352
00:30:06,891 --> 00:30:07,552
One sec.

353
00:30:07,552 --> 00:30:11,351
You absolutely would have accepted the Citria transaction

354
00:30:11,351 --> 00:30:13,572
because it looks perfectly standard to you.

355
00:30:14,231 --> 00:30:17,371
So you don't tolerate it abstractly,

356
00:30:17,512 --> 00:30:21,631
but I fail to see how you can concretely even distinguish

357
00:30:21,631 --> 00:30:27,191
this from happening because payment outputs look like payment outputs it's a pseudo random data in

358
00:30:27,191 --> 00:30:35,211
the output it is very difficult to distinguish intent from we we know because they describe it

359
00:30:35,211 --> 00:30:40,552
in their in their description of their schema that they would add two payment outputs but

360
00:30:40,552 --> 00:30:45,711
if you just look at the transaction you would just see an 80 byte up return and then you would see

361
00:30:45,711 --> 00:30:51,532
two payment outputs and it would be impossible for you to notice that this is a ctria penalty

362
00:30:51,532 --> 00:30:56,332
each transaction. So the argument there is that if it's in an op return, it's easier for me to

363
00:30:56,332 --> 00:30:59,971
figure out that this is a transaction I don't want to relay, right?

364
00:31:00,611 --> 00:31:05,191
That is your interpretation, of course, but I don't think that's a useful interpretation.

365
00:31:05,191 --> 00:31:10,032
I'm asking you, is that what you're saying is if this was an op return, would it be easier for my

366
00:31:10,032 --> 00:31:16,532
node to figure out? Absolutely, yes. But I don't think that that is a useful stance, but we can

367
00:31:16,532 --> 00:31:23,572
talk about that later. Okay, so let's rewind the tape to, was this 2014? Satoshi Dice. Sorry,

368
00:31:23,572 --> 00:31:29,812
sorry. No, I would like to double down on. You call this a TRIA transaction illegitimate and

369
00:31:29,812 --> 00:31:35,891
your node would not accept it. No, no, no. If I said illegitimate, I should choose another word

370
00:31:35,891 --> 00:31:43,012
because from a technical standpoint, it's not illegitimate to the Bitcoin network. I would say

371
00:31:43,012 --> 00:31:46,971
it's undesirable. That's a better word.

372
00:31:46,971 --> 00:31:50,911
Sure. Undesirable. But also, I think

373
00:31:50,911 --> 00:31:54,731
the important point is it is impossible to

374
00:31:54,731 --> 00:31:59,012
distinguish as such for third parties.

375
00:31:59,631 --> 00:32:02,931
And that, I think, is a very important point here in the

376
00:32:02,931 --> 00:32:07,072
context. So when people do this sort of thing,

377
00:32:07,671 --> 00:32:10,971
we will not necessarily be able to tell that

378
00:32:10,971 --> 00:32:17,272
they're doing this thing until they reveal to us how the data is supposed to be read to even notice

379
00:32:17,272 --> 00:32:25,052
that it's not random data and actual payment outputs no i mean yeah sorry trying to see where

380
00:32:25,052 --> 00:32:30,312
do you understand the point that i'm trying to make absolutely if it's if it's uh and so but but

381
00:32:30,312 --> 00:32:37,911
i still think i'm gonna go back to this whole censorship resistance okay because in in my view

382
00:32:37,911 --> 00:32:39,492
it applies to

383
00:32:39,492 --> 00:32:41,752
as I said to monetary transactions

384
00:32:41,752 --> 00:32:44,012
and not to necessarily

385
00:32:44,012 --> 00:32:45,411
to what you could put on chain

386
00:32:45,411 --> 00:32:47,352
I would love that yes

387
00:32:47,352 --> 00:32:48,552
so would it be

388
00:32:48,552 --> 00:32:51,391
is it entirely futile

389
00:32:51,391 --> 00:32:53,931
to fight these things because we have

390
00:32:53,931 --> 00:32:55,752
in the past right if we go back

391
00:32:55,752 --> 00:32:57,852
then once again to the

392
00:32:57,852 --> 00:32:58,951
Satoshi Dice thing

393
00:32:58,951 --> 00:33:01,072
that was stopped because

394
00:33:01,072 --> 00:33:03,891
Bitcoin adapted to stop

395
00:33:03,891 --> 00:33:04,391
it right

396
00:33:04,391 --> 00:33:07,611
so how was it stopped

397
00:33:07,611 --> 00:33:14,832
it was priced out that's it i think so wasn't it i think it just wasn't it just went away

398
00:33:14,832 --> 00:33:20,711
the one set per vbyte that we had the dust limit the the very small payment the dust

399
00:33:20,711 --> 00:33:27,451
the dust limit did help make these small bets go away yes yeah so for instance if we wanted to stop

400
00:33:27,451 --> 00:33:32,971
citria could we increase the dust limit would that be this is just me asking no questions here

401
00:33:32,971 --> 00:33:44,532
I mean, if we made the dust limit a consensus rule, we could make dust transactions invalid and we could prevent them.

402
00:33:45,131 --> 00:33:48,752
But I don't think that Citria relies on dust transactions.

403
00:33:49,131 --> 00:33:50,891
I think this is something else.

404
00:33:51,512 --> 00:33:58,611
Maybe there was something about anchor outputs or what is it, the construction that ARK uses.

405
00:33:58,611 --> 00:34:04,411
they were trying to have smaller amounts and f2 pool and someone else is now mining

406
00:34:04,411 --> 00:34:11,231
transactions that have dust amounts which i find unfortunate very unfortunate actually

407
00:34:11,231 --> 00:34:19,291
but unless we make this a consensus rule there is literally nothing i don't think there is anything

408
00:34:19,291 --> 00:34:26,492
useful we can do especially nothing cost effective that we can do like if we talk about the amount of

409
00:34:26,492 --> 00:34:32,751
time it would take and the rate of success that we would have okay so some people would see this

410
00:34:32,751 --> 00:34:40,072
as capitulation but i understand and i i mean i've listened to your conversation with tone

411
00:34:40,072 --> 00:34:46,532
and jimmy and also with your converse to your conversation with eric haysen yeah and i think

412
00:34:46,532 --> 00:34:53,431
you you made that point a couple times that you would like us to fight tooth and nail give not an

413
00:34:53,431 --> 00:34:55,912
to anything but monetary uses.

414
00:34:56,471 --> 00:34:58,052
In an ideal world, yes.

415
00:34:58,632 --> 00:34:59,892
Yes, in an ideal, yeah.

416
00:34:59,892 --> 00:35:05,751
And I think the, I don't even disagree with the sentiment or anything.

417
00:35:06,052 --> 00:35:12,311
It's just, I disagree with the suggestion that the things that are being proposed

418
00:35:12,311 --> 00:35:16,811
would have any sort of positive impact on that goal.

419
00:35:17,892 --> 00:35:22,171
And what really, really, really frustrates me is that essentially,

420
00:35:22,171 --> 00:35:29,132
a number of people, either deliberately or unknowingly, have been propagating this idea

421
00:35:29,132 --> 00:35:37,711
that we're just not doing enough for now years. While for me, from a technical perspective,

422
00:35:37,931 --> 00:35:45,811
the obvious situation is, this is inherently extremely costly to fight and the success

423
00:35:45,811 --> 00:35:53,151
chance is negligible. So it's just a waste of time to do. And this mischaracterization as,

424
00:35:53,331 --> 00:35:59,412
oh, they're not doing anything. You talked about economics in your podcast with Eric Kaysen,

425
00:35:59,892 --> 00:36:07,471
being the reasons why people do things, like the social economics being a social science in the

426
00:36:07,471 --> 00:36:14,251
sense that it explains why people act the way they act. Why do Bitcoin core developers not fight this?

427
00:36:14,251 --> 00:36:20,612
if you think about it it's an economic reason it takes a lot of time and it's probably futile

428
00:36:20,612 --> 00:36:28,451
so they don't fight it because they use their time for other things right yeah yeah and i think this

429
00:36:28,451 --> 00:36:35,291
is this is some somewhere here is the is the current there's a kernel of truth there to to

430
00:36:35,291 --> 00:36:43,751
why this debate is happening at all and why it's still ongoing because i i think when mempool policy

431
00:36:43,751 --> 00:36:51,271
defaults right they do send a signal to the network to to to bitcoin users who want to put

432
00:36:51,271 --> 00:36:58,492
whatever transactions into the bitcoin blockchain yeah they they clearly send a signal that this is

433
00:36:58,492 --> 00:37:04,892
okay and this is not okay or this is right i wouldn't more classify it as a gentle nudge but

434
00:37:04,892 --> 00:37:05,151
Yes.

435
00:37:05,751 --> 00:37:06,432
Sure.

436
00:37:06,872 --> 00:37:12,231
But increasing from 83 bytes to 100 kilobytes,

437
00:37:12,532 --> 00:37:14,432
the default op return,

438
00:37:15,231 --> 00:37:19,271
sends a signal that it's okay to put data here,

439
00:37:19,651 --> 00:37:21,951
and a lot of it, right?

440
00:37:22,791 --> 00:37:24,671
And how you get that interpretation, yes.

441
00:37:25,052 --> 00:37:27,231
But do you agree with that statement,

442
00:37:27,231 --> 00:37:28,691
that it sends a signal?

443
00:37:29,831 --> 00:37:32,552
Yes, I guess I do agree with that.

444
00:37:32,552 --> 00:37:35,831
But I want to comment in two ways.

445
00:37:35,932 --> 00:37:44,012
One is, you asked earlier how we were able to introduce the dust limit back in, I think, 2014 or so.

446
00:37:44,231 --> 00:37:44,352
Yep.

447
00:37:44,711 --> 00:37:54,251
And the huge difference back then was mining pools were a lot less economically oriented.

448
00:37:55,211 --> 00:37:59,451
The node population was much smaller and much more homogenous.

449
00:37:59,451 --> 00:38:08,291
people just generally ran standard bitcoin core out of the box and we could like the mining pool

450
00:38:08,291 --> 00:38:13,552
operators would just hang out in irc and you could just say hey we're we think this is a good reason

451
00:38:13,552 --> 00:38:23,311
to to introduce this new limit and it actually got enforced to 100 or close to 100 almost

452
00:38:23,311 --> 00:38:32,372
immediately by both the nodes and the miners. And the huge difference to today is while the

453
00:38:32,372 --> 00:38:38,572
large mining operations are still fairly centralized, they have a lot of financial

454
00:38:38,572 --> 00:38:44,932
backing. They have shareholders that they need to satisfy. They are generally trimmed towards

455
00:38:44,932 --> 00:38:51,771
maximizing revenue. They often do not have a lot of technical people that actually care about

456
00:38:51,771 --> 00:38:55,992
Bitcoin, what's going on on the technical side, they're not accessible in that sense.

457
00:38:56,572 --> 00:39:02,872
So some mining pools have very deliberately undermined mempool policies in the past few

458
00:39:02,872 --> 00:39:11,492
years. And this has generally made or brought to the surface just how much of a small nudge

459
00:39:11,492 --> 00:39:17,771
these mempool policies are and how easily they are supported at a minor level if miners choose

460
00:39:17,771 --> 00:39:18,631
to do otherwise.

461
00:39:19,811 --> 00:39:21,811
So that is the reason

462
00:39:21,811 --> 00:39:23,532
why introducing the dust limit

463
00:39:23,532 --> 00:39:24,372
worked back then

464
00:39:24,372 --> 00:39:25,231
and why today

465
00:39:25,231 --> 00:39:26,552
I have a very different

466
00:39:26,552 --> 00:39:27,592
perspective on that.

467
00:39:28,552 --> 00:39:29,492
But yeah,

468
00:39:29,771 --> 00:39:30,651
once again,

469
00:39:30,951 --> 00:39:32,731
that defeatist attitude

470
00:39:32,731 --> 00:39:34,112
allegation then,

471
00:39:34,231 --> 00:39:36,811
because then if miners

472
00:39:36,811 --> 00:39:39,392
don't do what the network

473
00:39:39,392 --> 00:39:41,211
tells the miners to do,

474
00:39:41,912 --> 00:39:44,651
then we're clearly in trouble, right?

475
00:39:44,711 --> 00:39:46,072
If miners can override

476
00:39:46,072 --> 00:39:47,112
what the nodes want,

477
00:39:47,112 --> 00:39:48,651
then Bitcoin doesn't work.

478
00:39:49,631 --> 00:39:51,012
I don't think that's the case.

479
00:39:51,791 --> 00:39:55,892
You also said to Eric that miners should be ruled by nodes

480
00:39:55,892 --> 00:39:57,771
and Eric pushed back that.

481
00:39:58,291 --> 00:40:01,372
He sees it more as two different branches of the system.

482
00:40:02,171 --> 00:40:03,971
And it is the case.

483
00:40:04,171 --> 00:40:07,372
We are paying the miners to provide a service to the network.

484
00:40:07,912 --> 00:40:11,471
But the miners are still also actors in the system.

485
00:40:11,631 --> 00:40:13,612
They do make some of their own decisions.

486
00:40:13,612 --> 00:40:14,271
No, no.

487
00:40:14,971 --> 00:40:16,112
Back to semantics.

488
00:40:16,112 --> 00:40:23,971
I do believe that miners are also, they are their own employees, their own employers.

489
00:40:24,592 --> 00:40:29,971
So they employ themselves, but they're also employed by the entire network.

490
00:40:30,532 --> 00:40:32,872
We pay them to find block space, right?

491
00:40:33,231 --> 00:40:34,771
So what do you propose?

492
00:40:34,932 --> 00:40:38,532
We start boycotting a miner that misbehaves?

493
00:40:38,932 --> 00:40:40,412
That's one thing that could happen.

494
00:40:40,631 --> 00:40:41,451
Like the way I see it.

495
00:40:41,612 --> 00:40:43,392
But how would you implement that?

496
00:40:44,131 --> 00:40:45,831
Yeah, let me paint a picture.

497
00:40:45,831 --> 00:40:48,831
Let me try to still mind this and paint a picture here.

498
00:40:49,352 --> 00:41:08,331
So if I'm a user of the network, I pay miners, I willingly pay with consent and voluntarily, I pay miners in the form of block subsidy, like reward and fee or subsidy and fee.

499
00:41:08,651 --> 00:41:13,451
So whatever newly minted Bitcoin, they have the right to claim plus fees, right?

500
00:41:13,872 --> 00:41:14,231
Correct.

501
00:41:14,231 --> 00:41:17,872
I'm willing to pay them that for finding a correct block.

502
00:41:18,471 --> 00:41:23,831
But the reason I do that is because I want my transaction to be in that block.

503
00:41:23,932 --> 00:41:27,892
That's one of the main reasons that I'm willing to pay this fee for them.

504
00:41:27,992 --> 00:41:28,791
I follow so far.

505
00:41:28,791 --> 00:41:29,432
Yes.

506
00:41:29,971 --> 00:41:43,737
So if now for instance instead they choose to fill up the block with other things than my transaction that I was willing to pay for them to do

507
00:41:45,037 --> 00:41:49,697
then I, as the node runner, and me as the Bitcoin user,

508
00:41:50,397 --> 00:41:57,517
may choose to switch to another way of interacting with the protocol.

509
00:41:57,737 --> 00:41:59,517
So I may switch to nodes, for instance,

510
00:41:59,597 --> 00:42:04,437
or I may switch to another way of communicating with the rest of the network.

511
00:42:04,977 --> 00:42:09,977
that more looks, that I believe more looks after my needs.

512
00:42:10,717 --> 00:42:13,137
So no problem so far.

513
00:42:13,397 --> 00:42:21,317
So, so is in your opinion, like when you see almost, well, the numbers can be questioned

514
00:42:21,317 --> 00:42:23,797
and we've, that's been, been discussed.

515
00:42:23,797 --> 00:42:24,057
Yeah.

516
00:42:24,057 --> 00:42:26,097
20% of nodes are so listening.

517
00:42:26,097 --> 00:42:33,157
So if 20%, if a fifth of the network, which is the case now, if you trust the numbers are

518
00:42:33,157 --> 00:42:36,737
A fifth of the listening nodes, not a fifth of the network.

519
00:42:37,477 --> 00:42:39,697
Okay, so it's not a fifth of the...

520
00:42:39,697 --> 00:42:40,357
I think it is, no.

521
00:42:41,217 --> 00:42:44,997
And what would you assume is the number there, like a 20th or a 10th?

522
00:42:44,997 --> 00:42:49,617
Well, I think that a lot of the node in the box setups specifically

523
00:42:49,617 --> 00:42:52,697
are geared towards becoming listening nodes.

524
00:42:52,897 --> 00:42:53,977
They make Tor connections.

525
00:42:54,657 --> 00:42:58,677
So people that switch to this sort of run-at-home node

526
00:42:58,677 --> 00:43:02,817
tend to be overrepresented in the Bitcoin network by being listening nodes.

527
00:43:03,157 --> 00:43:18,757
I think that I have not seen any economic companies, except for Start9, express publicly that they run Nuts or have support to filter endeavors.

528
00:43:19,477 --> 00:43:26,897
So there's a very loud group of people on Twitter, obviously, that are upset.

529
00:43:26,897 --> 00:43:31,397
they have been campaigned at for running more nodes.

530
00:43:31,737 --> 00:43:34,657
And sure, a lot of them have switched over to nodes.

531
00:43:34,837 --> 00:43:38,897
I understand that it expresses their displeasure and sentiment

532
00:43:38,897 --> 00:43:41,297
towards what they would like to see in the network.

533
00:43:41,917 --> 00:43:45,057
But my question back to you would be,

534
00:43:45,697 --> 00:43:49,737
how does running nodes change anything about the outcome here?

535
00:43:49,737 --> 00:43:53,837
If other users of block space pay more,

536
00:43:54,437 --> 00:43:56,217
and miners include what pays more,

537
00:43:56,897 --> 00:44:03,937
How does it change to run Nuts in regard to getting your transaction into blocks?

538
00:44:05,177 --> 00:44:08,677
Well, it doesn't unless it gets enough momentum.

539
00:44:09,997 --> 00:44:13,457
Maybe running Nuts was, I think, the way they see it.

540
00:44:13,717 --> 00:44:21,097
And I'm trying to stay as neutral as I can here because silence developer or podcaster is talking and all of that, right?

541
00:44:24,517 --> 00:44:25,897
We're having a conversation.

542
00:44:26,077 --> 00:44:26,337
Go ahead.

543
00:44:26,337 --> 00:44:33,517
Yeah, so the way I see it, like, Knotts was an attempt at stopping this change from happening.

544
00:44:33,897 --> 00:44:44,857
And even at the 42 to 83, 42 to 83, or 40 to 80 byte switch, I mean, Knotts was, Knotts is a couple of years old, right?

545
00:44:45,377 --> 00:44:49,777
No, no, no, Knotts has existed since 2014 or so.

546
00:44:49,857 --> 00:44:53,717
Yeah, yeah. With basically stuff that Luke didn't agree to.

547
00:44:53,717 --> 00:44:56,217
yeah it's basically

548
00:44:56,217 --> 00:44:58,637
Luke's personal branch of Bitcoin

549
00:44:58,637 --> 00:45:00,257
core yes but

550
00:45:00,257 --> 00:45:02,237
the thing that this

551
00:45:02,237 --> 00:45:04,177
side or whatever you

552
00:45:04,177 --> 00:45:06,477
call it has been vehemently against

553
00:45:06,477 --> 00:45:08,297
is this op return change that was the

554
00:45:08,297 --> 00:45:10,097
most controversial thing and that

555
00:45:10,097 --> 00:45:12,337
is the thing that made this whole thing

556
00:45:12,337 --> 00:45:13,757
blow up and that made

557
00:45:13,757 --> 00:45:15,037
20%

558
00:45:15,037 --> 00:45:17,177
oh you did

559
00:45:17,177 --> 00:45:20,137
20% of listening nodes so

560
00:45:20,137 --> 00:45:21,517
upset about it so

561
00:45:21,517 --> 00:45:22,757
why

562
00:45:22,757 --> 00:45:26,257
I've heard the argument that core developers

563
00:45:26,257 --> 00:45:27,657
does not want to

564
00:45:27,657 --> 00:45:30,177
fall into

565
00:45:30,177 --> 00:45:32,137
traps on social media so they

566
00:45:32,137 --> 00:45:34,137
don't want to make decisions

567
00:45:34,137 --> 00:45:36,257
based on whatever noise

568
00:45:36,257 --> 00:45:37,877
people are making on social media

569
00:45:37,877 --> 00:45:40,397
but when you have 20% of listening nodes

570
00:45:40,397 --> 00:45:41,857
in other words users

571
00:45:41,857 --> 00:45:43,717
I mean these are the users after all

572
00:45:43,717 --> 00:45:46,217
these are the bitcoiners, the plebs

573
00:45:46,217 --> 00:45:48,077
if they clearly signal

574
00:45:48,077 --> 00:45:49,617
that they don't want this change

575
00:45:49,617 --> 00:45:51,077
what would it take?

576
00:45:51,077 --> 00:45:56,077
how big a percent would it have to take for core developers to change their minds and

577
00:45:56,077 --> 00:46:01,697
think again and say like hey guys maybe we're missing something here like

578
00:46:01,697 --> 00:46:10,377
it would take one user making a good argument is that it and you don't think you've heard a good

579
00:46:10,377 --> 00:46:18,577
argument yet correct and i know how how pretentious that sounds right now but but i think it's really

580
00:46:18,577 --> 00:46:27,337
mostly a disconnect at a level where people took out the pitchforks first. They're making more space

581
00:46:27,337 --> 00:46:36,117
for spam. Sounds terrible. I could get behind that pitchfork mob. But actually, engaging with

582
00:46:36,117 --> 00:46:44,157
why the change was made, in my opinion, is quite convincing and does not support that interpretation.

583
00:46:44,157 --> 00:46:52,197
yet it has been repeated a thousand times and i'm still arguing look and and and i find that

584
00:46:52,197 --> 00:46:58,817
when i take the time to talk with individual people they tend to oh i guess i get it i i don't

585
00:46:58,817 --> 00:47:04,557
love it but i now see how you're not shitcoin enabling but you actually have a technical reason

586
00:47:04,557 --> 00:47:12,217
to do it it's just extremely inefficient to do that person by person right so what i've been

587
00:47:12,217 --> 00:47:18,897
doing in the past few weeks is is trying to to explain this in in ways on platforms where

588
00:47:18,897 --> 00:47:24,797
maybe a couple more people will listen not i'm not sure how successful i've been so far but

589
00:47:24,797 --> 00:47:30,937
yes but there's a big difference between a change causing no damage and a change being important

590
00:47:30,937 --> 00:47:37,657
like why is it important to change the return thing why why why was it important what why i

591
00:47:37,657 --> 00:47:39,117
I don't think it was super important.

592
00:47:39,577 --> 00:47:42,697
So why didn't you listen to the people then if it wasn't important?

593
00:47:43,157 --> 00:47:44,537
That's what I can't get through.

594
00:47:44,537 --> 00:47:44,717
Because they were wrong.

595
00:47:45,837 --> 00:47:49,497
And they were making noise, doubling down on being wrong,

596
00:47:49,997 --> 00:47:54,317
and tried to force us making a change that is technically not reasonable.

597
00:47:54,317 --> 00:47:54,857
No, no, no.

598
00:47:54,917 --> 00:47:58,397
They weren't trying to force you to make a change.

599
00:47:58,397 --> 00:48:00,157
They were trying to force you to not make a change.

600
00:48:01,097 --> 00:48:04,237
No, it was after the change had been proposed

601
00:48:04,237 --> 00:48:06,797
that they wanted the change to be reverted,

602
00:48:06,797 --> 00:48:12,157
which is reverting a technical decision with social media pressure.

603
00:48:12,857 --> 00:48:18,517
And that is very specifically, I think, what a lot of core contributors do not want to support.

604
00:48:19,217 --> 00:48:24,517
Okay, so it's because they picked the wrong battleground, sort of.

605
00:48:24,597 --> 00:48:25,337
They should have been...

606
00:48:25,337 --> 00:48:30,857
No, I think that the discussion happened first on the mailing list for a few weeks.

607
00:48:31,157 --> 00:48:34,317
People generally found the arguments convincing.

608
00:48:34,317 --> 00:48:44,137
then a pull request was opened and someone very quickly noticed this and blew it up with a podcast.

609
00:48:45,017 --> 00:48:50,057
And then we got a lot of comments on that pull request within hours,

610
00:48:50,857 --> 00:48:56,117
all replicating this interpretation of the first instigator.

611
00:48:56,617 --> 00:49:04,137
But if you look at the argument, and I'm happy to dive into the argument again,

612
00:49:04,317 --> 00:49:07,957
I don't think that the interpretation is accurate.

613
00:49:09,357 --> 00:49:16,677
You yourself, I think it was in the podcast with Eric, you said up return will not get used.

614
00:49:16,757 --> 00:49:18,077
It doesn't make sense to use it.

615
00:49:18,617 --> 00:49:22,897
But then also you said up return will be used for more shit coining.

616
00:49:23,537 --> 00:49:28,097
And I think having both of those interpretations at the same time is contradictory.

617
00:49:28,437 --> 00:49:32,737
Okay, so let me try to rephrase that then.

618
00:49:32,737 --> 00:49:36,397
because first of all, the pod with Eric was quite long ago now.

619
00:49:36,837 --> 00:49:38,357
Yeah, it just happened to...

620
00:49:38,357 --> 00:49:41,657
I was looking at a little bit of your stuff inside.

621
00:49:41,657 --> 00:49:43,877
Even when it was out, it was pretty old

622
00:49:43,877 --> 00:49:47,817
because we did it back in between July or August or something.

623
00:49:48,817 --> 00:49:51,737
Please feel free to take any new stance

624
00:49:51,737 --> 00:49:52,817
because there's no evidence.

625
00:49:52,837 --> 00:49:55,697
I feel I expressed that better in the tone pod.

626
00:49:55,857 --> 00:49:57,917
You said you listened to that too, right?

627
00:49:58,237 --> 00:49:59,957
Yeah, the audio was a little...

628
00:49:59,957 --> 00:50:01,157
The connection was...

629
00:50:01,157 --> 00:50:01,457
Unfortunately.

630
00:50:01,457 --> 00:50:08,777
So the argument is that if you signal that it's okay to put data, then people would...

631
00:50:08,777 --> 00:50:18,877
I'm just thinking that just because they put data somewhere else before and you add another place to put data doesn't mean they'll stop with what they were doing before.

632
00:50:19,097 --> 00:50:19,557
I agree.

633
00:50:20,037 --> 00:50:23,237
They may just put more shit in there.

634
00:50:24,217 --> 00:50:26,177
Or instead put it there.

635
00:50:26,177 --> 00:50:26,737
Yes.

636
00:50:26,737 --> 00:50:31,677
Yeah, but it's the instead part that I'm not convinced about.

637
00:50:32,077 --> 00:50:36,737
Well, I'm not convinced that inscribers will put data into upreturns.

638
00:50:37,337 --> 00:50:39,277
That doesn't make any economic sense.

639
00:50:40,017 --> 00:50:45,837
The tooling for inscriptions has been built out very well in the last two years, unfortunately.

640
00:50:46,677 --> 00:50:50,017
Upreturn has a lot worse tooling, and it's four times as expensive.

641
00:50:50,177 --> 00:50:52,177
It makes no sense for people to switch over.

642
00:50:52,537 --> 00:50:53,577
Fully agree on that.

643
00:50:53,897 --> 00:50:54,077
Yes.

644
00:50:54,077 --> 00:51:00,677
so what it specifically does is it is cheaper than putting data in other outputs

645
00:51:00,677 --> 00:51:09,137
yeah but right that's the whole argument yes but okay so explain to me in layman's terms if if it

646
00:51:09,137 --> 00:51:14,357
does nothing for inscriptions so you get a block with that would have been so here's a case like

647
00:51:14,357 --> 00:51:21,917
you get a block that would have been two megabytes if uh if it weren't for these two megabytes full

648
00:51:21,917 --> 00:51:27,777
of inscriptions but now but now you have the op return stuff too which is another type of spam

649
00:51:27,777 --> 00:51:33,017
that people put in op return and that's the other two megabytes of this four megabyte block so the

650
00:51:33,017 --> 00:51:41,137
so the witness discount only applies to witness data the way the witness discount works is that

651
00:51:41,137 --> 00:51:50,037
the byte of witness data counts one weight unit whereas transaction data in any other place

652
00:51:50,037 --> 00:51:51,737
weighs four weight units.

653
00:51:52,317 --> 00:51:55,397
The maximum for blocks is four million weight units.

654
00:51:56,157 --> 00:52:00,257
So non-witness data can never exceed one megabyte.

655
00:52:00,777 --> 00:52:03,977
So, yeah, I'm phrasing this wrong.

656
00:52:04,297 --> 00:52:06,797
It's not an additional place that you can put data.

657
00:52:06,797 --> 00:52:09,817
It is a place that is in the output section.

658
00:52:10,557 --> 00:52:13,437
Output data weighs four weight units per byte.

659
00:52:14,217 --> 00:52:18,837
And in order to fill, if a block were filled with return outputs,

660
00:52:18,837 --> 00:52:21,277
it would be no bigger than one megabyte.

661
00:52:21,377 --> 00:52:23,837
Okay, I think I'm phrasing this wrong.

662
00:52:24,017 --> 00:52:26,177
So let me paint another picture.

663
00:52:26,637 --> 00:52:26,857
Sure.

664
00:52:26,997 --> 00:52:28,297
You have an empty block,

665
00:52:28,897 --> 00:52:32,337
and you had one transaction, an inscription,

666
00:52:32,997 --> 00:52:34,877
and now you have two transactions,

667
00:52:35,177 --> 00:52:40,997
which is one inscription plus one other transaction

668
00:52:40,997 --> 00:52:42,977
with a ginormous op return.

669
00:52:43,437 --> 00:52:45,517
That block would have been smaller

670
00:52:45,517 --> 00:52:48,497
had not that op return thing been there, right?

671
00:52:48,837 --> 00:52:56,837
So, yes, I agree. If you put more data in an empty block, that would obviously be more blockchain data that wasn't there before.

672
00:52:56,897 --> 00:53:05,737
Yes, because I feel the argument is about already full blocks. And I don't understand why we want blocks to be full.

673
00:53:06,117 --> 00:53:11,337
Like, wouldn't we want them to be as empty as possible from a starting up a new node perspective?

674
00:53:11,337 --> 00:53:16,177
I know you had your rebuttal to this on Twitter when I pointed that out.

675
00:53:16,177 --> 00:53:34,977
No, I mean, I think that was someone else, but I did see the conversation. So yes, all things equal, less blockchain growth would be preferable, it would potentially make IBD slightly faster, and it would reduce the future cost for people doing IBD in the future. Fully agree on all that.

676
00:53:34,977 --> 00:53:53,837
I think the points that I would supplement here are a bandwidth and disk space have both been getting cheaper exponentially, while the block space is limited linearly. So over time, it is becoming exponentially cheaper to run a node.

677
00:53:53,837 --> 00:54:01,817
so i don't think that between the 92 percent of all block space being used right now i ran the

678
00:54:01,817 --> 00:54:08,237
numbers a couple weeks ago for a week and about 92 percent of block space was demanded i think it

679
00:54:08,237 --> 00:54:14,057
might be more now because we've been seeing fees in the two to three set per v byte range between

680
00:54:14,057 --> 00:54:20,877
92 percent full blocks and 100 percent full blocks i think that the the difference is very small

681
00:54:20,877 --> 00:54:25,157
and with the cost of running nodes going down exponentially,

682
00:54:25,697 --> 00:54:28,457
I do not think that the future cost is immense

683
00:54:28,457 --> 00:54:30,777
and necessarily a problem.

684
00:54:31,237 --> 00:54:34,617
But you can't run a node on a Raspberry Pi anymore, I hear.

685
00:54:35,017 --> 00:54:35,937
That is incorrect.

686
00:54:36,217 --> 00:54:38,437
That is absolutely incorrect and overstated.

687
00:54:38,697 --> 00:54:38,917
Okay.

688
00:54:39,037 --> 00:54:39,257
Yes.

689
00:54:39,737 --> 00:54:42,037
Yeah, it's not something I've verified.

690
00:54:42,037 --> 00:54:44,977
Specifically, Chris Guida has been making that argument a lot

691
00:54:44,977 --> 00:54:49,577
and it is my impression that he was taking the point

692
00:54:49,577 --> 00:54:54,677
at which the assume valid block was for an older version of Bitcoin Core,

693
00:54:55,377 --> 00:54:57,657
at which it starts doing full script validation.

694
00:54:58,577 --> 00:55:01,817
And before that point, it'll just go through the transactions,

695
00:55:02,037 --> 00:55:05,677
rebuild the UTXO set, and just check that, for example,

696
00:55:05,797 --> 00:55:08,657
the TXID matches that the block was properly formed,

697
00:55:08,897 --> 00:55:11,577
but doesn't check that the signature was valid

698
00:55:11,577 --> 00:55:15,477
because it assumes, oh, there's this buried months below the chain tip.

699
00:55:15,477 --> 00:55:21,477
So clearly that must have been valid because otherwise we wouldn't be on that chain tip right now.

700
00:55:21,477 --> 00:55:33,257
So it assumes that months of work on top of transactions indicate that signatures probably are valid if all the data is there and matches the block.

701
00:55:33,303 --> 00:55:48,003
And at a point about a month or two months before the release of a new version of Bitcoin Core, we pick a block that is the assume valid block, up to which by default nodes will IBD without doing script validation.

702
00:55:48,003 --> 00:55:51,923
And then for the last two months or so, we do full script validation.

703
00:55:52,123 --> 00:56:05,303
And that becomes a lot more expensive because now you do elliptic curve math and you have to build the SIG hashes and so on for the transactions and you have to check the signatures.

704
00:56:05,903 --> 00:56:07,703
So there's additional computational cost.

705
00:56:07,703 --> 00:56:15,863
And I think that it coincided with the start of the spam wave that we had set an assume valid point.

706
00:56:15,863 --> 00:56:29,103
And my suspicion is, I haven't talked much with Chris Guida any time lately, that he interpreted the assumed valid point as the effect of the spam.

707
00:56:29,663 --> 00:56:37,903
Okay, when it was really the effect of nodes actually validating even more thoroughly than they were before.

708
00:56:37,903 --> 00:56:44,043
yeah and and maybe for the node runners that are listening if you're trying to run an old version

709
00:56:44,043 --> 00:56:51,203
of bitcoin core you can pass an assume valid argument to the configuration which will allow

710
00:56:51,203 --> 00:56:56,763
you to do assume valid to a higher point in the chain and it will significantly speed up the valid

711
00:56:56,763 --> 00:57:03,663
the ibd of your node so this is a configuration option that you can use to to get the effect

712
00:57:03,663 --> 00:57:11,163
all right yeah however this is this was not the argument i was making on the

713
00:57:11,163 --> 00:57:17,743
so much to dig into the the argument i'm trying to make is from like whenever i think about

714
00:57:17,743 --> 00:57:23,643
effects of decisions in bitcoin i try to extrapolate the thought vector as far into

715
00:57:23,643 --> 00:57:28,943
the future as possible i want this to be generational wealth as it has been promoted

716
00:57:28,943 --> 00:57:35,983
me too as by many people so and in order for that to in order for that to be true like

717
00:57:35,983 --> 00:57:43,183
even though the cost of running a node is getting cheaper exponential at the moment we don't know

718
00:57:43,183 --> 00:57:48,443
if that will be true how long that will be true there is a physical limit to how big a computer

719
00:57:48,443 --> 00:57:56,783
chip can get and we don't know if quantum computing is just headline stuff or actually a real thing

720
00:57:56,783 --> 00:57:58,303
that will ever take off, right?

721
00:57:58,723 --> 00:58:01,303
So for the sake of argument,

722
00:58:01,803 --> 00:58:04,903
it is desirable to have the blocks as small as possible

723
00:58:04,903 --> 00:58:09,743
from the perspective of a person

724
00:58:09,743 --> 00:58:13,303
who forever buys new nodes and downloads the entire thing.

725
00:58:13,563 --> 00:58:15,383
All things equal, I absolutely agree.

726
00:58:16,143 --> 00:58:20,963
So how important is that specific metric

727
00:58:20,963 --> 00:58:23,363
to core in general?

728
00:58:23,623 --> 00:58:26,243
What is your perspective on that?

729
00:58:26,243 --> 00:58:31,843
Is it that, okay, we agreed on 4 megabytes and that's what we have to assume?

730
00:58:32,683 --> 00:58:32,823
Yeah.

731
00:58:33,043 --> 00:58:36,363
I mean, we have to always assume the worst case in our designs.

732
00:58:37,063 --> 00:58:40,283
4 megabytes was perceived to be safe in 2017.

733
00:58:40,563 --> 00:58:41,343
It's now 2025.

734
00:58:42,443 --> 00:58:48,163
I think that other than the reports that some Raspberry Pis were having a hard time,

735
00:58:48,943 --> 00:58:52,703
and for example, Lawrence has been doing a ton of work

736
00:58:52,703 --> 00:58:59,723
specifically to improve the IBD on Raspberry Pis, which ship in 30.0 partially and some

737
00:58:59,723 --> 00:59:05,803
probably in 31. So if you're struggling with your Raspberry Pi, ironically, running 30 might

738
00:59:05,803 --> 00:59:12,883
actually be a huge improvement for you. The perspective is simply this. We have these

739
00:59:12,883 --> 00:59:19,403
shared rules that we all agreed on, and those are the consensus rules. And the consensus rules are

740
00:59:19,403 --> 00:59:25,483
now that blocks can be up to four megabytes so we have to plan for up to four megabytes

741
00:59:26,043 --> 00:59:32,283
and we've actually been significantly smaller than that for for the largest part after segwit

742
00:59:32,283 --> 00:59:40,403
the blocks went up to roughly 1.35 megabytes and then when inscriptions became popular it very

743
00:59:40,403 --> 00:59:46,143
briefly peaked over two megabytes but it's been trending down since then it almost immediately

744
00:59:46,143 --> 00:59:52,543
dropped to 1.8 and now it's been trending down it's more around 1.5 megabyte of block size in

745
00:59:52,543 --> 00:59:58,043
average and the funny thing is when we were discussing segwit and adopting segwit one of

746
00:59:58,043 --> 01:00:05,083
the popular figures that were estimated how big blocks might become if all transactions in blocks

747
01:00:05,083 --> 01:00:13,883
became segwit transactions was 1.7 to 2.1 megabyte so we're significantly lower even than than the

748
01:00:13,883 --> 01:00:21,603
estimates people were making when we rolled out segwin i i just think having blocks that are an

749
01:00:21,603 --> 01:00:27,923
average 1.5 megabytes is well within the plan parameters and it's not problematic

750
01:00:27,923 --> 01:00:37,003
yeah good to hear that perspective it's it's thank you i haven't haven't heard that specific

751
01:00:37,003 --> 01:00:43,503
argument before you should check out our latest sponsor bitvolt bitvolt is real hardcore bitcoin

752
01:00:43,503 --> 01:00:50,623
security. They combine multi-sig with a time delay so that they discourage thieves from using

753
01:00:50,623 --> 01:00:57,683
$5, $15, $21 wrenches to bash your head in. This time lock function increases the risk for the

754
01:00:57,683 --> 01:01:04,043
thief, discourages coercion, and makes the whole act less likely to happen. Go to bitvault.sv right

755
01:01:04,043 --> 01:01:10,303
now and check out their offers. You can get a yearly subscription for $129, and it's a fantastic

756
01:01:10,303 --> 01:01:16,243
product overall. Brush your teeth. Our favorite hardware wallet is of course the Bitbox. Check out

757
01:01:16,243 --> 01:01:23,183
our friends at Bitbox at bitbox.swiss. There you'll find a bunch of different products but the main one

758
01:01:23,183 --> 01:01:29,623
the Bitbox O2 Nova with the Bitcoin firmware installed is a fantastic hardware wallet and the

759
01:01:29,623 --> 01:01:35,583
software that comes along with it has a fantastic user interface. It is one of my personal favorites

760
01:01:35,583 --> 01:01:41,703
it's easy to use and it's super secure it's my personal favorite hardware wallet it's super slick

761
01:01:41,703 --> 01:01:50,943
super privacy focused and super easy to use so go to bitbox.swiss swiss swiss and use i mean swiss

762
01:01:50,943 --> 01:01:59,143
and use code infinity for a discount check it out now so what okay another thing what would you call

763
01:01:59,143 --> 01:02:03,563
So what do you call any of these inscriptions or stamps or whatever?

764
01:02:04,223 --> 01:02:05,943
Would you call them exploits?

765
01:02:06,363 --> 01:02:08,483
Like, do you agree that they are exploits?

766
01:02:09,903 --> 01:02:13,623
Yeah, maybe you saw me talk to Luke about that, Luke the Wolf.

767
01:02:14,263 --> 01:02:18,403
I think the characterization strikes me as motivated.

768
01:02:19,523 --> 01:02:24,803
I think it's definitely unintended and undesirable use of Bitcoin

769
01:02:24,803 --> 01:02:29,543
from the perspective of people that are trying to make Bitcoin the best possible money.

770
01:02:30,303 --> 01:02:32,163
And I don't support it.

771
01:02:32,323 --> 01:02:38,883
I wouldn't review or spend time on features that specifically benefit these cases at all.

772
01:02:38,883 --> 01:02:47,483
On the other hand, I think just as we established earlier, with the flexible scripting system

773
01:02:47,483 --> 01:02:54,463
that we afford ourselves to have the possibility of future innovation, to build things

774
01:02:54,463 --> 01:03:03,703
Like, Satoshi did not anticipate the Lightning Network, and yet today the Lightning Network facilitates a large number of Bitcoin transactions, right?

775
01:03:04,083 --> 01:03:10,563
To have this sort of possible path in the future, we afford ourselves the flexible scripting system.

776
01:03:11,203 --> 01:03:16,323
And a flexible scripting system will inherently allow you to embed data.

777
01:03:16,323 --> 01:03:37,083
So my point would be, if you agree that the flexible scripting system is desirable, that we might want to be able to add another layer to like the Lightning Network in the future, then you also have to accept that there will be ways to embed data into Bitcoin.

778
01:03:37,083 --> 01:03:45,643
yeah and the one of the big things that lightning does is is just the very fact that the blocks are

779
01:03:45,643 --> 01:03:50,843
smaller now is a testament to that people are using lightning and and layer two solutions so

780
01:03:50,843 --> 01:03:57,543
they actually they it actually helps make the yeah unfortunately it makes it very cheap to use

781
01:03:57,543 --> 01:04:05,183
bitcoin for other things which led to the spam mania and maybe as bitcoin gets more adopted and

782
01:04:05,183 --> 01:04:12,643
fees go up it will just be priced out again just like the other spam waves before it but yeah right

783
01:04:12,643 --> 01:04:19,143
now there is a little bit of block space up for grabs and david actually i i had been looking at

784
01:04:19,143 --> 01:04:25,523
at numbers i i collect some statistics on the amount of inscriptions and so on in the blockchain

785
01:04:25,523 --> 01:04:33,283
and i have found that especially in the last few months the fees paid by data embedding

786
01:04:33,283 --> 01:04:38,823
transactions have been significantly smaller than the fees paid by payments.

787
01:04:39,543 --> 01:04:46,543
So it looks like the data embedding transactions have mostly relegated themselves to being like

788
01:04:46,543 --> 01:04:51,543
the block space user of last resort and like just buying the leftover block space.

789
01:04:52,223 --> 01:04:59,323
And to me, this hopefully signals that they're close to being priced out in case that we get

790
01:04:59,323 --> 01:05:02,583
any sort of increase in demand for payment transactions.

791
01:05:02,583 --> 01:05:11,223
Couldn't that be off-band payments, though, to miners, that they come with a briefcase and dark sunglasses and pay the miner directly in dollar bills?

792
01:05:12,163 --> 01:05:16,403
I'm not super convinced that that is an attractive model.

793
01:05:16,703 --> 01:05:27,523
And it is also something that we very specifically are trying to suppress with how we think about mempool policy and incentive design for Bitcoin Core.

794
01:05:27,523 --> 01:05:40,363
So when you make an agreement with a specific miner to get block space and pay for it out of band, you're only bidding on the block space of that specific miner, right?

795
01:05:41,283 --> 01:05:45,923
And that inherently makes your transactions lower to confirm.

796
01:05:46,483 --> 01:05:52,743
You might get a benefit by buying the block space in advance and getting a slightly cheaper price.

797
01:05:52,743 --> 01:06:08,103
But it seems to me that the trade-offs of only bidding on one miner's block space are pretty unattractive when you have the option to just send a transaction on the network and bid on every miner's block space competitively.

798
01:06:08,663 --> 01:06:10,443
Maybe you have more thoughts on that.

799
01:06:10,723 --> 01:06:15,603
You think about the sort of economics of things, right?

800
01:06:15,603 --> 01:06:28,103
No, well, yeah, there is the extreme case where mining is actually not decentralized at all, but the same entity owns like 80% of the mining pools or something.

801
01:06:28,363 --> 01:06:31,663
And in that case, you only have to pay one guy.

802
01:06:31,843 --> 01:06:35,643
It's just that you have to find the guy on top of this Illuminati.

803
01:06:35,963 --> 01:06:42,363
When that's the case, I think probably we would consider the Bitcoin experiment to have failed.

804
01:06:42,843 --> 01:06:43,323
Yeah.

805
01:06:43,323 --> 01:06:47,223
Because then it's completely censorable.

806
01:06:47,663 --> 01:06:52,943
It is essentially up to this one entity to decide what can go into blocks or not.

807
01:06:53,523 --> 01:06:55,723
It's barely better than a stablecoin.

808
01:06:56,283 --> 01:07:02,003
I might push back on that, actually, because I think since this giant, ginormous entity,

809
01:07:02,823 --> 01:07:11,283
it very much has the incentive to at least make Bitcoin look like it's still working as intended.

810
01:07:11,283 --> 01:07:18,583
because if this was ever to be pointed out that this entity owns all the if anyone was ever to

811
01:07:18,583 --> 01:07:23,863
figure that out then they would shoot themselves in the foot like mad right because they have they

812
01:07:23,863 --> 01:07:30,563
have very very high investments into hardware yeah presumably they they have their their

813
01:07:30,563 --> 01:07:37,923
um company resources tied up into this but they could also just make a huge short on bitcoin and

814
01:07:37,923 --> 01:07:40,803
and announce it and make billions of it.

815
01:07:41,383 --> 01:07:44,123
So I don't think it's necessarily true

816
01:07:44,123 --> 01:07:48,243
that you can assume that a majority miner

817
01:07:48,243 --> 01:07:52,663
would have aligned incentives with the rest of the network.

818
01:07:52,783 --> 01:07:55,123
I don't think that generally would be the case.

819
01:07:55,463 --> 01:07:57,723
No, I would agree that you cannot assume that,

820
01:07:57,823 --> 01:07:59,663
but I would also say that you cannot.

821
01:08:01,043 --> 01:08:03,323
In my view...

822
01:08:03,323 --> 01:08:06,343
It's basically hoping that the dictator you choose

823
01:08:06,343 --> 01:08:07,523
is benevolent.

824
01:08:07,763 --> 01:08:10,003
And there might be some incentives

825
01:08:10,003 --> 01:08:11,523
to be a benevolent dictator

826
01:08:11,523 --> 01:08:13,103
and not just a ruthless dictator.

827
01:08:13,683 --> 01:08:16,303
But I think it very much breaks down

828
01:08:16,303 --> 01:08:18,123
what's attractive about Bitcoin.

829
01:08:19,043 --> 01:08:21,943
I think it's a bit better than that.

830
01:08:22,663 --> 01:08:23,523
How so?

831
01:08:24,203 --> 01:08:26,723
I mean, there is still the...

832
01:08:26,723 --> 01:08:29,823
You're disincentivized to destroy

833
01:08:29,823 --> 01:08:32,703
the thing you invested so much in.

834
01:08:32,883 --> 01:08:35,023
You still have the majority of the hash power.

835
01:08:35,263 --> 01:08:35,823
There's no reason.

836
01:08:35,823 --> 01:08:37,763
Yeah, it's killing the golden goose, sure.

837
01:08:38,083 --> 01:08:39,083
Yes, for a kinder egg.

838
01:08:39,083 --> 01:08:43,563
Sometimes if someone bids enough for the golden goose, you might choose and do something else.

839
01:08:43,883 --> 01:08:48,343
Yeah, if you're one guy and you just want to retire and buy an island somewhere or something.

840
01:08:48,603 --> 01:08:49,123
Yeah, sure.

841
01:08:49,403 --> 01:08:59,623
So I would say that it's maybe not be the death of Bitcoin, but it sure is less robust than the intended security model.

842
01:08:59,623 --> 01:09:01,563
I mean, the bus factor becomes one.

843
01:09:01,563 --> 01:09:08,103
It's up to one entity, if not one person, one entity, whether Bitcoin lives or dies.

844
01:09:08,403 --> 01:09:13,883
And what you can destroy, you control, as Dune had to quote Dune, right?

845
01:09:14,403 --> 01:09:34,262
But I think the core tenet of why Bitcoin is interesting is because not a single entity owns it Not a single entity can decide what will happen in the network And without that I think Bitcoin would be way way way less attractive So in a way even if they are

846
01:09:34,262 --> 01:09:41,462
benevolent dictators, I would assume that the value or the ability of the system to retain its value

847
01:09:41,462 --> 01:09:49,182
would be undermined, at least once that becomes publicly known or easy to guess.

848
01:09:49,182 --> 01:09:59,342
okay so a bit more of a meta debate thing here then with so during the block size wars the miners

849
01:09:59,342 --> 01:10:04,702
figured out that they weren't in charge of bitcoin sort of like this is a uh would you agree with

850
01:10:04,702 --> 01:10:11,342
that so they i would say they definitely learned that they weren't as solely in charge of bitcoin

851
01:10:11,342 --> 01:10:17,862
exactly and neither were and i think that was a very valuable uh thing for them to realize

852
01:10:17,862 --> 01:10:37,422
Yes, and right now, when there's this distrust in Bitcoin Core, then developers are somewhat, maybe not learning the same lesson, but a similar lesson, regardless of the outcome of this fight, that we can do stuff, but we can only do stuff to a certain extent.

853
01:10:37,422 --> 01:10:44,042
so sure so how much power does the developers actually have and like well what what is how

854
01:10:44,042 --> 01:10:51,302
how does how do how do you see that dynamic like are you afraid that people i mean we're basically

855
01:10:51,302 --> 01:10:59,882
we have a form of soft power and we people choose to run our software there's no auto update

856
01:10:59,882 --> 01:11:10,682
And it is very possible to fork our software, to release alternative clients, to build up a competing implementation in the first place.

857
01:11:10,782 --> 01:11:23,122
So in the sense that Bitcoin Core relies on the trust or the users choosing to run their software, it is a soft power.

858
01:11:23,302 --> 01:11:28,622
We can only do things that are supported by the network or that we can explain to the network, right?

859
01:11:28,622 --> 01:11:41,962
And in that sense, the node operators and the economic actors in the Bitcoin network choose whether or not we have any power at all.

860
01:11:41,962 --> 01:11:55,202
Right. The power that we do have is, I think, that many of us, like myself, have been around for over a dozen years and have been doing a lot of thinking about how the system works.

861
01:11:55,202 --> 01:11:59,622
Great work in the past on developing and improving the system.

862
01:11:59,622 --> 01:12:02,322
so when we go out

863
01:12:02,322 --> 01:12:03,662
and try to explain

864
01:12:03,662 --> 01:12:05,702
how we arrived at conclusions

865
01:12:05,702 --> 01:12:07,122
and why we did things

866
01:12:07,122 --> 01:12:09,542
we have the power of people

867
01:12:09,542 --> 01:12:12,062
actually hopefully listening to us

868
01:12:12,062 --> 01:12:13,962
and trying to see it

869
01:12:13,962 --> 01:12:14,862
from our perspective

870
01:12:14,862 --> 01:12:18,262
and I think that is the whole extent of our power

871
01:12:18,262 --> 01:12:21,902
is that a decent answer

872
01:12:21,902 --> 01:12:22,302
maybe

873
01:12:22,302 --> 01:12:23,842
absolutely

874
01:12:23,842 --> 01:12:25,082
I mean

875
01:12:25,082 --> 01:12:28,822
we'll see what happens here

876
01:12:28,822 --> 01:12:30,542
and how this whole thing plays out.

877
01:12:30,682 --> 01:12:35,742
I mean, it seems like Core 30 is the most popular implementation now, right?

878
01:12:35,802 --> 01:12:36,662
Am I right about that?

879
01:12:37,922 --> 01:12:40,602
I'm not sure if it's the most popular implementation.

880
01:12:40,922 --> 01:12:44,582
I did look at the adoption of 28 and 29,

881
01:12:44,722 --> 01:12:46,382
and 30 was adopted more quickly.

882
01:12:46,922 --> 01:12:50,862
I don't think that it necessarily was a much better release than other releases,

883
01:12:50,862 --> 01:12:54,982
but the amount of attention certainly led to people

884
01:12:54,982 --> 01:12:57,402
being more aware of it being available.

885
01:12:57,402 --> 01:13:08,082
But I definitely see that the prediction that Bitcoin Core version 30 would be adopted very slowly did not pan out.

886
01:13:08,642 --> 01:13:18,682
If you want to find local Bitcoin communities, other Bitcoiners, Bitcoin merchants and Bitcoin events in your area, there's no better way to do that than through the OrangePill app.

887
01:13:19,142 --> 01:13:19,722
Wait a minute.

888
01:13:20,042 --> 01:13:21,402
It's not the OrangePill app anymore.

889
01:13:21,582 --> 01:13:22,762
It's Club Orange.

890
01:13:22,762 --> 01:13:33,302
Club Orange is an omni app that includes a lot of features, including a list of events, a wallet where you can send and receive sats over the Lightning Network.

891
01:13:33,602 --> 01:13:38,982
You can even geosap areas so you can send sats to a whole bunch of people in one single area.

892
01:13:39,162 --> 01:13:45,102
You can also tap sap while you're chatting to someone, which is a new feature that I don't believe exists anywhere else.

893
01:13:45,302 --> 01:13:49,042
Overall, a fantastic app for connecting Bitcoiners all around the world.

894
01:13:49,042 --> 01:13:52,322
So go to cluborange.org and sign up today.

895
01:13:52,322 --> 01:13:53,502
You won't regret it.

896
01:13:53,702 --> 01:13:55,002
It's not just a gay dating app.

897
01:13:55,182 --> 01:13:56,362
It's everything else too.

898
01:13:56,902 --> 01:13:57,962
You can use it.

899
01:13:58,722 --> 01:13:59,662
Forget about that.

900
01:14:00,102 --> 01:14:00,762
Go and sign up.

901
01:14:01,422 --> 01:14:02,922
cluborange.org

902
01:14:02,922 --> 01:14:05,502
If you want to really secure your Bitcoin,

903
01:14:05,742 --> 01:14:07,202
you should check out the Bitcoin Advisor.

904
01:14:07,602 --> 01:14:09,602
They have never lost a single set

905
01:14:09,602 --> 01:14:12,342
and they take care of your stack together with you.

906
01:14:12,542 --> 01:14:13,662
They can't use your stack.

907
01:14:13,762 --> 01:14:14,382
That's impossible.

908
01:14:14,842 --> 01:14:17,022
But they can help you with inheritance planning.

909
01:14:17,142 --> 01:14:19,142
They can help you hodl the Bitcoin long-term.

910
01:14:19,142 --> 01:14:22,022
So go to thebitcoinadvisor.com to find out more.

911
01:14:22,322 --> 01:14:31,522
A question I'm like, I don't really want to talk about these things because I just don't want to be part of that.

912
01:14:31,522 --> 01:14:51,602
But a question I feel sort of forced to ask, because I think my listeners would like me to ask it, is what happens if all of a sudden a transaction with a giant op return with CSAM ends up on the Bitcoin time chain?

913
01:14:51,602 --> 01:14:58,482
What are your predictions for what happens after that possible future unfolds?

914
01:14:58,582 --> 01:15:03,462
In all likelihood, most people would not even notice until it's buried several blocks deep.

915
01:15:04,362 --> 01:15:09,662
And I think that it would have almost no impact.

916
01:15:11,082 --> 01:15:19,742
I don't see how contiguous data in up return is special from any other forms of contiguous data.

917
01:15:19,742 --> 01:15:24,182
And there's dozens of ways how you can embed contiguous data in transactions.

918
01:15:24,602 --> 01:15:31,602
We have already had objectionable material in the Bitcoin blockchain for over 10 years.

919
01:15:32,242 --> 01:15:33,202
There is porn.

920
01:15:33,602 --> 01:15:34,242
There is other.

921
01:15:34,242 --> 01:15:44,702
I think I read the abstract and conclusion of a paper by some researchers that analyzed the content of the Bitcoin blockchain.

922
01:15:45,482 --> 01:15:48,882
And they found that there were prior instances of this.

923
01:15:48,882 --> 01:16:03,702
I just think that per the decentralized nature of Bitcoin mining, how it is a append only log that allows any single miner to append a transaction.

924
01:16:04,262 --> 01:16:13,262
As long as we retain that characteristic of it being decentralized, I see absolutely no legal ramification for this.

925
01:16:13,462 --> 01:16:14,942
But I'm not a lawyer at all.

926
01:16:15,162 --> 01:16:17,462
I just saw some people talk about this.

927
01:16:17,462 --> 01:16:20,242
I just think it's a boogeyman.

928
01:16:21,202 --> 01:16:25,862
I'm not specifically addressing the legal issues, perhaps.

929
01:16:26,242 --> 01:16:32,202
I personally think that they are kind of vague and that a judge would do whatever a judge does anyway.

930
01:16:32,662 --> 01:16:39,322
But the thing is, with op return specifically, the intent of op return is other data.

931
01:16:39,942 --> 01:16:46,402
So it's like the intent of the rest of the transaction is transactional data.

932
01:16:46,402 --> 01:16:52,722
like so so i i really don't don't like that distinction i think you're talking about

933
01:16:52,722 --> 01:16:58,842
payments and not transactional data okay bitcoin transactions are bitcoin transactions they need

934
01:16:58,842 --> 01:17:06,102
to be consensus valid and all of them have data most of it is my point my point is that op return

935
01:17:06,102 --> 01:17:13,262
is is specifically designed to store data that has nothing to do with payments yeah it's it's

936
01:17:13,262 --> 01:17:20,622
It's a way of giving people a harm reduction way of putting data on the blockchain.

937
01:17:21,182 --> 01:17:22,282
It's still super expensive.

938
01:17:22,622 --> 01:17:26,062
It is especially more expensive than witness stuffing.

939
01:17:26,602 --> 01:17:31,502
It's, I think, only attractive to people that would put data otherwise in outputs.

940
01:17:32,282 --> 01:17:35,362
My expectation would be that it gets used very little.

941
01:17:35,362 --> 01:17:37,722
And it had been used before.

942
01:17:38,122 --> 01:17:42,762
We've had one megabyte up returns, which are consensus valid before.

943
01:17:43,262 --> 01:18:07,922
The standardness of it is different, and the standardness can be motivated or is motivated by the impact of what gets propagated on a network to make it less financially attractive to defect from this specific mempool policy by removing it, and to curb people from putting data into payment outputs.

944
01:18:07,922 --> 01:18:13,962
And we've seen people put data in payment outputs, and that's sort of the worst outcome.

945
01:18:14,682 --> 01:18:27,122
An attractive and very bad way of putting data into outputs is there's this one project that apparently puts data in native segwit version 12 outputs.

946
01:18:27,302 --> 01:18:31,522
So they just write it into our upgrade hooks.

947
01:18:32,342 --> 01:18:36,382
And if we block upper turn, they'll just write it there.

948
01:18:36,382 --> 01:18:43,522
It costs the same, and it lives in the UTXO set instead of not living in the UTXO set with up return.

949
01:18:44,162 --> 01:18:54,682
Yeah, so you don't think there's a difference here in intent, like from a legal perspective or even from an innocent node runner perspective?

950
01:18:54,962 --> 01:19:03,022
That if, for example, just to use CSAM as the example, because that's the word being used.

951
01:19:03,022 --> 01:19:09,422
I think we're very clear on Bitcoin being for monetary transactions.

952
01:19:09,922 --> 01:19:16,102
And that is the only work that we're working on is to facilitate Bitcoin being good money.

953
01:19:16,922 --> 01:19:26,622
But I think the biggest difference is that we realize that it will always be possible for people to stuff data into transactions.

954
01:19:27,682 --> 01:19:32,602
And there's basically three possible ways of dealing with this.

955
01:19:32,602 --> 01:19:38,662
One is fight it very hard, but we perceive this as a losing proposition.

956
01:19:39,422 --> 01:19:46,582
The second one is to provide a way to do it that is less harmful, which I think is what

957
01:19:46,582 --> 01:19:52,062
Bitcoin Core's approach has been in the past and continues to be, or to just ignore it.

958
01:19:52,342 --> 01:19:59,342
And I think ignoring it is not really satisfactory because it's going to happen either way.

959
01:19:59,342 --> 01:20:07,522
so at the very least we would like it to happen in a less harmful manner and i i i mean i've

960
01:20:07,522 --> 01:20:12,182
been lucky enough not to have to deal with courts a lot but i assume that the explanation

961
01:20:12,182 --> 01:20:19,962
of it being a form of harm reduction and not an intended use case should hold up but

962
01:20:19,962 --> 01:20:27,342
again i'm not a lawyer okay that that's that's kind of the the that's a very satisfactory answer i i

963
01:20:27,342 --> 01:20:34,222
it clearly yeah that's i understand that perspective as a counter argument i mean

964
01:20:34,222 --> 01:20:39,142
people have been predicting that up return would get used a lot more and i looked at the statistics

965
01:20:39,142 --> 01:20:46,742
earlier today and obviously bitcoin core 30 has only been out for a few weeks actually almost

966
01:20:46,742 --> 01:20:55,162
two months now but the up return use is down from before up return at least in count and i i think

967
01:20:55,162 --> 01:20:59,222
this aligns with my expectations because it's economically

968
01:20:59,222 --> 01:21:03,282
not savvy to use. And for the people that are

969
01:21:03,282 --> 01:21:07,402
building these cryptographic systems, may they be BAPs

970
01:21:07,402 --> 01:21:11,202
or whatever that we are not super interested

971
01:21:11,202 --> 01:21:15,262
in but are going to happen either way, they now

972
01:21:15,262 --> 01:21:19,282
have a way to use the data in a way that it's not going to

973
01:21:19,282 --> 01:21:22,562
pollute our UTXO set. And I think that that is

974
01:21:22,562 --> 01:21:29,342
looking at the equation of what the up return limit did before where it was one of the most

975
01:21:29,342 --> 01:21:34,422
undermined mempool policies already there were there had been miners that accepted bigger up

976
01:21:34,422 --> 01:21:40,862
return outputs for a very long time the blocks generally being full so it wasn't really preventing

977
01:21:40,862 --> 01:21:48,662
more data getting into the blockchain because data had been going into witnesses which actually grows

978
01:21:48,662 --> 01:21:51,942
the blockchain faster than putting data in outputs.

979
01:21:52,882 --> 01:21:57,462
So the main two reasons why up return was limited 11 years ago

980
01:21:57,462 --> 01:22:00,742
do not apply anymore in that sense.

981
01:22:01,062 --> 01:22:03,702
And it was already undermined in the sense that

982
01:22:03,702 --> 01:22:07,062
you could reliably get very large up returns mined.

983
01:22:07,062 --> 01:22:10,482
They propagated on the network and would get included into blocks,

984
01:22:10,602 --> 01:22:12,342
just probably not the next block.

985
01:22:13,022 --> 01:22:16,982
So this creates a situation in which the miners

986
01:22:16,982 --> 01:22:25,322
that break the policy get rewarded, and the miners that follow the policy do not get any reward and

987
01:22:25,322 --> 01:22:33,762
do not have any success. So from a system perspective, all of the advantages that enforcing

988
01:22:33,762 --> 01:22:43,102
the up-return limit had started to become less important, and the disadvantages of enforcing the

989
01:22:43,102 --> 01:22:51,302
up return limit hurt good actors that were trying to stick to the limit they made less money or they

990
01:22:51,302 --> 01:22:58,122
they had to put data into payment outputs in order to put the data so from that perspective it just

991
01:22:58,122 --> 01:23:05,822
didn't make sense to enforce the limit anymore okay a bit of arguing in circles here but like

992
01:23:05,822 --> 01:23:07,182
the devil's advocate

993
01:23:07,182 --> 01:23:08,682
to that would be

994
01:23:08,682 --> 01:23:09,442
that

995
01:23:09,442 --> 01:23:10,122
yes

996
01:23:10,122 --> 01:23:10,542
so

997
01:23:10,542 --> 01:23:11,922
so instead of

998
01:23:11,922 --> 01:23:13,762
instead of

999
01:23:13,762 --> 01:23:27,381
fighting this completely you give in to the demands of the shit corners in order to make them less destructive like so it it this i think this is what most people have a problem with is this listening to

1000
01:23:27,381 --> 01:23:34,481
shit corners at all like that's we're not listening to them we're observing them and yeah but that is

1001
01:23:34,481 --> 01:23:40,641
listening to the hand reduction if no i don't think i've ever actually gotten any input from

1002
01:23:40,641 --> 01:23:45,941
any shit corner regarding this issue no no no but if if you observe what's going on in the chain

1003
01:23:45,941 --> 01:23:53,721
in the chain and that that is shit shit coining and then you adapt adapt to that then that is

1004
01:23:53,721 --> 01:23:58,381
listening to shit corners from a certain perspective okay yeah i i mean i appreciate

1005
01:23:58,381 --> 01:24:03,681
how you get to that conclusion and and i understand that that is actually a position that a lot of

1006
01:24:03,681 --> 01:24:09,601
people that are yelling in my face i think most most people i know let's talk more about this yeah

1007
01:24:09,601 --> 01:24:14,901
most people I know on the nut side that that's that's like what they were upset about in the

1008
01:24:14,901 --> 01:24:22,901
first place yeah I understand so my pushback to this would be what concretely are your your

1009
01:24:22,901 --> 01:24:28,441
proposed ways of fighting this let's let's actually look at what we can do and how effective

1010
01:24:28,441 --> 01:24:36,721
that would be so we've we've had a huge debate on the efficacy of mempool policies right so I

1011
01:24:36,721 --> 01:24:42,121
I already previously said that I think it's more of a nudge rather than a...

1012
01:24:42,121 --> 01:24:46,901
I mean, sure, it has the signaling effect of what we think should be done or not.

1013
01:24:47,421 --> 01:24:52,281
But if people choose to sidestep it, the consensus rules apply.

1014
01:24:52,861 --> 01:24:55,001
The miners are bound by the consensus rules.

1015
01:24:55,621 --> 01:24:57,601
The nodes enforce policy.

1016
01:24:57,601 --> 01:25:08,001
I think you said in, yeah, I know it's an old podcast, but there was this point about 90% of nodes enforcing a mempool policy.

1017
01:25:08,641 --> 01:25:10,361
And I think that point is misunderstood.

1018
01:25:11,121 --> 01:25:19,081
So at 90% of listening nodes enforcing a mempool policy, it starts to have any effect at all.

1019
01:25:19,581 --> 01:25:22,121
Below 90%, it doesn't have any effect.

1020
01:25:22,481 --> 01:25:23,501
Yeah, I understand that.

1021
01:25:23,501 --> 01:25:36,061
So, so it sounded more like, or not necessarily you, but other people thought that at 90% it's enforced, but really at 90%, it just starts to show any effect at all.

1022
01:25:36,061 --> 01:25:57,261
And at 10% nodes running a more lenient mempool policy, that mempool policy for all intents and purposes is reliably enforced or like you can send transactions that conform with that more lenient policy reliably on the network.

1023
01:25:57,261 --> 01:26:05,801
so when you assume that mempool policies enforced by a few listening nodes on a network are going to

1024
01:26:05,801 --> 01:26:13,241
make it more expensive or delay transactions or anything like that i have to push back from a

1025
01:26:13,241 --> 01:26:18,561
technical perspective i don't think it works but it doesn't do anything yeah okay that's uh this is

1026
01:26:18,561 --> 01:26:25,861
the filters if filters work debate right well yeah that just to recap that so i i would offer

1027
01:26:25,861 --> 01:26:31,781
another perspective there they work from the perspective of my node refusing to relay shit

1028
01:26:31,781 --> 01:26:39,321
like and all i can do is hope that enough nodes do that to reach that 90 level but we're never

1029
01:26:39,321 --> 01:26:44,501
going to reach it if people just have the defeatist attitude of or we're never going to reach 90 or

1030
01:26:44,501 --> 01:26:52,441
it has no it has no purpose it it does again you you need to reach more like 99 to actually

1031
01:26:52,441 --> 01:26:54,681
prevent or delay things.

1032
01:26:54,801 --> 01:26:57,921
90% is the starting point

1033
01:26:57,921 --> 01:26:59,801
where it starts to do anything

1034
01:26:59,801 --> 01:27:00,781
besides signaling.

1035
01:27:01,341 --> 01:27:04,241
Yeah, but I don't really care

1036
01:27:04,241 --> 01:27:06,921
because I don't want to use my node

1037
01:27:06,921 --> 01:27:08,261
for relaying shit

1038
01:27:08,261 --> 01:27:09,321
that I don't want to relay.

1039
01:27:10,041 --> 01:27:12,001
I appreciate that, yeah, sure.

1040
01:27:12,161 --> 01:27:13,681
So I'm looking at this

1041
01:27:13,681 --> 01:27:15,581
from a very individualistic perspective

1042
01:27:15,581 --> 01:27:18,221
and then I can only hope

1043
01:27:18,221 --> 01:27:19,741
that other people do the same,

1044
01:27:20,061 --> 01:27:21,201
but I can't control that.

1045
01:27:21,201 --> 01:27:27,621
what i can control is my node and the control of my node is what is what i like about bitcoin like

1046
01:27:27,621 --> 01:27:34,241
that's the thing i'm in control of like and and i'm not saying people can run these mempool policies

1047
01:27:34,241 --> 01:27:41,541
or configure their own mempool policies and surely the way a mempool policy is implemented

1048
01:27:41,541 --> 01:27:49,821
obviously is it it is 100 effective for your own mempool yes but the effect past your own node

1049
01:27:49,821 --> 01:27:55,821
I think is misunderstood by a ton of people participating in this debate.

1050
01:27:56,061 --> 01:28:01,241
And that's why I recapped, I think, what the important points in that debate are.

1051
01:28:01,841 --> 01:28:02,081
Yeah.

1052
01:28:03,101 --> 01:28:04,261
I'm repeating myself.

1053
01:28:04,481 --> 01:28:08,181
I'd say it's misunderstood by some, but I think there's a lot of people that absolutely

1054
01:28:08,181 --> 01:28:09,201
understand that too.

1055
01:28:09,761 --> 01:28:17,281
And isn't the same true for the policy of 100 kilobytes of returns, that that needs

1056
01:28:17,281 --> 01:28:20,721
to reach at least 10% to be all over the place.

1057
01:28:21,321 --> 01:28:22,221
The opposite.

1058
01:28:23,501 --> 01:28:27,801
Yes, again, 10% is basically when it is reliably deployed.

1059
01:28:28,221 --> 01:28:29,841
Exactly, that's what I mean.

1060
01:28:30,741 --> 01:28:34,501
What we saw with the low fee rate transactions,

1061
01:28:34,501 --> 01:28:38,501
the subset summer, as someone titled it,

1062
01:28:39,521 --> 01:28:40,501
was...

1063
01:28:40,501 --> 01:28:40,801
A good name.

1064
01:28:41,821 --> 01:28:42,961
Yeah, it's very catchy.

1065
01:28:42,961 --> 01:28:53,281
the neither LibreRelayNOTS nor Bitcoin Core were by default propagating transactions below one sat

1066
01:28:53,281 --> 01:29:00,661
per VBIT. There just happened to be a few people that had already been running with lower minimum

1067
01:29:00,661 --> 01:29:06,741
fee rates and then a few people started getting together and making connections between their nodes

1068
01:29:06,741 --> 01:29:10,481
and deliberately creating a peering network,

1069
01:29:10,681 --> 01:29:13,181
basically a backbone in the Bitcoin network

1070
01:29:13,181 --> 01:29:15,361
to propagate subset transactions.

1071
01:29:15,361 --> 01:29:18,981
And then someone convinced a couple miners

1072
01:29:18,981 --> 01:29:20,321
to start including them.

1073
01:29:21,721 --> 01:29:23,901
And from what I can tell,

1074
01:29:24,601 --> 01:29:30,801
I think none of the prominently run node implementations

1075
01:29:30,801 --> 01:29:31,981
supported this at all.

1076
01:29:32,261 --> 01:29:35,361
And it must have been a few hundred nodes or so

1077
01:29:35,361 --> 01:29:37,161
that did.

1078
01:29:37,801 --> 01:29:39,281
And that was sufficient for

1079
01:29:39,281 --> 01:29:41,381
two weeks later,

1080
01:29:41,581 --> 01:29:43,481
40% of transactions to be

1081
01:29:43,481 --> 01:29:44,341
sub-1 set.

1082
01:29:45,181 --> 01:29:47,541
So what I'm trying to point out

1083
01:29:47,541 --> 01:29:49,141
is the

1084
01:29:49,141 --> 01:29:50,901
mempool policies work

1085
01:29:50,901 --> 01:29:53,441
reliably as long as 100%

1086
01:29:53,441 --> 01:29:54,921
of the miners enforce them.

1087
01:29:55,861 --> 01:29:57,421
And they

1088
01:29:57,421 --> 01:29:59,381
work

1089
01:29:59,381 --> 01:30:00,381
somewhat reliably

1090
01:30:00,381 --> 01:30:03,321
to prevent transactions

1091
01:30:03,321 --> 01:30:05,521
from propagating on a node network

1092
01:30:05,521 --> 01:30:10,941
if somewhere around almost 100% of nodes enforce these rules.

1093
01:30:11,181 --> 01:30:14,541
But that does not prevent transactions to get to miners

1094
01:30:14,541 --> 01:30:18,581
either directly or through deliberate node peering.

1095
01:30:19,421 --> 01:30:19,721
All right.

1096
01:30:21,401 --> 01:30:23,701
Sorry, it's sobering, I know.

1097
01:30:24,221 --> 01:30:24,741
No, no, no.

1098
01:30:24,841 --> 01:30:28,581
I follow, and this is no surprise to me.

1099
01:30:28,761 --> 01:30:31,261
This is the way I've seen it all along.

1100
01:30:31,261 --> 01:30:37,501
It's just, I think this, well, maybe not all along, because I learned a lot during this war.

1101
01:30:37,661 --> 01:30:49,601
I think this is the biggest, the thing that people should be, people should be happy that this is happening just because of how much more informed a lot of people are now and how much more people are running nodes and doing things.

1102
01:30:49,841 --> 01:30:50,821
At what cost, though?

1103
01:30:50,821 --> 01:31:06,181
So, I mean, talking about the cost of this is, I know a number of Bitcoin developers that have been feeling extremely discouraged regarding their chosen career.

1104
01:31:06,181 --> 01:31:13,441
And I personally have spent several hundred hours on trying to help educate.

1105
01:31:14,301 --> 01:31:18,681
And I could have done other things with those several hundred hours, to be honest.

1106
01:31:18,681 --> 01:31:23,061
probably could have been more efficient in my time used there too.

1107
01:31:23,061 --> 01:31:27,241
But the cost here is,

1108
01:31:28,121 --> 01:31:30,801
the cost and the disconnect, I think, is

1109
01:31:30,801 --> 01:31:35,261
we look at this spam, this bullshit, these monkey pictures,

1110
01:31:35,601 --> 01:31:37,401
and we're like, well, that's crap.

1111
01:31:38,241 --> 01:31:40,821
And we don't want this.

1112
01:31:41,021 --> 01:31:45,221
I certainly don't think BRC20 tokens are a good use of anyone's time.

1113
01:31:45,221 --> 01:31:52,541
but the question is how much time do we want to spend on fighting this and how much success are

1114
01:31:52,541 --> 01:32:02,081
we expecting to have with that and is that a good use of our time and what i essentially feel like is

1115
01:32:02,081 --> 01:32:11,801
certain pundits have have been promising that users have a lot more agency in preventing this

1116
01:32:11,801 --> 01:32:19,961
than they have, which has skewed expectations of node runners to an extent where when they

1117
01:32:19,961 --> 01:32:25,901
are set straight on what is actually possible to achieve, they react aggressively.

1118
01:32:26,501 --> 01:32:31,281
And we've had a huge debate on our hand that basically could have been an email.

1119
01:32:32,081 --> 01:32:32,201
Yeah.

1120
01:32:32,321 --> 01:32:36,461
So you're unhappy that this whole thing unfolded?

1121
01:32:36,461 --> 01:32:39,641
No, I love the educational effect of it.

1122
01:32:39,641 --> 01:32:49,601
And I'm unhappy about my time being hijacked in this manner because I feel it's important to talk to the node operators.

1123
01:32:50,681 --> 01:33:00,421
So how many of the core developers do you think have Bitcoin stacks of their own and that are actually significant for their survival in the long run?

1124
01:33:00,421 --> 01:33:11,781
I saw you make that point before and I think you should remember that the rules of Bitcoin Club are always talk about Bitcoin, never talk about your Bitcoin.

1125
01:33:11,781 --> 01:33:13,281
No, no, no.

1126
01:33:15,741 --> 01:33:20,561
Okay, without doxing anyone, do you think there's an incentive to disalign?

1127
01:33:20,801 --> 01:33:22,441
That's not the point I was trying to get to.

1128
01:33:22,721 --> 01:33:27,701
The point that I was trying to get to is, I think it's a disingenuous argument.

1129
01:33:27,701 --> 01:33:34,101
Do you think people would be working on Bitcoin if they didn't think Bitcoin was important or interesting or valuable?

1130
01:33:35,321 --> 01:33:40,621
And Bitcoin core contributors generally have their career tied up, many of us for over a decade.

1131
01:33:41,261 --> 01:33:47,641
If Bitcoin were to not succeed, it would probably not look very great on our resumes.

1132
01:33:48,621 --> 01:33:50,321
Sure, we're getting paid right now.

1133
01:33:50,861 --> 01:33:56,561
But I would absolutely assume that all Bitcoin core contributors hold Bitcoin.

1134
01:33:56,561 --> 01:34:02,341
it's just that they don't talk much about it because they're already publicly known to be

1135
01:34:02,341 --> 01:34:08,301
bit corners talking about your stack when you're a public figure is a bad idea for obvious reasons

1136
01:34:08,301 --> 01:34:15,701
yes so turning this around to to claiming that bitcoin core contributors don't have are not

1137
01:34:15,701 --> 01:34:22,541
don't have skin in the game here i think is is not a fair argument at all okay so just to be clear

1138
01:34:22,541 --> 01:34:28,081
it's not an argument i'm making i'm just posing the question now like so so you don't hear sorry

1139
01:34:28,081 --> 01:34:32,721
usually this is provided in the context of they don't have skin in the game and they shouldn't

1140
01:34:32,721 --> 01:34:38,701
be making decisions or contributing to bitcoin in the first place my question is sort of do you think

1141
01:34:38,701 --> 01:34:43,441
there's any truth to this that they might the incentives might be misaligned because they're

1142
01:34:43,441 --> 01:34:49,701
getting more money from somewhere else which might be i think that that is completely baseless and

1143
01:34:49,701 --> 01:34:50,841
character assassination.

1144
01:34:51,621 --> 01:34:52,361
Okay, good.

1145
01:34:53,081 --> 01:34:53,961
Thank you for the answer.

1146
01:34:55,121 --> 01:34:57,861
I guess I could have come to that

1147
01:34:57,861 --> 01:34:59,841
immediately, but I think with the explanation

1148
01:34:59,841 --> 01:35:00,901
it might be more convincing.

1149
01:35:01,101 --> 01:35:03,341
I just want to have to have asked

1150
01:35:03,341 --> 01:35:05,421
these questions.

1151
01:35:05,421 --> 01:35:07,461
I don't think anyone at Citria

1152
01:35:07,461 --> 01:35:09,501
had even talked to anyone

1153
01:35:09,501 --> 01:35:11,601
that contributes to Bitcoin Core

1154
01:35:11,601 --> 01:35:13,321
and the

1155
01:35:13,321 --> 01:35:15,581
discovery was the other way around.

1156
01:35:15,701 --> 01:35:17,621
Someone saw Citria doing

1157
01:35:17,621 --> 01:35:19,361
something and looked at it and was like,

1158
01:35:19,361 --> 01:35:27,901
Well, incentives seem to be misaligned here because we really don't want people to design stuff that they put data into payment outputs.

1159
01:35:27,901 --> 01:35:38,241
Yeah, I'm not aware of any altcoin, shitcoin, coloredcoin, ordinal crap funding, any Bitcoin core contributors.

1160
01:35:38,501 --> 01:35:40,261
Happy to be corrected on that.

1161
01:35:40,741 --> 01:35:40,781
Okay.

1162
01:35:41,441 --> 01:35:41,861
Yes.

1163
01:35:42,341 --> 01:35:46,021
I don't see any financial incentive there to.

1164
01:35:46,021 --> 01:36:03,621
And again, I mean, so maybe to be clear, there are some very technical people among the Ordinals users, some of which seem to significantly better understand how Bitcoin works than some of the filter proponent pundits.

1165
01:36:03,621 --> 01:36:07,221
and when Bitcoin core contributors

1166
01:36:07,221 --> 01:36:10,861
confirm that their understanding of Bitcoin

1167
01:36:10,861 --> 01:36:13,821
that might end up in a reply is correct

1168
01:36:13,821 --> 01:36:16,221
that doesn't mean that they're supporting the shit corners

1169
01:36:16,221 --> 01:36:20,021
they're just explaining how Bitcoin works

1170
01:36:20,021 --> 01:36:23,101
and I think that might have led to some people

1171
01:36:23,101 --> 01:36:26,761
thinking that we're all aligned in some way

1172
01:36:26,761 --> 01:36:28,021
but it's just

1173
01:36:28,021 --> 01:36:32,561
there are things that Bitcoin does and how it works

1174
01:36:32,561 --> 01:36:35,581
that sometimes are not completely obvious.

1175
01:36:35,941 --> 01:36:38,201
We had a whole multi-month debate

1176
01:36:38,201 --> 01:36:42,421
on how useful mempool policies are

1177
01:36:42,421 --> 01:36:45,061
and what sort of adoption they require.

1178
01:36:45,421 --> 01:36:49,161
So this may have been obvious to many

1179
01:36:49,161 --> 01:36:51,721
or some Bitcoin contributors,

1180
01:36:52,881 --> 01:36:54,701
Bitcoin core contributors,

1181
01:36:55,041 --> 01:36:57,721
but it certainly wasn't well known before.

1182
01:36:58,501 --> 01:37:02,541
So yeah, I mean, sorry.

1183
01:37:02,561 --> 01:37:05,601
I think I got off on a tangent here.

1184
01:37:05,901 --> 01:37:20,260
I didn mean to accuse anyone of anything That was not the point of the question really Sorry I guess there been a lot of that in the last few months So I guess I have a few buttons that can be pushed

1185
01:37:20,260 --> 01:37:29,020
I'm very careful with that because if anything, I am super grateful for every single contributor to Bitcoin,

1186
01:37:29,260 --> 01:37:34,280
whether it be a developer or a miner or a pleb or a podcast or whatever it is,

1187
01:37:34,280 --> 01:37:53,060
If they're passionate about it and they understand the difference between Bitcoin and shitcoins, then I am absolutely grateful to them putting their time and effort into this because I still think it's the best bet humanity has to achieve world peace, basically, because we disincentivize aggression.

1188
01:37:53,260 --> 01:37:54,140
And I love it.

1189
01:37:54,280 --> 01:37:55,760
Like, I wouldn't be here if I didn't.

1190
01:37:56,040 --> 01:37:58,540
So there's that, to be clear.

1191
01:37:58,540 --> 01:38:06,900
Yeah, I think part of why this is so frustrating is I think we're this close in almost everything.

1192
01:38:07,740 --> 01:38:25,600
It's just that I think deliberately or undeliberately, a few people have found some triggered topics that can be used to shove a veg into the Bitcoin community in a way that hasn't been done in a long while.

1193
01:38:25,600 --> 01:38:32,700
and people that got along or trusted each other suddenly insult each other on Twitter.

1194
01:38:32,700 --> 01:38:41,860
We like the amount of how the even just the ability to entertain other people's thought

1195
01:38:41,860 --> 01:38:43,620
processes has broken down.

1196
01:38:43,900 --> 01:38:47,300
I think that's the actual damage of what's been going on.

1197
01:38:47,780 --> 01:38:51,160
And that is the frustrating part for me.

1198
01:38:51,160 --> 01:38:57,420
Like having spent over a dozen years on trying to educate people about how Bitcoin works and so on.

1199
01:38:57,920 --> 01:39:07,440
People, me trying to explain how Bitcoin works and people calling me a shit corner and so forth, that just didn't happen as much until the recent years, right?

1200
01:39:07,780 --> 01:39:14,060
So that is the actual damage, this erosion of even talking to each other.

1201
01:39:14,520 --> 01:39:16,280
Yeah, and I completely agree.

1202
01:39:16,280 --> 01:39:22,060
from my perspective the same thing is happening when i try to explain what money is and how money

1203
01:39:22,060 --> 01:39:29,540
ought to work and people call it plebslop because they're more technically but it's it's exactly the

1204
01:39:29,540 --> 01:39:35,060
same thing that's the other side of that coin absolutely and it is frustrating from all

1205
01:39:35,060 --> 01:39:42,300
perspectives but that's why these conversations are valuable yeah hopefully any we've been going

1206
01:39:42,300 --> 01:39:43,220
for quite a while.

1207
01:39:43,380 --> 01:39:44,420
These shows are usually

1208
01:39:44,420 --> 01:39:45,440
much shorter than this,

1209
01:39:45,500 --> 01:39:46,160
but I found this

1210
01:39:46,160 --> 01:39:47,460
insanely fascinating.

1211
01:39:47,760 --> 01:39:48,820
Is there anything else

1212
01:39:48,820 --> 01:39:49,620
you'd like to add

1213
01:39:49,620 --> 01:39:51,340
before we wrap this thing up?

1214
01:39:52,080 --> 01:39:53,320
Yeah, let me briefly,

1215
01:39:53,580 --> 01:39:54,520
as I said,

1216
01:39:54,620 --> 01:39:55,940
I spent a little time

1217
01:39:55,940 --> 01:39:57,460
going through your prior

1218
01:39:57,460 --> 01:39:58,720
two conversations

1219
01:39:58,720 --> 01:39:59,660
that I had found.

1220
01:39:59,860 --> 01:40:00,160
Yes.

1221
01:40:00,320 --> 01:40:01,400
Let me just briefly

1222
01:40:01,400 --> 01:40:03,180
look over my notes

1223
01:40:03,180 --> 01:40:04,300
if I had something

1224
01:40:04,300 --> 01:40:05,080
that I was missing.

1225
01:40:05,560 --> 01:40:06,380
Yes, I'm going to have

1226
01:40:06,380 --> 01:40:07,720
to remember what I said

1227
01:40:07,720 --> 01:40:09,060
and then defend it.

1228
01:40:09,960 --> 01:40:11,100
That could be interesting.

1229
01:40:11,100 --> 01:40:13,060
Sorry for putting you on the spot here.

1230
01:40:13,720 --> 01:40:21,220
I mean, I think we managed to have a good conversation.

1231
01:40:21,560 --> 01:40:22,500
Yes, yes.

1232
01:40:23,320 --> 01:40:25,640
Oh, do you want to talk about RDTS at all?

1233
01:40:27,940 --> 01:40:28,420
RDTS?

1234
01:40:28,980 --> 01:40:31,140
Dathan Ohm's software proposal.

1235
01:40:31,560 --> 01:40:32,440
Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.

1236
01:40:33,040 --> 01:40:35,940
There was one thing that I found interesting.

1237
01:40:35,940 --> 01:40:39,360
You said you think it's a good idea to threaten the software,

1238
01:40:39,360 --> 01:40:43,940
fork but you don't think it should be implemented and i thought that was interesting and i was going

1239
01:40:43,940 --> 01:40:50,540
to ask you about that yes okay so that's what one of the things i said on tone poise tones pod uh

1240
01:40:50,540 --> 01:40:56,200
slightly misinterpreted i said i like the threat of a soft fork more than a soft fork like and what

1241
01:40:56,200 --> 01:41:03,700
i meant by that is i wish that these i wish the spammers would be scared of something and stop

1242
01:41:03,700 --> 01:41:09,400
scamming that that's that's what i meant by that like if there's anything we can do to scare them

1243
01:41:09,400 --> 01:41:18,300
then i'm for that and not yeah i'm not necessarily for changing bitcoin in ways that are potentially

1244
01:41:18,300 --> 01:41:25,920
harmful but i am for scaring sending a signal to spammers that this is not okay like i'm totally for

1245
01:41:25,920 --> 01:41:33,360
that. Yeah, yeah, I agree. I wish we could convincingly signal that the problem that I

1246
01:41:33,360 --> 01:41:44,401
see with the proposed soft fork is just sending the signal is a very low out like very low

1247
01:41:44,401 --> 01:41:51,080
reward for a soft perk of that that level of the opposite effect like and and basically

1248
01:41:51,080 --> 01:41:59,660
it feels to me like a bluff with a high card and the spammers can see our hand because there's a

1249
01:41:59,660 --> 01:42:08,240
mirror behind us. And so like within minutes, someone posted a large data transaction that

1250
01:42:08,240 --> 01:42:13,620
circumvented these new rules. I think it would be trivial for spammers to come up with new ways

1251
01:42:13,620 --> 01:42:20,100
of inserting data, just how they found the up-if, up-false, up-if envelope idea.

1252
01:42:21,060 --> 01:42:28,720
And basically having a soft fork for the purpose of signaling that it's not welcome is setting

1253
01:42:28,720 --> 01:42:34,480
us up on a path where we're going to end up significantly hampering the scripting system

1254
01:42:34,480 --> 01:42:39,040
and preventing future innovation or not achieving our goals.

1255
01:42:39,040 --> 01:42:45,440
and spending a lot of effort on something that is bound to fail

1256
01:42:45,440 --> 01:42:52,080
and make us look like clowns just seems like spending social capital

1257
01:42:52,080 --> 01:42:55,600
that we don't have to spend on nothing useful.

1258
01:42:56,500 --> 01:42:59,480
Okay, I have to, like, disclaimer here,

1259
01:42:59,480 --> 01:43:04,580
I'm not read up on the fork enough to actually have an opinion

1260
01:43:04,580 --> 01:43:07,720
on whether I'm pro or against it.

1261
01:43:07,720 --> 01:43:14,360
I like to claim Swedish neutrality here.

1262
01:43:14,980 --> 01:43:16,140
Swiss neutrality.

1263
01:43:16,760 --> 01:43:18,320
Or Swiss neutrality.

1264
01:43:18,520 --> 01:43:21,980
Swedish neutrality was sort of fake, but Swiss neutrality.

1265
01:43:22,260 --> 01:43:22,580
I see.

1266
01:43:23,460 --> 01:43:26,280
I didn't know that about Swedish neutrality.

1267
01:43:26,500 --> 01:43:27,500
Thanks for the heads up.

1268
01:43:27,800 --> 01:43:36,080
Yeah, we were supposedly neutral, but in reality, we were pro-Nazi during the war and pro-NATO ever after.

1269
01:43:36,080 --> 01:43:37,500
So, yeah, there's that.

1270
01:43:37,720 --> 01:43:45,940
anyway no so so yeah i the reason i didn't go there is i don't know enough about it i i don't

1271
01:43:45,940 --> 01:43:52,940
feel like uh yeah i know you're against it so i don't think there's much i i i just don't think

1272
01:43:52,940 --> 01:44:00,840
it's it's a very strong proposal okay could there be what could any proposal be strong enough do

1273
01:44:00,840 --> 01:44:06,700
you think to to resolve this so with luke on twitter i recently talked a little bit and

1274
01:44:06,700 --> 01:44:08,180
Luke the Wolf again.

1275
01:44:08,680 --> 01:44:14,220
He was talking about limiting the up return size in outputs.

1276
01:44:15,000 --> 01:44:21,140
And we agreed that limiting the count wouldn't necessarily be useful, but limiting the amount

1277
01:44:21,140 --> 01:44:25,260
per output would break that contiguous data argument.

1278
01:44:26,380 --> 01:44:32,240
And the problem that I specifically see with that approach is we already have at least

1279
01:44:32,240 --> 01:44:38,840
one project of spammers, as you call them, use native SegWit outputs for contiguous data.

1280
01:44:40,120 --> 01:44:47,460
Specifically, native SegWit outputs are defined up to version 17 already per the SegWit soft fork,

1281
01:44:47,920 --> 01:44:52,520
but all of the future versions are left unencumbered so we can impose rules later.

1282
01:44:52,780 --> 01:44:57,340
When soft fork introduces new rules that restricts what you can do with something

1283
01:44:57,340 --> 01:45:00,020
in order to give it meaning.

1284
01:45:00,560 --> 01:45:03,920
But up to that point, people can basically just write anything

1285
01:45:03,920 --> 01:45:06,100
into future native SegWit versions.

1286
01:45:06,860 --> 01:45:10,880
And what that means is it costs exactly the same as op return,

1287
01:45:11,520 --> 01:45:15,520
but future native SegWit outputs live in the UTX OSET.

1288
01:45:16,020 --> 01:45:19,620
There anyone can spend, so miners could just take the money or whatever.

1289
01:45:19,620 --> 01:45:27,901
But it seems to me very obviously worse than people writing data in up return.

1290
01:45:28,320 --> 01:45:37,120
So the question is, we see some people use crayons to draw dicks on upgrade hooks.

1291
01:45:37,560 --> 01:45:39,320
Do we throw away our upgrade hooks?

1292
01:45:40,060 --> 01:45:45,480
Or do we give them up return to at least do it here, please?

1293
01:45:45,480 --> 01:46:02,220
And for me, the unsatisfactory but practical solution is, let's give them up return to draw dead dick pics rather than have them pollute our upgrade hooks, because they're going to do it either way.

1294
01:46:02,220 --> 01:46:14,560
And yes, I know, defeatists and all, but it's basically a pragmatic stance on what we can achieve and what we want to spend time on.

1295
01:46:15,480 --> 01:46:20,740
And for all I care, they can go somewhere else and not do this on Bitcoin.

1296
01:46:21,240 --> 01:46:29,440
But Bitcoin has become so valuable that it is attractive for them to have their NFTs and pictures on Bitcoin.

1297
01:46:29,440 --> 01:46:40,120
And while I appreciate that having a single purpose makes it more valuable for that single purpose, like you want Bitcoin to only be used for monetary transactions.

1298
01:46:40,120 --> 01:46:55,780
And we want the Bitcoin block hashes to only serve the purpose of proof of work and not also find large mathematical primes or whatever was proposed in the past.

1299
01:46:55,940 --> 01:46:58,820
We want it to be single purpose, so it's only used for that.

1300
01:46:59,540 --> 01:47:05,420
But we do not have an efficient tool to enforce that outcome.

1301
01:47:05,420 --> 01:47:11,040
So that's my defeatist closing word, I guess.

1302
01:47:11,520 --> 01:47:17,200
Primecoin was an interesting shitcoin back in the first, like in the 2014 shitcoin.

1303
01:47:17,200 --> 01:47:18,960
Exactly, that's what I was referring to.

1304
01:47:18,960 --> 01:47:29,440
And they quickly figured out that putting another incentive for the miner just makes it worse than Bitcoin at doing money.

1305
01:47:29,440 --> 01:47:36,820
So, yeah, I always thought that that was an interesting, but not necessarily obvious.

1306
01:47:37,620 --> 01:47:41,860
Like, at first glance, I see how people say, oh, this is only wasted.

1307
01:47:42,080 --> 01:47:44,220
If we could do something else with it, it would be better.

1308
01:47:44,440 --> 01:47:44,780
Yeah, yeah.

1309
01:47:44,820 --> 01:47:48,020
But in a second glance, when you think about it, no, absolutely not.

1310
01:47:48,300 --> 01:47:49,300
No, no, yeah, yeah.

1311
01:47:49,460 --> 01:47:53,440
I wish we could enforce that for Bitcoin to be used as monetary funds.

1312
01:47:53,440 --> 01:48:01,380
funds. But if we wanted it to be only used for monetary purposes, it would have to be designed

1313
01:48:01,380 --> 01:48:07,120
very differently. More like, for example, Mimblewimble, which encodes outputs as elliptic

1314
01:48:07,120 --> 01:48:13,660
curve points and doesn't allow any scripting whatsoever. So the only way that you could embed

1315
01:48:13,660 --> 01:48:20,660
data there would be by grinding keys or I don't know if there's metadata, but basically we would

1316
01:48:20,660 --> 01:48:29,340
have to have a much more restrictive way how Bitcoin is designed and can in the future evolve.

1317
01:48:30,240 --> 01:48:35,340
And there might be a place for that system, but it's not Bitcoin.

1318
01:48:35,860 --> 01:48:42,020
No, and Bitcoin is the only chance we have. We won't get an immaculate conception like this

1319
01:48:42,020 --> 01:48:46,580
playing out again, I believe. I truly think this is humanity's plan.

1320
01:48:46,580 --> 01:48:53,620
yeah so so it is what it is however it's very interesting to reminiscence about prime coin

1321
01:48:53,620 --> 01:49:00,920
because uh this is one of my light bulb moments in this journey too that no holy shit it's not

1322
01:49:00,920 --> 01:49:08,220
wasted at all it's sacrificed like and and for a very good purpose like yeah and alternatively

1323
01:49:08,220 --> 01:49:15,880
what was it pure coin where essentially yeah it became uh controlled by sunny king or whoever the

1324
01:49:15,880 --> 01:49:24,640
founder and he because it was the first proof of stake and it was inherently unstable so essentially

1325
01:49:24,640 --> 01:49:31,980
he rubber stamped the best chain the best chain was whatever sunny king's node first saw and it it

1326
01:49:31,980 --> 01:49:40,880
was just this this perfect illustration of some of the issues with proof of stake yeah you know yeah

1327
01:49:40,880 --> 01:49:42,040
No, it's fantastic.

1328
01:49:42,040 --> 01:49:49,080
And the whole Dow debacle in Ethereum and how they just rewrote the whole thing.

1329
01:49:49,200 --> 01:49:51,780
That's also like, yeah, no, it's centralized.

1330
01:49:52,140 --> 01:49:54,040
It's absolutely 100% centralized.

1331
01:49:54,680 --> 01:49:54,820
Yeah.

1332
01:49:55,160 --> 01:50:01,820
And maybe the surprising thing is how long Peercoin existed afterwards and how it traded value.

1333
01:50:02,280 --> 01:50:05,920
Ethereum still exists for some fucking reason.

1334
01:50:06,360 --> 01:50:10,720
Anyway, Merge, thank you so much for doing this.

1335
01:50:10,720 --> 01:50:13,100
and keep on educating people

1336
01:50:13,100 --> 01:50:14,480
and keep on working on Bitcoin.

1337
01:50:15,080 --> 01:50:17,560
I love having these conversations

1338
01:50:17,560 --> 01:50:19,480
and I'm going to keep on

1339
01:50:19,480 --> 01:50:21,600
educating people about

1340
01:50:21,600 --> 01:50:23,240
why shitcoins are shit

1341
01:50:23,240 --> 01:50:24,200
first and foremost

1342
01:50:24,200 --> 01:50:26,680
and why sound money is important.

1343
01:50:27,280 --> 01:50:29,520
And yeah, all the best in the future.

1344
01:50:29,640 --> 01:50:30,401
Please keep at it.

1345
01:50:30,580 --> 01:50:31,000
Thank you.

1346
01:50:31,260 --> 01:50:31,740
Thank you.

1347
01:50:32,040 --> 01:50:34,780
Where can people reach you on the internet?

1348
01:50:34,780 --> 01:50:36,160
What's the easiest way

1349
01:50:36,160 --> 01:50:37,440
if they want to talk to you?

1350
01:50:37,440 --> 01:50:38,620
So if you have questions

1351
01:50:38,620 --> 01:50:39,860
about how Bitcoin works,

1352
01:50:39,860 --> 01:50:45,560
Bitcoin Stack Exchange is a great place to find pretty well reasoned answers.

1353
01:50:45,960 --> 01:50:49,480
I am Merchandamus on Twitter.

1354
01:50:49,720 --> 01:50:52,480
You've probably seen me or know how to find that.

1355
01:50:52,901 --> 01:50:55,820
And I recently founded Localhost Research.

1356
01:50:55,820 --> 01:51:00,860
We are a new Bitcoin contributor office on the West Coast in the US.

1357
01:51:01,240 --> 01:51:02,480
We're donation based.

1358
01:51:02,780 --> 01:51:06,540
So if you have change that you want to get rid of and want to support

1359
01:51:06,580 --> 01:51:12,540
Bitcoin development, we have currently four full-time contributors and a couple of people

1360
01:51:12,540 --> 01:51:17,920
helping run the organization, where I registered non-profit here in the US.

1361
01:51:18,560 --> 01:51:23,200
So if you find that interesting, you can find our transparency reports on our website,

1362
01:51:23,780 --> 01:51:25,520
lclhost.org.

1363
01:51:26,280 --> 01:51:30,220
And we write a lot about all the things we've been up to.

1364
01:51:31,060 --> 01:51:34,240
So yeah, I think that about covers it.

1365
01:51:34,240 --> 01:51:45,560
Oh, and if you are interested in news, what's going on in development, we, Mike Schmidt and I, host the Optic Recap every Friday, no, Tuesday.

1366
01:51:46,260 --> 01:51:48,480
Newsletter on Friday, Recap on Tuesday.

1367
01:51:49,380 --> 01:51:53,980
We talk about an hour or one and a half about all the things that go on in development.

1368
01:51:54,780 --> 01:51:57,400
And yeah, that's sort of where I'm at.

1369
01:51:57,880 --> 01:52:00,380
That's a reminder to myself.

1370
01:52:00,580 --> 01:52:02,180
I should pay more attention to that.

1371
01:52:02,180 --> 01:52:03,820
Thank you.

1372
01:52:04,240 --> 01:52:10,120
All right. Anyway, all the best. And thank you for the conversation. See you next time.

1373
01:52:10,120 --> 01:52:13,720
Yeah. Thanks for having me. Thanks for the pleasant conversation. I think it's pretty

1374
01:52:13,720 --> 01:52:15,700
late for you. I hope you have a good night.

1375
01:52:15,700 --> 01:52:28,825
It eight o so it not that bad Oh wait You originally from Sweden right But you not in Sweden in spain spain spain yeah okay that a little better yeah it a little well the same time zone so it doesn

1376
01:52:28,825 --> 01:52:36,345
matter oh really yeah okay yeah i guess most of europe is europe is smaller than only partugal

1377
01:52:36,345 --> 01:52:44,985
right yeah yeah yes exactly so yes like subscribe brush your teeth and comment and uh get at us uh

1378
01:52:44,985 --> 01:52:48,965
With all your, yes, call me whatever you want.

1379
01:52:50,385 --> 01:52:53,165
And don't call merch nasty things.

1380
01:52:53,705 --> 01:52:53,985
All right.

1381
01:52:54,245 --> 01:52:55,365
Take care, everyone.

1382
01:52:55,505 --> 01:52:59,525
Or do, but I'll probably not respond to you if you cheat me that way.

1383
01:52:59,845 --> 01:53:00,025
No.

1384
01:53:00,285 --> 01:53:03,665
Anyway, thanks for having me and a wonderful conversation.

1385
01:53:04,085 --> 01:53:04,545
Thank you.

1386
01:53:04,925 --> 01:53:06,625
This has been the Bitcoin Infinity Show.

1387
01:53:07,165 --> 01:53:09,145
Thanks for listening.

1388
01:53:09,285 --> 01:53:10,225
I can't talk anymore.

1389
01:53:10,945 --> 01:53:12,545
Yeah, it's been a long podcast.

1390
01:53:12,545 --> 01:53:13,785
Two hours.

1391
01:53:13,905 --> 01:53:14,925
I can't do two hours.

1392
01:53:14,985 --> 01:53:15,325
yeah

1393
01:53:15,325 --> 01:53:17,645
alright

1394
01:53:17,645 --> 01:53:19,905
I'm also feeling it

1395
01:53:19,905 --> 01:53:21,345
bye bye