All right. Welcome to another PBJ, the Presidio Bitcoin Jam.
How's it going, David?
Good. How are you doing, Steve?
Good.
We've got, we're a man down, but maybe not for long.
Momentarily.
We had quite a mess today, right?
Because we normally do the show at noon and we schedule it for 1030 and it's about 11 right now.
And we've got two of the three people.
We split the difference.
But yeah, I'm the instigator.
I'm in New York City right now.
why are you causing trouble went to an event yesterday which we can talk a little bit about
but I'm off to Europe in a little bit and I realized yesterday that I would not be able to
do the regular time unless I did it from the airport and I doubt I'll find a quiet spot at
Newark airport right for recording so I popped in at the block office in New York
here we are but max didn't get the memo so he'll be a little late he's a little late that's all right
i i wish we could have uh i wish we could have had the wide shot today because the um the neon
sign that i think was a little a little disrupted or a little broken uh last week is now fixed
and it looks beautiful i guess it will when he joins the studio maybe we'll go to a wider shot
Maybe you'll go to a lighter one.
But in place, I wore my Bitcoin orange shirt.
We've got Biddy, of course.
I chose an orange drink and I got a new iPhone.
Yeah, so I'm trying to represent a little bit.
Wow.
Well, I'm not, but I do have an orange tie in my suitcase.
So you wore a suit last night, right?
I wore a suit last night.
Because how many days a year do you wear a suit?
It had been a while since I grabbed my suit.
So I would say on average once a year.
So this is first of 2020.
I like wearing my suit though.
Yeah.
I like finding excuses to wear my suit.
Yeah.
But let's see.
Yeah.
Maybe we'll start with like, why am I in New York?
So I was at a chain code event yesterday, which was Chatham House rule.
So rule.
Yeah.
So I'm free to talk about what we talked about, what we did.
I won't mention who was there, or at least what people said.
But yeah, this was an event that Chaincode organized,
kind of like an executive seminar briefing.
I think it was framed as dialogues.
We had done this before, or at least I had participated in a similar thing before at Chaincode,
where it's trying to bring together busy executives at Bitcoin companies
together with open source developers.
Because those two worlds often don't naturally come together.
And so if the only touchpoint is Twitter or social media for communicating, that's not a recipe for success.
So I really like that ChainCompus effort in to initiate that.
they typically do it
coinciding with the coin center
gala dinner because a lot of executives
are in town for that so it makes it you know more realistic
that they'll come to this event so there are people
from all over the world Beijing people
flew in from Beijing and all over the US and Europe
some of which specifically for this event and others
just happened to be here. It was a bunch of folks from
exchanges, mining companies
merchant software, all kinds of different companies
and a lot of open source developers.
Is there a pretty structured agenda for topics that you want to get through
and come to consensus on?
There was, Jonas was the organizer of this, and he had reached out to everyone ahead of time saying, hey, what are the topics you want to cover? So there's soliciting what people wanted to cover. And then it was organized into seven quick 15-minute sessions. And you could pick four of the, or maybe there's six. You could pick four of the six.
so we spent an hour doing that you just rotate you just join a session where topics were like
covenants was one topic the great consensus cleanup uh uh is what's another topic off return
with another topic what do core devs do like what's what do they do during the day or like
what's their typical day that was a topic things like that um so you could pick four of the six and
you you went to you know each one for 15 minutes and then there's a leader in that group and no
more than eight people in a given session. So there's that. There was a session where
it was kind of fun. Just the whole group of like 40, 50 people gathered around. We wrote down on,
each of us wrote down a sheet of paper, either an ask or an offer. So you could offer to teach
someone something about some aspect of Bitcoin, or you could ask that you wanted to learn something.
and then we all went around selling our it was like a marketplace and it was an offer
i did an offer mining decentralization is what i chose to teach um so that was a cool exercise
um then there was then there was uh three or four topics that were 45 minutes long so a deeper dive
and I led one of those.
That was my role.
The one I led was like,
is lightning overhyped
and like other Bitcoin payments in general?
Where are we at?
Where's the future?
Other scaling solutions and layer twos.
So I was in a good position to lead that.
We had about eight or 10 people
in my little breakout group.
Super great discussion.
there were folks from BitGo
and Coinbase and NewBank
MoonWallet
etc. that were
part of my little
breakout discussion
and then at the end we all got together
and had one more exercise
but I think
so it was really good
by breaking into smaller groups of like
eight or so people
you get a lot more engagement
everyone felt comfortable
It's just more intimate than a 50-person session.
So I think that was a success.
I think people learned a lot.
There's a lot of listening, too.
That's one reason I like it.
I mean, while I have things I feel like I can teach, I like to hear what's on the minds of busy executives in the space who don't spend all day thinking about open source Bitcoin and the protocol and stuff like that.
So listening was really good.
The main thing is that there were a lot of conversations there that I didn't get to hear because we were broken in a smaller group.
So in theory, if there's some way to summarize all that and let it be known, that would have been good. Then, of course, people listening are probably also maybe wishing they could hear the results too or what was discussed. But I think it was a good set of topics that were discussed and really good questions by the executives.
I should say that
one of the topics that we'll get into next
that continues to be on fire
with lots of drama
on social media
is around Op return and Bitcoin Core V30
and not
so I was very curious going into this
I had tweeted it maybe a month
or two ago
we were at some monthly meetup
at Presidio Bitcoin
and no one really
cared about this topic or thought it was that big a deal or weren't paying attention or whatever
um and i tweeted that out and then people on social media got mad at me um i mean you just
tweeted that people weren't at the meetup people weren't really concerned with this topic that
twitter seemed to think was super important yeah right i'm just and i'm not saying the topic's not
important we'll get into i actually do think it's important but i don't i don't think it's as
important if all you did is read social media yeah you you are you feel like the point is dying
in like before the end of the year yeah and um i just think if you get outside that bubble and
talk to people who are in the bitcoin space or bitcoin investors or users um that i mean they're
they're either ignorant of the imminent demise of bitcoin or they don't believe the hype um or what
what have you. So I was curious going into this event, like what do, you know, business people,
what's on the top of their mind? And, you know, I certainly didn't speak with everyone there
and ask this specific question. So this isn't necessarily everyone's take, but the people I
did speak with, they either were oblivious to it or consider this like complete noise to them.
They don't think it's a big issue.
They're not looking to change Bitcoin software.
They don't think Bitcoin's going to die soon.
Kind of a nothing burger within that event.
Is the argument for Bitcoin going to die,
is that it's going to be overloaded with spam
or is it too divisive that nobody can get consensus on it?
What's the Bitcoin going to die position?
um as far as i can tell uh there's a few threads there but the the one that seems to have the most
tenacity and volume right now is around c sam so like putting illegal content i see and you know
disgusting content illegal content in in the blockchain and an assertion that bitcoin core
v30 is enabling this
or enabling it in a
way that
hasn't been possible in the past.
So that would be that the binary
data gets stored in
the blockchain in transactions or something?
Yeah, well, right.
And specifically
in this case,
an opportune
transaction.
I think this
specific topic is uh is a is a good one to to think about um it's a little concerning though
raising so much
like it's it's good to discuss it and think it think it through but like if we raise so much
awareness to it like does it draw people who aren't into bitcoin's attention to it
and potentially become like a legal or political battle.
So there's a little bit of a tension there.
But I guess let's talk about that.
So first of all, it's always been possible to store data
in the Bitcoin blockchain.
So it was possible in the past.
Before Opraturen even existed in Bitcoin,
it was added in 2014.
So over a decade ago, it was possible after it was added.
Obviously, anyone paying attention to the last few years has seen that JPEGs have been added to the blockchain.
I am not aware of any CSAM in the Bitcoin blockchain, so I don't believe that has been added yet.
And I hope it never is.
But it would be possible to add it to the blockchain.
and it'll be possible after
with or without Bitcoin Core v30,
with or without not.
How much binary data can you store?
This is like some,
I guess it must be limited by the block size.
So it's some sub threshold of the block size,
but is it like 50% of the block size or 20%?
I mean, you can basically fill up
the entire space with it
because the consensus rules allow for it.
So this whole op return debate,
there's currently an 80 byte limit
that's a policy though, not consensus.
So if you are able to get a transaction
to a miner directly,
or relay it through a more permissive route of nodes,
or you are a miner yourself,
you can mine an op return with more data you can also mine using the inscriptions method that's
been developed where you're using witness data which is both cheaper and you can store even more
data because with witness data you can store four times more data uh so up to four four megabytes
and then there's a variety of other ways to
even if those are somehow stamped out
those methods of storing data
you can just store data in public and private keys
there's a really good BitMEX research post on that
a few weeks ago
maybe a month ago or so
on unstoppable JPEGs on the Bitcoin blockchain
so it's always been possible
still be possible
it'll be possible with or without these different
Bitcoin implementations
I think the concern with changing the opportune limit, it makes it easier for someone to do.
Although it's been noted by people that you can both store larger images and it's four times cheaper to store images using the inscriptions method versus opportune.
so anyone unless you're intentionally being you know it's not even malicious it's more like if
you want to make a point like a political point right opera turn is bad or like big opera turns
are bad that's really the only rationale i can think of of why anyone would use opera turn to
store an image versus inscriptions um because if you want to actually so i mean if you just
genuinely want to store images and do it cheaply, then you'd use
inscriptions. If you want to attack the network
and bloat as much data as possible,
then you would use inscriptions because you can store more data.
So I think the only reason, and I'm sure we'll see some op return
images once, or either now, just going
through a miner or once Bitcoin Core V30. I guess if you want to
attack it that way. You'd wait until V30
is released so that you could
blame it on that version
of the software. But I think we'll see that
just people trying to
create a narrative.
But I think the more
interesting discussion about
is Bitcoin
Core V30 with the unlimited
op return size,
does it somehow
increase risk
with the CSAM stuff?
one thread I think worth
discussing is that if there are
tools that let you
view
images on the blockchain
like I believe mempool.space
and I think
maybe
I'm forgetting who it is
but I think there's a few tools out there that let you
view inscription
jpegs i don't know if there's tools that let you view opportune based images but you can imagine
those being created if they're not already created right and so anyone has those types of viewers
like what's the legal culpability for them if they if c sam or some other illegal content is shown
I'm not a lawyer
I don't know
but
even independent of the legality
if it's easy for anyone
to use such a tool
we got Max now
you guys started without me
I know
you showed up 46 minutes late
46 minutes late
Steve let me know last minute this morning
he let me know yesterday I'll be here
anyways
thanks for making it
Bro, my morning's piece is the number one priority.
Ain't changing that for nobody.
All right.
That's fair.
Do you need headphones to hear Steve?
That would be good.
Okay.
We'll get some headphones.
But Steve was talking about CSAM.
I hope you guys already talked about knots,
because I know they never talking about that We in the thick of it We in the middle So I just continue while Max gets set up So I think if there broadly accessible tools
that let you see images
and then there's really disgusting content
or illegal content shown,
I think that's horrible for branding and PR of Bitcoin.
If no one working on Bitcoin wants that to happen,
uh bitcoin node software doesn't enable viewing or accessing images like that
if there's external tools i at least think it's a bad it's bad you know bad bad for the image of
bitcoin um so that's something i think that people should follow up on is is with people who
have created these image viewers get their thoughts on it and see how they think they
should, you know, if anything should change.
Would it be easy to, I don't know all of what
Nots does, but would it be easy to like
just have a way where that
data can exist for people who want to
have access to it, but it's easy to like raise flags and be like, hey, if you want
to run a version that doesn't have that, you can just kind of run that
and you can run either one, but they're kind of compatible with each other
or is there a problem that like in the
future if you tried to spend from stuff that involved those
transactions, you'd have to somehow
be exposed to that binary data?
I don't know if I fully
understand the question, but you can't spend
an op return for one thing.
Right, yeah.
And I believe
Bitcoin Core
obfuscates that
data while it's stored in
your hard drive.
So,
like virus
scanners and stuff, if they're scanning it,
don't detect it.
But I think one of the arguments being made is that somehow it's like endorsed in Bitcoin core D30 because of the removal of the limit.
I don't think that argument has much merit.
Again, the consensus rules allow for data to be stored in Bitcoin.
It's permissionless.
So people can put illegal content, disgusting content in the blockchain.
Let's hope they don't.
But they can.
And that's the consensus rules everyone's agreed to.
So for me, I think the main thing is I don't see Bitcoin Core V30 as changing anything.
But it did make me think about these image viewer tools.
And that could lead to, like I've said a few times now, bad branding for Bitcoin.
Right.
Kind of demonstrates.
I do think it's dangerous if like that becomes a huge topic.
And then,
you know,
how policymakers react to that.
I have no idea,
but that's one thread.
The one thing I definitely wanted to talk about,
and we talked about this in an episode back in maybe April or May.
I probably made these points then,
but I'm going to make them again now because,
because at the time I was engaged on social media,
responding to some of the concerns.
and I thought
and I got to a point where I feel like I said everything
I had to say
and it felt like the conversation
yeah I thought we were done with this forever
I kind of felt like the conversation
was nonsensical at that point
I still did
and I was dismayed
by some people I've worked with for years
you know
seeing things differently and I just
I really don't understand
their perspectives.
But I just thought it would
go away, like you just said, Max.
So I stopped engaging on social media
on the topic.
But we're talking about it again today
because it's
a bigger topic than ever
now. It hasn't gone away.
The volume's been 10x'd.
So I wanted to
at least talk about
because some
people that are sort of neutral or at least
don't like the drama that are now raising the question, why not just, why doesn't Core just not
do anything? Like just then this top drama will go away. And I wanted to talk about that because
I don't think that's the right decision. I think it's important that Bitcoin Core developers
listen to all the concerns. And I think there has been a lot of listening,
but let's go through the reasons for making this change so number one is concern there's a long-term
concern and a short-term concern um is everything okay people you guys are smiling at me that's all
good okay um or i'm remote so i don't i don't know what's going on so uh anyway the long-term
concern is mining centralization concerns. And let me walk through the logic here. And I really want
you guys to like pressure test this because I've shared this privately with folks that I respect
and they didn't seem to get it. So I don't know if I'm wrong or I'm not explaining it well. So
let's give it another try. The mining centralization concern is that if there are
Bitcoin transactions that are consensus valid,
that are not being relayed on the network,
but there's enough incentive and demand to get them mined,
then those who want them mined will go straight to the miners.
And we saw a product called Slipstream come from Marathon
to satisfy this demand.
And that was Holes Accelerator.
And then Holes Accelerator.
so those are single company services proprietary apis and if they become popular enough where a lot
of high fee paying transactions get submitted to them that's very dangerous for bitcoin because
imagine if you are a new miner you want to begin mining we want to make mining or we want to keep
mining permissionless.
We don't want to introduce barriers.
But let's say the three
of us start a new mining company, we enter
mining, and then we learn
that just by plugging into the peer-to-peer network,
we're only seeing
80% of the revenue
potential in transactions
because the other 20%
is in this private database
from a company
because these
consensus valid transactions are
not being relayed on the network.
then we learn. It makes it tough to compete.
Yeah. Then all of a sudden
we look at our business model
and our spreadsheet and our calculations.
We're like, we can't just get
80% of their revenue. We need 100% of their revenue to
compete. It's hard enough with 100%.
Let alone with a 20% haircut.
So then we learn, oh,
we have to do a, we have to go
strike a business relationship
with this company,
like Marathon. And it's like, oh, we got
to get chummy chummy with the executives and
meet them and travel, you know, like
people have to travel different countries and steak dinners and they have a lot of pricing
pressure clearly that's not a good future for bitcoin right so so i don't really see how
i really don't get the refutation of that the only thing i think you could refute or debate about is
like at what threshold does that risk like get bad enough um where miners would feel a need to do
that but it's definitely a trend you don't want to encourage so how do you discourage that well
you discourage it by not having relay policy in the dominant implementation bitcoin core that
prevents consensus valid transactions that um such as the op return so that's one motivation
for changing op return um and then the second reason was more of a short-term urgency because
you could argue with the first one it's like well is it is it a problem yet why don't we just wait
for those reasons to go away or you know maybe it's a fad they'll go away but the second one was
more urgent and this is where um certain protocols built on top of bitcoin such as bit bit vm based
systems they want to stick some data in the blockchain that like a zero knowledge proof
And we talked about this before in the show, but that data for the zero knowledge proof exceeds 80 bytes.
So those protocols are not able to store that data in an op return if they want to just naturally broadcast Bitcoin transactions and have them relayed and get mined.
And those protocols don't want to have to sign business deals with miners or sign up for the slipstream service to get it mined.
so since
OperaTurn was not available to them
they instead had to come up
with a scheme where they're storing
that data into
regular transactions
so they go into UTXOs
unlike OperaTurn because with OperaTurn
it's provably unspendable
it's the definition of OperaTurn
so the OperaTurn data doesn't have to
be stored in the UTXO set
permanently
but this data they want
to be permanent. They'll never spend those UTXOs.
There'll be no reason to spend it, and they'll be no economic...
They don't want to spend the money to spend them. So it'll be permanent bloat
to the UTXO set. So that's bad for all Bitcoin users.
Everyone running Bitcoin software,
they're worse off if they have to store that data permanently.
So if you can instead store this 140 bytes or whatever it is in an
return, you don't have to store that data permanently.
Bitcoin's a healthier network.
So because of those protocols, the reason it was urgent is because they were planning
to launch or go live imminently.
So there was an urgent need to not do it the unhealthy way and do it in a relatively healthier
way.
So regardless of what your opinion is on if a zero-knowledge proof
is should be spam or not like i definitely don't think that's spam like if 140 bytes gets this
like incredible scaling off chain that's exactly what engineers should be trying to think of so i
don't even think it's spam but even if you do think it's spam it's better to stick spam it's
better to have a healthier way to store the spam than an unhealthier way to store the spam so those
are the two motivations that that i'm aware of the third motivation is more philosophical
but again on a previous episode we talked about the difference between consensus and policy
and in an ideal world there is no policy from bitcoin software which prevents consensus valid
transactions to be relayed right we want that we want those to converge so there is no policy
preventing consensus valid transactions to be relayed so why have any policy at all to to to
block this block relaying these transactions well there are several transactions that are
valid that are security threats to bitcoin they can cause denial of service attacks one of them
we talked about previously is that you can construct a valid block that can take like an hour
to mine or sorry not to mine to validate to validate so usually you can validate a typical
block you validate and can broadcast it around the world in less than one second right so something
that takes an hour is extremely unhealthy for the network if i mine a block broadcast it i can begin
mining immediately and you guys are miners and you're spending an hour trying to like decode it
or you know validate it and then you can't start mining again until you've done that
so those reasons are you know that i i don't hear much debate saying we shouldn't have policy for
that now ideally we fix consensus rules and that gets into the great consensus cleanup which is
also something we've talked about let's save that for another day but ideally those are fixed at the
consensus layer the only policy that exists in bitcoin core that isn't related to to those you
grave denial of service attacks is op return.
So philosophically, you can argue that was the only policy
that's kind of paternalistic,
like where the Bitcoin core developers and project were saying,
we think anything above 80 bytes is spam and bad.
And that's a position one can take,
but it's more paternalistic than the other policies.
So that's a third reason to change it.
But you can argue that there's no urgency around that.
But those are the reasons for this change.
I would suggest we take a look at the chat
just because there's, you know, BTC for plebs was commenting
and we do like to incorporate the live stream.
Let me incorporate one of his questions.
So let me outline this the way I see it, because I have been very much in the camp of this whole thing is like completely dumb and completely distraction, possibly even an attack from whoever to DDoS the attention of everyone.
So, but perhaps I'm missing something, so I want to make sure.
So let me explain it the way I see it.
And then I think BTC plurpleps is an interesting point that I need to push on.
So the philosophical question, I fundamentally disagree, you know, whether or not you want something to be in there.
that's like, if you either support free markets or you don't, that's ridiculous in my mind.
Just like, if you really feel that hard, like whatever, about something in your own world,
like feel free to do it in your own chain, enjoy yourself. What I do think is important
that has to be fought for Bitcoin is the ability for the common man to run a node. We've talked
about this many, many, many times. That's like the only thing that I think is sort of sacrosanct
is can someone with $100 that lives in a third world country afford to run a node? If yes,
Bitcoin has served its purpose.
If no, it has not.
That's the way I see it, that black and white.
Now, in terms of how Bitcoin gets used,
like you've said this many times, I agree with this.
I think Kevin Kelly said this really well.
We don't know what a technology wants to be
until it's had probably decades or centuries in the world.
So who knows if Bitcoin's a clock,
what is it going to be used for many things?
Money is the obvious one,
but there's a lot of cool things you get with Bitcoin.
But you can only do that, in my opinion,
and keep Bitcoin sacrosanct if the normal man can run a node,
which they couldn't do in all the crypto ecosystems.
Now, how they get that data on chain,
that's like a creative engineering question.
And like, how do you do that in a way
that doesn't get rid of the sacrosanct ability
to run a node?
In terms of the operaturn versus other stuff,
I mean, there's other ways you can get data
in the blockchain.
Like we had inscriptions
and people absolutely hated inscriptions
and the camp that I assume is pushing for all this now.
And it's like, too bad, man.
People are paying for it.
It is what it is.
Now, with the operaturn thing,
what I don't fully understand is,
and maybe you can clarify for this for me
and this is all bringing the BTC for plebs question
is the giant fight over whether or not
we take off the limit for opperturn
and if the answer to that question is yes
then I have two follow-up questions.
One is BTC for plebs question
where she says the opperturn data
still has to be downloaded
as part of the initial block download
before it can be deleted.
If that's the case
then is it still if you go to the edge
a potential attack to say
if we take off the limit
we could literally just spam it so hard
that it's impossible for the common man to run a node.
If that's the case, then I'm concerned.
And then my other question is,
let's say we just leave things as they are,
whatever, keep the peace.
I mean, people will just find other ways to store the data.
And like, I mean, what's the issue?
Let me answer it.
And for the first answer,
I don't know if you're on yet, Max,
and maybe you missed it.
But again, people can already store images
on the Bitcoin blockchain.
As inscriptions.
Four times cheaper as inscriptions.
Right.
Well, there seems to be this,
a lot of people seem to believe
that getting rid of the policy limit
of operaturn is enabling this.
And it's not.
It's already possible.
It's already happening.
There's plenty of evidence.
And it's four times cheaper to do it
the way that people have already been doing it.
Right.
And I already spoke on the show
a few minutes ago about why,
the only scenario I can imagine
that someone would use op return for a big image
and is to make a political point about this particular thing.
There's no other reason.
If you want to attack Bitcoin and bloat the blockchain as much as possible,
you'll use an inscription
because you can put a four megabyte image in the block
instead of only one megabyte And the point about you have to download this during IBD That true but it also true for witness data So so again and so to the degree that people are storing JPEGs and
opportunist set of inscriptions, it's helping IBD. It's helping the person in the global South with
a cheaper computer. So just to be clear, one megabyte is smaller than four megabytes.
Okay, so the cost, so this is the point I don't fully understand. So if you do an inscription, you're paying 4x to get whatever data you want in there?
No, no, you get the witness discount. You're paying four times less.
Oh, got it, got it, got it. Okay, I see your point. So you're saying in this world, and even in this world though, if you, any additional data you append to the blockchain, no matter what, you have to pay a fee.
you're saying the inscription is cheaper
so people are going to keep doing what already exists
if they want to do the witness data
they're going to have to pay more which says there is
a filter and the filters fees
you don't have to pay more for the witness data
maybe you meant to say opportune data
opportune data yeah thank you
yeah okay
yeah so and again
there seems
it seems people are not realizing
they think that the block size is increasing
or something like we're protected
the reason we're protected
to have cheaper computers
be able to run a Bitcoin node
is because of the block size.
The block size is not changing.
Yeah, so I don't see what the issue is.
So then, I mean, I guess my second question to you,
I mean, so I'm very much in the camp
of fees of the filter,
free markets will solve
if you don't believe in free markets,
like go run your own centralized chain.
What I don't understand is
why do we even need to make this change
in the first place?
I get your point.
Yes, it was paternalistic in the first place.
All things equal, we should have left.
I just answered that.
I gave three reasons.
I gave a long-term risk, mining centralization fears.
I gave a short-term risk, which is UGXL bloat.
And then a third reason is the more philosophical paternalistic.
Well, let's go through each of this because I'm not sure I fully understand a grok.
So on the first one...
First one's like the slipstream one.
No, I get the argument.
But I guess what I don't understand is if you really want to get something done out of band,
why wouldn't you just do an inscription if it's cheaper anyway?
What do you mean?
Well, so it like...
Why does...
We don't want, I mean, for the health of the network, we don't want people going out of band.
Totally. I totally understand why we don't want people out of band. My question is why,
if we keep the current op return at whatever it is, 40 megabytes or kilobytes or whatever it is,
40 bytes, I assume, right? Is that right? Yeah. If we don't do that, why does doubling it
or taking off the limit entirely increase the likelihood? If we leave it as is,
why would more people go out of band?
Why can't they?
If they want to get extra data in
and it's cheaper to do it
via the inscription mechanism,
why is anyone going to use this
in the first place?
Yeah, so for Operatorn,
I think it's largely
the wanting to put like 140 bytes.
There's like a window between 80 bytes
and I think it's around 144
that it's cheaper to use Operatorn
than inscriptions.
And so for anyone wanting to use that,
it makes sense to use opportune over inscriptions.
Okay, I mean, is that, I mean, like, I don't know,
it seems kind of like a marginal issue to me then.
Like, I don't know.
It is a marginal, which is why it's like,
there's clearly underlying reasons beyond this trivial change
that has people, you know, saying chain code is corrupt
and core devs are corrupt
and all these personal attacks.
Well, so just to play devil's advocate,
and my strong opinion is
if it becomes this much of a fight,
I think everyone's better off
just like if people want to run their own,
like free markets.
If you want to run knots,
knock yourself out.
If you want a hard fork,
knock yourself out.
Like people will dump the whatever fork that doesn't.
We've seen this with Bcash.
Like I'm not worried about that.
One thing, I mean,
it would be better to avoid a civil war if possible.
so my question on that is
I mean
I know you already gave three arguments but like
is it the end of the world if we just like leave everything
as it is and just focus on other stuff
I think I mean if
if there's technical justification
if there's technical
justification for a change
I don't think a social mob
should impact that
change sure but like there's
a lot of things that would be like better I mean
yes in the abstract but there's a lot
Like we always have to make trade-offs.
I think fighting mining centralization is worth fighting for.
So I think that's the argument that maybe,
and I know you've sort of fleshed it out here,
but maybe the Bitcoin core community in general
could do a better job of.
That's why I wanted to cover this topic again today.
I also think UTXO bloat size is important as well.
Like minimizing UTXO bloat,
like permanently unspendable,
or things that like in theory could be spent,
but won't be,
minimizing that harm is very important.
It gets to the exact point you made, Max,
which is it's important
to make it as cheap as possible
to run Bitcoin software.
So yes, I think this is important.
Is there a definitive piece
that someone has written
that just shows all of these numbers?
And like, because what I would love to see is like,
and maybe if someone really cares,
instead of doing character assassination,
all this, which I'm seeing online,
which is just ridiculous,
like I would love to see super, super clear
the math of like, hey guys,
here's the status quo,
here's the change,
here's what this does in numbers are best modeling for mining centralization and bloat.
Take this and that's it.
It's almost almost like I'd almost like to see that written out.
Like if you believe in X, then choose this.
If you believe in Y, then choose this.
And how you phrase those is kind of tricky because I can get political.
But I think if you could sort of compare them in such a way where you have to say, like,
I believe X in their fairly neutral statements, I think that would help people.
I mean, you've already got in the debate.
BTC for plebs, who I assume was kind of skeptical of some of this saying that's fair fighting
for mining decentralization is a good buy.
I think everyone has gotten way too in the weeds.
It's been way too much online.
And if we want to make it super clear,
just like let's lay out the numbers of decentralization.
That's my view.
Cool.
I think we're talking about the V30 versus Nots thing,
but was there anything in this like forking Bitcoin is different,
like a hard fork of Bitcoin is different
than just having a different node implementation, right?
is there an actual discussion about a hard fork?
I think Adam Back or Luke Dash,
was talking about Luke Dash Jr. maybe?
Is that real?
I don't know if that's real or what.
There's an article on it.
I mean, first of all,
I don't think it's super cool to share private DMs.
So I think that's uncool.
But I suspect they're authentic.
And yeah, I think, I mean, in those messages,
Luke said hard fork.
I think he has his own lexicon and definitions for what hard fork even means.
So I think it's, I don't think he meant hard fork in the way that the rest of us interpret hard fork.
I also think it's like perfectly reasonable, especially in a private discussion about just like crazy ass ideas.
Like if you have a goal of like how to stop the spam and think about different tech, because like, again, we stated in the show,
it like no engineer knows how to stop it and bitnext research again had that really good post
on unstoppable jpegs so it's completely reasonable to like think privately about or you know think
about um whether private or public but think about uh ways to stop it but um i don't know the
particular method he was apparently thinking through um certainly has some scary ramifications
my understanding of it
it would be introducing zero knowledge proofs
to help you eliminate certain transactions
that have
content that is undesired
but it introduces trust
because there needs to be a trusted party to determine
what is the bad content
and this harkens back to
what four years ago when Apple announced
that they were going to start scanning all the photos in your phone
for CSAM.
So you start with this very disgusting activity
that society at large has consensus on.
This is bad, bad content.
But it crosses a huge threshold
of where all of a sudden,
it's not only Apple scanning your photos,
but they're using an algorithm
that they don't even know what it is.
some other person or group or committee or entity says, here's the bad stuff.
Apple doesn't know what that stuff is.
The consumer don't know what that stuff is, but it's just labeled bad.
And then if you have bad content, you're flagged and then you'll get in trouble or whatever.
I think that's incredibly dangerous to introduce such a system on Bitcoin.
It's a slippery slope.
And Adam Back talked about the slippery slope there.
And that's a totally separate argument. People want to debate whether or not opportunity should
be increased. That's whatever. But adding zero knowledge proofs to try and scan what's in and
whatnot in the blockchain, that sounds insane to me. The whole idea that Bitcoin is neutral
is destroyed right there. And we have institutions, and this is where I guess I'm not a full crypto
anarchist forever. There's still going to be a government. And if you post horrible things,
I know, if you post horrible, or you do it at a higher level if you want to do it without a
government one day. But the point is, we still have people that break the law should be investigated
and go to jail, but that's not Bitcoin's role to decide. That seems to me just a terrible argument
on face, not even worth addressing. Yeah. So at a really high level, I feel like we know of no
mechanism to stop spam on Bitcoin without these introducing trust solutions or non-solutions.
the mechanism built into bitcoin from day one though is fees you have to pay fees so everyone
getting pissed off about jpegs in the blockchain well we all need to find ways to create more demand
for monetary transactions on bitcoin we talk about that every week in the show because we care about
it and i know everyone in the knots camp and the anti-span camp feel the same way but i just i
They encourage them and everyone in Bitcoin to let's spend Bitcoin more often.
Let's build applications that encourage people to spend their Bitcoin.
Let's use Bitcoin as money.
And then fees will be paid for that.
That'll be the data that goes in the blockchain and we'll be extremely happy.
So that's, to me, the high order bit for all this stuff.
We can't stop it other than doing what I just said.
Well, we've been working on that this week.
if we can put a bow on this thing
I could tell you about
some of the experimentation in that area
I think it might blow Max's mind
so I don't think he's heard anything about this
but I want to check Steve
what's your timing look like?
are you another 15 minutes?
well the good thing is I relocated in Manhattan
so I'm closer to the airport
I think I can go
30 more minutes
Okay. So I think this is, you know, I'd sort of frame it as experimental, not fully polished and stuff. But we, you know, we talk all the time about payment use cases and how to build new things that are sort of natively on Bitcoin and for Bitcoin and use Bitcoin for payment use cases.
and uh and then you and i specifically i think maybe even on the show you have talked about
sort of the ways to have ai agents kind of run themselves right yes and so um i was i was sort
of imagining that idea i think you and i have talked about i think you know our friend matt
who i think everybody knows matt um was also kind of he and i have been sort of jamming on this idea
for a while and um this week he actually put together a little bit of an experiment uh kind
of the working title is is micro platform and it's a way have you seen this well he told me a little
bit about last week oh he did okay but it didn't exist last week right no it was a concept now it
exists i've used it's not it's not in production yet so it's all right it's very think of it as
like very experimental it's still being formed and shaped it's not this isn't like meant to be
like hey everybody hop in and use it um but it's it's kind of cool what what it lets you do is you
create a micro business so you could do it as a human but you could also do as an ai
and it's effectively like a very lightweight vibe coding thing like you go just type something like
i think my first prompt was make a tic-tac-toe game and then you have to pay a thousand bitcoin
So it has a price to like make the thing, right?
And then it has like how many times your business gets created.
And it has a unique URL.
It gets paired with a Nostra identity.
Ooh, it's already using Nostra right now.
It's right now.
You can go on Nostra and see these things.
All right, this is much more interesting.
It creates a profile for the business.
Cool.
And it has a private public key pair.
You don't have to sign up at all for any of this.
This is post-corporated.
happen. Post-corporation, the next generation. Yeah, it really is. And it has, right now it's
kind of structured as a master wallet that each of the businesses is kind of like a sub account,
but you can sort of give them each their own non-custodial wallet eventually. I love this.
And then each business can run, can be owned by somebody who controls the private key,
but obviously you didn't set up traditional payments infrastructure, you didn't set up a
traditional corporation. You didn't set up any of the kind of fundamentals or foundations that you
assume. You just kind of like make a thing, put it out in the world, but it kind of has to be able
to, like somebody has to fund it. So the initial person who like creates it funds it, but you could
imagine that it generates its own money, you know, kind of has some sort of service that people are
willing to pay for. And so I got the tic-tac-toe game working. I think Matt has, you know, five or
six different like an image generator thing.
And when you start to play with it,
it's kind of like, yeah,
this just seems like the obvious future,
like the way you get to the AI
being able to start and run its own business
with a little bit of seed capital
is really, we can do it with humans today
and we can imagine making AIs
do that piece of it over time.
And I was actually, I was saying like,
look, instead of just having our five or six of our own little play things, what if we just have
an AI generate 100 ideas of the things that we should build? And then we can kind of prioritize
those. And run the experiments and have evolution. I mean, this to me, like, this is how Bitcoin
actually gets used for payments. This is awesome. Yeah. Is it live? Matt, if you're listening,
share with me the link, man. I'm sad you haven't already shared it privately. I want to see this.
It's kind of, it's on a live URL. It's not on a public URL that's stable. So it's kind of like,
you know, it's being built with Replit.
So it has those like kind of intermediate URLs,
like dev URLs that are available briefly.
But we'll share a version of it.
And I'll, I mean, yeah.
And if anybody's interested in playing with it,
you can DM me and I'll get you connected and stuff.
That's great.
Yeah.
This is the kind of thing
we've talked about many, many times in the show.
Like instead of people spinning their wheels
and like probably like playing into a state attack,
like be the change you want to see in the world.
We want Bitcoin to actually be used.
Let's find a use case.
By the way, I think it's also just worth mentioning while all the drama is happening in Bitcoin, like FYI, over in like normie land, we've got all the shitcoiners coming out in full storm, which I want to talk more about in relationship with this.
Cloudflare is now doing a stablecoin in their own chain.
You've got Google doing their chain.
All this stuff while we're all over here fighting a silly battle.
Google doesn't have a chain.
Google GCL is not a chain.
Whatever.
It's a database.
It says we're a database.
Let's be a neutral database, right?
Well, it's an important point.
That's why I think it's more compelling.
Yeah, but they're all just databases.
I mean, yes.
No, no, it's literally a database.
It's not a coin.
It doesn't have a blockchain.
So there's no consensus?
I guess it's probably Google, you know, business deals.
Because remember, all the other ones have always been like,
it's a blockchain, but it was always just a database
with a few nodes and the nodes were the corporate.
This doesn't try to convince you that it's a blockchain.
It doesn't convince you there's a token.
It just says, it's a database.
Let's all work together on this database.
To be clear, that used to be illegal.
That's the reason the blockchain theater came out.
Well, it's illegal to issue equity that you call a coin.
So you call it a coin so that you don't get...
But it's also illegal to be a money transmitter or not.
I mean, I'm sure they'll get all their licenses,
but they don't have all the licenses.
To be clear, Facebook, I mean, yes, they also had their coin,
which was a separate story,
but they were trying to do something somewhat similar
as my understanding of Libra,
and that didn't fly in the past.
New administration, you can try new stuff.
Anyways my point is these are all like they not issuing their own stable coin right Sure but even still if you like the payment rail and you competing with Visa you still have to have all the whatever licenses
I don't know what all licenses are.
I don't know what licenses they're going to get,
but part of their marketing was that they're going to be fully compliant.
Amazing.
And I love that.
But my point is Facebook was also, I mean, yes,
I imagine they looked at both options.
They had the coin, which was backed by the basket of goods,
but then they also had the rail,
which was a blockchain,
but really just a database.
And I'm saying now,
I think both of those are like two separate issues,
but both largely were not allowed
by Congress at the time.
And today, the second piece,
Google's taking out,
but the first piece,
there's a reason big tech hasn't been allowed,
or maybe there's not,
maybe I don't know all the history of this as well,
but to compete directly with Visa.
Like Visa's not going to like just take that, right?
So I don't know.
Anyways, my broader point is
while all this debate is happening,
like the centralized powers,
X402 is catching on,
which by the way, X402 just jacked L402's name
and is running with all this stuff.
And so I do think that time is a bit of the essence.
I mean, I think in the long run, it doesn't matter.
Everything has to come back to Bitcoin because it's open.
But like, if we really want to not go through a dark age
where, you know, payments get even more centralized
and more controlled,
then I think we need stuff like what you're saying
that has to use Bitcoin
because the agents are autonomous
and there's no way to register them in the old system.
before the new Cloudflare and Coinbase
and all the shitcoin stuff pops off.
So anyone who's fighting over a silly battle,
focus your attention instead on what DK is saying
and build agents that are using payments
and everyone's going to be a lot happier.
Well, I'll share.
I mean, once we wrap this, I'll share and show you.
But one of the things that I think is exciting
about the structure of this thing
is that anything that gets created on micro platform,
you actually see everything else that's created.
So like if you make something, all of a sudden anybody else who's using it to make their own things will see your thing.
I love it.
And so in a sense, it has, I kind of was saying it feels a little bit like, you know, like what people used to use products hunt for is to kind of like, hey, here's a thing, you know, here's a thing I made, check it out.
Or, you know, I think like what TikTok does, it tries to get you the video that is kind of most interesting for you, given what it knows about you.
Well, obviously, a micro platform doesn't know anything about anybody yet, but it's like, here's all the stuff being made.
so it becomes a little bit of like a discovery or distribution hub for kind of bitcoin centric apps
that don't don't really have you know today they need a little bit of infrastructure running but
like long term they probably don't you have relay ecosystem or something like that and to be clear
you can't have the reputation right because if it's already using nostr this has always been what
we're all so bullish on nostr in the long run you just log in and all the reputation i've accrued
over you know using apps like primal or domus and fountain and all the rest can i can just bring
with me. Yeah. I gotta say, Matt, who I would say is kind of the mastermind behind that structure
that it sees today, was originally pretty skeptical of Nostr. And then he said, actually,
it's really useful for this thing. So I'm going to build with it. So I think it's a nice,
you know, I don't want to say he converted, but I think he's maybe appropriately skeptical of some
of the use cases of Nostr. You purple-pilled them. But when the infrastructure makes sense,
like it just, it's there. I love it. This is the most exciting thing I've heard all week.
So I have a couple notes here because I was asking Matt kind of about his framing for it.
And he was saying, you know, some open questions to explore.
So how much autonomy can these kind of businesses have and execute?
Today, it's more like I click a create button, I type a prompt, I pay the invoice, and then the thing exists.
It's not really autonomous in a sense.
Now I could generate 100 ideas, feed them in, and that's not still quite autonomous.
So at some point, in a sense, I should be getting out of the loop and these things should just be getting made by themselves.
So right now it's like a very human driven version, but I think it's like stepping stones that could graduate to the old vision that you've painted of like autonomous agents kind of just making their own businesses.
Right.
So that's one kind of open question.
How much autonomy can they have?
Should there be something like instant forking?
how much, like if I see,
if you see my tic-tac-toe game,
should you be able to show up and be like,
I actually want to take that tic-tac-toe game,
but I want to launch my own version of this business.
It's a separate business
that actually has a leaderboard attached to it.
Right?
I love it.
And it has kind of a GitHub,
open source feel to it,
which is another,
it kind of combines.
This is a great idea, Matt.
You should go on on this.
It kind of combines a ton of really cool things.
And then he was,
today you actually click create
and you type the prompt in there.
Yeah.
And probably this thing itself,
I'd say it's special in the layer of like
how to manage and collect and distribute payments
and how to kind of help people discover the apps.
But like the create and the create process
is not like the ultimate vibe coding activity.
Like there's plenty of other great vibe coding tools.
So one of the open questions that he was raising
is how rich a full vibe coding experience
should be built in natively.
Like if he wants to rebuild Repplet, basically.
Yeah, or do you provide integration hooks
to participate as a platform without building there?
And I actually built an app
that I've been meaning to build
as a demo version of this kind of thing.
But it's more like a specific app
that could then graduate to the broader platform.
And I found that I actually needed
to do a little more internal tweaking.
So I used Repplet,
and I am sort of like built by MicroPlatform,
but it's actually built sort of separately,
natively with the Replit tooling,
but kind of the distribution and payment integrations
with MicroPlatform are kind of,
that's sort of what I consider
by being like built on that.
So I really think it's like a distribution hub in a sense.
Yeah, I love it.
And a payment kind of hub in a sense,
but maybe it could be exported to,
you know to even most of those functions could be run sort of in a more decentralized way i love
this it sounds like you're mad at a startup and you can oh and you can imagine that in a sense
you're getting a little bit of a there's a a form of like if if you put in a thousand bitcoin to
create something presumably you own the whole thing yeah it's like equity yeah if you put in
500 and i put in 500 presumably we each own a piece of it and what's super dope about that is
you can even take that to the next level.
And like, you think about what is equity?
I mean, equity has two pieces.
There's the sort of like voting or control piece,
and then there's the claim on future cash flows.
So I've been thinking for a long time
about what is a claim on future cash flows look like
in this like non, whatever, in this internet first world.
And we've talked about this before.
I thought about from the music perspective,
where let's say you have a torrent of a song
and you're sharing that torrent.
And in this case, maybe people need to zap it
to listen to it, or maybe they just donate.
But either way, what you can do is you can have split payments like a waterfall built in.
So let's say, as an example, someone shares a song, they do the zap split payments of like,
okay, I took this drum kit from this producer I like, and now he gets a couple of bips from my future cash flows.
And then I took this voice from the singer I like, and now she gets a few more bips and all this stuff.
And you have this cash flow.
Now, one challenge there is like, wow, how do you know because information wants to be free that people are just going to like jack your code?
One is it's easier just to click work and people like easy.
And two is that you can build the incentives such that there's a, the shelling point is from the original author.
That's kind of like, so like when Radiohead released in Rainbows, Tom York released Tomorrow's Modern Boxes as Torrents, people could have taken from a different site.
But if they sign with their private key, again, why Nostra is important to this is me, and people that want to support the artist or people, and likewise, you can even have cuts built in where it's like in the future, if you push it, you get a share of the profits by being the marketing piece.
The same thing is going to work for software or apps.
So it's like, okay, cool, this app is super popular, like Skibity.
Skibity is super popular.
I'm going to fork Skibity and the original Skibity.
why because now our incentives are aligned then the people in the skibbity community to push
you know this water flow waterfall versus another one yeah i love it this is one of the best ideas
you all have had cool well i'll i'll share soon at least privately once i get it up that first app
which is a it's a community video collaboration app so have you have you ever seen um this was
from like 25 years ago do you ever see no subservient chicken definitely this is like a
webcam where you're watching a chicken a guy in a chicken suit what are they doing i'll do whatever
you ask him to do oh no i mean within reason there's probably some guardrails on that uh-oh
but you can do this now with video generation right sounds like we might need a zero knowledge
proof so so this this app that i built you can um you can you know there's a character and you can
see what other people made the character do and then you can prompt yourself pay 500 bitcoin or
thousand bitcoin and then it generates the video of the character doing whatever you whatever idea
you had like oh it's cool blow me a kiss or uh you know do yoga or you know do jumping jacks whatever
so interesting first uh first prompt the deacon you sorry that's what's actually on the site
um so anyway that is uh that is what we're hacking around on it's a great idea anyway if you want to
play around i'll share with you and obviously even the group chat if anybody else is interested to
play around, DM me and
Sounds like Austin.
Connected, yeah.
Oh yeah, good.
Austin knows subservient chicken.
Shout out.
Yeah, Burger King promo.
That's right.
That's like internet history there.
Steve, how are you doing?
Steve's been on his chat the whole time.
Yeah, I'll leave in a few.
He's looking at subservient chicken.
Is there anything you want to make sure
we touch on before you
bon voyage?
No.
I'll just...
silently disappear in a few minutes.
Cool.
I know you guys shared,
and I took a brief look at the dystopian vision
of the future of AI-generated video.
Did I share this?
Vibes.
Who shared vibes?
I didn't share this.
Steve, was that you?
Nobody shared this?
Maybe it was another group chat.
Matt did.
Oh, okay.
Matt shared.
So there's, you know, Facebook has now launched a new app, I think, called Vibes, which is effectively like a TikTok thing, I think, that you're just watching.
Just what the world needs.
AI-generated video content.
Oh, man.
I looked at the launch video and like it, you know, all the visuals are like, you know, nice and appealing, whatever.
But like, I can't imagine why you would want to just hang out there and flip through these things.
Unless you're really just like nothing to do, slack jawed, sitting on the couch.
Why does TikTok exist? What's the difference?
I mean, I think in TikTok, you feel like you're maybe connecting with somebody.
you're gonna you know maybe do i don't know i feel like there's something around connecting that
maybe tick tock has at least an imagination maybe someday you'll connect and if this is just
there's so much ai video content i'm not sure why why to go one place versus another and especially
and it has like create and remix and stuff so it kind of has all the primitives you expect
um but uh but yeah just when i saw it kind of just looks dystopian to me yeah no i mean like
almost everything Facebook has shipped is pretty dystopian.
I mean, yeah, I think, I don't know, man.
I think the next couple of years,
you know, the stuff you're talking about with Nostre
and like user identity,
that makes me very hopeful
for the future of technology and humanity.
But I think the next couple of years could get very bad.
And honestly, I don't know,
like I'm trying to figure this out in my own life,
part of the reason I don't answer messages in the morning,
is like, I think it's super important
that people figure out like how to unplug.
because I think the next couple of years,
I think like even more,
like people talk about sovereignty and freedom.
That's more important than Bitcoin.
And I don't know, man,
like this next couple of years
during the AI transition,
I think we're going to figure it out.
In the long run,
you'll own your own identity.
You'll have your own reputation.
And a lot of these tools
that we're working on are going to help.
But yeah, man,
a lot of people are just going to get,
you know, the Zuck thing
where everyone's like strapped in with VR
and like it's literally like drooling.
Like, I don't know.
It's not that far off.
But what are the practices
that you're incorporating.
Like you do some meditation stuff.
You stay off Twitter as much as possible.
You just have it removed from your phone?
I removed all the apps from my phone.
I do black and white scale.
I'm even trying to now just leave my phone behind more
and like only really do things on the computer.
I don't have a signal on my phone.
I don't know.
This is a work in progress
and it's still not something I totally figured out.
I don't know.
I mean, because the thing is like,
you know, it's like I think about the Kevin Kelly example.
It's like, you know, I really respect the Amish
in that they test technologies first
and then they decide what's good for them.
But I'm not anti-tech, I love tech.
But, you know, until we get to that decentralized thing,
I know that like the brainwashing
is only going to increase.
So I don't know, I mean, I'd love to hear from you guys,
from folks in the chat, like what is the right balance?
I don't know, but I feel like
if you don't have focus and attention
in the next couple of years,
like it's going to be a, I don't know,
it's going to be a dark, dark dystopian thing.
I know that's like, it's a very positive note,
I think I do a good job when I'm in person with people, like yesterday's event or dinner, or if I'm having dinner with a friend or I'm mountain biking with a friend, I am very good about not being on my phone. Otherwise, I am on my phone, like pretty much, or computer the whole time.
so um i did disable twitter notifications many years ago on my phone and that helped a lot
so at least i was the one deciding i was deciding to enter that versus being drawn in
i i would suggest that for everyone there's really notifications in general yeah yeah i also did that
house cleaning like four or five years ago where i went i disabled like every notification
from every app on my phone.
And then only when I felt pain
by not having it,
then I would re-enable it.
Yeah, that's a good idea.
Yeah.
Start from scratch and add it as you need.
I also think like where you give your attention,
like if you give your attention to an algorithm,
that's pretty different than like,
I give my attention to you and Steve
through our group chat.
And then I click on links that you guys send me.
I don't know where you guys got them from.
Yeah.
But I don't give my attention to the algorithm.
I give my attention to people.
Totally.
which again, that's one of the beauties of something like Noster is like, you know, today
it's challenging though, right? Because like, I think about this, actually, this is a great example.
We all share links in the chat and like, I do want to read the links you guys share and I generally
do, but sometimes I'm like, man, I don't want to log into Twitter and as they, or Reddit or like
whatever, if they start, um, you know, uh, paywalling it or that.
That is, so DK's point is really, really good. But so, so is that when I,
I also love the filter that I get from my friends, but you click through
and then all of a sudden you're exposed to the drama
and it just naturally sucks you in.
So I need to figure out a better filter for that.
By the way, that's Nostra, right?
In the future, you could have a custom app that says,
I just want to see an app, this post, nothing else.
Maybe we could make some sort of a workflow,
like, I don't know, AppleScript or something,
where we could share from,
like if I share a link from Twitter,
it gets posted as a Nostra note
and it shares the Nostra note to you.
That's a great idea.
If someone's listening, the world needs that.
okay guys
I am gonna run
I've got a big
international flight
okay
sorry to bail early
good luck
no
all good
and
you got eight minutes
of a real show
probably miss next week too
so
till the next time
we'll go see you guys
have fun
bye bye
so yeah
I don't know
I mean
I've actually got
a thing coming up
in a few minutes here
guys coming in to host
so I don't know
if you got any
last minute topics
that we should
no I mean
I just think
we should address
I think, again, I would love to see more of the community from Bitcoin and Nostra think about things like that.
Yes, I love that idea of, can you, because there's still better content on Twitter in general, can you port that out and post it?
I think, you know, we talk a lot about freedom technology, and I get it, and that's great.
But I think it's become kind of like a bit of a trite meme at this point where it's like, oh, the state's coming for me.
I'm like, maybe, but I think the real attack is less 1984 and more brave new world.
Yeah, yeah.
And so I think the more freedom of your mind technology is possible, the more you say, no, I'm not going to get, even if I want to click on this link, or like building products that allow people to live calm lives is, I think, the number one most important thing, even more important than Bitcoin.
Yep.
Love it.
Bitcoin show and even more important than Bitcoin.
Which is, yeah.
It's a high bar, but I tend to kind of agree.
Oh, someone, Matthew Cote says, oh, I met Matt last week.
Use Knitter Links.
No algo on that app.
I don't even know what Knitter.
I see Knitter.
I think people share stuff.
What is Knitter?
I thought it was some sort of aggregation point or something.
Or maybe it's a way that you can point to a bunch of different things.
But I don't know.
We'll take out.
Thanks for the shout out.
Yeah, thanks for that.
We'll take a look at Knitter.
Yeah.
Knitter.
Interesting name.
All right.
Until next week.