Roundtable_013 - From 1 Zetahash to the Patriot Act

[00:00:00] Speaker A: What is up, guys? Welcome back to Bitcoin Audible. I am Guy Swan, the guy who has read more about bitcoin than anybody else you know. And we are back with the round table. We have everybody, Steve only got to join us for like the first hour, but we kept going. We've got Steve, my brother Jeff and my good friend bitcoin Mechanic and we dig into a whole bunch of stuff. We do cover the spam war and drama and stuff a little bit and we talk about this ridiculous article that acts like Luke was actually proposing a hard fork, which he wasn't. But we, we get into all of that and Mechanic shares a little bit of opinion on that, but we don't. This, that's not really the focus of today's episode. We hit a bunch of different news items. Some updates on cbdc, some new and old surveillance laws being used in very bad ways. Proton mail not kind of getting in a little bit of a tussle with Switzerland and maybe even leaving the country to protect themselves and their service. New biometric banking system integrations in Vietnam and a couple of other countries that have resulted in crazy crackdowns and mass account closures and all sorts of stuff. We talk about stablecoins and some new news and movement on the front of moving stablecoins onto bitcoin and in another way, not only on lightning and then a little bit of El Salvador versus the IMF because somebody's lying. Somebody's lying. El Salvador says they're still buying. IMF says they're definitely, definitely not still buying. So does that matter and who do we think is the one that's full of shit? So we dig into all this stuff, a bunch of other news items as well and it's always good to hang. [00:01:52] Speaker B: Out with the crew. [00:01:54] Speaker A: So real quick, just a shout out to Ledin IO for simple, easy bitcoin backed loans. I really think this is going to be a huge market in the future. The idea of collateralized loans that can be done securely and transparently and LEDN has made a really, really fantastic service of which I am a customer. And of course pubkey pubkey app that's P u b k Y they are synonym is building a protocol stack for re decentralizing the web and they have some amazing tools. Check it out especially if you're a builder. Then git chroma for light health they do red light therapy. They have blue light blocking glasses that I wear religiously every night when I'm working on my stuff here in the sitting in front of the Stupid screen to help get my circadian rhythm in order. And that's actually made a huge difference. And a lot of other really cool lights. I'm a big fan of the skylight, the Mini in particular, but check out their stuff. And you have a 10 discount with code, bitcoin, audible. And then lastly, the HRF, the Human Rights foundation and their Financial freedom report and the Oslo Freedom Forum and all of the incredible work that they do just to just a never ending kudos for the work they do and the information and tools they bring together for people for fighting for freedom around the world. So with that, let's get into today's roundtable. This is roundtable 13. We've been going for over a year and we have got an awesome one today. So this is roundtable 13. From one Zeta hash to the Patriot act with guys. Roundtable, guys. How has September been for all of you? Start with Jeff. What's. Let's update with Jeff. [00:03:57] Speaker C: Pretty crazy. I'm doing lots of hip mobility exercises. [00:04:02] Speaker A: Oh, my God, you're old. Oh, my God. We're starting off with all of us being old as. [00:04:07] Speaker C: Dude. It's so great, though. It's so great. It's changing my life. It's making. It's making life. It's making me feel less old. Wonderful. [00:04:17] Speaker A: What's going on in the bitcoin space? Well, I'm getting my hip exercises in. I'm feeling. Feeling two years younger today. Feel like I'm 63. [00:04:29] Speaker C: Serious. Seriously though, if you have lower back problems, it's possible, it's quite possible that the problem is in your hips, especially if you sit in front of a computer a lot. [00:04:38] Speaker B: Y. [00:04:39] Speaker C: You just. Your hips are all jacked up and I had no idea. And it's wonderful. So that's good. [00:04:47] Speaker A: Okay, I'm hip exercises. Good stuff. 90. [00:04:55] Speaker C: You got to get you some 90 90s happening. You got to do those 9090s and couch stretches. [00:05:03] Speaker D: Okay. [00:05:04] Speaker A: You'll have to send me a YouTube video. [00:05:06] Speaker C: I will. [00:05:08] Speaker A: How about you, mechanic? What's up? Any new drama? [00:05:11] Speaker D: Yeah, always drama. Always, always. We'll get into it, of course, because spam wars is always fun. But yeah, we had like, TMZ equivalent come after us yesterday. We're like, luke, plans are hard for us. Like, I have like eight of those kinds of conversations a week in signal about, hey, what if we did this and what if we did that? This is kind of how I learn about how bitcoin works. It's not the same as actually proposing a fork and trying to do stuff. So, you know, that was fun. Like, there's been this whole week of hit pieces against Luke, which has been, you know, kind of telling. Really. The. Yesterday's one was fun, though, because even, like, Jonas Schnelli and, like, even Udi Wertimer and people that, like, absolutely hate Luke and knots and all that stuff were like, yeah, this is ridiculous. So kind of good, really. So which one. [00:06:01] Speaker A: Which one was that one that they were. [00:06:04] Speaker D: It was the rage. The rage, which is like, oh, wait. [00:06:07] Speaker A: That one got published. [00:06:09] Speaker D: I think so. I mean, it got published. Yeah. And it's. It contains a bunch of. [00:06:13] Speaker A: I thought you. You sent the screenshot of, like, the signal message or something. [00:06:16] Speaker D: Oh, yeah, yeah, that. That was in that article and that, you know, and it was just because Steve. Steve somehow said something totally out of left of left field in our group chat this month. He was like, I'm starting to think journalism is inherently unethical unless it targets the state, because going after private people and telling the world what they're doing is just fundamentally a crappy thing to do. And I'm like. [00:06:40] Speaker A: You don't have the worst point. That's not. That's a good way. [00:06:44] Speaker D: Yeah, right. And, like, it's one of those things where defense of it always ends up upside down. It's like, well, someone's gotta hold truth to power, but they always end up being a propaganda arm of the state. That's like all the media ever does that we know about. And even social media has gotten, like, largely captured. Right. Because you have algo manipulation and stuff. So anyway, I'm. I'm all right. Like, Ocean is like 15, 16, sometimes 17x, so we've grown a lot. So, yeah, things are moving in a good direction. And I'm sure we'll get into some specifics. [00:07:19] Speaker A: I'm. I'm actually really excited I haven't sent this to you yet, Jeffrey, but we got first pictures of hash huts in the. Getting. Starting to get plugged in for the thing we've been. [00:07:31] Speaker C: We've been working with. [00:07:32] Speaker A: So I'm super stoked about that. And that will actually be on Ocean. So stuff to be. Stuff to be plugged in soon, Steve. How about you, boss? [00:07:41] Speaker B: Oh, well, speaking of tmz, do you guys remember when Charlie Sheen had his very public kind of benders? [00:07:50] Speaker C: Yes. [00:07:50] Speaker B: Going crazy. Okay, so winning thing. Yes. [00:07:53] Speaker D: Double winning. All that stuff. [00:07:55] Speaker B: Double winning. [00:07:55] Speaker C: Did you guys watch the Joe Rogan episode with Charlie Sheen? [00:07:59] Speaker A: No. [00:07:59] Speaker D: Well, I watched a clip. [00:08:01] Speaker B: Yeah, I watched a clip of him. [00:08:02] Speaker D: Like, saying crack while getting Head is the best possible feeling. [00:08:07] Speaker C: Yeah, he said, he said you can never recover for like there's nothing. I'm still chasing that high or whatever. Yeah, but also he, he was doing, he was doing crack and just coating himself in this like testosterone cream. So he's doing crack and testosterone. [00:08:23] Speaker A: Like, just. [00:08:24] Speaker C: That's the funniest I've ever heard. Like, like I'm addicted to CR testosterone. I just. No wonder he was bugging. [00:08:34] Speaker D: Sounds like trust to. To take care of my kids if I ever needed to go away for a bit. [00:08:41] Speaker B: No, but, yeah, so that Joe Rogan clip was like a intro or whatever advertisement for the Netflix special. So the Netflix special came out last week and four part miniseries and man, I don't know, dude, watching that was just awesome. It got me feeling like, man, I might have a little tiger blood in me too, you know? Like, I'm not sure if I'm bipolar or. By winning. [00:09:11] Speaker A: Yeah, by winning. [00:09:13] Speaker D: Serotonin is contagious, man. When you hang out with like. I remember I met this dude years ago. Like someone introduced me to this dude, was like, hey, how you doing? I'm something. That was it. And I felt like in a good mood for like two days. That guy was so happy and like just enjoying himself. Like, like it's contagiously great. [00:09:35] Speaker B: Other than that, I've been working on a new YouTube live stream for my UTX Oracle project, which is going to be more about showing every single transaction live as it comes. Kind of like the bit. Listen, Bubbles, I don't know if you guys remember the ding ding ling. [00:09:54] Speaker D: Oh yeah, yeah. Didn't that become malware at one point? Was that that that website got taken over and replaced with malware at one point. And yeah, it was like a big scandal. [00:10:05] Speaker B: But anyway, I am making a improved version of that because people loved that. And I can make a better one that shows the new transactions and the entire history of the blockchain at the same time and the price signal in the chart all at the same time with cool colors and animations and just trying to get people to run nodes, man, I like it. [00:10:28] Speaker A: That's dope. I want that on my own node. Yeah, 100, actually. I love that stuff. I'm such a dork for those sorts of things, honestly. [00:10:38] Speaker D: Well, I mean, that's a good first topic because I keep getting into conversations when people are like, you know, people want to talk about economic nodes and like categories of nodes and why do you even run a node? And a lot of people are just like, hey, run a node, verify your UTXOs and then you don't need to run it anymore. Like NVK said that I'm like, wait a minute, you know there's loads of other things you can do with a bitcoin node, right? Like, yeah, and I love, I'd love to add to the list, get the price with your own source of truth. Because I mean this, if you want to mine, you need a node. If you want to run a lightning node, you need a node. If you want to. If you want to send bitcoins over. [00:11:17] Speaker C: To check any transaction privately, it just makes it awesome. [00:11:21] Speaker A: Do it with your node. Yeah. [00:11:22] Speaker B: Or trade. You know, there's a lot of trading. [00:11:25] Speaker D: Information trading too, and coin joining as well. If you are on a coordinate, you need a node like this. There's a lot of reasons to run a node. And also just being a citizen of the network, like you want to help other people run theirs, they're going to need to download stuff from someone. So that can be you. So I'd love the US dollar price to be a function. [00:11:42] Speaker B: Yeah, it's been a little noisy lately. It's still there, but is it get price? [00:11:47] Speaker D: What are you going to call the rpc? [00:11:49] Speaker B: Yeah, man. Luke was joking around about me adding that to knots, man, I'd love to do that one day. [00:11:55] Speaker D: But that isn't a joke, man. It is. I think you'll add it. [00:11:57] Speaker B: It is a little noisy though. I'm like, I don't want my reputation to be behind something that kind of like embarrasses me one day, but one day I gotta keep working on it. [00:12:07] Speaker D: Well, maybe, maybe you can add in. [00:12:08] Speaker A: Like, dude, it is wrong to be on this show. [00:12:14] Speaker B: Oh yeah. My reputation is gone. [00:12:16] Speaker A: My reputation behind something that's gonna embarrass me. Welcome to the round table. I got tiger blood. Whoops. [00:12:29] Speaker B: I guess. [00:12:29] Speaker A: Well, we got, we got a whole ton of news items and I didn't really get to dig into any of this, which sucks. That was, that was my intent today. But today is the day that Fiat stole from me out of the last 20, so. But one thing, one thing in particular that I wanted to bring up, and we can probably just start on this one, is just. There was proton mail. This is so hilarious. This is like. This is like peak government is Switzerland is. Looks like they're going to be enacting a law. It's called the oscpt. But it's basically a surveillance law that says if you have more than 5,000 users for like your service, you have to Store, like, this huge list of identity data. You have to retain it for this many years. You have to know it. Basically kyc. It's basically KYC for Proton Mail. And they immediately, immediately were like, we're gonna have to leave Zealand. And they're making a huge investment in, I think, a cluster in Norway or Germany or something, or they're doing multiple ones. They're basically immediately putting their foot out the door. And then the Swiss government comes back and it's like, we don't. We don't take kindly to threats that you're going to. You're going to try to. You're going to try to blackmail us with money and say that you're going to leave. It was like, their whole service doesn't work. Like, like they can't. Like, like, like, this is. This is on Proton Mail to have to please the Swiss government, because you're doing something that literally negates the entire. The, The. The raison d' etre of their existence. [00:14:19] Speaker C: Like, we explicitly created this law to go after you. How dare you escape it. [00:14:23] Speaker D: You've wasted our time. Like, I understand this. Like, people have. This is. I mean, do you remember Lava bit like, might they just have to shut down? Because they're like, well, you know, this is. [00:14:36] Speaker A: We can't do anything. There's nothing to do about it. You have to shut down. [00:14:39] Speaker D: This is another thing that makes me. I hadn't heard of this till you said it. I'm a fan of ProtonMail. I use ProtonMail. And every time they get embroiled in some sort of battle like this, it tells me that they are on the right side of the things they do. Because if they're a honeypot, as some people allege, then they wouldn't be getting into these kinds of problems. They'd be like NordVPN, who just sit there having fun on every single YouTube. Right? Like, you know, that's a honeypot. Because there's no resistance ever to anything ExpressVPN. NordVPN make your Internet private. Zero faith that that's actually anything there. Whereas ProtonMail are constantly getting antagonized by the state. [00:15:21] Speaker C: And that makes me think, didn't Nordvpn have Condoleezza Rice or something working for them? Like, what the fuck? Like, I'm serious. Like, wasn't that a thing? Like, it's. It doesn't even, like, be more clear that, like, this is compromised. [00:15:40] Speaker B: Yeah, I mean, I doubt people know who that is anymore. [00:15:45] Speaker A: Oh, God. Are we. [00:15:45] Speaker B: Is that. [00:15:46] Speaker A: Is that another. Like, yeah, I'M doing hip exercises. Like, we're all. [00:15:57] Speaker D: I mean, I like them. They got a bitcoin wallet, right? It's bitcoin only. I think there was some cool design elements around it. So, yeah, they just seem like bros in general. Like, I like them because they took a terrible protocol, which is email, and made it as good as it can be and, and just told everyone, all the haters, go ahead, try and do something better. And everyone's like, well, I don't actually have any better solutions, but still, screw you. Anyway, that's because that's what people are like. So it reminds me of the whole ocean battle because ocean has things about it that drive everyone nuts. And I'm like, that's because of just how bitcoin works. Like, we can't pay 8,000 people every single block because 7,000 of them will have a UTXO of eight satoshis, which is useless and unspendable in any context. So we have to have a solution to that. And that's just the way it is. We can't pay you in a lightning channel in a coinbase transaction. So people complain and complain. And I'm like, try, try and come up with a better design. Given the constraints of how bitcoin works, given the constraints of how email works, come up with something better than ProtonMail. Technically, your stuff's still in plain text. It doesn't get encrypted until that's email. Email is a plain text protocol. There's nothing we can do about that. All we could do is get embroiled in constant battles because we're still making things harder for the state than they'd like and they're coming after us and we're having to do annoying stuff that we wouldn't do unless we were being performative or we actually meant it. And I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. [00:17:28] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, no, I feel like. And I had their CEO on the show and that was actually a really fun conversation. [00:17:36] Speaker D: Really? [00:17:37] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, it's been a while. It's been like a year and something or whatever. But yeah, I think Samson actually had been talking to them or something. They, they discussed briefly, like liquid and stuff like that because they, they entertained a bunch of different stuff around bitcoin and they, they went with simple and like dumb, reliable, can't break, easy to prove, like non custodial and all that stuff, which was just basic bitcoin on chain. And they just said, I had a good conversation with him, but he was like, lightning's just not ready. They could not figure out a way to make it. Make it what they wanted, you know, where. Where they were not going to be reliable or liable for, you know, operation or a bunch of different things with that. [00:18:25] Speaker D: So, yeah, man. Lightning. Not only is lightning not ready, but Bolt 12 lightning as well. If you want to really just only use broken stuff. I responded to 45 emails this morning. 45 emails from people that had an issue with getting paid. And it's like, oh, man, it's just driving me absolutely nuts. [00:18:45] Speaker A: Like, if I wake up and there's 45 emails in my inbox, I will not read them for four days. It will be at least next week, four business days minimum before trouble is. [00:18:58] Speaker D: Then you'll wake up the next day and there'll be more than like 93. And they multiply. [00:19:04] Speaker B: You guys will be happy about this. I got my bar on the beta tester group for the new square pos terminal thing. [00:19:14] Speaker A: I saw that. [00:19:16] Speaker B: Yeah. Aren't you guys proud of me? Me? [00:19:18] Speaker C: I'm very proud. [00:19:19] Speaker A: That's awesome. [00:19:20] Speaker B: Me, skeptical lightning guy. I'm a good tester. [00:19:23] Speaker C: That's awesome. [00:19:24] Speaker B: I'm going to send them so many failures. [00:19:27] Speaker A: Yeah, I got a. I'm going to write a full complaint letter and they're going to get every. [00:19:34] Speaker B: Why did you want to test? All you do is bitch. [00:19:38] Speaker D: What kind of invoice does it create? [00:19:41] Speaker B: I don't know yet. [00:19:41] Speaker A: We'll see. [00:19:42] Speaker B: It comes out today, actually. [00:19:44] Speaker A: Oh, really? [00:19:45] Speaker B: Well, the beta for testers was come out today. [00:19:48] Speaker D: Yeah. [00:19:49] Speaker A: Okay, sweet. I'll. I'll come by. I'll come by and buy. I won't. I don't have the time to do it. But I'll in the next. Maybe I'll actually make it to the meetup this Tuesday. [00:19:59] Speaker B: Oh, yeah. And I have a cool thing going on with the meetup. So my bar has shirts, but it does not have orange shirts. But now it has orange shirts. And there's only one way you can get an orange shirt. [00:20:09] Speaker A: Okay, good. Yeah, you got to. [00:20:11] Speaker B: You can only get an orange shirt if you pay for it in bitcoin. [00:20:15] Speaker A: Oh, that's not stupid. [00:20:16] Speaker B: Like, oh, Raleigh meetup Bros. You know? No, it's just, you know, bar name, crafty, but orange. [00:20:25] Speaker A: Cool orange. [00:20:25] Speaker B: Yeah, the orange. [00:20:27] Speaker A: Because it means. It means bitcoin. [00:20:29] Speaker B: No, you know, secret orange shirts. Secret cult inside of a cult bar in the bottom of dive bar. [00:20:39] Speaker A: All right, let's go down some items. Let's go down some items. So we got the name Cheap CEO announced that a $2 million Bitcoin payment for their largest ever domain sale. Used Btcpay server. What was the domain? Pretty dope. [00:21:01] Speaker B: Tell us the domain. [00:21:02] Speaker A: I didn't see. [00:21:03] Speaker B: No, they wouldn't tell us. They're like, oh, I can't say what. [00:21:05] Speaker A: The domain pornhub IO Exactly. You know it. [00:21:08] Speaker B: You know that's what it was. That's why they didn't say it. [00:21:13] Speaker A: Can't say the domain name. But it's for english.com. no, they won't. They won't say it. [00:21:19] Speaker D: Really? [00:21:19] Speaker A: Come on. [00:21:20] Speaker B: No, they definitely did say. And I searched for it because I was curious. [00:21:24] Speaker A: You searched for it? Okay. [00:21:26] Speaker D: I mean, you can probably figure it out because, like, the domains that are that expensive don't presumably don't change hands that often. Like, so, I mean, if there was a ma. If something got like registered two days ago or something, I don't know, maybe you could figure it out. [00:21:41] Speaker B: Could just be like, michael.com steve.com, like some billionaire just really wanted it. [00:21:47] Speaker A: Yeah, it's like, I'm gonna get my name. I'll get my name. I'm Steve. [00:21:51] Speaker D: Maybe it was Bitcoin.com. that's gonna be worth a lot. [00:21:54] Speaker A: Exercises two and I hit exercises. I'm the Steve.com. [00:22:01] Speaker B: Just a troller. [00:22:05] Speaker C: Dude. Michael Malice does that. Michael Malice buys people's names just to troll them. [00:22:11] Speaker A: Does he? Oh, that's. That's fantastic. Of course he does. EasyJet founder to launch Easy Bitcoin after a brand licensing deal with regulated trading platform uphold. I have no idea if, like, that's something to be even, like, interested in. But it's just, it is interesting purely from the sense that, like, other people or other companies are trying to do. Trying to do their bitcoin branch. But I have no idea whether to think that's going to be, like, just utter bullshit or if that's actually going to be a valuable thing. Fold partners with Stripe and Visa to launch the Credit Rewards credit card. So it's bitcoin only rewards. No token staking, exchange, lock ins, nothing like that. It's direct to Sats and offering up to 10% back for specific brands. Now, I'm really excited about this. I want to loop back around because I want to get the last item under the business tab. So tether seeks a $500 billion valuation with a $20 billion private raise for a 3% stake. They announced that they're holding over 100,000 bitcoin and more than 50 tons of gold in reserves. And the company has Announced the launch of its stablecoin on rgb, enabling native stablecoin issuance directly on Bitcoin. [00:23:30] Speaker D: So rgb, hey, Giacomo will be happy. [00:23:34] Speaker A: I know. I was just thinking, I'm going to message Giacomo and see what he's got to say about that. Um, in fact, we, we had actually talked about doing a show with him. That would, that would be a perfect, perfect thing to bring up. Um, I'm so I'm curious, do y' all have comments on any of those? Before I jump, I want to jump on the fold. And then I have something to say about the tether thing too. [00:23:55] Speaker C: Why did they. I thought the, the idea was they were going to issue stable coins on Lightning. What? [00:24:02] Speaker D: Well, there's Tether on tap. [00:24:04] Speaker A: That's Tethered assets. [00:24:07] Speaker D: So the tether is on Taproot assets, I guess. And whatever this new stablecoin is, is on rgb. Is that the right. [00:24:15] Speaker A: I think it's still just Tether, but Tether's issued on like five different chains already. It's like Ethereum, Solana, Tron. Like I think they're just trying different options for on Bitcoin Tether. [00:24:28] Speaker C: They're going to have on Chain Tether and Lightning Tether. [00:24:31] Speaker A: Yeah, I think it makes sense too because you'll be with Atomic. [00:24:34] Speaker D: I still don't know if I like any of this. It's like it's well meaning as far as I can tell. If I can be that naive on the show, like they, they'll Tether will use anything as middleware. They just can't run their own ledger because then they're liable for it. So they just need to use something else. It doesn't matter if it's really decentralized or not. So that's why they like run on Ethereum and Tron and like anything else, they don't really care because then the minute the authorities come and say this was bad, they're like, well, that's not our network. We used someone else's network. So I get that. And it gives them deniability and stuff. And their whole stated intention is like, well, we don't want to give that activity to a non bitcoin ecosystem. We want to use Bitcoin for it and give back to Bitcoin. Like because they're bitcoiners. Right, I get that. But it just invites a bunch of like, you know, upside down, it just screws up incentives some way. Or at least it changes things. Like if Bitcoin is the host body for all of the Tether activity. I'm like, that's going to affect Bitcoin. It's going to backflow back into that system somehow. It can't just sit on top and not affect the underlying system. There's a. And it. And I just can't reason about what the actual effects of it will be. And so I'm just naturally hesitant to change in this space anyway. So I'm like, I don't know what to expect from this. [00:25:54] Speaker B: Is there anything. Is there anything on Tron besides Tether? I feel like there. It's been too long since we've had a Tron scandal. Like, I. I think we need something weird. Some news about Tron. But I think they're trying to keep it down because they like just being the tether network. So I just rename Tron Tether. [00:26:14] Speaker A: Maybe do that. I think that would kind of defeat the purpose of that because then you don't have. Then you don't have that separation. Suddenly tether's liable. You had to call it Tron. [00:26:23] Speaker D: You could call it usdt. [00:26:27] Speaker B: Tron was one of my first altcoins. Well, no, not my one at first, but one of my favorites. I just love the marketing. [00:26:35] Speaker D: My first altcoin. That's a meme that needs to be made. [00:26:37] Speaker B: My first altcoin. [00:26:38] Speaker D: Like a little kids. A little kid's coloring book needs to. [00:26:41] Speaker A: Be called my first coin. [00:26:44] Speaker B: Feather Coin or something. [00:26:47] Speaker A: Oh my God, I forgot about Feather Coin. Oh my God. [00:26:50] Speaker B: Chris. [00:26:50] Speaker A: That dude. [00:26:50] Speaker B: Chris B.L. [00:26:52] Speaker A: From the past. [00:26:52] Speaker D: Yeah. [00:26:54] Speaker C: Did we buy Name Coin? It was like Name Coin namecoin. [00:26:58] Speaker D: You mind it whether you liked it or not. Namecoin was Merge mined on most of the port. So like I had a bunch of it. And it was because I mined on Ocean v1 Elius and that merge mine, namecoin. [00:27:08] Speaker A: And I remember I got some dot bit domains way back in the day. I was like, I mean, coin, maybe. Maybe this actually makes sense. And then I was like, the fuck? This thing's not doing anything. Dash. [00:27:22] Speaker B: Who had Dash? [00:27:24] Speaker D: They sent me a message the other day. [00:27:25] Speaker A: I never had Dash, but I did run a node masternode. I did. I did run a node. [00:27:30] Speaker D: I hadn't thought about Dash in like six years. And then they sent me a message yesterday. We want to do a spaces on Knots versus Core or something. I get a lot of these requests at the moment. [00:27:43] Speaker C: I kind of think that the. The tether thing. [00:27:48] Speaker D: Sorry about that. [00:27:51] Speaker C: The tether thing on Bitcoin, I still feel like it's potentially a positive thing. Like I get what you're saying that there's like, there could be some sort of trade off that just like becomes, makes something evil happen out of all of this. But like I, I just feel like all it is is you're forcing the adoption of bitcoin infrastructure into the world of people that are using tether will now be using bitcoin infrastructure. Which means when there's some sort of major dollar issue like crisis or whatever, the transition to bitcoin is just very, very easy. And it means, it will probably mean that at some point banks will end up holding onto more and more bitcoin just because it's good for their balance sheet. And that is, I mean, you know, I don't know what do we want to save the banks? [00:28:44] Speaker B: But hell no. [00:28:45] Speaker C: But like if, if the economy it transfer, if you have this like just accidental natural shift to bitcoin, I can't see how that's a terrible thing. Like the smoother we can make this, the better. [00:29:01] Speaker A: Yeah, I, I really like Roy Scheinfeld's article actually on this and especially with like the caveat of like okay, well what, what could the trade offs be especially with tether on lightning. But we had had a really good conversation with Farrington, Adam Farrington on this one and my, my views align very much with his is that this is the back door. Like this is how bitcoin adoption happens. I think the big thing to not get right, we have this idea that the financial system is broken and bitcoin fixes it. But when you actually dig down into it, the financial system is 15 completely separate systems and architectures and modes of the industry itself. It's like saying that something fixes energy. It's like, well yeah, but we've got gas, we've got like, we've got oil, we've got solar, we've got, we've got like transmission lines. Like, we've got like there's a, there's things that like there's no one solution to these things. All of these things need their own thing related to it in order to like they'll, each one of these pieces will go through its own revolution. And one of the big things that we need more than anything is a push payment system. Like what? Like the cost every single year from having a pull payment system is worse and worse and worse. There's like an estimate I looked in like a, I can't remember what the company was, but did a pretty serious extensive evaluation on like what the global cost, like what do we pay to keep Our pull payment systems alive in like basically the era of identity theft. And it's something like $9 trillion is just the cost to keep it not from falling down. [00:30:59] Speaker C: And that's just growing. [00:31:01] Speaker A: And, and like the, the damage on like just the, the personal cost is like in the hundred billion or so of like people that are just getting, constantly getting screwed, who are getting hacked or like having identity theft or who, you know, like even in like estimates of like how much of like money is pulled from people after they thought they cancel the subscription or something. Like just the cost of the way it works is massive. And a moving to a key based push payment system, the fact that you can actually do this around the financial system in the sense that like you can actually onboard all of the people that have no bank accounts. And that's exactly what's happening like, like right now. It's like I think the, the outstanding like tether market or whatever, like $235 billion or some fucking like, like it's a huge portion of even like the entire bitcoin market cap. And like this is, this is literally bitcoin software. Like the interaction, the, the keys, the addresses, like it all works the exact same way. And it's actually a significant improvement over the way Fiat works now because. And one of the things, the, the wording that I used in the conversation where Farrington and I were going back on, back and forth on this was that it's, yes, of course it's censorship. Like you can censor it and you can like block accounts or whatever, but it's actually passive censorship instead of active. Like it's permissionless to join. Like I can just send Jeff tether with this like crazy stare and look on his face right now. Like, I can, I can send you tether and nobody knows who I sent it to. Like now if it's found out that you know, Jeff is doing something super suspicious with his tether, like they can, the company can be contacted and they can like find the address and they look like freeze the balance and all of this stuff. But it's like not KYC up front. It's not a bank, right? I'm not signing up for an account for something. It's just a key based system where anybody can receive payment. And that's actually like, that's actually like a 5x. Like that's a huge improvement over the way everything works today. And it means that there's no, literally not a permissioned system. It has a lot of the downsides of fiat or downsides of the banking and financial system, except for like two, like really big ones. So it's, it's at least a significant step improvement over what we have now, like provably, like by who can use it, how it's being used and what degree of like censorship and KYC is involved. And you're also getting every single. If this actually becomes a thing, you, you have the capacity, you have the potential for private payments in this because people can actually build on it. I mean this rgb, you know, it's lightning. Like if this is actually adopted this way, it would bring in an entirely new market for liquidity and the ability for other people to just arbitrarily build again. Still has a lot of downsides on the backside, but it's in a passive way, not an active way. So I think it makes sense if it takes us 10 steps to get to a bitcoin standard. I think a stablecoin adoption system is actually two steps in that direction. [00:34:33] Speaker C: Well, and my, my only interaction with stablecoins has been like I had to receive them a couple times so that I could then swap for bitcoin and I'd much rather receive bitcoin in a lightning address or something. Receive them in a, in a, in a bitcoin lightning address and do a swap, have a swap done much more natively than to have to do. Have to bust out some shitcoin wallet and deal with Ethereum, you know, like, or whatever Tron, you know, like it just makes more sense that if. And I would much rather deal with a stable coin than with the bank. You know, the, the, the interaction I had, I hated. I had to like do something with Ethereum and have some gas and whatever to make the transaction. But it still, I didn't have, I did it on the weekend, it's like the middle of the night and didn't have to like call the bank and get them, yes, I want to do this and please approve and you know, like kiss anybody's ass to like make the transaction happen in a business day, you know. And so I mean I couldn't buy like trying to buy this computer that I just bought. It's apparently I've changed my limit, my bank transaction limit multiple times and yet somehow this computer was over my limit again. And like they blocked the transaction. So I had to like load to call the bank. Man, it was the wrong time of day for that or the wrong. It was like the weekend. And so I had to like transfer money as much as I could from my traditional bank card to Cash app and then sell some bitcoin to also put, you know, like, I had to do this stupid thing to get enough money on my cash app card to make the transaction. And it just doesn't make any sense. Like, none of this. Like, I should be able to move my, like, my money where and spend it when I need to. And at least with some sort of stable coin, if I have to interact with dollars, I don't have those problems. And so I would rather it be on bitcoin, which is operating, you know, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and then have to deal with people. And, you know, the people at my local bank are very nice. I just don't want to have to call them every time I need to do something. [00:36:51] Speaker A: Karen, you know, I would say the two. There's two different things because I. I said it's two steps in that direction and I never even got to the SEC what the second major piece is. But I would say just from a purely, like, interaction point of view, is if you want to ask whether or not, or prove to yourself whether or not a. A world with stablecoins with something like Tether is preferable to one with banking and finance as it is today. Like, if you compare it to bitcoin, obviously it's dog because it's just a different type of shitcoin on Fiat. But if you compare it to the financial and banking system it is today, it's a huge improvement because it's even worse dog. Like, it's like, it's like stinking, rotting, like dog that somebody is peeing on every day. Let's just go on with this. Let's just keep it rolling. But there is it. If you, right now, if you wanted to move or accept $20,000, like, compare it to getting it out of your bank account versus having a stable coin. You can't. You can't do the other. You can't do the other. That's exactly right. In stable coins, I could do it right now if. Especially if it was on RGB stupid easy. I could receive it and send it, Jeff, no problem. Um, so the other one is that I think stablecoins are actually a Trojan horse for full reserve banking. Again, because it separates the debt creation and the investment banking from the payment system banking. Because Tether is basically the only full reserve bank that exists in the world right now is they actually have bonds and they actually have gold and they actually have bitcoin to cover their balances. And all they do is run a payment network that's all they do. They just issue a token that people can use to exchange. Tell me, what other bank not only has like 80% of their comparable reserves but has like 4%. Bank of Steve, we're talking about like the banking system overall is like 40 to 1 leveraged. Like they don't have any of the money anywhere. And, and I'll also give you another one. This is actually related to one of our. Because we have items in our banking thing. So the bank of England plans ownership caps of 10,000 to €20,000 for individuals and 10 million euros for businesses on stablecoins. The BoE proposals reflect concerns that stablecoins could drain bank deposits and show the UK's comparatively cautious stance on crypto regulation. So there, the bank of England doesn't want you using stablecoins because it's going to pull money out of the banking system and they are so leveraged they can't handle that they would not survive it. So it's why I think stablecoins act like again, two steps on a ten step plan. [00:39:44] Speaker C: Well, they just announced also a digital. [00:39:46] Speaker A: Idea and you won't be able to. [00:39:48] Speaker C: Work in the UK if you do not have a digital ID by the end of this like parliamentary term or whatever. [00:39:54] Speaker A: UK has fallen, man. [00:39:56] Speaker D: That's over. That's over. And you know what it is? You know how every, like all you see is like immigrant hate, like on Twitter and stuff. Like people bitching about mass immigration and stuff. That always felt so obvious to me, like, you've been a racist if you complained about that forever and suddenly it's mainstream to complain about it. And it turns out the solution to it is da, da, da, da. Give everyone government id, right? We'll stop all these illegal immigrants taking your job. Everyone just needs government id. Like who didn't see that one coming, man? I was like, why are they riling everyone up about this? The solutions got to. Yeah, yeah, it's the Palantir solution, right? Mass surveillance. Don't worry all the problems. You don't want illegal immigrants flooding into your country. Well then just tolerate mass surveillance. That will deal with it. Like it was so obvious that they were going to do that and here you go, it happened. [00:40:51] Speaker B: Hey guy, I got a stablecoin Austrian economics question for you. You know how you go, one of your favorite topics is how economic planning would like a wobbly ruler or something. You need a stable measuring system or whatever for money. What about like, you know, the opposite position where we seem to be in now where it's like you can't plan anything with bitcoin because it's just too good of a money and it just like keeps going up in purchasing power. [00:41:21] Speaker D: That's. Is that, is that Farrington has a whole debunker that. Did you speak, guy, did you speak to Alan Farrington about that? [00:41:29] Speaker A: Yes, actually, no, not in the, not in the episode. But I did read his piece about it, if I'm not mistaken. [00:41:36] Speaker D: Right. So his, his whole thing is. Yeah, people will still spend stuff even with good money. I know that the Keynesian fallacy is a fallacy. [00:41:44] Speaker B: I'm not worried about that. [00:41:45] Speaker A: Yeah. [00:41:45] Speaker B: I'm just talking about the planning. Like you're planning to build a fence, plan to build a yard. You're planning on your money being worth this much and then it's just worth way more. It just disrupts your plans. [00:41:55] Speaker C: Well, but is your life more stable or less stable because of bitcoin? [00:41:59] Speaker B: Oh, no, no, no, no, I'm not. You guys think. I'm not. You don't have to convince me about bitcoin. I'm just talking specifically about the theory of planning. [00:42:10] Speaker D: Steve is a communist. [00:42:11] Speaker A: Everyone. [00:42:12] Speaker C: But you're living it. You're living it. Right? Like so, so like if you consistently get. Have more than you thought you were going to have, then it becomes easier to, to make smart decisions and to delay like the wrong decisions, you know, like to do if you're not sure about something. I don't have to do this. I'm not trapped in this situation. You have more, you have more options in the long run. [00:42:37] Speaker B: Yeah, I guess so. [00:42:38] Speaker C: I mean, I think that's just, that's just it. [00:42:40] Speaker B: Maybe the ruler is not a good analogy though, because the ruler kind of needs to be stable. Exactly. Whereas like the theory should be, then you don't need something stable. You need something that just gets better, that either stays the same or gets better, but ruler has to be exactly fixed. [00:42:57] Speaker A: I, I would say the, the misconception or the, the miscategorization. And like what the, the stretchy ruler means is that, is that this is about prices rather than something to weigh against. Like, like, it's not saying exactly how much any. Like, because, because we're dealing with value, not something objective. So it necessarily like the fact that the measurement, like unit or whatever has stayed consistent is exactly how we know that the economy of Bitcoin has grown because the tape measure is the exact same. It doesn't mean that the quote unquote inches aren't more valuable. [00:43:47] Speaker C: I guess, you know, if bitcoin's a perfect 21 million. And the economy's. Things are changing all the time in the economy. Then you're actually seeing the reflection in the bitcoin, what you can buy and acquire with bitcoin. Because the economy is what's moving. [00:44:04] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:44:04] Speaker A: It's about visibility into what everything else is doing. If you do not have like a perfectly stable thing in regards to supply and just overall soundness of, of its supply. [00:44:20] Speaker B: Yeah, okay, I get you don't. [00:44:22] Speaker A: You can't see everything else that's occurring, but I get it from the context of like prices is because the economy is growing so fast and when it comes to bitcoin, because it not only just grows because people are more productive in the bitcoin economy and people save, but because an external economy is pouring into bitcoin. So like, the volatility is just unbelievable. But the thing is, is that after bitcoin becomes the most like the dominant money, it's necessarily going to be the most stable. Yeah. Because it's the most stable in supply. So its desirability, because if its economy grows, everybody wants more of it, means that it's also necessarily going to be that much more liquid than any other currency ever had. [00:45:06] Speaker B: I had an idea that you guys will like. So I was thinking about on the menu board at the bar, making a price in bitcoin that ticks down continuously. One sat per day, just every day. [00:45:19] Speaker A: That's amazing. [00:45:20] Speaker B: So I calculated this out and I'm still going to be crushing it. Like, it's only going to be like, like 30 cents on a $7 beer. [00:45:31] Speaker A: For the whole year. [00:45:32] Speaker B: But I just want it to mess with people's minds, be like, why does that prices go down? [00:45:38] Speaker A: That's a. That's a great idea. Yeah, that is a great idea. That's a Twitter account. That is a Twitter account. That is itself a Twitter account. [00:45:47] Speaker D: I like being disoriented when I'm drinking alcohol. I like for stuff to change. Thanks, man. [00:45:55] Speaker B: I'm not gonna reset it actually, because, like, after a few years it's gonna be like, okay, it's going down. But dude, it's a hundred dollars right now. [00:46:04] Speaker C: Like, I don't. You don't wanna lead it too much, but like, I wonder if you could figure out what the. Like, if you could do two sats a day, like you could actually have it ticked down in like the middle of the day or something so that people can actually see, like, it's not just coming back from one time or another. It's like, oh, it's five o'. Clock. It's, it's going to tick down like when you had the most full. The price. Yeah, here we go. [00:46:29] Speaker A: 7323. Give me a beer. [00:46:32] Speaker D: Give me. [00:46:36] Speaker B: All right, not drinking until five. [00:46:43] Speaker A: Okay. So actually since we're, since we're on banking, let's go ahead and hit these other two items. This is the craziest thing to me. Vietnam closes 86 million bank accounts failing facial biometric verification. 113 million were verified under the new biometric laws. So they like closed like almost 40% of all of the bank accounts. [00:47:11] Speaker B: 5% of them were pictures of people's dogs. Right? Just people holding their dogs. [00:47:15] Speaker A: I don't know. I'm, I'm sure, I'm sure that's probably true. But because they did not do facial biometric authentication and online transfers have been froze, that had been limited to 10 million. I don't know what the currency is. It's VND Vietnamese dollars, which is actually 379 bucks. So you cannot do anything online more than 380 bucks basically without facial biometrics for every payment. [00:47:49] Speaker B: Ah, it's messed up, dude. [00:47:51] Speaker A: So nuts. [00:47:52] Speaker B: That's dystopian right there. Stuff. [00:47:55] Speaker A: Yep. Sorry. [00:47:56] Speaker B: YouTube. [00:47:56] Speaker A: Yep. Dystopian. Dystopian shit is becoming normalized. Thailand is basically similar story. Mass bank account freezes. It sparked panic. Local authorities are trying to target scam mule accounts, but they've. The bank of Thailand has imposed a bunch of limits and they've quote unquote started setting daily digital transfer limits based on customer profiles. So they have selective like customer specific. This is what you're allowed to do with your bank account. Like just a mess. Anybody want to talk about how shitty the banking system is? [00:48:40] Speaker D: I feel like we've done that to death, to be quite honest with you. We have, yeah. [00:48:46] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:48:46] Speaker C: It's a little bit frightening though. I mean I'm like if I'm getting ready to go to Brazil, it's like a very. [00:48:52] Speaker A: Not that sounds like it would be the next one in that bank. [00:48:55] Speaker C: Yeah. [00:48:55] Speaker A: Like this in that list of news items. [00:48:58] Speaker C: Right. [00:48:58] Speaker A: Terrible. [00:48:59] Speaker C: I mean, I guess that my, you know, like my cash app card or whatever will still be accepted there. So maybe I can just keep using everything the way I've been using it. But yeah, that's just, it's really talked about freakish. [00:49:14] Speaker B: Terrible banking is almost as much as we just talked about spam wars. [00:49:20] Speaker A: Almost close. [00:49:20] Speaker B: Actually, I have to go here in like 10 minutes or so. Can I just say like a Thought a cool thought that I had this morning about spam war stuff. [00:49:30] Speaker A: Sure. [00:49:31] Speaker B: About three years ago, it became kind of popular on bitcoin Twitter that the biggest threat to bitcoin was apathy. And so we've definitely survived the threat of apathy. [00:49:45] Speaker A: We have, we have. We've made it. We. We're. We're. That is not our real care a. [00:49:51] Speaker B: Little too much right now? No, I mean, I. Obviously apathy is still a thing. Like, we still gotta care and whatever, but I was just like, you know, I'm gonna be in this my whole life, man, and, like, bitcoin is just gonna be a marathon and not a sprint. And I really like something Mechanic said on last episode that stuck with me, which was like, sometimes I try to envision these people I'm arguing with. Like, in the future, I'm fighting a battle on the same side of them, even though I'm on the opposite side right now. Like, we saw Udi this morning. I really like that sentiment because not only does it, you know, kind of keep you a little bit more real, a little bit more personal, but it also just reminds you that, like, there will be a future battle because bitcoin's going to be here forever. [00:50:40] Speaker D: Yeah. [00:50:42] Speaker A: You know, I think. I think that's a good point. So Luke. I can't remember his last name. [00:50:48] Speaker B: Dasher. [00:50:50] Speaker A: No, no, no, no, no. The. The guy who's got the. The YouTube account does a bunch of videos and stuff. I can't remember. [00:50:59] Speaker D: It's like, Luke Mickish. [00:51:03] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Something like that. [00:51:05] Speaker D: The Australian guy. [00:51:06] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah. He got deplatformed. Like, they. He just, like. Oh, yeah, no strikes against his account, no nothing. He just got the whole thing. [00:51:14] Speaker D: Didn't like a. Who. Bands of YouTube accounts happen a couple of days ago, and he was one of them. [00:51:20] Speaker A: Like, yeah, there's like a big. Like, they got their. Like their algorithm or their AI to go just like, wipe a whole ton of people out, and he got mixed up in it. His whole. Everything is, you know, on YouTube. And basically all the bitcoiners came out and we were all tagging YouTube and like, you know, retweeting and everything, so. And he got his account back. But it made me think because I was like. I was like, watching at the same time and thinking about the spam wars, and I would like to think. I would like to think that, like, basically if that sort of thing happened, like, if. If X banned Luke or Shinobi or anybody who's like. Or Mechanic or anybody. Anybody who's like, big is like, they're definitely on this side and they hate these people. And like, we're at each other's thro is that the other side would still stand. Like, I like, like, if Shinobi got banned, I know Mechanic would immediately post a thing and be like, shinobi should not be banned. This is fucking, you know, like, reinstate his account. And I would like to think that that would basically be across the board with bitcoiners. Like, even with there was something recently. [00:52:35] Speaker B: Maybe not Portland Hodl. Portland Hodl be okay with it. [00:52:43] Speaker A: But. Oh, it was Roger Ver. It's Roger Ver. So, like, a bunch of the things that were going on with Roger Verb. There were a shocking number of bitcoiners who across the board basically hate Roger for everything that he's done, who have. Who actually came out in support of what was going on, even while Roger Ver was going on. Like, Tucker and doing like, Blockstream did it to me. And like. Like, while he was still pointing the blame at all the small blockers, like, we are the ones who did it. [00:53:13] Speaker D: That one really annoyed me because he was saying, I'm being persecuted by the US Government. They want. It turns out they want to steal a bunch of my money. I was like, dude, like, that is everyone in the. In the universe. And he kept saying it was because of his views on crypto. I'm like, no, it's because you're rich and they want your money. But, like, there was nothing about that. There was like, the US Government wants to target him for b. Cash or something like that. Like, if they wanted to mess with you, they would. They would seize Bitcoin.com for a start. Like, you know that it's not. It's not because of your stance on bitcoin versus your. [00:53:50] Speaker A: Because you wrote a book. You wrote a book about Blockstream. [00:53:54] Speaker D: But that was so ridiculous. And we still, as you say, we still defended him and people, like, there were a few bitcoiners that were just like, I hate this guy so much that I like the IRS now. I'm like, no way. No way. [00:54:05] Speaker A: No. Nope. You done wrong. Hey, you did wrong, sir. [00:54:11] Speaker B: Never that much hate. [00:54:14] Speaker C: I definitely hate the IRS more than Roger Ver. But it is. It's so hard to. To want to defend that guy for anything. But. But 100. He should not be. He should not be in jail for 100 years or whatever. They were just insane. [00:54:27] Speaker A: Yeah, that was bonkers. That was so retarded to me. [00:54:30] Speaker D: It's like that Film Carlito's Way, though. Like, you survive like a million nuclear bombs getting dropped on you, and then this little teenager, like, runs up to you and stabs you, like, and you're like, wait, this is the thing that takes me out. Like, so I felt like, like he's had a lifetime of scamming and dishonesty, and then suddenly like, he's in Portugal one day and it's like, hey, we're gonna extradite you to America, like, for taxes. He's like, really? This. This is what I go down for. And us bitcoiners have to be like, oh, well, that was the one thing I didn't mind about him. But okay. Like, just, life works like that, you know? [00:55:06] Speaker A: Yeah. Oh, shit. Well, did you want to say something about zeta hashes, Steve, before you have to roll out of here? [00:55:14] Speaker B: The fact that bitcoin reaches zeta hash is so mind blowing from like, it's kind of like almost too big to see it in a way. First of all, the number zeta is one of the largest numbers that we deal with. Like, the only time in science or physics or chemistry or something you're dealing with a number that large is when you're talking about number of atoms in a molecule or something. But that's not something you can actually count and measure or like, number of stars in the universe. But that's not really something that especially every single person running a bitcoin node could just measure and count. And like, these numbers aren't like, useful for our lives. Like, they're not. They don't go into our economic, daily planning activity. Like, we don't use these numbers. So, like, just this number, it's like, it's the largest number. It's the most accurately measured number. It's the most independently measured number. It's one of the most important, important economic numbers in the world. And it's just like, this is just bizarre. Like, and. And this isn't a number that we got to by like splitting a stock or like re changing the units or something. Like, this number was low and it counted up to zeta and we all watched it count. And we can all measure this number independently with perfect accuracy every 10 minutes. Like, this is just mind blowing from the simplest version of the scientific method. Like, observe a measurement, record a number, write down the number, share it with others. Just from that very simple idea. This is the greatest thing humanity's ever done by several orders of magnitude. And I just think that's like, that's so awesome. And that's not even Like a second, right? [00:57:17] Speaker A: Yeah. Per second. Yeah. [00:57:20] Speaker C: How has your species counted? [00:57:21] Speaker B: Yeah, well, exactly. And then from the. [00:57:25] Speaker D: I think we got a lot of big numbers. We got biggest numbers. [00:57:31] Speaker A: The biggest numbers. Nobody's ever had numbers as big as us. [00:57:34] Speaker B: We got better music, we got bigger numbers. [00:57:39] Speaker A: Huge, huge. [00:57:40] Speaker B: And then from the just raw computing power perspective, this is another people that, that you just. It's too astonishing to believe, but if you were to combine every single other computer in the world together and measure its computing performance against bitcoin network, it wouldn't come close. Like every single other computer, all the supercomputers of Google, IBM, all that stuff combined, like the, if you even measure something simple like arithmetic operations per second, like that's what most computers are pretty much designed for, arithmetic operations per second compared to hashes per second in Bitcoin, every other computer in the world, Bitcoin, that is just mind blowing. [00:58:29] Speaker A: Yeah. [00:58:30] Speaker B: Sometimes I just think it's people. I don't know. It's like surreal. It's just like, is that really. Geez, is that really. Is this really happening right now? [00:58:41] Speaker A: Like. [00:58:41] Speaker B: Or maybe I'm just. I think about this stuff too much. But I. I wish other people could like, see, it's Both that amazing, 100%. [00:58:49] Speaker A: Both that I see. [00:58:50] Speaker B: I'm just winning. Just like, oh my God, we're really doing this. [00:58:54] Speaker A: Here's the crazy thing. Here's the crazy thing is that you could, you could carve this into stone. You could carve the current state of the blockchain into stone and put the hash, you could put the coinbase hash up there and you would have to be an advanced civilization to understand it, but you could prove that it existed. It would be like, like, and, and I've heard this example. I think there's like an article like even called this. I don't know, I'd have to dig up. I've done like 1300 of them or some shit. But about the fact that bitcoin is like the pyramids of our time. [00:59:34] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:59:35] Speaker A: And it's comparative to. It exists in the universe that we have created, like on the Internet in the digital world. And like, what's nuts is that the hash alone, like just the hash, just that, that, you know, that 64 bit number or whatever at the top of a block written down in like carved into a piece of stone is proof of all of it. [01:00:02] Speaker B: Yep. It's proof of so much energy. [01:00:05] Speaker A: Like, you found this. [01:00:07] Speaker D: Yeah. [01:00:07] Speaker A: And there is no other way to find this other than that amount of compute. [01:00:12] Speaker B: Yeah. [01:00:13] Speaker A: Like, like Just the staggering level of complexity and improbability of that. And there's no other way. It's like, it's like rolling snake eyes or you're like getting struck by lightning like 15,000 times in one day. You know, like, it's just, it's beyond comprehensible. And it's so. It's so wild that any copy of it that exists, that survives anywhere. [01:00:37] Speaker B: Yeah. [01:00:38] Speaker A: Ever. For the. Entirely into the future, somebody can just look at that hash and they can know. They can basically say one fucking zeta hash. Holy shit. [01:00:47] Speaker D: You'd have to include in that artifact what the first hash, what the algorithm was, what SHA 256 was. [01:00:55] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah. They wouldn't be able to verify, obviously. [01:00:57] Speaker B: You'd also need like the Genesis hash and then all the. [01:01:00] Speaker D: But if you added that, if you added, unrolled the SHA256 and stuck that on at the beginning, then they could do it. They could reconstruct the entire thing from that. You would just need to say, here's the algo. [01:01:12] Speaker A: Yeah. [01:01:13] Speaker B: Yeah. It's amazing. [01:01:14] Speaker A: Wild. [01:01:15] Speaker B: All right, guys. Yeah, I got a. My sister flew in from Australia, so I got a go meter. But don't get too crazy with spam wars. [01:01:23] Speaker A: All right. [01:01:24] Speaker B: Keep it cool. All right, see y' all later. [01:01:27] Speaker D: Therapy, man, I gotta, I got a trauma dump. [01:01:30] Speaker A: Gotta get it out. [01:01:31] Speaker B: I gotta stretch my hip. See y' all later. [01:01:39] Speaker A: You don't actually have to sell your bitcoin to access its value. You can actually borrow against it very easily without selling it. But when you do this, you need to be careful. You need to do this with a company that is trusted, one that has survived a bear market, and one that will literally show you that they have the coins, that they have proof of reserves or some mechanism where you can look at your balance and know that it is safe. This is why I've been a huge fan and a customer of LEDN for a few years now. So one of the bitcoin backed loans that I got a few years ago to finish renovations and the basement and studio in my house, I would have paid three times as much bitcoin had I just sold it as it now takes me to just pay off the loan and that's if I sell the bitcoin to pay it off, which I think I'm going to be able to get equity out of the house and pay off the loan and get all of my bitcoin back. This especially makes sense if you're making an investment, if you're doing something that is going to pay you income in the future. Or if you're investing in bitcoin mining, it's a whole lot easier to beat the interest rate if you loan against the bitcoin and keep the bitcoin. Leden also makes this like crazy easy. Like if you went to do this right now, you could probably get the money by tomorrow. They do proof of reserves twice a year and I check. It's a very easy process. And you don't have to do monthly payments if you don't want to. You can just accrue the interest and pay off in chunks whenever it makes sense. And best of all, they just recently got rid of all the noise. They had some other features. They had Ethereum loans. They're like, nope, chop it. They had a yield product. Nope, chop it. They had loans where you could get a lower interest rate and they didn't have it on their books. They lent it out. Nope, chop that. Now it's just custodied, fully backed bitcoin loans. Doesn't work for every single situation or every person. But there are some times where this is an incredibly valuable tool to have. Don't overextend. Remember bitcoin is volatile and read the details. But if you need access to your bitcoin's value and you just don't want to sell, LEDN is a brilliant and simple tool for doing exactly that. And I've been a happy customer for a couple of years now. You can check out the links right down in the show notes. It's led in leaden.I o so this one, I kind of wish we had speed for this, but this one, I haven't even said anything about this on Twitter yet, but I really feel like we need, we need like bitcoin businesses to get behind this and actually take a stance because if this, if this actually, actually like goes through, this would be a disaster. Is the U.S. treasury is moving to apply all of the Patriot act rules to digital assets to just bitcoin and Bitcoin in like a plain, a blanket sense. So all privacy tools would be on public. Blockchains would be illegal. So if you use a mixer at all, which I always, I always do like necessarily, I pay people. I work on a bitcoin standard. I can't possibly have every single person I pay or interact with or receive payment from some sort of a barrier to protect from savings or protect from the rest of my business account. They can just watch all this. Insane. No, I have to mix. I would have to go to Liquid or something, which would. For, like, I would. I would need some other alternative because I cannot just have it. So, like, it's on a public blockchain that everybody can just see everything that I'm doing in my business account. And, like, this is so. This is such. And I don't want to see. Like, this is exactly. Like, every single time we've lost major freedoms is when the people defending it have been in specifically defensive rather than offensive. Like, I want to see every single bitcoin business, like, say something about this. Like, no, this is insane. This hurts our customers. This hurts us. This puts everybody in danger. And this is going to make the $5 wrench attack. You're going to have so many people who get broken into and families who get held at gunpoint and wives who have been raped while. Just be like, you. You're gonna pay us. You're gonna pay us all your crypto. Or we're just. We're just gonna abuse your family. Literally just gonna torture your family. Like, this is not, like, hypothetical. This is literally happening. Jameson Lopp has a whole GitHub just keeping track of every single one of them. One of them was not 20 miles from my house. Like, and they're gonna tell me that I can't protect my goddamn privacy. Like, fuck you. Fuck you so hard. And if river and Swan and Binance and every other goddamn company in Bitcoin doesn't stand up and actually say, this is stupid. You're insane. This is putting people in literal physical danger. Like, I want to see those fucking tweets, because this is messed up. This is totally messed up. You're saying that's not. That's not like, oh, we need to do Kyc, like, privately in your bank account to know you, which is itself dangerous enough. This is. You have to be publicly traceable by anybody who has a fucking Internet connection. That's messed up. [01:07:10] Speaker D: Kill your customer. Yeah, it's just unspeakably horrific. I don't. There's nothing more to say than what you said. I can't take it at all. Like, there's no. There's no way around it, man. I'm just. I don't know. Everyone needs their own strategy to get the target off their back, and they can't even talk about it publicly when they do it. [01:07:35] Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah. [01:07:36] Speaker C: That's what's fucked up is, like, there's so many ways to get around things, but if you talk about a lot. [01:07:43] Speaker A: Of that, you're getting around then. [01:07:44] Speaker C: Yeah, you're just. You're Just painting yourself as a target. It's so, ah, it's, it's so gross. Like the whole thing is. [01:07:54] Speaker D: I don't know what to say about this black pill stuff, man. [01:07:57] Speaker C: Yeah, that is, yeah, we went from, we went from very high with the zeta hash thing to very low with this. This is just very dark. [01:08:05] Speaker D: Let's do something in the middle now. [01:08:06] Speaker A: Let's do something necessarily. When you're talking about bitcoin and then you're talking about banking and government, that's basically how you do, right? Yeah. We're not going to talk about Canadians seized a whole bunch of customer funds. Go figure. Canada's lost. Sorry, sorry. [01:08:22] Speaker C: I'm a kid. [01:08:25] Speaker A: U.S. senate draft extends protections for non custodial developers under the market structure bill. The draft would retroactively amend USC 18, blah, blah, blah, to require control as a liability prerequisite for money transmitter. So basically all the things of like the tornado cash people are money transmitters and samurai are money transmitters. Is, is basically there's a, there's a draft that's basically going to back retroactively say it's like, no, they don't have control of the funds. So they are not money transmitters. Like the developers themselves can't be held liable for what people are doing with the software. So that's actually good. And exempts them from bank secrecy act and all of that regulatory nightmare. And do you want to talk about El Salvador? What happened in El Salvador? Just the, the drama about whether or not they're actually getting more bitcoin or not or they're moving bitcoin. [01:09:28] Speaker D: I haven't seen anything about that since we last talked about it. Really. [01:09:32] Speaker A: I think there was another article on like decrypt that was saying that the IMF has insisted that El Salvador has not increased their bitcoin stash. That they're saying that like, nope, that hasn't happened. [01:09:46] Speaker D: I think the IMF is lying. [01:09:49] Speaker A: I think the IMF is lying. [01:09:50] Speaker B: Yep. [01:09:51] Speaker A: What do you think? IMF or El Salvador or Bukele? Jeff? [01:09:56] Speaker C: I mean, I don't, like, I have. [01:10:01] Speaker A: No evidence either way, so. [01:10:04] Speaker C: And I don't know if I really care. I mean, like, I mean, like, I mean, I would like to. [01:10:12] Speaker A: I would. [01:10:12] Speaker C: Like to think that, yeah, Bukele is just like, yeah, I'm still doing it. He's just like thumbing his nose at him or whatever. But I don't know. I mean like, he's not like, he's clearly like the sort of strongman dictator of El Salvador that's probably in some ways good news for the stability of El Salvador. It's also not great news because there's no, like that, that's, you know, the benevolent leader just doesn't really hold up, you know, long term. So. So I don't, I, I don't know. Like, this just, it's all middle of the road, like, whatever. Like, like, I think it's probably like, if you want to invest and do something in El Salvador, things are probably better there than they have been at any other time. Like, you know, like, I can't see, like the future looks brighter now than it has at any other time for El Salvador. And part of that is because Bukele can be reelected or whatever. But outside of that, like, I don't really know. What, you're still gambling on a third world country, essentially. And, and I, I don't know, man. Where are they really buying bitcoin or not? Like, I don't know. I mean, like, they clearly are using, they are using Bitcoin to improve the country. [01:11:39] Speaker D: I hear secondhand that they definitely are. And the IMF is the one that's lying. I trust my sources, but I don't have a primary source, so. [01:11:48] Speaker A: Gotcha. [01:11:49] Speaker D: Basically, the people I know are telling me, yeah, they're still buying it. They're doing silly ways around doing it and no one wants to get into detail, but yeah, they're buying bitcoin and well, you know, the other contention is just your intelligence. Like, you have to be. I don't have an opinion here, but this was what someone said to me and I'm like, yeah, that's so simple and obviously true theory was, are you in power in a Latin American country and you haven't been assassinated? Okay, well then you're an intelligence asset. Like, that's just a rule. Like there, there's no way. They just keep taking shots and missing. It doesn't work like that. So it feels more like they're trying to get their arms around it rather than, you know, there's everyone, everyone will be deputized to some extent. Like, you can't be the president of a country like El Salvador and not have these wolves at the door. [01:12:46] Speaker C: Well, I mean, that's like, like what, what's the, what's his name? And Javier Malay is like he went and kissed the wall or whatever. So, yeah, you know, there's. Yeah, there's definitely. [01:12:57] Speaker D: Bukele's dad's Palestinian, I think, which, I don't know. That doesn't really mean anything, but I don't know. I was Kind of surprised with that. Milei converting to Judaism was definitely a moment that got me. Wait a minute. [01:13:11] Speaker A: What happened here? [01:13:13] Speaker C: Yeah, I just don't know what to do with it. Like, it's weird. It's like the world is strangely unraveling at. At the same time that like, like Candace, her recent episode, she. She found that Charlie. Charlie Kirk was apparently building some sort of. She called it doge, but some sort of like, audit thing because he was concerned about the money that was flowing in and out of TP USA and like, the organization had gotten too big. And so now there's like, a legit motivation to like, possibly kill him if. If the donors that are using TPUSA to like, launder money. And not only is he turning on Israel, but he's also, like, exposing, like, has potentially has knowledge of financial crimes that are being done through his organization. That's a legit reason to, like, you know, to off him, man. [01:14:10] Speaker A: The thing that gets. There's so many, like. Like, I can understand that there's like, things around an assassination that could be easily misinterpreted, you know, because, like, it's. [01:14:24] Speaker C: Just, to me, straight up lies. So many straight up lies. And. And like. [01:14:28] Speaker A: But there are things that make no sense. Yeah. Like, no sense on their own. Like the dude who just immediately stood up, like, waving his hat and like, I did it. I did it. And he had a pistol and like, it just like, completely, like taking. Taking all the fl. Like, like immediately, like being a patsy for a situation to happen. [01:14:52] Speaker D: He had put on his phone and he was at the Boston bombings and he was at. And he was the guy. He was the first guy after 9, 11 to say that Al Qaeda was responsible. Right. He's just obviously a Mossad asset like this. [01:15:03] Speaker A: And then there was a guy. They've got. They got video of like, a guy who was like, right in the front of just like some dude who totally look like a plain. Like, you told me, like, you know, you wanted a plain shirt guy in FBI. It's like, oh, well, that. That's probably that one right there. Like, it just looks like that. [01:15:21] Speaker D: There's no way. There's no way. [01:15:23] Speaker A: Right at the front. Immediately. Immediately after Kirk is shot, he jumps up on the thing, does his little like, you know, like he's like sliding across the top of the hood of a car in a movie over the desk, grabs something and then just snakes back out around the back. Like, what? What? How? Who's. Whose natural reaction is to jump up, like, over someone who has just Been shot in the throat, grab something from the table and then run around behind, just like vanish. Like, like, I don't care. Like, there's, there's a million different reasons to suspect that. Like, of course, of course. Every time Charlie Kirk went anywhere, he got met with people who basically acted like they wanted to kill him, who sat in front of the microphone and said, you're a stupid piece of. You're awful, you're racist, blah, blah, blah. Like, there's a million different reasons to believe that that's enough motivation and that there's plenty of people who wanted to kill him purely for ideological reasons. And if you didn't believe that yet, we'll just go to Blue Sky. Just after he died, there's another million people who are just going, going ahead announcing that, yeah, I would have been totally fine with killing him. But that still doesn't explain, like a bunch of weird ass that happened. Like, right. Like, I just don't, I don't, I can, I can understand being somebody being flabbergasted or like, you know, it's like some of the stupid crap have been like, like the dude's like making a hand signal or whatever and then he gets shot. It's like, dude, if you scratch your elbow, you look like a retard. You know, like it just. And so like all of that stuff I don't get. But there are a handful of things. There are like one, two, three little things like that around, like what one person is doing or how this thing laid out that nobody. Who, like, nobody, nobody. There is no world in which someone who is just there and had no idea what was happening that that would be the reaction. I cannot pretzel that in my head to make it make any sense whatsoever. [01:17:25] Speaker D: Yeah, it was. Say all that happened is like the timeline of. Is, I'm a Christian. I'm a milk chocolate right wing conservative. Israel is great. Greatest friend. Greatest friend. Israel is great. Wait a minute. Dead. That was all that happened in his timeline. Like a month ago, he started saying, like, you know, he said something to Ben Shapiro. He asked a couple of questions, you know, like, should we, should we trust the Israeli government and everything. And Ben Shapiro is like, like, excuse me, like, how dare you? I don't even want to talk about it. Because it should be obvious to anyone not paying attention. And all you do is make it so that you're the next one that ends up dead. So everyone at this point should know. [01:18:05] Speaker A: The mechanic gets turned off his screen. It's like, I don't, I Don't know if this is. Let me cut off my camera just in case. Let me cut on the camera. While I criticize the Israeli government, there. [01:18:17] Speaker D: Needs to be no room for doubt. They need to say, like, if you. If you are on our payroll and you say, hey, I'm not actually all right with this. That's not an option for you because you'll end up dead. So they had to send a very, very loud signal, and it's got to be deliberately, like, you know, genitalia in your face. What are you going to do about it? Like, we have this much control. We can do something this obvious in broad daylight, and we'll tell you blue is green. And you'll all say, okay, blue is green. Right. It's just. It's a dominance play is, you know, they're not hiding anything. So the one I can't deal with is people that actually buy the mainstream narrative. I'm like, just how can you possibly believe that? Everything about this was obviously, seriously, like, you think, like, all the stories about the rifle and stuff. You know what it takes to dissemble a rifle and put it in a backpack and, like, run away. Like, you burn your hand touching the thing for the next four minutes for a start. Like, there's no way. You're like, everything about. It's just complete nonsense. And. [01:19:19] Speaker C: Yeah, well, and it was a. It was supposed to be a really high powered rifle and it didn't go through Charlie somehow, like, there's no, like, everything's. Everything about the story. It's just nonsense. [01:19:32] Speaker A: Didn't go through it. [01:19:34] Speaker C: Well, yeah, there's no. There's no exit wound. [01:19:37] Speaker A: Wait, so he was shot from. Because. Because when it was like, I've seen this horrible video way too many times. [01:19:45] Speaker C: But dad has the. The. The. The 30 alts. If it had been the rifle they said it was, it would have just taken his head off. Like, it, like blows holes out the side of deer. Like, it's a huge. Like, it's a really powerful rifle. [01:19:57] Speaker A: Yeah. [01:19:58] Speaker C: And a bunch of people that have. That are like gun experts talking about, like, the sound is even different. Like, the cr. What the crack you heard is like a 223. The. The. It would be a boom if it was a hunting rifle like that. And so. So, like, everything points to. It's like literally nothing lines up. Nothing does. And really, you really need to watch Candace's show. And Liberty Lockdown's been really good on it too. [01:20:25] Speaker A: Oh, I should definitely watch. I've never watched Candace's Too But I'm curious what Clint thinks about that. [01:20:30] Speaker C: Clint's been great. Clint has played a couple of the clip. The better clips from Candace's stuff. But like, there's even like, she's reached out. She's found the people that had different footage and actually talked to them directly. And like, yeah, the cops never even reached out to us. Like this, this piece of footage of the killer went viral and they did. They don't even want it, you know, like, and so, so they're not doing the investigation. They don't. The FBI is trying to close the case right now. So they're, they're trying to force the case to be over. It's just, it's this guy, you know, it's this Tyler kid. And so they don't want to know what's going. They're covering up what's actually happened. So. [01:21:12] Speaker A: Yeah, I have no idea. I have not investigated long enough to make a, make a claim either way. But there are definitely some fishy ass things around it. I haven't done anything about the gun or whether or not he took it apart or what to, to what degree or anything like that. [01:21:30] Speaker C: There's an eyewitness account that the, the killer was in full tactical gear, which does not match any of the other stuff. So, so like, it, it's just, it's just, it's all, it's all nonsense. Like, and it's the same. It's not, it's not that much different. Look, look at. They tried to kill Trump and the kid that tried to kill Trump. It's just, they like shot him. He's dead. Like, we don't, we're gonna talk anything else about this. He has no social media presence. No, he's, he was in a BlackRock commercial. But never mind that. And like we're just, he's just gone. Like, they just pretend none of that even happened. They didn't want to get to the bottom. Even Trump doesn't want to talk about it. Like, it's. And Trump has ever since then been like, well, we're going to have more war. And he's like, I don't know. We're going to have to let Bibi decide that. You know, like, it's just like. And you know, you have Cash Patel looking like, yeah, we can't do anything about this. It's not, you know, there are no Epstein files. Those are real. There's no Epstein files. Those are real text messages from that kid. And you know, this is this really going. This is really what's Happening. Sorry, you know, so. [01:22:44] Speaker D: Yeah, man, well, I got nothing more to say on it. It drives me crazy, people still falling for this stuff every psyop, you know, open your eyes and I can't take watching this stuff anymore, to be honest. It just drives me crazy. [01:22:59] Speaker A: Let's. Let's hit a couple of good news, good news things. [01:23:02] Speaker C: So the upside is that there are more people that seem to be aware of the fact that this is a psyop than ever before. I mean, like, you got millions of people watching Candace and Tucker and the. [01:23:13] Speaker A: Number of instant, like, I Don't Trust yous, like, demographic has grown considerably every single year. Like, if you. Which is, which I think is. Even if it's not true, even if, like, Tyler is actually the killer and it happens exactly as basically we were immediately told. Which again, I am not making. I. I can't, I can't. I've taken no time to actually verify anything here. But even if it is entirely true, I think it's a wonderful thing that the number of people who don't trust it instantly is actually a huge positive because I think we are lied to far more often than not. Far more often than not, especially about anything that is politically meaningful. [01:24:03] Speaker D: It's like people tell the truth sometimes because it's useful, because people believe the truth. And you don't want to lie if you don't have to. But most people will just resort to lying the minute they need to, is what I found out. Like, the drama this, Like, I have to accept this about people. Like, if I run out of this. This concept of motivated reasoning someone talked about with Greg Maxwell, right? Because Greg was pushing on, you know, Aiden. This is a funny one. So Aiden came out, aiden wrote start OS, right? Start 9 operating system. And he came up with a suggestion for filters saying, what if you just got rid of all the filters from Bitcoin core and made it a modular thing that people can stick in a JSON config file like on their computer and just point their node to that and then that can be updated on the fly or gotten rid of on the fly. And it doesn't need to become a major drama thing every time there's a major release of Bitcoin Core and you want to change a filter, it doesn't need to be a massive issue. It's something else. It's an add on to a node. And he walked into this thinking core, we're going to be like, oh, cool, interesting. Like, that would save us a lot of headache. And within 17 minutes of him submitting the bip and it's probably going to take you half an hour to read it, let alone write a response. Greg Maxwell wrote the most scathing, horrific takedown of what he proposed being like, this is. He called it distributed authoritarianism, which he spent about two days laughing about because that's. It's a euphemism for self defense, but trying to make it sound like a bad thing. And he just. [01:25:44] Speaker C: So what, what is the external motivation? Like, what is the plan? Like, do they have some plan for something that like the filters just like disrupt? Like, is there some hidden plan for something that, that like is motivating all of these? I mean, because Greg Maxwell's the OG of OGs and like, has helped me understand a lot of stuff. Why, what is it that they're doing that is making all of these people side come down on like the side of centralization? Like, because we don't want decentralized filtering. Like, what the. [01:26:20] Speaker D: I mean, it comes down to control again, right? Like, it's the same with the block size war. It wasn't about making blocks big and giving a segue. It was about whose client we're running. That was all it was really about. Right? Like, you want regular old bitcoin, we, we added the witness discount, made blocks a bit bigger and added Segwit. But no, you need to run our version. Okay, that's what we agreed that you agreed to. It was all about that. Like, if you want bigger blocks, we actually did that. We, we have two megabyte blocks. Like, what do you want? Like, we actually did the change you want, but it's control these people want. So look, we have 99% dominance of Bitcoin Core. It's dropped down to like 78% and that's. And Samsung's releasing a client now and loads of people are all about it. Right? Because knots is contaminated from all the battle scars of what's been going on here. And you know, there's plenty of reasons people might have an issue with running knots. I don't, I think all of them, none of them bother me particularly, but, but I understand it is Samson's client. [01:27:18] Speaker C: A filter client or I don't know. [01:27:21] Speaker A: Just has the option or something. [01:27:23] Speaker D: I don't know any details about it yet. I just know he's making one and there's lots of interest for it. So. And I think it's a good thing this isn't the politics that it's being made out to be. I'm not going to start attacking it and go on the offensive about that. I'm not a knots maxi, even though I've been basically one of the two most prominent people in this whole battle. I'm not telling everyone to run knots. I'm just saying I think the change that's being made to Core is a bad idea. It's a small but very real chance that what happened to BSV happens to not. And I don't know if I went, if we've done a roundtable since I had that whole revelation where I'm like, wait a minute, you know, this whole issue of contiguous versus non contiguous because currencies like Ethereum don't allow arbitrary data storage. Period. They just don't. Bitcoin kind of has allowed it in certain weird ways by virtue of how it works. And that's been slowly getting worse and worse and worse. And now it's just like, boom, rip it out. 100 kilobyte files are now standard, fully endorsed, get relayed by the network in there. And I'm like, that has ramifications. There's social, you know, ramifications there legal risk. I never go on about the legal one. And that's always the one that gets sort of thrown back at me. I don't really care. For me, it's more about just the social contagion of it. Just like Bitcoin's now just a filthy database where people store horrible images and stuff and it gets connotated with that. I see that being a really hard thing to defend. So, you know, and then I found out about the BSV example after that and I was like, wow, this is amazing because this is Craig Wright taking a bullet for us for once. Like he had BSV under unilateral control and they took opera turn from 80 bytes to 100,000 bytes back in 2019, which is exactly what we're about to do. And they had this CSAM incident immediately afterwards and there was a resulting bunch of chaos. You know, CSAM meaning child sexual assault material. And you know, this happened right away. And I'm like, right. And the. I keep getting in this like discussion and back and forth with people who I who are genuine but don't agree with me. So that's mainly Jack Omazuco and. And Jimmy Song wrong. So they're both saying this is nonsense. Like 100 kilobyte op returns aren't going to result in that. And I'm like, I would usually agree with you that it was pretty unlikely if we didn't have the BSV case. Study. And I'm trying to figure out what's the difference? Are people just being nice to Bitcoin? Is any intelligence agency that wants to undermine us that way, is there just not the political will within those entities to do that kind of attack? I don't get it. And then you always have this technical argument, which is it's already possible to store large amounts of data with inscriptions anyway. Who cares if it's broken up into chunks and it looks hacky instead of opera turn, which looks supported. None of that's that big of a difference to really feel like the opera turn change is all that significant. And I'm like, I buy that, but it sounds like a backward rationalization because I feel like in a month or two from now, if Core 30 was to just happen and people were to run it and 100 kilobyte operators became a normal thing. I think the disaster scenario I've painted out here is actually pretty realistic now that we have that BSV case study. And then I'm going to be like, right, well now do you want to tell me that there's nothing really significant that's been changed since the inscriptions Taproot thing? Because it seems to me that it's the same as saying taproot didn't really change anything outside of what Segwit already enabled. And I'm like, but that doesn't seem true because stuff a bunch of spam started happening post Taproot that was technically possible with segwit, but it didn't happen with segwit. So there's something there where I'm just like, people are not taking this seriously. And the trouble is every time I talk about it, people shoot the messenger. So I've had Peter, Todd and Adam back, both be like, you're inviting this, you're making it happen. And they're basically setting up the stage where if we get attacked with a massive amount of CSAM in the Bitcoin blockchain, they've already fault. They've actually said this openly. It's stupid. But people are stupid and people fall for stuff like that. So it really concerns me. [01:31:45] Speaker A: That's an immediately an admission that the social, that the social signal is like a huge deal here, when they're also saying, on the other hand, that the social signal doesn't matter. And this is purely a technical argument and everybody can stick it in anyway already. Like, like there's so many. Like one argument is not the same as the. [01:32:05] Speaker C: Like they what's theoretically possible and what's Practically doable are just different things. Like, and you're making something that is theoretically possible, practically doable by, for a lot more people, you're lowering the barrier to entry significantly. Yeah, like that's it. Like you're going to get more of that then. [01:32:25] Speaker D: And. Well, you want my. I have a whole tinfoil hat theory on this whole thing. Like, if, if they'd had just gone from like pre Taproot, pre Segwit, you know, very minimal amounts of data included in the chain to let's make opera turn a thousand times bigger, I don't think bitcoiners would have gone for that. And if it had happened and it was exploited by these people that can't get cloud storage anywhere else because of the nature of what the files are, then I think bitcoiners would have reacted to it and managed to root around it. But because it's been backdoored in via Taproot having happened where data storage in Bitcoin accidentally happened, and we kind of didn't really react to it the right way. We have this halfway house where does bitcoin support arbitrary file storage or not? Yes and no, because Taproot wasn't for that purpose. Taproot was for a bunch of other purposes. It's not for the storage of data. But people found out a way to disguise data as the witness for a transaction. And we didn't really react in a way where we rejected it and some documentation got rewritten to reflect the new behavior. And it wasn't categorized as a bug, it was categorized as intended behavior. So now when the OP return change happens, everyone gets to say, well, it's already possible in Bitcoin. And I'm like, yeah, but it's not possible as a result of anything we actively chose. It was possible as a result of a mistake and a lack of foresight. So you know what I mean? It's the psychology of how we've gotten to know. [01:33:56] Speaker A: Nobody said when we implemented Taproot, it's like, okay, well this is going to be great because we can just arbitrarily stick a whole bunch of crap in because of the witness data. Like nobody was trying to make. Like that wasn't something that we actively said. This is what bitcoin is for. [01:34:08] Speaker C: We were trying to get transaction mixing and fucking privacy things which none of that shit's even happened. Like, we've not gotten any of that from Taproot. [01:34:16] Speaker A: Cross input signature aggregation. [01:34:18] Speaker D: Yeah, Taproot has failed to do any of the things we wanted to get from it pretty much like, it turns out that on paper it does all these fantastic things for multisig, but no one wants to deal with a UX or it's like, oh, you have to go round and round and round and it's just. [01:34:33] Speaker C: Now what is Nunchuck is what Nunchuck's doing now. Taproot stuff. [01:34:38] Speaker D: I don't know if it fully got there or if it's still that half mini script. [01:34:43] Speaker A: Miniscript, which is. Miniscript is super dope. I love miniscript. [01:34:48] Speaker C: But is miniscript enabled by Taproot or was. Could we get rid of Taproot Taproot and just still have miniscript? [01:34:57] Speaker A: I don't think you need. I don't think you need Taproot for miniscript, if I'm not mistaken. But obviously your signatures or your witness and stuff is going to be smaller if you do. [01:35:08] Speaker C: So maybe we should put in. Maybe we should just put in a bit to remove Taproot. [01:35:12] Speaker A: It. Yeah, it's not gonna work. [01:35:14] Speaker C: It just. [01:35:15] Speaker A: Yeah, but. So I actually sat down with Cordev a couple days ago and. And I. I wanted. There were definitely some points that I disagreed with him, but he, he listens to the show and I've been really wanting to sit down and talk to a bunch of different people on different sides of this. And I think, like, everything he said to me, I think was completely genuine. And he actually said that he joined and started contributing specifically because of the spam issue and he and multiple other people. A lot of what's going on is actually about making the blockchain, like IBD and stuff a lot faster. And he actually does benchmarks regularly on like, ibd, on normal, like Raspberry PI shit. And this actually confused me in. In some sense, but there were a lot of positive improvements in 30 that have nothing to do, that are completely irrelevant to filters. And one of them is like a significant improvement in efficiency. And one of them is. I think it's. I think this, this is actually one that had the UTXO set improvement where, like, right now it, like, scales quadratically so that, like, something is actually. The processing for something is actually significantly better with this version. But one of the things that kind of got me about that is that, like, so if there's so many, like, really like, important things and. And one of them is actually like kind of a bug fix that matters. [01:36:55] Speaker C: It's publicly known, but filter into it. [01:36:58] Speaker A: Why would you. Why would you stick those together? Especially when it's so politically like. And I think he just. He Totally kind of like hand waved away the fact that, like, knots, nodes, node numbers have grown a lot. And saying that, like, if you do like a ASMAT thing, like, a bunch of them are, like, hosted on servers or Amazon or whatnot. But, like, every. All the data and like, I'm not. I don't really care one way or the other, but I think if you, like, take an honest look at it, like I've shown, I've seen people, like, try to do that from both sides. And there, There very well may be a bunch of, like, fake nodes spun up to, like, look like nods. But it's also important to remember that, like, anybody can do that. Like, you can do that yourself just to make a tweet about it, to be, like, not so stupid, you know, like, nobody. You have no idea who's actually doing it. But without a doubt, if you look at the data and I, I specifically went back and like, saved a bunch of the stuff that I saved and, like, looked at it, there's a huge portion of them that just look like honest nodes. Like, maybe, maybe it's somewhere in actually, like the 13 or 14, maybe there is like a section that you can actually say, is somebody, like, thinking like, oh, look at my. My no count so big. My no count's bigger than yours. But it doesn't seem at all that you can just say that that's all it is. And the thing is, is if this is so much better and especially if there's like a bug fix in this. [01:38:30] Speaker C: Why isn't V30 adopt? [01:38:32] Speaker A: Well, then that's a problem. That's like, that's like. Like, why wouldn't you prioritize over, like, what is clearly a political change? Why would we not prioritize getting the bug fix and these computational improvements, which is good for everybody and helps the very problem that, you know, people on the not side are complaining about is that IBD is faster. Like, it's not getting harder to run the blockchain, it's getting easier to run the blockchain. That's fantastic news. That's like, super awesome. I love that. And so, I don't know. [01:39:06] Speaker C: I don't know. [01:39:06] Speaker A: But the analogy that he used, like, I totally respect his argument for it because he's specifically coming in from the standpoint of, like, how do we make this do as little damage as possible? And one of the things that he said that I like this analogy is, like, it's the fact that, like, I don't think that we can. That there's nothing meaningful that we can do on a long term timescale to actually stop this problem. And so it's like you go to a park and like tons of people are littering and it's like you just sit out trash cans and maybe less people will litter. And the, he said the Opera turn is just a trash can. It's just placing a trash can there for people to use it. And he also said that the reason we haven't actually increased the filter, like the relay filter to 100 kilobytes, it's just that 100 kilobytes is the next limit. So there's this hierarchy of limits. There's a relay filter, there's a transaction size filter, and then there's a block filter or block size limit. And so we've just removed the relay filter. And 100 kilobytes is just as big as a transaction as you can make. So you can stick that much into oper minus your transaction, the rest of your transaction. And so, and he said, and like our thinking about it is that we just want as neutral of an underlying like, you know, TCP doesn't think about even email. There's nothing in email that says like we're going to prioritize spam over, not spam. Like the protocol itself doesn't do that. [01:40:48] Speaker D: Yeah, well, bitconcore is not the protocol itself though. That's the thing. [01:40:52] Speaker A: This is a, but I think they see it as, this is the reference client that implies what people are, are doing with the protocol or, or how people are interacting with the protocol. So I, I, I, I get it from their perspective, but I also don't understand how, okay, like sure, the email protocol and like the, the consensus system about like what is email communication doesn't have that. [01:41:18] Speaker C: We still have email spam filters, but. [01:41:21] Speaker D: That'S done at a higher level is the point. [01:41:24] Speaker A: If you're currently the most popular client and people running clients want filters like they, they want to filter spam, then you're going to make yourself irrelevant because like it does matter. And, and, and, and then though, oh my God, the idea, and I didn't get to, I didn't really push back because we didn't have enough time. And I wanted to let him get his arguments out because I wanted to hear his perspective. But he, he made the censorship argument again is that like we're a slippery slope to censorship. And, and I even asked that, you know, so has bitcoin been censored up to this point for anything like 84 byte things? And does it censor 101 kilobyte transactions. And. And he said yes. And I didn't know. I didn't know how to go down that road of. And again, we didn't have the time. We had a very short span that I wanted him to get his say in. But, like, that was like, immediately, like. So, like, why does it matter that we're censoring 10 kilobyte transaction? Like, why is this, like, some, like, huge moral concern if it's okay that 101 kilobyte is still being. [01:42:42] Speaker C: Trying to flip a technical problem into a moral concern? To fight to support their argument. It's not a. [01:42:48] Speaker D: They're also abusing the term because it's not censorship. I'm glad that he said yes, because that shows there's some intellectual integrity there. Bitcoin is the vehicle for censorship. It is the most brutally enforced rules that reject. You will not accept transactions with invalid signatures. You won't accept blocks that are bigger than one megabyte of, you know, just standard size. Not the, you know, the V byte thing. Bitcoin has rules, and they are a result of people voluntarily deciding to enforce a set of rules. And whether that's at the consensus level or mempool level, it all comes down to the individual and what they're prepared to do. Censorship can never. Authoritarianism, as Greg Maxwell calls it. Buteon killed it in his argument. He said authoritarianism necessarily has to come from the authorities. Individuals are not agents of authoritarianism. They can be deputized by it. But if they're saying, this is my computer, this is what I'm prepared to do with it, they are not authoritarian people. The authoritarian is the one that's saying you have to do this even though you don't want to. That's the truth of it. Censorship in this context is that flipping it on its head and saying, you must relay stuff you don't want to relay, otherwise you have the goal of censorship. So they're making the ends justify the means. They're saying, if we want bitcoin to be as open and permissionless as possible, people have to do stuff they don't want so that we end with this more libertarian appearing thing. And I'm saying the ends can't justify the means. You can't force me to do stuff I don't want in order to make the system appear more liberal. It's an abuse of the terminology. Bitcoin is. The censorship in bitcoin can only come as a consequence of completely centralized mining where the authorities crack down on the centralized miners and say, you're not allowed to include X, Y and Z. And then someone is going against their own will because there's the state's boot on their neck. That's censorship. That's authoritarianism. Node runners saying, I don't want a certain type of activity and I'm not going to participate in it. Anyone that tries to characterize that as censorship or authoritarianism is abusing the terms. And I hate that. And I likened it to people that want to call discrimination because they get fired from their job when they were actually terrible at their job and or like women that like got like that made the MeToo movement and actually made frivolous claims of assault. That kind of thing undermines people that have actually been in those situations. It's an abuse of an emotional reaction action. Right. So it was. Calling it censorship from the off was just completely wrong. And everyone that was prepared to be honest about it pushed back on it very hard and was. Mempool filters are never censorship because it's your computer. You don't. Your computer doesn't get opened up to other people dumping random files on it. Otherwise you're a censoring person. That's just not correct. [01:45:42] Speaker A: One of the things that I brought up with when I was talking to Lawrence is I was like, well, you know, like then, you know, the suggestion would be that like I'm censoring. Like I could have a node that I just chose not to relate anything but like my friends. [01:45:58] Speaker D: Yep. [01:45:59] Speaker A: You know, like I could just have it so that like Mechanic Jeff STEVE SHINOBI LAW like there's like those people that like I'm connected to. It's like these are the only people that I connect to and these are the, and everything else I just don't listen to or care about. And then I could like mine it that way too if I want. It's just like totally, totally arbitrary. But like I'm not censoring everybody else. I'm just choosing like how I want to do. Like I could have a light client. Like I could literally. A light client literally relays nothing. Right or not. They're not a light client, but a non listening node. All it does is just take stuff in. So does it censor everything? Because I just. Not only that, not only that, but it. I feel like it's entirely contradictory and I will actually say I will give credit where credit's due or criticism or criticism due is there. There's an argument that like that's like a moral, like a moral outrage word. It's like, oh, you're doing censorship. And I can't believe you want to do censored authoritarian government run Bitcoin. It's like mental relay policy. What are you talking about? But like, so like, the. I can understand too, their perspective is why they think the CSAM argument is the same thing, is that like, you could just say illegal content or like somebody putting like dick butts. But it's the, it's the most moral outrage thing to be like, okay, they're going to put CSAM on the chain. So I can, I can kind of understand like why they see that as the exact same on the opposite side and that it's being pushed a lot by Luke or whatever. And Mechanic. You brought it up quite a bit. [01:47:40] Speaker D: But I was, I was the one that sort of threw that out there. And like I say, no one wanted to talk about it. Everyone thinks it draws massive amount as heat. Everyone's like kicking me under the table, like, saying, what on earth are you doing bringing that up? And I'm like, like I said, I didn't think it was super likely, but I don't think people, people are like, nice. That's the problem. People are nice, decent people that have not really worked in the bowels of society and dealt with that kind of stuff. And I'm like, look who uses a permissionless monetary network. It's people that get rejected everywhere else. So Bitcoin was drug dealers and WikiLeaks. Why? Because they can't use anything else. So who's going to use permissionless file storage? People that for some reason can't use their own computers and can't get in the cloud. That's who and why is anyone in that situation. It's not the same thing as financial exclusion where good journalists and, well, drug dealers have nowhere else to go. And they may. There's some defense there. And more, more philosophically, you know, one Bitcoin equals one Bitcoin and we need a fungible currency. And that means we have to treat all financial activity as equal. That's defensible. It doesn't matter what you're paying for. I will defend it. Whereas arbitrary file storage is just not the same thing. It's a philosophical sleight of hand to say, actually that's what Bitcoin is. It's just treating all ones and zeros as neutral. And I'm like, that's not going to fly. Because if you get caught with a hard drive with certain kinds of stuff on it, you will be judged according to that whether it was an accident or not, people are going to want to know how plausible is your deniability. And this has nothing to do with the government. A lot of the rules and regulations around this stuff reflect the kinds of morals people naturally have anyway. Right? You go to jail for murdering someone that I'm not. I still going to tell you not to murder people, even though the government made it illegal. And that doesn't make me an agent of the state. That's just right and wrong and it's independent of the law. So in this case, I'm like, if I have a random file server in my house where random people can upload files to it anonymously and I don't put any safeguards on it at all beyond what's consensus valid in Bitcoin, that is negligent, reckless. When I have. When I have the tools available to say, what you put on here needs to actually be a bitcoin transaction. And if you're disguising it as a bitcoin transaction with something else, I'm going to catch that and not have it, because it's going to be my issue. If it's in my mempool and I laid out this attack where, you know, cloud's infrastructure would get taken offline if certain stuff starts flying around the P2P layer, not the blockchain. Once it's in the chain, arguably it's not your responsibility anymore because a miner put it in at that point and miners already take that responsibility seriously. And this is where I'm like, I ended up blocking Adam because he kept misunderstanding me. He kept saying, you're on the slippery slope to censorship. And I'm saying, in a practical sense, it's the opposite. If you do some sort of content moderation in a dumb way against arbitrary file storage in general at the mempool layer, then you just prevent this kind of stuff from happening in the first place. Crudely, if you leave it up to. [01:50:46] Speaker C: Miners to do it, then they start. [01:50:48] Speaker D: Content moderating in a more subtle way. That's the problem. Because. And we have the evidence. That's what kills me about this slipstream exists. People are submitting arbitrary data and usually it's inscriptions bigger than 400 kilobytes which are not consensus valid. Oh, sorry. Are not standard policy and slipstream look at everything. Because they don't want to be on the hook for putting something in the chain that was submitted to them by some random anonymous person via their own Service, not the P2P network. They content moderate and all I'VE been saying is if you make the mempool layer, you end up pushing all the sophistication and the analysis out to the mining layer. And there's only like three companies in the world that do that and they're going to be pushed into being moderators of the content. [01:51:34] Speaker A: If they're having to be content moderators for like images, well then that actually is a slippery slope because they're going to be regulated for moderation as to who's making the transaction. And especially if we're patriot acting every damn thing about what people do on the chain now, now it's like you're, you're exposing the, the level of control that could be implemented. And I think the idea that that's not a fair and reasonable concern. [01:52:03] Speaker C: If miners have to be concerned about what kind of transactions, that we know. [01:52:07] Speaker A: Which path matters and like what the outcome of either is is just bullshit. And it's not a technical argument either. It's not like if you're a good enough dev, you know what the future is going to be. And Taproot couldn't be the more perfect example. It was like we didn't fucking know. Because it matters in the social layer, it matters in the economics, it matters in the political incentives. All of these things wrap up into this. Nobody knows. You don't know that if you remove the relay, the relay filter, that all's going to be fine. Nothing's going to happen. And it's not going to lead to censorship or content moderation at the minor level because we have a very serious minor centralization problem. If we do, if we do actually leave them in, we don't know that it's going to be able to stop everything. We don't know if it's, if it's going to lead to anything. Nobody actually fucking knows the outcome of any of this shit. And everybody's arrogantly saying it's definitely this way or this way. And nobody's actually having. Everybody's fucking talking past each other and it's, and it's like stupid, like unbelievably immature too. And everybody thinks that they're the only ones being fucking mature 100%. This is a reasonable fucking conversation to have. It's a reasonable conversation and you don't know what the outcome is going to be. There are unintended consequences everywhere and we are making a change that does matter. It's not going to kill Bitcoin. I genuinely do not think it is. It's not as existential as a lot of people Say it is, but it does matter. And there's a very reasonable conversation to have about it. [01:53:27] Speaker D: Appreciate it. [01:53:29] Speaker C: If the miners, if the miners have to care about what they're mining at all and decide one way or the other. Because what they're saying is this is just another kind of bitcoin transaction, right? Like if you can put anything in there, it's just, this is just a bitcoin transaction. You're paying to get it on the chain. But if the miners now have to be worried about what kind of transaction is being put in there, that is, that is, that's, that's your censorship. That's like where you, you end up with this. Miners can be prosecuted from mining a block that has something bad in it. You know, like. [01:54:00] Speaker A: And that's the thing is they will be like, they, like, like it's, it's not even like a. If, like, like it seems in every sense that that's coming. And if they're trying to, if they're trying to make mixing illegal, then why wouldn't they go after miners? For including mixing? [01:54:19] Speaker C: Yeah, for including a mixed transaction. [01:54:22] Speaker A: This is an illegal transaction. What you doing, buddy? [01:54:24] Speaker D: Yeah, and once at that point we have precedent, because the problem is when they tried to do it before, we went ballistic at them. Like OFAC compliance was saying you can't include certain transactions on government blacklists. And we went nuts at them over that. And they stopped. They didn't even start doing it. They indicated that they were going to do it and we went ballistic. No one's going to have that kind of reaction. They already don't. Slipstream exists. People can submit copywritten content. Nothing even like outlandishly controversial. Right? Submit, you know, like the Disney logo or something like, or Nintendo or something that's classically going to create problems. They just won't put it in the chain. That's the end of it. And no one has kicked off about that the same way they did with OFAC compliance, because no one in bitcoin actually cares about one. You know, one. One MP4 equals one MP4 or one JPEG equals one JPEG. No one actually in their heart believes that all data is equal. It's, it's a nonsense backwards rationalization. 1 BTC equals 1 BTC. I don't care where it comes from, who you are, anything like that. It's fungible. Data does not enjoy that kind of abstract, what do you call it, Provisioning, privilege. And like, you end up in a world where really one $10 bill is different in value to another $10 bill. Money doesn't work if you end up in that world. That's a collector's item. That's barter. We know that you can't have money like that. So data trying to say, hey, we're just going to have to treat all data as ones and zeros. I'm like, no one will fight for that. When Mara come out and say there's a bunch of retarded 100 kilobyte op returns that we have no interest in uploading into the chain, no one is going to go after them for that because we're all like, yeah, fair enough. And once you set that precedent that minus only minus subset of what's in mempools, you're done. It's over at that point because they're just going to start doing that exact same thing with blacklisted UTXOs and no one's going to go mental over it. [01:56:23] Speaker A: This is why I've been saying since the beginning of this is that the solution isn't even like. Like we feel like we're trying to get like the mempool consistent with what the miners are going to put into blocks. And, and yet we've got this huge problem is that there's only like six miners that matter. And, and it's like, like, if this is a centralization problem and we're talking about slipstream, why is the focus on trying to make the network work around them rather than trying to fix them? And strategy two is still like. Like, don't we actually want to fix this? Like, if we're this concerned about relay filters, I think MVK actually said that is if people actually cared this much about mining centralization, we, we would have already solved the problem. But, like, somehow the core of why this is a huge problem isn't. It's just kind of like, yeah, we'll get the Stratum V2 and we'll stick that, that we'll have some improvements for there. And like, there's barely like a handful of people who are actually caring about it or working on it. And. And it's like datum is the only thing that's actually moving the needle, like, and still in like a very small way and in like a tiny corner and it's being attacked because it's like, related to mempool filters. It's like it's got nothing to do with mempool filters. It's like it's not built well enough. It's like, well, it's fucking built. It's fucking it's doing something like, don't we give a shit about this issue? Don't we fucking care about Bitcoin's future? Like, do we care about the fact that there's a huge centralization problem? This has been going on for a really long time and you give this much about relay filters, but that's not even, like, doesn't even come up. Like, I just. God damn it. Like, where's the, where's the priority for any of this? Like, you can't, you can't, you can't care about something that's downstream and then just kind of like hand wavy about whatever, about the source, like where the water's coming from, you know? [01:58:22] Speaker D: Agreed. [01:58:23] Speaker C: If they're talking about removing, infuriating, moving the, the wallet from, you know, future versions of Core or whatever, is it possible to just build some sort of like, filter plugin on top of V30 or be whatever the next version is going to be or whatever? [01:58:41] Speaker D: Yeah, I mean, that's what Aiden did. Right? And maybe that's okay, but that's what. [01:58:45] Speaker C: They'Re mad about though. They're mad about that too, right? [01:58:48] Speaker A: Yeah, they were not happy. [01:58:51] Speaker D: Do you guys like the concept Aiden suggested or did you review it at all? [01:58:55] Speaker A: Oh, yeah, it sounds like. No, I, I know nothing. I know nothing about it, but I had basically a very similar thought. And as soon as you, like, talked about the idea, it's like, that kind of sounds good. I mean, that sounds like perfectly reasonable to me. [01:59:06] Speaker D: It would have taken all the allegedly Core want, nothing to do with Phil. [01:59:10] Speaker A: Take the liability away from them. It has nothing to do with them. [01:59:12] Speaker D: I didn't realize that we were calling a bluff. I thought Aiden walked into that like, you know, like, naively, like, they should love this. Like, and he got absolutely. Got called an authoritarian. Like, you know, and Greg was saying, this is just like Christians that want to stone us to death for fornicating. We're like, what are you talking, what on earth are you talking about? [01:59:33] Speaker A: And it would even, it would even like, solve their supposed problem of it being censorship. It's like, well, if, if you actually think that, then there's no way that this is actually going to be exactly the same. And if, if there's actually a value for having all of the information in your mempool, that's going to be mostly most likely mined in the next block. Well, then that's exactly what the relay filters will end up being. If you just give people the option for it, you know, like, it will, it will actually settle on the thing that actually economically makes sense, that will be what the filters are. If you just let people choose filters and most people will just choose a default that works, and if their fees don't work and they're like, why is this, why am I not knowing what, why is everything slow? Why don't I get an orphan block? Well, they'll change it, like, but let them change it. If we're, if we're actually arguing that free market's going to decide how best to use this thing, well, why don't you just let, why don't you let nodes be nodes and if, and, and decide for themselves like what they actually want to do, it would naturally align with what is most likely to get mined. It just, it just seems like perfectly obvious if we're, if we're allowing the free market to make, to, to align things and make it so that it is a free market, because that's going to be the best, well then why wouldn't it align? [02:00:53] Speaker C: Well, that's what I'm saying though, is that what, what is when, when a whole bunch of people want something and their reasoning for it doesn't make any fucking sense. And you know, they're smart people, then there's some sort of COVID reason for wanting this thing. What is the possibility that like Liquid has built some sort of product that needs like this big? Like, I understand that everything's not a conspiracy, but when, when you come up with a solution that really solves the problem that like multiple, on multiple levels that they want and then they're just mad about that too. There's just too many things that just like he said, it sounds like you're calling a bluff. Like it's just, I'm waiting to find that Liquid or something. There's some sort of product they have that is going to use this thing once, once the filter is gone and they needed this to happen. [02:01:43] Speaker A: Citria specifically is the only one that's like been brought up and, and Lawrence specifically mentioned that and he was like, I don't even know. Like nobody even knew or like when this conversation was happening. Like nobody gave a, about Citria or knew anything about it. Like maybe, maybe there was like a couple people or like Peter Todd or Lop or whatever had their, their thing where they were like, oh yeah, this was, this would be great because Citria would be able to use this. But it was like, he was like, it was never actually part of, for, for us. But, and, and I just take him at his word for that. He he seemed completely honest with everything else that he was breaking down. But I would say that like, again, I think there's a reasonable argument on the other side as to why it makes sense to, to basically just let it go is because like, nobody knows how Bitcoin is going to be used. So look, the argument on the other side is that we see things like people building things like BitVM and Citria and we see proposals for a quantum resistant signature which it's actually doable. It's actually possible that this could be stuck into the op return place in the operturn, you know, space for the, for the transaction and actually use like without like a serious salt fork or whatever in a more reasonable way. We can actually use things, a space that's already available to us to potentially solve a problem that we just don't know. Like, we cannot foresee. And just like kind of the idea of like, we don't know which path is best. Nobody knows. Nobody knows. And everybody who pretends to know is wrong. It's the only thing that I do know is that you don't know. And so in the context of like opening that up is that, is that there could be a ton of extremely valuable uses for Bitcoin or potentially like important protections for Bitcoin that could make use of just the fact that we have a transaction size limit of 100 kilobytes. [02:03:52] Speaker C: But you can't open up possibilities without increasing tax service. [02:03:56] Speaker D: No, you can't. [02:03:57] Speaker A: I mean there's, I think there's a reasonable argument in both ways, but I think that's a completely fair stance to take. And it, it's just weighing different things as the priority concerns of like, we don't know what Bitcoin is yet. We really just don't. We are completely unknown about the future and we're kind of making a, putting a stake in the ground that like, no, this is definitely how it's going to be used and this is definitely what, what we're going to stop and you know, this sort of thing. So I, I get that perspective and I, I think it was, I think it's worth actually making that steel man, for the other side because it actually has a lot of the same basic framing is that like, we just don't, we don't really know where this is going. We don't know who's going to build the coolest. The thing that helps Bitcoin the most in being money. [02:04:44] Speaker C: But filters can be changed. [02:04:46] Speaker A: Hold on a second. Hold on second. Yeah, I know. [02:04:48] Speaker D: Yeah. [02:04:49] Speaker A: 100%. But the. The idea is be neutral and make the blockchain work as best as we possibly can in that. In that neutral setting. Make UTXOs more efficient even if it gets bloated. Make. Give them a garbage can so that it doesn't get as bloated for whatever bullshit they're using it for. So that people can basically throw away that information. Which. Which I don't know. There's not a way for. Like, I know the operturn data can be pruned, but it still needs to be saved because hashes don't work after the OPER turn. If you don't have a full. Like an archival node, like a full full node and mechanic, maybe either one of y' all know. I don't know. But there's no way to not download that information from some full node somewhere to verify it and then you can throw it away. Is that. Is that what I understand? Or is there a way to actually verify that transaction and not have everything after the OP return and it doesn't matter? Do you know? [02:05:56] Speaker D: I don't know. I don't. I think you're going to have to store it and look at the OP return at some point when verifying the OP return transaction. [02:06:04] Speaker A: That's. That was my thinking. Is that like the transaction hash includes or the. I guess it would be the witness. I know the hash is. Yeah. In the whole thing. You have to have that data. [02:06:17] Speaker D: Yeah. Like the whole pruning of opera turns is kind of like. I don't know if that's what you're getting at exactly. But like pruning operaturn. Like the word pruning is used in two contexts. And like, Greg like yelled at me about this, but I think he intentionally misunderstood me, to be honest. Your opera tans are pruned from the UTXO set because they are a utxo, which is an unspendable utxo. So it immediately doesn't be in the UTXO set. But it's not. If you. Unless you prune your node, you still keep the data. To get rid of that data, you have to run a prune node and then it gets pruned along with all other archival data. So prune is doing two. It's. I never heard it used in the context of op. Returns get pruned. They get pruned from the UTXO set. That's nothing to do with running a pruned node. And running a prune node will discard opreturns along with everything Else, but you still have to. You still have to download and verify it to. To run a full node, whether that node is pruned or not, to sync up to the tip. And to be trustless, it has to verify everything in operators. [02:07:17] Speaker A: Well, I think we successfully didn't get anywhere. And the spam. All the world's spam drama. [02:07:26] Speaker C: The spam drama Tiger Blood is running high. [02:07:28] Speaker A: Spam drama. And relay filters are still censorship. It's funny. There's a. There's a. I'm a piece. I'm going to read a piece by Shinobi talking about how ineffective spam filters are, which he's like, technically right on, like, every count. But then, like, I'm immediately. My immediate reaction or thinking about this is like, well, then how do you call it censorship? You know, it's not censorship if you're. If you're like, that's like. That's like the thing. It's like, I. I totally get. You're 1,000% right. And it's actually a really interesting article about, like, how he's right on that issue. But then to turn around and call it censorship is a little bit. And not to be like, oh, everything's. You're the dumb people in Covid, you know, 2020. Because, like, that's such a ridiculous trope. It's like, everybody's a Nazi when they're wrong, you know, when they disagree with me. But it does feel a little bit like the vaccine's 100% safe and effective, but if you don't take it, I'm going to die. Yeah, like. Like, it's like, if it. If it's so easy to get around that it's not going to do anything, why do you keep calling it censorship? [02:08:31] Speaker D: You know? [02:08:31] Speaker A: But anyway, whatever. [02:08:33] Speaker D: Well, that's. That was the one contention. That was another thing. I went like, you're judging a filter's ability to censor, saying it can't, and then say that's why it's useless and why we should get rid of them. I'm saying that's. It's the wrong tool for that job. It's not capable of censoring anything. Judge it by what it's supposed to do, which is rate limiting. There's always going to be opera turns that are bigger than 80 bytes. There's just basically none in comparison to how many are less than 80 bytes. [02:08:58] Speaker A: It's a soft barrier. It just. [02:08:59] Speaker C: It's like saying the bridge height marker is censorship to who can travel under this bridge. It's like, no, you can travel. You just can't carry a truck that's taller than this height. Like, we're just, you know, like, I'm not going to, like, you can't pass here. You got to go a different way. You know, Like, I don't, I don't know. [02:09:15] Speaker A: I thought of, I thought of another analogy actually and had forgotten to bring it up. But. And I think this is like, fair because it, it kind of hits the whole censorship and like the bigger picture and also what. But like, the people who think that this shouldn't be changed and that there's reason for nodes to be able to make their own decisions about this is I think it paints their perspective properly and you know, tell me if I'm wrong, but like the idea that like, let's say, like, you know, you have a free country and porn is totally allowed, right? Like, there's no, like, the idea that you would outlaw someone being able to show their naked selves to somebody else is ridiculous. Right? Like, that couldn't possibly be aligned with liberty to make that law at the state level. But if you have like a neighborhood or a city where there's a very strong culture and everybody says, in my house, you're not allowed to just like, come in my living room and like start getting the D by somebody, like, you're just, you're just not going to do it in my house, you know, but like, it's not illegal or anything. You just can't do it in my house. But then if somebody have, has their own house, like somebody, somebody makes their own house and, and they live in their house and they just want to do that and just want to have orgies all the time. Well, of course they can do that in their house, but you're just not going to do it on mine. It's like the, all it does is shift the responsibility. Is it? If there are hundreds of thousands of people, people who honestly want to use Bitcoin to shove dick butts into transactions or whatever, they just kind of have to run their own nodes. Like they just can't offload it on me. And if they run their own nodes and they actually care enough to maintain the network for doing what they want to do with it, they mind themselves, they, they make sure that they pay the fees and they run their own nodes, so be it. I'll accept the transactions in the mempool. I'm still not going to broadcast it anybody else, but I will accept it totally fine. And admit that, you know, the next block might come in with Dick butts in it or whatever. But, and I'm not, but that's not censorship, it's just meaning that you can't use mine for free. You can't come come into my house and use it without, without my say so. I'll. If I'm, if I'm out of consensus, sure. I'm, I'm just, I'm not gonna, I'm not gonna play a consensus game that's not like, I'm not going to kick you out of society or something or force myself out of society because I don't prefer this not to happen. But if you have your own house and you want to do this, I don't give a shit, that is your choice. But you're going to run your own infrastructure and your own transaction really to do that. So that actually encourages, that would actually be a benefit if literally a hundred thousand new nodes came on the network just because a bunch of jpeggers wanted to, and wanted to actually verify and have a mempool where they could pass around their JPEG and verify their own transactions and use Bitcoin as money. I would call that a huge net positive because they're not uploading it onto somebody else. And I'd probably be okay with the spam. I'd be like, all right, well, whatever. As long as they actually care about Bitcoin being maintained as like a full, broad, decentralized network. And that's the way the, the culture of the maintainers, like maintainers, the people who run nodes and do wallets and the developers and the services, all of it, the entire ecosystem went, then so be it. There's no optimal way that Bitcoin was never going to always just be everything that cyberpunks wanted and there was never going to be a branch or something that we were unhappy about. Bitcoin was not going to be perfect. It's going to be something where a lot of crazy, ridiculous humans exist and use it. But I, I, but you don't get to tell me what to do in my house. You know, like, like the whole idea is that like a node runner sees it is like that's theirs. And if they want to filter something or if they want to put in a soft barrier for something that they do not think bitcoin ought to be used for, I think that's, that's their choice. Like in the same way that like I, I can decide which trends, I don't have to, to relay anything. [02:13:28] Speaker D: But anyway, I appreciate it, man. It's, it's someone else's computer, not your own. You don't get to dictate what people do with it. That's the end of it. [02:13:40] Speaker A: Let's, let's hit a couple. I gotta go. I'm gonna have to go. I just want to hit a couple of good news items. So first, the illiquid bitcoin supply quote unquote signals a shift towards scarcity. So long term holders, like there's a bunch of like news and stuff about like OGs are being reactivated and selling all their bitcoins and like we're about to go into a bear market. Fidelity Research just dropped a report or whatever which I might actually read on the show. It's got a lot of charts but it might be worth reading that the illiquid supply, like the amount that has not been transacted in more than seven years has done nothing but grow. It keeps growing into all of this. So we are still in full accumulation and holder zone despite hodl zone, despite all that. So that's, I think that's a pretty good indication that the bull market is just. Our market is still just strong. Like really, really strong. Another good news item is, and this is from the. I think it's one of the most recent financial freedom reports, but bitchat surges in Nepal. So nepal blocked like 26 of the major social media platforms because of protests and like people getting angry about censorship. Bitch at got like 50,000 downloads in like a day or two because all the protests, which I thought was pretty cool. And then another one from the freedom report that Nigeria's Enaira CBDC just got taken offline because so many people use bitcoin and so many people were having accessibility problems. They've had four years of their CBD trying to push their CBDC and it failed. They, they've walked it back and they said all right, we give up. And I thought that was pretty dope. That's good ass news. [02:15:40] Speaker D: Great news. [02:15:41] Speaker C: That is great news. [02:15:42] Speaker A: Yeah. [02:15:46] Speaker C: Hopefully the UK will have just as much trouble with their digital ID rollout as. I mean that's, that's the one thing is what are you gonna go arrest a bunch of old people? Like are they just gonna like, they're just gonna go arrest grandmas that don't, you know, like, don't. [02:16:02] Speaker D: No, they're not letting them have jobs. [02:16:04] Speaker C: Well turn all the old people independent into completely dependent? I guess, I mean, I guess that means they vote the way you want if they're completely dependent. [02:16:15] Speaker D: But it's is the UK is done for a million Reasons voter. The, the voter ID thing annoys me because. Sorry, it's not voter id, just digital id. It annoys me because it's, it's a symbolic thing. But the UK's been a. You've been arrested for posting the wrong meme for years now. It's been, it's been just a complete psychopath. [02:16:37] Speaker A: All of the infrastructure has more people in prison, has more people in prison for shit that they posted on Facebook or Twitter than Russia. That's wild. That is wild. That is not a stat that you should be proud of, dude. [02:16:52] Speaker D: It's a horrible thing that people that happen. It doesn't have that kind of resistance that Americans will put up. America has its own problems, but people just are less tolerant of erosion of their civil liberties in America. The UK is just bent over the Canadians, bent over Australians, bent over the whole non American, you know, English speaking part of the world has completely collapsed in my opinion. But like at the same time, Germany's horrible and that's had mandatory ID for ages. Anyway, same with Italy. I was walking around in Milan last, plan B, which are you going to that, by the way, next month? Plan B? [02:17:31] Speaker A: No, no, I might go to the plan D in El Salvador at the end of January. Right. [02:17:36] Speaker D: Well, I walked around in Milan and the cops came up to me and were like, id. And I was like, I don't have my id, you absolute psychopath. And they like, Vince had to like, look, he's, he's a tourist. He didn't understand that we have to carry ID here. And they like eventually left me alone. I'm like, are you serious? I need a piece of paper to be outside. And he's like, yeah, no, that's the thing in Italy, same in Germany. [02:17:58] Speaker A: You have to, you're breathing the government's air. [02:18:01] Speaker D: Like, just what are you talking about? I, I like, I want that piece of. It says I can do what I want. Hold it up. [02:18:07] Speaker C: Like, yeah, I got a license for that. [02:18:10] Speaker D: You know that meme. The European mind cannot comprehend this. And it's like someone, you know, playing electric guitar on a surfboard with like, you know, just like with an eagle above their head. It's like, this is much more real than you'd think. Think like I was like, you understand what just happened, right? It's like psychotic. Like, why do I need to have a piece of paper, like a government issued piece of paper to be somewhere outside? I have to, I have to have permission to just literally be here. Like, like, I know loitering is like a thing like, but just, I'm like, I'm just walking around and the police are like, you, I want your id. Just not like I did something either. It wasn't like I was in a fight or some sort of a situation. They were just like, we are checking IDs. What's the goal here? What is your goal with that? [02:19:00] Speaker C: To meet our quota of people we have to arrest? [02:19:03] Speaker D: Well, no, but it's just like we are checking IDs. Why? Because someone might not have an ID and then we'll catch them without an ID. I'm like, that's a completely arbitrary. [02:19:14] Speaker A: It's a bit of a circular argument. [02:19:16] Speaker D: Sir, where's your banana? I don't have a banana. Right, well then you're going to jail for not having a banana. It's a good thing we checked whether you had your banana or not. [02:19:26] Speaker A: What? Okay, I think we missed the, the underlying purpose of this situation. [02:19:32] Speaker D: Yeah, it's, it's totally circular as well. If we don't check whether you have your banana, then we won't know whether you had your banana and you could have been walking around without a banana. So it's a good thing we, we check for these. [02:19:43] Speaker A: They never get to the. [02:19:44] Speaker C: This is the whole problem, the whole problem with the rights reaction to like everything the left is. The left has been engaged in this like truly like a real problem, like this cloud pivot strategy to like overwhelm basic services in certain areas. And like they, it's advantageous for them to like, look, the hospitals are overflowing and, and to be able to redraw like voter district, you know, gerrymander and to like change congressional representation and all of this with, just by bringing in as many people as they can bring in. But then the right wing response is like, well, we need to create this militarized police force that follows no protocols and no, like, they, they have no badges and no, they don't have to show you, they're wearing masks. And we're going to set them a quota of like criminals they have to arrest. And they're just like everybody, every other human being, they don't want to go and actually deal with real criminals. So they're arresting the, you know, Iranian dad in a Volvo with his kid in the back seat because his green card expired. And, and they're not, they're not going in like trying to infiltrate. [02:20:58] Speaker A: They want easy targets as much as everybody else. [02:21:01] Speaker C: Yeah, yeah, you know, they're not trying to get shot at. They're like whining about the fact that they're pro. They're. They're protesting ice. [02:21:08] Speaker A: I don't understand. [02:21:09] Speaker C: I'm just trying to do my job. And, and it's like, like, I don't know, like it's just crazy how the right is like celebrating a solution that's just as evil as. As, you know, the problem they were trying to solve in the first place. [02:21:26] Speaker A: And it just feels like it's obviously going to be turned around like the Patriot act and. Yeah. And we're gonna see. [02:21:33] Speaker C: The whole goal was to put. To push Palantir to begin with. [02:21:37] Speaker A: Yeah. Well, guys, I wish we actually have like a bunch of stuff that we didn't cover. I'm not going to read any of the five dollar wrench attacks anyway because it's just going to piss me off. And the fact that they're trying to make privacy illegal just in a backdoor way. But any final words? Because I do have to get out of here like a SAP. [02:21:59] Speaker C: What was it they were supposed to. That Steve's supposed to say at the end of every. The, the. [02:22:04] Speaker A: The 6102 bug? I mean, not excusing. Not 6001. 6102. 21. Is it 2160 or I don't know, 21. Whatever. Steve, you're not here, so not our fault. [02:22:21] Speaker C: What is the bug? What is it? It's the time bug. [02:22:24] Speaker A: It's the bug. The time bug. It's the timestamp bug. Right. [02:22:26] Speaker C: Okay. [02:22:28] Speaker A: Is the Y2K of Bitcoin. Bitcoin's gonna die unless we fix this. We're standing in for Steve very poorly because we didn't even know what the hell it's called. Mechanic. Any final, final thoughts? [02:22:48] Speaker D: Let's see what this third client brings. I'm kind of wondering what they're gonna make with. [02:22:52] Speaker A: I'm interested. [02:22:53] Speaker D: I think they're not gonna go the filter route because then it's pointless. They're not gonna. It's not gonna be core. I think they will just focus on the personnel, the team and the funding and be like, you know, this is not going to be a woke silly, you know, leftist nut job institution like CORE turned into. I think they're going to, you know, it's going to be the based version of core or something like that. [02:23:18] Speaker A: Man. I increasingly think that's like a hyper focus on. Like, like I'm not, I'm not 100. Like I don't, I don't fall in with that specifically because this is a part of what I have the same problem I have with like, their criticisms of Luke is like, like, James and Lapp wrote the piece about Luke, which I read, and there's like plenty of good, like, technical concerns, like things that like, okay, like that's, that's fair to actually bring up. But then they just like, he just like kind of rips him apart. It's like he thinks masturbations evil and like all of this stuff, he's like, dude, like I've known has been crazy. And as soon as you're like getting into this thing that like, oh, he's socially on, like, this is like, you shouldn't agree with him on this particular technical issue because if you're bringing up technical things, that's does it. That's a different, That's a different thing. But, but because he believes all of this other stuff, like ideologically and like his Catholicism and like all of this stuff, stuff like, you don't want it to go there because that's when you get like, okay, well, you know, he doesn't think he's a woman. You know, like. And like, I don't think that's. I don't think I should be judging them for the exact same reason. Like, I think that's a. I think that's a complete non. Argument. Like, I agree that's saying that Charlie Kirk is a racist, therefore I don't have to. [02:24:43] Speaker D: Actually, no, no, let me, Let me be clear. I'm talking about what I think Samson and those guys will focus on. I'm not talking about what I actually personally think. I think my. I like the way Knots works. And Knots is a rejection of an approach to Bitcoin that says mempool filters need to mimic relay. Sorry, consensus as closely as possible. I think that's a mistake. That's not a criticism of the people there. And I have steered clear of making personal attacks. I have made some inflammatory comments, but I'm not really about that. I do think Core is pretty woke and I do have my suspicions around woke up, you know, people and stuff like that. But there's plenty of based people that work for Core. There's like, I know multiple Core developers that, you know, are not woke. Right. So it's. I'm not making that. I'm just saying I'm trying to predict what Samson focuses on because it has to have a selling point and I think they're going to go down that. Here's who's behind it. This amazing rockstar developer that has, you know, you know, he's like, you know, that's Fair. I'm just guessing something like that. I really agree with you. I hate all the personal attacks and stuff. Stuff. And I do maintain that they've been much worse from the. Not CORE themselves, but core's defenders. And they've been. You know, the attacks on Luke this week have been insane. And the LOP article you brought up was that thing it says about Luke calling the FBI on core developers is completely untrue. There's nothing else he could have done in that situation. And no one gets it. If you have your property stolen and they're talking constantly about unrealized capital gains tax. If they come around to you one day and they're like, okay, there's unrealized gains on bitcoin. You owe us this much money and you say it got stolen. They will say, where's the police report? And if you don't have one, they will not believe you and they'll say, you still have it. So he had to tell the authorities that his stuff got nicked. Otherwise they would have just assumed he'd had it. I would have told him to do the same thing again. Even despite what happened, the FBI, then, of their own volition, went after Luke's activities and were like, well, where have you been? What have you done? Oh, you were at a conference. Then they went to the conference organizers and demanded the names of everyone there. That was not Luke. That was the authorities doing what they do. And there's nothing he could have done to stop it. So implying that he, like, snitched on a bunch of CORE devs is just so. That's just gross, man. He didn't do that. And, like, unrealized gains is a thing in Europe, it's a thing in Japan. Like, it's. You can't afford to. To be sitting on a massive doxed stash of bitcoin that gets stolen and not declaring it as stolen because you're going to be on the hook for it and you won't even have the money to pay for it because it will have been stolen. So I will defend that. That's. That's really. That's a disgusting thing to say he did, because he never did that. [02:27:26] Speaker A: All right, well, thank you, guys. [02:27:29] Speaker D: All right. Sorry to end on this. [02:27:31] Speaker A: No, no, no, I. I appreciate the. The caveat there. And we'll be. We'll be back next month. I'll be covering a whole bunch of things that we actually talked about. I might even go over some of the LOPS article and. And we'll be back with guys Roundtable. Thanks, guys. [02:27:48] Speaker D: Cheers. [02:27:53] Speaker A: All right, guys, I hope you enjoyed that episode. And don't forget to check out everybody. Don't forget to follow everybody. And I will have tons of different links for a bunch of the news items that we got to, as well as some of the news items we did not get to. And of course, our amazing sponsors, Leden Pub Key and Synonym and the work that they're doing and the HRF and GetChroma Co, which I've also got some discounts and special links and stuff for you guys for pretty much all of them. So definitely check those out and if you ever think about them in the future, come back to the description and use those links. That helps out the show, but then it also will help out you. So easy way to let them know that you heard about them because of me. Any other questions, shoot me a message. I'm on Nostr and Twitter. You know, tag me in something and I'll catch you guys on the next episode. Until then, everybody, this has been the Roundtable and that is our two sets. It.