Shitcoin Insider #002 - The Pungent Smells of a Bitcoin Fork

[00:00:00] Speaker A: Foreign. [00:00:04] Speaker B: Bitcoin maximalists trying to make sense of the sea of shitcoins. This is Shitcoin Insider. [00:00:20] Speaker C: What's up, everybody? Welcome back to Shitcoin Insider. This is episode two and we have. [00:00:27] Speaker B: The insider back on the show, my. [00:00:29] Speaker C: Co host, and we are digging, digging into the forks of bitcoin. Today. [00:00:36] Speaker B: There is so much going on and. [00:00:39] Speaker C: Actually there is a major news news event that just dropped, I think yesterday actually, which is literally the day after we recorded this. So I'm actually just going to tack on a short conversation at the end to just drop what has just happened in bsv, which is just. [00:00:59] Speaker B: It's a little scary, to be perfectly. [00:01:01] Speaker C: Honest, particularly with the amount of money that is on the BSV network. But also just in the spirit of this show, I got to say, it's a little bit funny and very indicative of shitcoins. So without further ado, let's go ahead and just get into our episode with our insider talking all about the sorry state of bitcoin cash, bitcoin satoshi's vision. [00:01:28] Speaker B: And all the other forks of bitcoin. This is episode two, the pungent smells of a bitcoin fork. [00:01:36] Speaker C: Got my amazing co host here for Shitcoin Insider. And we're going to be talking about the really big news, the really big news that's going on. Like, everybody else is distracted with the election, but if you'll notice, the S&P 500, the Dow and the NASDAQ have had an amazing week on the news of the bitcoin cash hard fork. And I think we're gonna, we're gonna get into this, we're gonna talk about all the forks of bitcoin. There are about, I don't know, 50 or so that are of no consequence. But then there are some fun ones. Just really have some magical stuff going on right now. So thank you for joining me again on this show and, you know, thank you guys for listening to Shitcoin Insider. What's up, man? [00:02:21] Speaker D: Hey, man. Yeah, looking forward to another episode. [00:02:25] Speaker C: Awesome. So for everybody who doesn't know, do you have a. What's your, what's your general rundown of bitcoin cash since that's, that's the news item right now? [00:02:40] Speaker D: Well, if somebody didn't know anything at all or even somebody who kind of knows but wasn't there in 2017 or wasn't paying attention to politics, the bitcoin cash was a well publicized fork back, I think it was August 1, 2017, and at the time there were a very small minority of bitcoiners who had been arguing for larger blocks despite the fact that it would lead to more centralization. What do you call it? That idea got kind of co opted by some of the larger companies in the space, like Coinbase and Bitpay and several mining pools and mining manufacturers like Bitmain. [00:03:29] Speaker C: There were a lot of the services and exchanges and stuff. New York agreement, it was, yeah, all. [00:03:36] Speaker D: Of the, all the biggest, the entire ecosystem. Like people say if the ecosystem decided to go against bitcoin, they could. Well, this was the ecosystem decided to go against bitcoin and trying to make a move that would give themselves more control over the network. They wanted to also replace the core dev team and kind of like sneakily put their own little contractors in, giving the miners essentially full control. Coinbase had their own ideas. They didn't, Brian didn't. He didn't specifically say who he wanted to replace core, but he definitely was like flirting with, like he didn't want court. Like they wanted everybody. Coinbase wasn't necessarily holding hands with, with companies like Bitmain, but they all had their own plans, they all wanted their own control. And so that was like a subplot to bitcoin cash. Maybe I'm already getting a little too deep here, but a subplot. The bitcoin cash was really more of a, like, you know, Coinbase wants control of bitcoin, Bitmain, the miners want control of bitcoin. Like whoever gets to kind of put in their people get to control bitcoin. But, but the, I guess the, the outside angle to the normies was, hey, we're going to make bigger blocks. That way you guys can have cheaper fees. [00:04:55] Speaker C: Yeah, I think Armstrong is still crazy bitter about it. He goes out of his way, not to mention bitcoin when he's talking about this stuff. And what was funny about this all to me is how much, even today the framing is all off. From the bitcoin cash side, it all seemed like it was about bigger blocks versus smaller blocks. And that is always the way it's positioned. Whereas always the concern, I mean, segwit ended up making bigger blocks, but always the fundamental concern from the other side. [00:05:35] Speaker B: Was whether or not we politically decide. [00:05:37] Speaker C: How to fundamentally change the consensus rules or not. Is that, are we letting just a bunch of companies get together and say this is the future of the protocol and, you know, know, we're just going to do this and you don't really have a choice? Are we going to politicize changes to the consensus rules? Is this going to be an immutable, reliable, foundational technology? Or is this going to just be a political tool that just gets tossed around in the winds based on which company's running it right now? You know what I mean? [00:06:09] Speaker D: And yeah, not changing is so important, but I don't know how you want to structure the this because there's so much I. Oh, there's so much to get into. [00:06:21] Speaker C: Well, with so bitcoin sv. So the bitcoin cash got their bigger blocks, right? They went to. What did they fork off with immediately? Was it 8 megabytes? [00:06:32] Speaker D: Eight at first, if I'm not mistaken, and then quickly to 32, which is where I think they are now. They've got two. They've got two, two gigabytes on the roadmap. So you have two gigabytes or two terabytes in the roadmap. I forget which. I think it's two gigabytes on the roadmap. [00:06:45] Speaker C: Are you shitting me? [00:06:46] Speaker D: I think it's two gigabytes on Rabbit. [00:06:48] Speaker C: Dude, look that up. I gotta know. But what's hilarious is that like they never filled an 8 megabyte block. Like when they forked a 32, like they just keep increasing it. And the, the hand, what was it? Hand cache, Hand dot cash or something like that, which. [00:07:06] Speaker D: What are you talking about? [00:07:07] Speaker C: There's a. Just recently it was. Oh no, I had this in the bag. [00:07:14] Speaker D: There's a, there's a BSV wallet called hand cash. But I don't think it's what you're trying to talk about. [00:07:18] Speaker C: Oh, that was a BSV wallet. Okay, okay. I thought, I thought this was bcash, but there was a. Basically there was a string of like 10 megabyte blocks. 10 or like 12 megabyte blocks or whatever that were just chock full because of some thing that was just. I'm not sure if it was spamming out or there was just a whole bunch of activity and they would get to where to verify a block. It took over the 10 minute block time and it was tiny blocks. Tiny blocks in comparison to like what they're talking about. [00:07:46] Speaker D: I mean there have been a lot of really good examples of how it doesn't actually work, how it's just marketing. So their, their white papers are not white, but their roadmap says adaptive block size, market driven growth to 1 TB blocks, which you could do some very basic math very quickly point out that that's completely impossible without like very highly scalable, like cloud computing. Like like AWS or something. You're not going to do that. [00:08:13] Speaker C: It's really. [00:08:14] Speaker D: You're not going to do that in your house. There's no way you're going to do that in your house. You know, even if you spent a lot of money, you're going to have to pay some big company and you're going to have to pay millions of dollars a year for that, for that kind of bandwidth. But. Or not just the bandwidth, but the storage itself. That's another big scaling issue that people don't even talk talk about very much. And they should. You know, just like even Bitcoin has this problem where, you know, people talk about, well, hard drives are going to be cheap in the future. Well, they're already not getting cheap enough to make it easy enough for 1 megabyte blocks that we have now. [00:08:51] Speaker C: Yeah, like when we're hitting those like 1.3, 1.5, you know, megabyte blocks or. [00:08:55] Speaker D: Whatever takes days to sync. Nobody should be okay with days to sync. Ideally, the growth of, you know, cheaper hard drive, pure faster hard drives and Internet would be such that we would, you know, decrease that time to sync with our without changing block size. But so far it hasn't happened. So increasing blocks is just kind of crazy. But since we're already kind of, you know, too big. [00:09:23] Speaker C: But are you going Luke Jr. On me? [00:09:25] Speaker B: Are you? [00:09:26] Speaker D: Well, I'm not saying we should change. [00:09:27] Speaker C: Them to make them smaller 300 kilobyte blocks now. [00:09:30] Speaker D: And Luke agrees, by the way. I don't know if he, I don't mean to speak for him, but I have spoken with him about this and he agreed with me that, you know, even though he wants and wishes we had smart blocks, he. And of course he would support it if the community did, but he wouldn't necessarily push for it because he said it's kind of already too late to have any impact to make it worth gotcha forking. So, you know, we've already got the problem where it already takes. [00:09:57] Speaker C: That would be a soft fork, right? Like you would actually have to implement it like on the client. [00:10:01] Speaker D: Yeah, I guess it'd be easiest because to do it in the software because it's already making it smaller is easier. [00:10:06] Speaker C: But I guess technically you wouldn't need a soft fork. I mean you could just have. [00:10:10] Speaker D: Everybody could just agree. [00:10:11] Speaker C: Yeah, everybody can just start running three 300 kilobyte blocks. And even if somebody did some 1.5s or whatever in there, you know, it wouldn't change a whole lot. [00:10:20] Speaker D: But that kind of is this. I mean, I don't know, sometimes a soft fork, like, becomes a hard fork work because like, if you didn't do it, if you didn't do that soft work, like, you'd be orphaned. [00:10:32] Speaker C: Yeah, you're, you're, if you were a minor. Well, in, in the, in the context of like a minor is that if you're running 300 kilobyte blocks or something like that and somebody else is doing 1.5, they're getting way more fees than you are because they can. [00:10:44] Speaker D: Well, you, you wouldn't, you wouldn't be. I mean, presumably. Well, yeah, so if everybody just agreed to lower it, but then like one guy kept not, you'd have to like, also enforce it. You'd have to like forfeit people that. [00:10:52] Speaker C: Didn'T, which there's no incentive essentially to do it. Unless you saw forked and basically required people to do it. But then that, that's just a whole nother set of problems. It doesn't, it doesn't make sense. Like economically it, it just falls apart. That's why you just keep it the way it is and we just go. [00:11:09] Speaker D: You know, so it took us about 60 seconds to decide to do a little thing that's not going to work. So anyway, yeah, so, but, but if we could, like, if we could have started, if we could have never had 1 megabyte blocks in the first place, it would have been better if we'd stayed smaller up to now and maybe would have driven some of the second layer stuff sooner. But about bitcoin cash and I kind of got on a tangent. I'll probably do that a lot, but there were several times when there was one example of one person in the ecosystem, in bitcoin cash ecosystem where he wanted to kind of like, you know, these cultists, they get in their head like, oh, we're the big blockchain. We can handle big business, we can handle high, you know, high volume of transactions, etc. Etc. So this guy's like, okay, cool. I could use a system that is like super cheap and has a high throughput and allows me to send all these transactions very cheaply for my business or my platform or whatever. So he tests it and they like their. No start crashing. He only does like, like, like 18 megabyte blocks not even close to their cap. And like their nodes start crashing. A lot of like the bit pay nodes crash, like all the little. There's not very many like normal users running nodes, but there they were basically like screwed. Like everybody got really kind of mad that he did that and they Said that he should have done it on testnet. And they kind of blamed him for spamming. Yeah, they blamed him for like trying quote unquote, trying to use the block space that they said they had on Mainnet. So yeah, there was like a big. And actually, you know what? Funny, the fees actually went up. Wow. The fees went up. [00:12:47] Speaker C: Wow. Even with, Even with only 18, the. [00:12:51] Speaker D: Fee started going away because they, Nobody was mining 18. Most of the. [00:12:55] Speaker C: They had a soft. Like they were already. [00:12:58] Speaker D: They found. That's when they found out the miners actually had. The miners actually had set most of their nodes to like 1 megabyte. So of course most miners were sitting there doing one megabyte. And, and, and so the sort of started backing up, started backing up and then normal users like. So unlike how Bitcoin was designed to fix that to where that's not even a problem with a fee market, Bitcoin cash wallets generally don't have fee. The fee like to change your fee on them because usually it's so empty that you can just send it with any fee that wallet's default fee and it'll go in the next block. But in this case since the blocks were full, the mempool was full. You like if you are a normal user using your wallet without a choice to increase fee, you might have to wait hours and you have no choice about it. Like it doesn't matter how important that transaction was to you or how much you would have been willing to pay to get the next block. Like you're just stuck. You're just stuck and you have no idea when you're not. When you, when it's going to go through. So it was just a very bad, I mean it just the whole thing. [00:14:06] Speaker C: And they don't have rbf. No. [00:14:09] Speaker D: So the whole thing is like it's just, it's just, it's just marketing. It's just marketing for dummies that think that the Bitcoin's all about payments. And the way to solve that is to make it the least efficient database you could ever have. [00:14:24] Speaker C: What's funny is it shows just how wrong the mindset is, is that they're talking about a global payments network and a global payments system where everybody can publish every single transaction to this massive broadcast network that everybody is going to store forever. Which just alone is bad for privacy. But you know, throw that aside. Just the sheer computation of doing that is absurd. And the bandwidth isn't just getting a 25 megabyte block to somebody in, you know, in a 10 minute span. It's syncing a 25 megabyte block with somebody else and still actually participating in the mining race. It's checking the work of that 25 megabyte block on top of all of the other stuff that's this going on. And it is a, it's a race. Like if you can't verify anything, you don't, you don't know anything. [00:15:24] Speaker B: Like what are you even participating in? [00:15:26] Speaker C: You're just logging into somebody else's server and using their computer for whether or not your transaction exists. And the mindset is wrong. [00:15:34] Speaker B: 25 megabyte blocks. [00:15:35] Speaker C: Like, you know, we were talking, you just mentioned that it was like 18 megabyte blocks that were causing like huge problems and like a backlog. And then the hand cash issue was. I wish I had in front of me. It was stupid for me not to like find it again. [00:15:49] Speaker D: Are you talking about the double spend? [00:15:51] Speaker C: No, no, no, no. I was talking about the somebody. I can't remember who it was that was talking. It was, I keep thinking it's Paul Zork, but I know it's not him. Like that's the name that's coming to mind and he's not even like in that space right now. But somebody was talking about how there were 10 or 11 megabyte blocks and I think it was on BSV that were literally taking 10 minutes to just validate, to just download and do the computation to check if it was a real block. And this is, I mean this is a drop in the ocean of the payments problem. Like this isn't, this isn't like, oh, it's 80% of the payments problem and we're having rough trouble. You know, it's like a little bit stressful. But this is like, you know, Bitcoin is, quote, unquote, seven transactions per second. Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV are like 21 transactions per second. And we're talking about 60,000, 100,000 millions of transactions per second, which is the problem that we're trying to overcome. And they can't manage 20. You know, this is orders of magnitude on top of orders of magnitude failure while putting so much risk of the underlying system of not even being able to catch up, not being able to verify anything because it takes the entire span of the 10 minutes just to verify the most recent block. It's the whole thinking is just like just those handful of scenarios just show that the whole thing is just a completely backwards engineering problem. [00:17:32] Speaker D: And, and best of all, in my opinion is, you know, you can see, I love that we're about. So if we had this conversation, you know, In August of 2017, if we had this conversation, it would all be hypothetical. We'd say no. In our opinion, if you went this route, you'd be giving a lot more control to developers to take over the chain and do corrupt things and to sensor and you'd also be, you know, and the incentives wouldn't work and the nodes would probably crash. But now fast forward and you know, of course they would deny, deny, deny and no, it can handle it, we can do it. You're an idiot. And hard drives are going to be cheap and shut the fuck up or excuse me, terabytes. [00:18:16] Speaker C: Terabytes. A hundred dollars. [00:18:18] Speaker D: But now we can see not just everything we've just talked about with the. Obviously the nodes can't handle it, which means you need, you know, lesser, less nodes, which means you have easier to censor, which means also by the way, that the dev team has a lot more control. And so what we've seen now with ABC is the leading implementation of Bitcoin cash. Up to now, they did so many things which every step of the way was like, no, this is a bad idea, we would never do this on Bitcoin. And they said, shut up. And then they'd go the next step and you'd say, no, this is a bad idea, we would never do this on Bitcoin. They'd say, shut up, it doesn't matter, shut up, it doesn't matter. Shut up, it doesn't matter. That's what I kept hearing. And the first thing they did, so the very first thing they did was 10 block checkpoints, which bad but not the worst thing they did even close. The next thing they did after that was six months scheduled hard floors. Now that is very bad. And I know other chains like Monero did too, and I also think it's very bad on those chains. But having a scheduled hard fork, especially when you have a very centralized development team, means that all the exchanges and all the other ecosystem blocks pieces in the ecosystem are basically waiting for that centralized team to give them any code they desire every six months. They can literally do whatever they want every six months. They don't have to debate with anybody, they don't have to propose anything. It's just like they get everybody in the mindset of like, okay, where's my six month update? Let me plug that in and turn that on. If, you know, if you're an exchange or whatever, you know, you've got a. You've got a process at the exchange where the exchange is, okay, this is the time for my BCH upgrade. So here's my coordinator from BCH to give me the new code that I'm going to plug in. And we're just going to, you know, change and all the wallet makers, same thing. Like the wallet makers know, like, okay, on this state, this is when we go to our BCH king and we ask them for the new codes. We can plug it into our wallets like this gave them basically unlimited power. Unlimited power. And then of course they told me, well, no, it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter. You know, hash power rules. And it's bitcoin, so it's. Of course it's great. And so we saw, we've seen. Now with bch, we've seen censorship where somebody, a miner decided he was going to take a bunch of the Segwit coins that were moved on BCH on accident, like relayed on BCH. It was millions of dollars worth of BCH. [00:20:50] Speaker C: That was a three block. That was a three block, 51% attack, wasn't it? [00:20:54] Speaker D: Yeah. And that was one that you brought up. Actually, it was. Well, the number of blocks. [00:20:59] Speaker C: That's still my biggest tweet. Tweet thread. [00:21:03] Speaker A: So. [00:21:03] Speaker D: So there was anybody took several hours. It may have not been that many blocks, but it took several hours before the chain updated. [00:21:11] Speaker C: Yeah. [00:21:11] Speaker D: Yeah. So basically like, you know, it went offline. I laugh sometimes and they tell me like, why would I use like one guy told me recently, why would we use aws? Like, you know what if they go down? It's like, well, they've been up. They've been running since longer than bitcoin cash, which has gone down a couple times since, since then, since AWS has been running. So but anyway, because yeah, it literally went down. They had to push another emergency fork at that time. But that was separate from the 51 attack. Just so happened that it coincided with a, also a, a mempool bug. But anyway, so we see also we saw that miner. [00:21:53] Speaker B: Do you remember what that fork was about? [00:21:55] Speaker C: Because I remember that too. I was kind of following it at that time just because I was like, what in the hell with the 51 attack? Because they literally took coins and the, the claim, the claim was that like, because the Segwit coins were basically up for grabs when that hard fork happened. [00:22:11] Speaker D: Yeah. So they change. Sorry, they changed. Yeah, they used to have like a, like a rule in the code where you couldn't touch those. It would like Reject you like Segwit does. If you try to, if you try to move those without the Segwit signature, it's invalid. Although they didn't have segments, they removed that code to where if it didn't have a signature, then you could just move it and it'd be considered valid if you were a minor. If they found those blocks and if they found those coins in another wallet, moved to another wallet, it wouldn't, you know, require a signature to do that. And then now it would have a signature. So this miner did and he took them. And then a few other miners said, no, we're not allowing you to do that. And several blocks later they retook his coins back, essentially reversed the chain to censor him retroactively. So, which is a, you know, and. [00:23:00] Speaker C: They claimed in the things that I was reading and I never found any sort of proof or just like backing up of this, but the claim that was said in almost everything I was reading about, all the conversations I, like, I started, I had, I started to like trying to get into all the telegram and slack groups about it at the time, because I was, I was like, whoa, what is going on over here? I, I was really curious. I think that was actually right around the time that I first started thinking about, like, we should do a shitcoin insider show. I think that's actually where this show birthed, like the idea of the show came from. But I was digging into it and everybody was saying that supposedly their claim was that they were going to give back the coins to their rightful owners. And it was like hundreds or thousands of addresses or something like that. And I was like, how could you possibly know who the owner's like, who is double checking your work here? And then they, they even said like a week later the claim was that. [00:24:00] Speaker B: Like, yeah, we returned it to everybody. [00:24:02] Speaker C: Who actually owned it, you know, and. [00:24:03] Speaker D: In hindsight at the time, I, you know, whatever, just kind of took one of those things, like, I guess they're going to do it, I don't know. But in hindsight, after seeing what they're doing now, which I'm going to lead up to, there's no doubt in my mind that that probably ended up. That was BS in people's pockets. So what I've been. There's been a trend which you should always expect, should. Everybody should always expect this. And this is why Bitcoin, it's so important that there are never leaders, especially when it comes to, you know, being in charge of the code, being in charge of what's deployed. This needs to always be a democratic process and not, not even in the sense, you know, of like majority rules that you want. It needs to be 100% every time there's a rule change. Essentially. It needs to be absolutely not controversial at all. But because, because really by default and if you say, well, we're never going to have that kind of consensus, that's fine, then you'll never have any changes. That's perfectly fine. You know, you know when you will have 100% consensus, if there's a bug or some critical flaw, then 100% of the system will get behind changing that immediately and that's good. But anything else, if it's not 100%, forget about it. There's whatever, okay, we don't need it. We don't. We have already bitcoin now. But anyway, so this, these same developers since then, now that they had their little scheduled hard forks and you know, they've been trying to find ways to enrich themselves, that has been their job. They, you know, the same things happen a lot on Ethereum, but this happens anytime you give people power. Whatever they were there for originally tends to stop being the point. And the point becomes to make more money. Everybody always wants to make more money. So, so if you're, well, the big. [00:25:45] Speaker C: In from the mentality. Sorry to interrupt, but the mentality of this like, is that when they start to have the unilateral decision making over how this project even moves, like just from a mental standpoint and this is something that all humans are subject to. Like, this is not like, oh, special people are, you know, immune to this and only bad people succumb to this. But they immediately begin to see whether or not they realize that it is a form of centralization, a very potent form. They see themselves as more important than everybody else in the project. That we must be sustained, our group must be sustained. And what we are doing is so much more important than what everybody else is doing. And then they start to change the rules to reflect that perspective. But continue with what you're going because like I think that's kind of good mental. [00:26:41] Speaker D: So what they're putting. So you know the thing about when you run a shitcoin and this is the case with every shitcoin, you're running a shitcoin, how are you gonna profit? Okay, like you're not just gonna, you know, you got this shitcoin bch. Nobody actually cares. Like nobody in the. Well, I shouldn't say nobody. Maybe some like delusional guy in there. But like nobody in the, in the leadership is gonna be. Yeah, I'm just like altruistically dedicating my life so people can have very inefficient database payments that are still censorable and still centralized. So, so they need to profit from their, from their, from their shit when everybody does. That's why, that's why Ethereum wants to go proof of stake. That's why a lot of other coins, you know, give themselves half the supply or whatever. You have to profit from your shitcoin. So they are now implementing a dev fee attacks on every block. So the devs have code, I say the devs. It's like basically one guy has implemented a new change that comes into effect November 15th which is going to pay himself. Technically it's a company ABC with a few other participants, but it's mostly it's him. He's going to decide where the money goes and how generous he wants to be with all this, you know, free quote unquote money he's getting. [00:28:09] Speaker C: Who this is? [00:28:09] Speaker D: This Omri. So Omri. And he's in with David R. Allen as well, who's more on the business side. He's somebody that ran his own ICO in 2017. Gems that had a big, had a big like it was very hyped, had a lot of investors and then dropped off the grid. They didn't even exit scam because they never even gave anybody tokens. No kidding. Yeah, they just like. Well, they did give some people tokens, but not officially. [00:28:38] Speaker C: Is it. Is it. Does it even still exist? I got to know. [00:28:40] Speaker D: It never existed. It never like you won't be able to find a price fit anywhere. It, it launched, it was very popular. It got very hyped, you know, in 2017, like people would invest in an ICO ahead of time before they get the tokens. You know, they had like all kinds of private investors and then they shut it down and said, oh, we can't do this. We need, you know, SEC wants this, this whatever. So you know, please wait. Our lawyers are working on it. Please wait. And they just, please waited it until people stopped asking. [00:29:06] Speaker C: Well, hold on a second. [00:29:07] Speaker B: Jim's. [00:29:07] Speaker C: It looks like it does exist somewhere. It's being traded. There are one probably not it. 1.2 billion. Maybe this is not it. But the 24 hour volume is 18. [00:29:22] Speaker A: Probably not it. [00:29:23] Speaker D: I remember there being multiple gems. [00:29:24] Speaker C: This is an imperium contract. [00:29:26] Speaker D: So this is maybe I see it actually here on coin Gecko. But it has, it has like nothing It's n a gems of the Z in Jim's with. Oh, it says inactive. It says it's inactive on coingecko. So yeah, they never, they never. I mean they launched only to like even. [00:29:47] Speaker C: Not even. [00:29:47] Speaker D: They launched it to private investors and those private investors were like trading it on like at the time. Like the ether delta stuff, which was at the time that's basically was uniswap of the day. [00:29:58] Speaker C: Luckily this guy moved on to a much more credible project. [00:30:00] Speaker D: Like, oh yeah, so. And so he's. He's part of it too now. But, but anyway, so they're going to be collecting 8% of all the block reward. And. But the big thing that I want to kind of, I guess hammer on with this is that like these are the people who. Anybody who said they supported bitcoin cash was trying to give bitcoin to hear me. [00:30:29] Speaker C: Yeah, you pause it. [00:30:32] Speaker A: So the thing to keep in mind with all the shenanigans we're hearing about that's happening on bitcoin cash and more. We'll see about BSC in a minute. Is that these same people, the same people that implemented those larger blocks, the same companies for the most part that were behind them, in particular Bitmain, at least for most of the time, the things that they are doing systematically and manipulating the community to accept every step of the way. There were manipulations and excuses and don't worry about it. And the core. [00:31:04] Speaker C: Don't worry about it. [00:31:05] Speaker D: Core tards are idiots. [00:31:07] Speaker A: This doesn't matter. Like what could happen. Wrong. And by the way, thanks for giving me 8% of all the block reward now and letting me censor whatever I want. But those things that they're doing, they wanted to do those things to bitcoin, but their attack failed because bitcoin doesn't care. [00:31:28] Speaker C: Bitcoin would not let them. [00:31:30] Speaker A: But that is very important to keep in mind. Like when you are, like when somebody comes to you with some proposal and they want to, you know, do something to bitcoin, it's not going to be a big deal. Like, do you know how hard it would be for somebody to, you know, like. Yeah, actually that's what would happen. That's what happens every time. That is what bitcoin is here to solve. Whenever we've had, you know, whenever we, you know, governments, the United States of America, actually, the way it's designed, super decentralized. [00:31:58] Speaker D: If you. [00:31:59] Speaker A: The guys that thought of this, like, they weren't trying to create a corrupt system, they put a lot of thought into, like, how can we make this a representative democracy that would be really hard for somebody to like, control. How do we make this something where like people can like have, you know, innate freedoms and don't have to worry about like corruption? And like the way that it was designed was, you know, the first time that like philosophers really got together in modern times to think like, how can we make basically the perfect system? [00:32:30] Speaker C: It was essentially a goal to. And if you look like how it was stacked, like the, the fundamental like system that they've created, that they created was actually phenomenally clever. But it's just that the paper itself could, could not actually sustain the rules. Like if we were actually still following the Constitution, it would probably work, but because it relies on humans, it relies on human interpretation. Exactly. [00:32:58] Speaker A: And leaders, individual leaders. [00:33:01] Speaker C: But the whole point was that the actual, and this is lost on so many people is that in the Constitution the highest law of the land is the sheriff. It's the, it's your local sheriff. It is not the federal government. And like the federal government's only real job is to establish a joint federal militia in the case of disaster where somebody is coming in trying to, you know, destroy the country or take over the country. But it, you know. [00:33:36] Speaker A: The size of, you know, at this point, the, the biggest nation on the earth in terms of economic power and military, like that system became corrupt. We can all see it. Very few would dispute that the United States government has become a source of force for corruption. [00:33:53] Speaker C: Yeah, some people say it's blue, some people will say it's red. I argue it's purple. [00:33:59] Speaker D: Right. [00:33:59] Speaker A: So, and, and, and so when I say become. Yeah, I don't want anybody to think I'm talking about like in the last four years, I mean, and it's become this for a while now. Like this is the state of the event, this is the state of the country now. You know, for as long as I've been alive and probably my parents too, but, but anyway, like despite all of those well intentioned rules they put in place, it ultimately didn't matter because it centralized around too many individual humans and it gave, there was too much incentive to be corrupt, too much trust required in individuals. No matter how much you think very naively, well, everybody's going to be watching this individual and you know, like, this is a good person and like this person was educated at the best universities and whatever. Like you give people power, they're going to abuse that power. So bitcoin took us from that and the big blockers want to bring us back to that again. They want people to be in control of Bitcoin, which I think is a good segue to bsv. [00:35:10] Speaker C: Real quick, actually, before we, let's, let's, let's take that segue but put it on hold real quick. Is the fork that's happening, that's the 8% tax, right. And this is right around the corner. So this is like November 15th. Is this fork. What do you think is going to happen here? Because this will be like the third time that. No, the second time that there has been a persistent fork. But do you think there's going to be a persistent fork? You think you're going to. [00:35:39] Speaker A: Okay, good question. We do need to cover this. So the way that it, that, the way that it's going to work. Ironically, one of the big things that the big blockers needed to. One of the propaganda talking points they needed to spread to gain adoption for their very inefficient big blockchain was that individuals didn't mean to run nodes, that nodes weren't important and nodes don't have any power. And now, and funny enough, it was. [00:36:08] Speaker B: The nodes that prevented them from doing this. From two Bitcoin. [00:36:10] Speaker D: Yes. [00:36:11] Speaker C: They bitched about everybody running nodes because they made no difference. They made no difference, but damn it, they got an Iraq. [00:36:18] Speaker D: Yeah. [00:36:18] Speaker A: And they stopped us from taking over Bitcoin, which, and because the nodes, you know, in the end, you don't want to trust somebody else's computer to secure your money. You want to secure your money yourself as an individual. Running a node just means that you're participating and then you're, you're, you're running this off for yourself. You're not trusting somebody else to be Bitcoin for you. You are Bitcoin and we are Bitcoin individually ourselves, which is incredibly important. And without that part of it, like, it's not, it's on the people's money, it's whoever's money that you're trusting to join it for you. But now, ironically, after years of telling us that nodes don't matter, luckily for. [00:36:59] Speaker C: The irony coming, I want to know. [00:37:01] Speaker D: Yes. [00:37:04] Speaker A: So the leading implementation, which has essentially created BCH and the ecosystem had essentially centralized around abc, which is the company that Omri is the lead dev for and has been running BCH infrastructure for a while when they implemented this 8% fork or dev tax, luckily, as sheepish, whatever the word is, not sheepish, but as. As much that their, their supporters have been, you know, blind followers throughout this time, this was such a drastic change that it still was Able to create like a pushback from within the community. That said, wait a minute, we don't want somebody taking 8% of all the block reward and giving it to whoever he wants or keeping it if he wants, you know, in perpetuity. So they independently crowdfunded a new group of developers that go by that are creating a new implementation that is called BCHN for BCH node. And so if you want to reject abc, you need to be running BCH node and signaling to the network that you are, you know, especially as a miner, running BCH node. So, so BCH node is basically going to be the last version of ABC's code, but without any tax. So BCH node is going to follow longest chain. Even if it's an ABC block, it'll follow an ABC block, but it will not pay a tax. So abc, the, the new ABC implementation is going to require an 8% tax. And if you don't pay the impersonate tax, it will not recognize you as a legal block. It's literally high. It's literally like holding the chain hostage. The ABC is going to be coded to say, unless you pay this address 8% of all the money you made. We're not going to let you build on pain. [00:39:27] Speaker C: Pain hurts so bad. Can you imagine, like just to just think that there's like a backdoor in gold and every time that you find gold anywhere, some doofus somewhere in, you know, apartment in Russia just gets 8% of it because they own the gold. Like, like they just, they're just in charge of gold. Like, like the, the whole idea that this has anything to do with or could even come close to being a global monetary system is hilariously absurd, like comically so. And then that they're like, everybody run a node? Thank God they didn't put in gigabyte blocks already or that would be out the window. They wouldn't even have the opportunity to defend against this at all. [00:40:11] Speaker A: That's a great point. Yeah, it would cost them. You know, they would have to build that infrastructure up and have, you know, the archives of the millions of dollars worth of blocks and you know, they wouldn't be able to. They would simply would just have to do whatever. And you know what the worst part actually is? In that world, they wouldn't even know. They wouldn't even have to tell them. They would just be moving on to a new thing. They might notice that their reward went down, but they would probably attribute it to just more minors, whatever, because they wouldn't even have to tell them. [00:40:45] Speaker C: So Nobody would be able to check their work. Like, which leads us to. [00:40:48] Speaker B: And you wouldn't even know you were fork. [00:40:50] Speaker C: Actually, this is the. [00:40:52] Speaker A: This is the ultimate goal for bsv. But you wouldn't even know you were fork. The average user would open his little wallet on his phone or on his computer, wherever it would ping their API. And their API would say, yeah, you've got 16 coins. But you don't know like what network those 16 coins are on. You're just trusting that server you pinged. Say you got 16 of them. Like, is this the new one with an 8% tax, the new one with a 50% tax? Or like, did they just double supply but you still got 16 of them? Like, you don't know because you have no say in that anymore. [00:41:23] Speaker C: Maybe it's bitcoin cash where nodes are important again. [00:41:26] Speaker A: Yeah, you just know that you got 16 of them according to them. And they could even change that number because they can change the code. So they could tell you Tomorrow you have 13 instead if they want it. But whatever. [00:41:39] Speaker C: On the point of the. You were talking about hard forks every six months, which Monero did. I was actually like, I had been like loosely interested in Monero just as like a unique use case of like hardcore privacy for like a long time. And the day that I just like left it all behind and I was like, it is really just all shitcoins was when they announced that they were going to do a hard fork every six months. And all I could think was like, imagine, imagine if TCPIP had a consensus breaking software change every six months. There is. [00:42:16] Speaker B: You'd have to update your freaking router. [00:42:18] Speaker C: Like the whole Internet would break. Like it would fall to pieces every six months. [00:42:25] Speaker B: We have tried to get IPv6, which. [00:42:28] Speaker C: Is essentially a consensus break to IPv4 for 15, 15 years now. And it still hasn't been implemented. Like, you still do not get an IPv6 address. You can communicate with most routers now with an IPv6 if you do some, you know, funkiness in the background. But your ISP does not give you one of those. You. It is not the dominant form of communication. And I just, it just like, as soon as they said that, I was like, it really is. It's just all centralized shitcoins and there's nothing else to use. Sorry, sorry to interrupt. I just. [00:43:12] Speaker A: Yeah, I mean, that's exactly. Yeah, they are all. And you know, I don't know. Yeah, I mean, I want to say I don't trust Monero, but the thing is, I Shouldn't have to. [00:43:22] Speaker C: Exactly, exactly. You shouldn't have to. That's the whole point is you have a digital consensus mechanism that you can know that is consistent, that does not change and that you can. That is a bedrock that you can build networks and systems on top of so that the ownership cannot be contested. And there is no two developers with their ICOS and their stupid tax that can just change it however the hell they see fit. Because. Because screw everybody else. [00:43:56] Speaker A: Like, yeah, so you know, so what's going to happen with the BCHN versus abc? There's a futures market where you can bet on the outcome of this and there's also miners that are flagging BCHN node and there are also like voting sites you can go to where you can like sign BSV or started BCH saying like I support ABC or I support BCH and or I support neither and you can sign your coins and that's like your voting weight. So there's all these things happening and if you look at every single metric that you can find right now, it's like over 90% by far. Like all the blocks, there was one block that signaled ABC, but every single block that I know of anyway in the last several weeks have been bchn, either BCHN or nothing. They don't signal anything. [00:44:50] Speaker C: Well, those will. Those by default go over to the new ABC or. [00:44:54] Speaker A: Well, so there is no by default because they have hard work every six months. So they have to choose literally it. [00:45:02] Speaker C: Will be either a hard fork to bcn, BCHN or bchavc. [00:45:08] Speaker A: Right. But depending on which one gets the most hash will depend on whether or not there will be two chains or not. So if ABC somehow gets the most hatch, which does not. It does not at this point it does not even look like they'll get even one out of every 10 blocks. I don't see. Nobody's really like nobody's come out. So they're going to mine for them. I mean, I don't know if they have some kind of like silent partner that's going to just. Or if they're going to rent a bunch of hash. I don't know what if they have any kind of plan whatsoever. Maybe they're trying to like look small so they can be big on the, on launch on fourth day. I don't know what they're going to try to do. But you know, on the futures market right now, last I checked is about 18 for ABC winning, which means that you get one ABC BCH for every 18. So if ABC ends up becoming BCH, which is worth around, I don't know, 200 something bucks, you would be spending 18 per the whole BCH. So odds are definitely if, yeah, the odds are not good right now. You know, if you, if you, if they, if they had something planned, they could buy a whole bunch of BCH for 18 each right now. But, so if, but if ABC wins somehow, then BCHN will not have a separate chain because BCHN is designed to follow the longest chain. So they will continue to try to build on the chain tip of ABC every new block they will build on the, on the next ABC block. So, but they'll, but they'll be orphaned by every ABC block. So they would just be orphaned in perpetuity until people stopped mining on bchn. If ABC had more proof of work now. [00:46:52] Speaker C: Well, with fork, with a fork coming up, this should mean that the price goes up, right? This usually happens. Let's see. Well, look at the price here. No, it's the lowest it's ever been. [00:47:08] Speaker A: Yeah. And, and even if it would have had like a pre, pre fork pump, which we can see is not happening, and it could still maybe happen in the last days, but I definitely wouldn't bet on it. Even if it did. You can see from like bsv which did have a pre fork pump, which could have been a coincidence, but it seemed to have a pre fork pump. They are not even close to the valuation of BSV plus BCH combined. So you know, it dumps, it doesn't, it doesn't recover back to full, full price. So yeah, it's a bad bet. But they're just, they're just watering themselves down repeatedly. But if, if, if, if BCHN ends up having the most cash, then ABC will continue on a separate chain which may not ever get any blocks. I don't know, I don't know who's gonna mine it. We'll, we'll see. I guess some like my, my hope I really like I really disgusted. This whole time I've been discussed with abc, they were the ones that initially did the whole bitcoin cash fork. [00:48:14] Speaker C: Yeah. [00:48:14] Speaker A: ABC up until this day has always been bitcoin cash. So these are, you know, scammy people. I really want them not to be listed on a single exchange. I don't want any of the big exchanges to list them. I want them just be like such. I want it to fail so hard. They should be gems like nobody, nobody will bother to mine it. And even if some guy did mine it out there on his laptop, like they won't be able to dump their little 8% anywhere. Like, I want them to just be punished so badly that they basically, they just have to die off. You know, their $18 volume is what. [00:48:52] Speaker C: You'Re going for right there. [00:48:54] Speaker A: Yeah. So I'm hoping that they just completely, utterly fail. And there are still some like BCH supporters, although it seems to be a minority, which to their credit, but there are still some of the people who have been arguing with me about BCH being the real bitcoin all this time, for all these years who are supporting ABC and like trying to tell me that ABC is gonna make it. And you don't, you shouldn't listen to the metrics. And it's just a social media. It's just propaganda. Like they just want you to think that nobody supports it. It's like, who wants me to think nobody supports it? Every single person. But you told me they support it. Like literally everybody. If everybody's telling me this, like, how is it not real? [00:49:35] Speaker C: But anyway, at this point, I literally almost feel bad for Roger Burr for the amount of emotional and very possibly economic investment that has been put into this and to see it go so badly sideways. Just a rough ticket there. [00:49:59] Speaker A: To Roger and Bitcoin.com's credit, they did not support the ABC side of this, so. Which may be part of the reason why it's, it's failing as well. But why would they support it? I mean, it's not like they get the 8%. But, you know, the BCHN team has only been funded for one year. So, you know, after this big, you know, point of contention where we don't want to give up the block reward, like it'll be free for some new guy to take over a year from now or sooner. So, you know, this is the, this is the fate. Good times that they wanted. This is what they wanted bitcoin to be. Let's just, you know, for sale to the richest bidder, whatever CEO wants to take it and have his own coin. Like then this could have even been, you know, if we want to go down that route, I do feel like it's, it could have been pushed by like government wanting more control over bitcoin. Because that's how they would do it. That's exactly how they would do it. They would, they would do it by kind of coordinating all the biggest economic actors, exchanges, infrastructure, producers. Like all of those groups, they would co opt them and they would try to push for change that benefited themselves to put themselves in more control. And, and to anybody who ever thinks that bitcoin is susceptible to that. You've now been proven wrong since August the first 2017. But. [00:51:27] Speaker C: Yeah, but the solution, the solution is Satoshi's true vision, which is bitcoin sv. So the way I think about bitcoin SV is that the funny thing about bitcoin cash is that it's kind of like this middle of the road is that they made this argument for what bitcoin needs to be is that it needs to be big blocks. It needs to be every transaction in the world. And they really bet everything on this principle, but they didn't believe it. They knew that it was bull crap that literally it could not go to that extent. And so they're kind of like this middle of the road. They're like, nuh, this is the way it is. And we just. I really hate bitcoin. You just be a bunch of stupid heads. And they forked off into this little, like in the middle of the road. We know there are some serious problems over here, but we're going to pretend that we're way better than bitcoin without actually believing our principles. And then bitcoin SV are the people who truly believed them that blocks can be as big as you freaking want. That validation has absolutely nothing to do with what's useful about this. We need to go just full retard. It's like just. I say that with as much love as I can because I've had a lot of conversations with BSV people and I've had really good conversations. Like, like, I've had calm, fun debates with them. I love debating, but holy crap. They like, they think that it is a common narrative that we are going to put the entire freaking Internet on the blockchain. But then there are conversations about how 10 megabyte blocks are throwing everything into chaos. And I just, I just don't get the mental gymnastics that are going into this. [00:53:46] Speaker A: Yeah. From the actual supporters point of view. Oh, God knows. Like, like, I think that block size became a religion for many and in many ways I think it somehow, especially with bsv, like you alluded to, became like a hate for bitcoin. You know, we hate blockstream, we hate core, we hate these bitcoin people. And they're just like, they keep making all this money and we went to this coin and we're gonna make more money than them. Just wait. [00:54:15] Speaker C: It's got so many more transactions. [00:54:20] Speaker A: It's not me, which is stupid. It is the market, which is wrong. But so, yeah, like, for the people, for the individuals. I don't know, it's become like a religion for them, but for the people that are running it, the people that are in control of bsv, like, their motives are, you know, it's easy to follow the incentives there. You know, they have control and they're finding ways to make money for themselves with this passionate group of people that are ready to throw money at them. So, yeah, I don't even know where to start. BSV is really. And it's almost, it's just become so irrelevant too. And it will continue to become more irrelevant. But the big thing about BSV that. [00:55:06] Speaker C: I've got to actually give them credit for is that they went, they went full on with their convictions, is that they've decided that gigabyte blocks and terabyte blocks, like, are the future and that, you know, we're going to roll this thing back to what the, the very first thing was and we'll have infinite blocks because that was irrelevant to the whole thing. They at least actually are submitting to quote unquote, what they think Satoshi's vision is. You know, like. [00:55:39] Speaker A: Well, I mean, no, I don't agree with you. Unless. [00:55:41] Speaker C: Okay, okay. [00:55:42] Speaker A: Satoshi's vision is whatever Craig says. [00:55:44] Speaker C: Okay. Contest. Oh, well, well, yeah, that's, that's, that's kind of what I'm getting at. They like, they believe Craig is Satoshi. [00:55:52] Speaker A: Well, yeah. So if you. So, so they say they want. [00:55:54] Speaker C: Sorry, I should have clarified that. I should have clarified that. [00:55:56] Speaker B: Bsv. [00:55:57] Speaker C: Yeah. For anybody who's listening, BSV is basically the community that thinks Craig Wright is telling the truth when he says he's Satoshi. [00:56:05] Speaker A: But even in what you're saying, there's a, there's a inherent contradiction. So they say they want to go back to the original bitcoin, the one that Satoshi designed. But then they also want to do all these new changes that Craig, who they believe is Satoshi, wants to do. So it's like, it's not actually, because they, when they, when they tell you that BTC or B BCH are not bitcoin, they tell you that they're not bitcoin because they've changed. They've put changes in the code and therefore they're not bitcoin. Ours is the only one with no changes. Ours is the only one that, you know, rolled back to the original and therefore follows the original white paper and therefore is the original bitcoin. Which is all a lie from the beginning, though, because they are using so bch when they forked, they created their own separate difficulty Algorithm that doesn't go every two weeks like normal Bitcoin, but does it like every intra. Like every block, basically? [00:56:58] Speaker C: Oh, did. [00:56:59] Speaker A: And they adopted that. [00:57:00] Speaker C: Is that the one that they actually went back away from that because they had some major problems? Did they just correct it? [00:57:07] Speaker A: No, no, they didn't correct. They didn't. You know, from day one it was just a straight up fork. So initially it was just a straightfork straightforward of bch, but like change the number for block size essentially same thing that BCH was. So they, well, the BCH at least changed the difficulty algorithm, which took some amount of work. BSV at least initially did nothing. Now they have since done what they called the Genesis upgrade, which was like there finally, okay, we did some work work. But they didn't just fix some bugs in the very first version of Bitcoin and deploy it. They changed more stuff and kept still the same Omri difficulty algorithm in it. And they swore that, oh yeah, we'll get that out eventually. But it's still there. At least it was last I checked. [00:57:59] Speaker C: I'm sure there's another hard fork right around the corner. [00:58:02] Speaker A: Yeah, who knows? Because with them, like there's basically, you know, there's not that many nodes and they do exactly what Calvin Aaron Craig Wright say. So and when it comes to, by the way, what Calvin and Craig Wright have said, they've said that private keys don't matter and don't prove ownership and that you need courts to prune ownership. And so, and Craig Wright laughs at people who think that they're safe, that they own their Bitcoin because they have a private key. He says, oh, what an idiot. You think that little private key protects you? You know, that means nothing. The court's what matters. And you know, you know, you have to go and prove ownership in a court of law. That's how the world works, you imbecile. Private key. [00:58:45] Speaker C: I remember, I remember a conversation or a speech that he gave talking about how like thinking that bitcoin was a means to get around the state or to like replace the state, that like you could own it outside of, like, what the government said is just. And he said specifically was like, this was never my vision. And this was, this is ridiculous. And there should be a way to. Or there will be, there will be a way to take your ownership if you are breaking the law. We don't want any of that. [00:59:24] Speaker A: So what they're, what they're lining up to do is like every coin, if you ever want to know, like, is this A shitcoin. Which the answer is always going to be yes. The way you can prove it is to find, okay, well, how are the guys that are running it going to make money? And it always has something to do with either they gave themselves coins in the beginning, they give themselves taxes from the operation of the coin, or in the case of bsv, what they're going to do. And probably they'll do a mixture of the other two as well, but they're going to take Satoshi's original coins, change them over to a new key through a hard fork, and give them to Craig. [01:00:02] Speaker C: That's right. I forgot about that. They're doing that. Is that actually. Is that actually happening? I heard it was a discussion. [01:00:10] Speaker A: There's no code to that extent, but there have been several blog posts declaring that intent, as well as several tweets from Calvin. So it started with private keys don't matter. Then it went to, well, it only matters what, like, who actually owns something. Like, who can prove their identity. And then it was like, alarm Satoshi, obviously. And I don't have to show you my keys, and I don't need keys to get those coins. And then it went to. In the court, well, I lost my key shard, so I don't have my key chart, but those are my keys. [01:00:37] Speaker D: And it's a good thing. [01:00:37] Speaker A: Private keys don't matter because those are my coins. [01:00:40] Speaker C: Wow. [01:00:41] Speaker A: So, of course, you know, so he'll get his. He'll get those coins, but only on bsp, and they'll do it through a hard fork. And ironically, there's a guy that's been talking to me a lot today who tells me, because of Bitcoin having small blocks, everybody's going to have to go to custodial services, and everybody's going to have to trust banks and. And all this stuff. And he's like, so you guys, you're. You're gonna have to all be custodial and trust. So, you know, you need BSP so you can have these big bucks. You don't have to do that. And I said, listen, do you realize that bsv, like, wants censorship, wants to be controlled by government? So it's custodial thing. The whole custodial. [01:01:29] Speaker C: The whole everything is custodial. [01:01:31] Speaker A: Like, what is the. What is the risk of. Of custodial service, like a bank holding your coin? The risk is that the government or somebody or even the bank will say, you know what? I don't think that this money is really yours, even though you say it is, or the Government says you're not supposed to have this money or you try to do something bad. So I'm going to take this money and they take your money or freeze your money or reverse your money. Like that's the risk of something being custodial or maybe getting hacked. But with, but that's what BSV wants for the base chain. So the entire base, I think it's a benefit. So when you come at me as a BSV and you say, well, BTC with its small blocks going to force you to be custodial, I'm saying, so what you're trying to tell me is in your dumb fantasy, the worst outcome possible for BTC is what you want for bsv. And that's why I should go to BSV instead. [01:02:29] Speaker C: Like the most, the worst thing for Bitcoin is that it ends up, is that you end up having to use services with all the characteristics of the entirety of bsv. [01:02:42] Speaker D: Yeah. [01:02:42] Speaker A: And like doesn't even realize the contradiction. Which of course, by the way, his premise is silly because, well, nobody's going to be able to use it because it's going to be so expensive. [01:02:50] Speaker C: But Lightning Network doesn't work. [01:02:52] Speaker A: I would pay, you know what? [01:02:53] Speaker D: Not I do. [01:02:54] Speaker A: But you know, if it came down to it, Bitcoin is very valuable to me. I would pay hundreds of dollars per bitcoin transaction under the right conditions. Like if that was the only way I could move my bitcoin. Presumably because it would be more valuable at the time as well. [01:03:07] Speaker D: The pain. [01:03:08] Speaker C: But ditto. [01:03:10] Speaker A: Yes, obviously I would rather not spend a hundred dollars, but if you're spending a hundred dollars for Bitcoin transaction, that means that Bitcoin is being valued tremendously and that block space is being valued tremendously. And there's no world where blockface is being valued tremendously, but the market size of the asset is not much larger. [01:03:29] Speaker C: There's no 200 billion dollar Bitcoin that has $100 period. [01:03:34] Speaker A: Yeah. So, you know, the people who have had the foresight or they just have the fortune, fortunate enough to have the wealth, you know, despite Bitcoin's rise, would be able to afford to use something so valuable. And for those who want to use it in a cheaper way, there are all kinds of ways already being developed and worked on to use it in cheaper ways. Whether it's batching with other people, obviously Lightning Network, like, there's no shortage of solutions being implemented every day as we speak to a future where individual transactions may end up costing collectively hundreds of dollars each. But within each transaction there could be thousands of participants that are, you know, going off chain so that they can use their private keys in, in ways that don't increase the block size. [01:04:34] Speaker C: Yeah, that's, that's one of the things that's really cool about the, the Lightning Pool auction is that like, it's just kind of like a, like an added benefit really of like how they're doing the settlement of the auction that they're doing. Because it's an off chain application, it's completely non bitcoin script application that's being run, which just shows that you can do any kind of smart contract you want. It's totally arbitrary and all you actually need to make the system work is a basic time lock and a multisig. But they're batching transactions, they're batching channels in this Lightning Pool auction. But the brilliant thing about that is that whatever your reference rate, whatever your rate for capital is that you're asking for on the Lightning network is that if you've got enough people looking for capital on Lightning that you're batching with, is that you could actually be paying, you could pay significantly lower in fees to broadcast your channel opening. [01:05:42] Speaker B: Had to pause here for a second. [01:05:44] Speaker C: Because of the dogs, but we jump right back into it. Oh, Lightning pool. Okay, so was that. The crazy thing about it is that like it's actually also a decentralized pool like, like just a pool of people that could save money on batching the transactions. So the cost to open a channel like, like new, or get new liquidity on Lightning, whatever that rate is, could actually be matched by your savings in using this pool to open your channel with a hundred other people at the exact same time. And then when you start adding things like Taproot or you know, cross signature or cross input signature aggregation, like all these potential future efficiencies into that is that you just get so much better use of the block space and then you're, you're using that as infrastructure for a whole new network on top of it, a whole new payments network. And you have, you, you, you have the whole breadth of Ethereum. You can run any application you want on top of it because it, it doesn't even matter. You just don't want to run it on the absolute base chain. You run it on layer two. But it's just funny, it kind of feels like bitcoiners have been vindicated so many different times and in so many different ways. It's hard to believe that so many people still latch on to the Many, many forks of Bitcoin really too. [01:07:19] Speaker A: But there's so many. I mean when it comes to BSV in particular both of them BSE and BCH such shows. But BS BSC for example. Right now there was another ERC20 project apparently that is using for dumps that is currently merge mining BSV and doing half of all the blocks and just completely empty blocks. Just taking half of all the block reward. Completely empty blocks. Like it's a joke. It's a toy. [01:07:50] Speaker C: And then I thought they had terabyte blocks. I don't understand. They're empty. Why would they mind empty ones? [01:07:56] Speaker B: I don't get it. [01:07:57] Speaker A: Because the fees are completely insignificant. And that's the thing. When the fees don't matter. You're just expecting people to be charitable and mine your transaction for. You know, nobody cares about your. [01:08:08] Speaker C: You know. [01:08:08] Speaker A: They want to brag about how it only costs.00001. Well guess what? Hope you find somebody charitable that's going to mind that for you. Because the incentives don't work. [01:08:17] Speaker B: Why would they run. [01:08:19] Speaker C: Why would they pack together, download and validate a 1 gigabyte block when they get paid the exact same amount as a block that's 512 bytes? Because it's just the coinbase and the reward. And half. [01:08:37] Speaker B: Half of the hash power is doing. [01:08:39] Speaker C: This like just merge mining. [01:08:41] Speaker B: That's crazy. [01:08:43] Speaker A: There also is a plan they intend to this. I got all kinds of. I've got anybody who digs into it like it's worse than you think. Like you know it's a joke. You know it's a coin. But if you actually look at what they want to do, it's worse than you think. They want to do minor id. They want to permissioned mining where you have to get a certificate to be an approved minor. They wanted to. Also they're creating on ramps so where you don't submit your fee with your transaction. In fact don't even submit your transaction. You'll just create a private contract with a miner who will either on a subscription basis or on a per transaction basis will come to a business agreement with you to broadcast your transactions at a set rate. [01:09:27] Speaker C: Satoshi's vision. Is that what that is? [01:09:30] Speaker A: That's. It's. It's like it's stripping if. If bsv. Let's just imagine for. I don't. I can't imagine it. To me it has no use at all. I don't know why. I don't know where it fits in any even hypothetical market. Nothing that it does it does better than things that already exist. In fact, it does it so much worse that it's laughable than most things that like, you wouldn't use it to store files because why would you want to pay like the tremendous cost it would cost for. To store files on it right now and then. And then there'd be nobody that would serve it to you later because they're not incentivized to. So I mean, like just none of its use cases does it do very well. But just pretend that's. Pretend that it's somehow for some reason. Let's pretend like bitcoin was. Bitcoin SV was not only popular, but used and a thing that the world just took for granted. Let's just say I can't even imagine it would run. But let's just say for whatever reason it was, if that existed, we would need bitcoin because we'd still need bitcoin because it doesn't solve any of the problems that bitcoin solves. Doesn't even. It doesn't even try to. In fact, it's like they, they don't. It's like they. It's like they don't want the problem bitcoin solved to even be solved. It's like they want everybody in the world to be subject to censorship. [01:10:46] Speaker C: It's like it seems like the rhetoric is the exact opposite. Yeah. [01:10:49] Speaker A: Like, yeah, the things that bitcoin did that made bitcoin valuable. It's like that if explicitly the things. [01:10:56] Speaker C: They want to get rid of. [01:10:58] Speaker A: Right. If he was like, you know, the world leader, he would make those things illegal immediately. He would say all transactions should be trusted and rely on trusted third parties. He would say, you know, that everything should be subject to censorship. He would probably even, you know, he'd probably even be all four bailouts of banks. Like, I don't know. I'm just. That last one I just tacked on there. But I don't know where he stands at that. But I'd say it's pretty. [01:11:27] Speaker C: I'd say that's fair. But with all the other, like, specifically the explicitly stated absurdities, why is that? What's. What's even odd about that one? [01:11:38] Speaker A: Yeah, I mean, like, to say, like, because if you read the white paper, like, why are there private keys that you can show your ownership? Like, like, no, we don't. We don't care about private keys. And that doesn't mean anything. And oh, what's. What does it mean to be a valid block? It doesn't matter. Like, to prove a signature that's not a real signature. Like, you need my ID and you. [01:11:58] Speaker D: Need me to like sign a piece. [01:12:00] Speaker A: Of paper for you. That's a real signature. Like, it's not even like. I don't know what's worse. The fact that he says those things. The fact that anybody follows it. [01:12:12] Speaker C: Yeah. I don't know. I don't know. Sometimes when you're just so wrapped up into something, you just start, you know, you begin to excuse the little things and then excusing the most insane things just are just kind of a natural extension of that. Like you can't. You can't let go. Interesting. Just interesting. There's a. I was just kind of like casually browsing all these other ones. Bitcoin gold is still around. Bitcoin diamond. I mean, barely. It's hard to say they're still around there. [01:12:50] Speaker A: I've never met a bitcoin diamond shield, but I have met bitcoin gold shills. [01:12:56] Speaker C: Okay. It looks like every one of them is at their all time low. A good against bitcoin. [01:13:01] Speaker A: Have you met any shills for any other forks? [01:13:04] Speaker C: No, I've never even seen them like Bitcoin POS. Bitcoin. Oh no, that's Bitcoin Gold. Bitcoin BEP2. No idea. Bitcoin HD. There are so many bitcoin forex. I cannot believe there's Bitcoin 2. Bitcoin 2. Literally. Ooh, it's really. Wow. [01:13:27] Speaker D: I wonder. [01:13:27] Speaker A: That must be twice as good. [01:13:29] Speaker C: 600 volume. It is the future. Bitcoin rhodium. [01:13:35] Speaker A: $600. I bought that. That's the real question. [01:13:37] Speaker C: Seriously. 600 is a chunk of change. Man, that's somebody's really betting big. Money is really bad and big. Oh man, what a hell of a situation. But I think kind of the funniest thing about all of this is that everything is falling against bitcoin right now. Back in 2017, during the bull run, a lot of things ran with bitcoin and then ran higher and they all have lower liquidity. So you would think that the potential for them to run at a higher pace than bitcoin is really substantial. It would not be very hard for that to be the case. But almost nothing. Almost nothing is in fact across the board. Even just with this little bit of Ethereum 2.0 hype, even it is still falling in relation to bitcoin. All the crypto traders that I follow are showing all these charts about, oh, it's about to break up. [01:14:42] Speaker B: Oh, it's looking good. [01:14:44] Speaker C: And it's looking, looking healthy. Every one of them posts a US dollar chart, nothing else. Ain't nobody compares it to bitcoin because everything looks bloody if you compare it to bitcoin, which I just find so obvious. But I guess for so many people who have held a completely different perspective, this is shocking or weird or they're just angry. And what a, what a fascinating thing this is. But I think, you know, we'll all learn TCP IP version 4.2 with packet sizes as long as your dick are not, not better than IPv4. It is a communication, it is a language. It's about security, security and reliability. I don't know. What a crazy, crazy thing. So what do you think the outcome of the fork is going to be? [01:15:46] Speaker A: Bchn, barring some kind of un. I can't imagine any other scenarios. So BCHN is going to dominate. We need for all the exchanges to just completely ignore ABC would be best. Hopefully, you know, without the help of Roger, who's kind of like the insider that made them remotely credible and Bitmain, like there's no, there are no big players, I guess, besides ABC themselves. I think they have some street cred at this point. There's nobody to vouch for them on any exchange. So hopefully they are just, you know, completely wiped from any economic activity. And getting them off of the, you know, top 100 of coin mark cap would make them just basically be completely invisible. And to the ones who might want to speculate, hopefully, you know, they wouldn't even be on any exchange for them to speculate on anyway. So. So I'm already getting emails from some exchanges saying things like, yeah, we're not guaranteeing that we're gonna list this coin or that you would even get those coins. [01:16:55] Speaker C: So, yeah, Treasure announced that they're not going to support anything unless something really big happens after the fork that they're, they're not supporting abc. I think so. [01:17:08] Speaker A: Yeah, so. So I think that it's BCHN as far as what will happen after the first year. I don't know, but it's not gonna be good. It's definitely not something you'd count on like, like even remotely close to Bitcoin to say, hey, this coin is going to be around for two years. [01:17:24] Speaker C: I'd be really scared. [01:17:28] Speaker A: There's just no reason to expect that it's going to become valuable at all. It's. I mean, there's no reason to expect why any shit coin is going to become valuable. But I think maybe one of the biggest takeaways for this shitcoin insider show for your audience is, is to just systematically expose how bad some of these listeners hedges may be. Some people, you know, they love bitcoin but then they hold these like dirty secret little hedges and you need to sell these quote unquote hedges. They're garbage. Get rid of it. There's no like what should be gold. That's it. I give 1% BCH because you never know. Like no, you do know. It's really, really, really obvious. Like you don't have to hold any bch or any of these things. If there's anything that you take away from, from listening to this nonsense, it's that you better not be. It's, it's really really obviously bad. [01:18:26] Speaker C: Do you think any of these will pump in the bull market we're going into? [01:18:32] Speaker A: No, you never can know. You never can know because that's just up to individuals true being. You know, the, the biggest thing that allows them to possibly pump have nothing to do with the coins themselves. The things that allow them to pump is just the fact that as bitcoin moons eyeballs go onto that coinmarketcap chart and start saying well what else might moon? And you get people buying like the top five coins, the top 10 coins, the top 20 coins. You get people speculating on those top coins coins. And so in a big enough bull market, the thinner books of the, the lower down, you know, past the only coin that actually matters, they start to get a little bit more action than usual and that can create some, some, some hype and some activity. But because most of those things essentially have horrible monetary properties and you know, bad inflation or pre mines, you know, the teams just dump into whatever volume is there or, or the chains themselves are just so trash that doesn't matter. You know, it's not a popularity contest in crypto. Nothing has a right to exist. These are networks running on people's computers and doesn't matter how many people pick something as a winner. If the incentives are bad, you're going to lose your money because either the network's going to stop or it's going to designed in such a way where somebody gets to keep your money other than you. So and you don't want to be. [01:20:03] Speaker C: On those, you don't want to participate in those. And I guess, I guess, you know, at the end of the day like it's pretty clear MicroStrategy is not going to be holding any bitcoin cash from Bitcoin SB on its treasury. [01:20:17] Speaker A: Yeah, that's just. And I And I hate that grayscale even flirts with those things. I mean, they just there for profit, but it's just gross, you know, And a lot of people think that to my what I was saying about, you know, bitcoin mooning does create some economic activity for other. For a lot of people think that's going to scale it in terms of like, if bitcoin goes up, you know, 10x, their stupid little shit coin is guaranteed to go up at least 10x and maybe more. To the extent that the books were super thin, you can see like crazy volatility obviously on these worthless little assets. But to think that they're going to sustain any kind of real value over any longer period of time is completely delusional because the thin books goes both ways. And in the end of the day, anybody buying those things doesn't want those things. They want whatever money it is that they value, whether they be bitcoin gold or the dollar they're not valuing. They don't actually want a bunch of whatever shitcoin they're buying. They want more of whatever money they want. [01:21:15] Speaker C: The hope they pray that they could get more bitcoin out of it. That's what. [01:21:19] Speaker A: Yeah, so, so, you know, the, that extreme volatility works both ways. And since everybody wants something else for that coin, you know, it'll trend down forever ultimately. But you know, if you look at something like penny stock markets, none of the, you know, valuations like, like, so I heard somebody today in a group say something like, well, you know, somebody said, do you really think this coin will be 50x in the future? They said, yeah, sure, but, but in that future though, bitcoin's going to be, you know, at least 20x and or you know, bitcoin will be valued at like, you know, so many trillion dollars and ethereal valued at so many trillion dollars. And then so this coin, which now is basically like, you know, this little 10 million mark cap shit coin that you're asking me about, like this coin will be be worth, you know, $50 billion. That won't be a big deal. It'll be nothing for this. So yeah, it'll be worth, you know, 100x. But the thing is like no, that's not how, it's not how it's going to work. Like the little shitty coins, they don't all just go, oh, bitcoin's worth transit or of dollars. So of course all of our little coins are going to be worth billions of dollars. Like, are all the little penny socks worth Billions of dollars. No, they're not. We already know what a market like that looks like. It's not like there's like extra money. [01:22:33] Speaker C: Magic sauce that applies to crypto. That doesn't apply to meaningless stocks that are just super low liquidity. Yeah, we see this like Bitcoin SV is that their quote unquote dollar price has been almost stable since early October. But the price in relation to bitcoin is just falling because bitcoin is going up and they are not moving. [01:22:58] Speaker A: I mean imagine thinking that the stock, imagine thinking that just general increase of stock of, of Tesla price was going to mean that your favorite penny stock, pharmaceutical lottery play was also going to follow. Like it's, that's not going to happen. And, and the more that bitcoin, that's. [01:23:23] Speaker C: How the stock market works is Tesla always, always take some of their money and invest it in the, just the crappiest of the crap. Like they just, that's just how the distribution works, man. They don't, don't you understand? They did a hard fork and there is a tax on all the larger stocks. So that goes to the crappy stocks. That's how that works. [01:23:44] Speaker A: And in many ways these little shit coins are worse than what are little penny stock because the little penny stock represents at least some kind of, hopefully some kind of company out there that, that you're buying equity in and that if it became big you would have some ownership of. But with a little shitcoin like you don't get any equity. You don't get anything. You know, in many cases you're literally just funding development and hoping that other people decide to speculate on the coin to bring the price up. Like you're not getting any like legal ownership of anything. You're not getting any, I mean by anything, I mean like equity. You're not getting any promise of profits. You're not, you're just buying a little, a little placeholder nothing. [01:24:24] Speaker C: You're buying somebody else's seashells. You know, at least in the penny stock situation, you know, the company might own some computer in some doofus's garage and you know, if everything goes to, you can at least get your, you could get your point portion of the computer. Like, you know, maybe it's a Mac pro, you know, maybe they got a lot of really nice computer and you can get like 20 cent or a dollar or so out of that with your shares. [01:24:53] Speaker A: Yeah. You know, so I mean, you know these guys that think that their little coins are going to follow Bitcoin all the way up, you know, or at least. [01:25:00] Speaker D: Or even any. [01:25:01] Speaker A: On any kind of ratio. You can throw any kind of ratio out the window. You know, you're not promised anything on these coins. Yeah, you might get some more volatility, you might get some interim pumps as more money than usual is pumped into your little whatever shit coin that you're buying. But that money is not there to stay. That money is there to try to get more money. And when they see they can't, or when they do, they'll take it. And anybody lets you in your bag is just out of luck. So. [01:25:29] Speaker C: So the takeaway. So the great lesson of today's shitcoin insight is buy all the bitcoin forks because they're going to make you rich. [01:25:41] Speaker A: Yeah. [01:25:42] Speaker C: All right, let's close this one here. Dude, thank you for joining me again. We'll do this. Hopefully there won't be such a large span between it because I still want to get into a lot of stuff. There's some fun that I want to get into about Ripple with you, and I know there's some other people we. We can talk to on that one. Hopefully we'll have some other guests on the show with the two of us and. And some fun filecoin disaster to maybe get into. So maybe, maybe we'll have our listeners decide which one we're going to do next. We'll see. [01:26:17] Speaker A: Sounds great, man. [01:26:19] Speaker C: Yeah, man. Appreciate. Appreciate you coming on. Good talk as always. Love to smell that. [01:26:28] Speaker A: Later. [01:26:29] Speaker C: Later, man. So just after we did this, Null C, who is Gregory Maxwell on Reddit. [01:26:40] Speaker B: If you did not know. But he has posted that there has been a major development in the BSV. [01:26:48] Speaker C: Space because the multi sig system that. [01:26:51] Speaker B: They use, the base layer consensus level multisig provides no security at all and eventually all the coins go poof. [01:27:04] Speaker C: And so this is a Reddit post. I'm just going to read it and just kind of explain what it means. [01:27:09] Speaker B: Just. [01:27:09] Speaker C: Just because I feel like this is so potently relevant and it happened at the exact same time that I could not resist adding this into the episode. [01:27:18] Speaker B: So a while back BSV ripped out P2SH, which is pay to script hash from their consensus rules. [01:27:26] Speaker C: This is something that was in Bitcoin. [01:27:27] Speaker B: No longer is in Bitcoin sv. This left them in a situation where they had to home brew their own multisig crypto. The solution in Electrum SV and presumably elsewhere is something they call accumulator multisig, which is just a script that looks like a P2PKH pay to public key. [01:27:46] Speaker C: Hash, but then adds up the number. [01:27:49] Speaker B: Of passes and compares them to a threshold. I guess they use key hashes instead of pub keys because without P2SH these scripts become obnoxiously large fast, so every byte saved counts. It appears to me that their genius script used a greater than or equal rather than a less than or equal for its final comparison, probably due to the author's confusion about the ordering of elements on the stack. The result is that these scripts had no security at all and could just be spent by a script sig that pushes a couple of zeros because the only sane usage is when you provide exactly the threshold number of signatures. Why would you waste fees providing too many signatures? They presumably only ever tested the or equals path and didn't notice that it didn't work with too many signatures as intended, but did work with too few signatures such as none at all. Edit one User Zektro points out that below that the fraud himself made essentially the same error in his tutorial and then edit two According to the ElectrumsV author, the insecure script came from a document apparently written by Andy and shaders at NChain, so of course zillions of. [01:29:05] Speaker C: BSV have been taken, even though there. [01:29:07] Speaker B: Was nothing of value lost here. There are probably a few lessons to extract from this Custom Bitcoin scripts are custom cryptographic protocols and require all the same care as the design of other custom cryptography. You probably don't want to use scripts authored by people gullible enough to be victims of obvious scams, nor by people scummy enough to be conspirators in them. Assuming the flaw was accidental, the error could have been avoided with even the most basic testing or review, for example A simple script fuzzer or a moderate effort at writing test cases. A standard condition decision branch coverage analysis would show that the greater than part of the script was never exercised by test vectors. Similarly, trivial mutation testing on the script would show that an inadequate set of tests still passed with the script mutated to a less than proving the gross inadequacy of the testing coverage. I can't, however, even find any evidence that organized tests or test vectors for this script itself exist at all. The only test appears to be a simple check that the expected wrong script gets generated for a particular set of inputs. Finally, this situation would have been avoided entirely had BSV not ripped out the competent, time tested and highly peer reviewed mechanisms for multisig by bitcoin in favor of far less efficient homebrew crypto. Yet again, we See that bamboozlement and competence are not good bedfellows. Leave it to BSV to make the YOLO incompetence of Ethland look comparatively reasonable. [01:30:44] Speaker C: Kinda makes you wonder what amazing bugs. [01:30:46] Speaker B: Are lurking in their node software or wallets. [01:30:48] Speaker C: I can say for sure I'm not. [01:30:50] Speaker B: Going to run any of it and risk finding out. So what does this mean? [01:30:55] Speaker C: He is basically explaining that the multisig that spent years to develop and was soft fork into bitcoin and was tested. [01:31:07] Speaker B: Unbelievably thorough and was made to save tons of space in having to post. [01:31:13] Speaker C: Pub keys with signatures and and to. [01:31:17] Speaker B: Really like simplify and secure the multi. [01:31:20] Speaker C: Sig setup in bitcoin, the one that is widely in use today and I highly recommend you know everybody use a multi sig was recklessly and poorly ripped. [01:31:32] Speaker B: Out of bitcoin sv. I guess just in general vengeance of. [01:31:37] Speaker C: Just like we're going to get back at those stupid bitcoiners by taking out these this great code that they've put into the system and they took it. [01:31:45] Speaker B: Out and they homebrewed. [01:31:47] Speaker C: They they duct taped together their own version of it and clearly did not. [01:31:53] Speaker B: Test the three basic cases in which. [01:31:56] Speaker C: It would either work or either fail because of the order of script in the stack. They used the it's kind of counterintuitive. [01:32:07] Speaker B: And they used a greater than instead. [01:32:10] Speaker C: Of a less than script or operator whatever you want to call it for the final check. [01:32:16] Speaker B: Essentially the final comparison against what was. [01:32:18] Speaker C: Signed versus what is required and in doing so made it so that if you signed the a transaction that's supposed to be locked by two keys, three keys, five keys, whatever it is that you could unlock it with zero keys that you could have a signature that. [01:32:34] Speaker B: Was basically just blank. [01:32:36] Speaker C: You just filled the spot and it fulfilled transaction requirements. [01:32:42] Speaker B: So as soon as you send your BSV to a multisig it can basically. [01:32:46] Speaker C: Be stolen by anyone who broadcasts a transaction. And subsequently tons of people have lost. [01:32:53] Speaker B: Their BSV behind multisig because it's not behind anything any anyone can just take the coins. [01:33:00] Speaker C: And again, as Noel C points out. [01:33:02] Speaker B: In this post, if they had simply. [01:33:05] Speaker C: Tested the too few signatures, tested the. [01:33:09] Speaker B: Exact number of signatures, and then tested. [01:33:11] Speaker C: The too many signatures scenario or the more than two or more than the threshold signature scenario, if they had just. [01:33:19] Speaker B: Tested all three this would have been obvious, but they published and implemented code that they literally did not even test the three basic default paths, much less. [01:33:32] Speaker C: Any outliers or odd scenarios. [01:33:36] Speaker B: So remember folks, don't play with shitcoins. [01:33:41] Speaker C: I would like to thank the Insider for returning to the show and thank everybody for listening to the second episode of shitcoin Insider. [01:33:51] Speaker B: Staying up to date on all the. [01:33:53] Speaker C: Goings on in the shitcoin universe. [01:33:56] Speaker B: We dig through all the crap so that you don't have to. I'll catch you on the next one. Don't forget to hit me up on Twitter. [01:34:04] Speaker C: Let me know what you want to. [01:34:05] Speaker B: Hear on the next show, what you. [01:34:07] Speaker C: Want us to talk about. We got some great ideas lined up but we also love to hear from all of you guys and share this. [01:34:15] Speaker B: Out with everybody you know in bitcoin and crypto. Because if you can save one life, it'll be worth it. Save that friend from getting wrecked. Save all the sad little noobs who were told insisted that they had found Satoshi's true, true vision and instead find. [01:34:35] Speaker C: Out that they are holding nothing but. [01:34:37] Speaker B: A big stinking pile of manure. Send them to shitcoin Insider and we will reveal the truth. [01:34:47] Speaker C: Alright guys, I'm Guys Wong and we will catch you on the next episode. Until then, take it easy. [01:34:59] Speaker D: This podcast is part of the C Suite Radio Network. [01:35:03] Speaker C: Turning the volume up on business.