{ "episodeId": "SLP533", "speakers": { "stephan": { "name": "Stephan Livera", "role": "host", "tag": "STEPHAN" }, "stephan_livera": { "name": "Stephan Livera", "role": "guest", "tag": "STEPHAN" }, "guest_2": { "name": "Guest 2", "role": "guest", "tag": "GUEST" } }, "segments": [ { "speaker": "stephan", "time": "00:01", "start": 0.68, "text": "Hi, you're listening to Stephan Livera podcast, a show about Bitcoin and Austrian economics brought to you by Swann dot com. Today we're talking about drivechains, we're having the great drivechain debate. Now, for those of you who aren't familiar, drivechain is a proposal from 2015 relating to hash rate escrow and creating side chains, aka side coins. The basic mechanism is that people could peg in Bitcoin and withdrawals could be done via peg out on a slow basis escrowed by the miners. By the hash rate. Now, this is a contentious topic, there's a lot of back and forth. So today's debate is between the creator and the main proponent of this idea, Paul Storz, and the, on the other side, one of the earliest and well-known critics of this idea is Peter Todd. Now, there's a little bit of context required in this debate, so I will just link the earlier episode I, I did with Shinobi, where you get a little bit of the context on some of the outlines of this debate. So that earlier episode is with Shinobi. Nobi, it's episode five one two, you can see that in the show notes or we'll put a link here for those of you watching the video. So with that said, let's go on to the Great Drivechain debate." }, { "speaker": "stephan", "time": "01:22", "start": 82.4, "text": "Paul and Peter, welcome. We are gonna do the Great Drivechain debate, so, welcome to the show, both of you. Thanks for having me" }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "01:30", "start": 89.61, "text": "on. Thanks for having me." }, { "speaker": "stephan", "time": "01:33", "start": 92.51, "text": "Great, okay, so let's, you know, we're just gonna talk through a little bit around the structure. So the topic is drivechains should be implemented in Bitcoin. Obviously, Paul is taking positive, Peter will be taking negative. We're gonna start with some timed segments, so it'll be a ten-minute opening argument from Paul, ten-minute opening argument against from Peter. We'll have a few rounds of rebuttals, and then we'll have a segment where you can both challenge each other. I may throw in some questions here and there, but I'm gonna, I'm gonna try The two debaters make their points. Listeners, you are big boys and girls, you can make up your own mind. and so that's the, the format. If we're all ready to go, I'm gonna start my timer when you're, when you start talking, Paul. You've got, ten minutes on your clock when you start." }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "02:18", "start": 137.68, "text": "Okay, great, thanks. I think, you know, this conversation has gone a long time, so I'll give a tiny overview, but then we'll sprint right to the cutting edge because that's what people really deserve, is something they can't get anywhere else, and we wanna- We wanna be at that cutting edge. So this, this idea is very old. It's, the origin of Blockstream and their fundraising is in this sidechain idea, and, it, it has enormous potential because it allows, for example, eight billion people to be onboarded to Bitcoin, more or less immediately, and they can obtain Zcash level privacy, and we can have, for example, an EVM chain, and we can just anything that an altcoin can do, we can just copy. So we no longer have to fight this kind of like media battle. against which coin is better. You just have everything at your disposal and then the user just chooses what they want, and we have a competition for developers. So it's a very old idea, and, and Peter has always been like the chief critic of this idea, which has always fascinated me. And, long ago he did a \"Let's Talk Bitcoin\" podcast on, his tree chains idea, in which he critiqued the side chain idea. And so, so he's, he's always been kind of the chief critic of this idea, which has always fascinated me, and I've always been trying to figure out what is it about this idea that Peter doesn't like, a-and I have to say, and to some extent, I still don't know. But, we did, we hired, Peter in the summer to write it down, what is it that he doesn't like, and then he produced this piece of writing, and I have replied to it in this giant image, which is a sort of an unconventional way to reply to something. But I go through like line by line, and I just reply to the whole thing, because I didn't want anyone to say that I missed something or that something's more important than someone, And then at the bottom I have some questions, so I'm just gonna read the questions and, and then that'll be the end of the opening statement because the, the questions I think are just, that's the That takes us to the cutting edge that I mentioned before. So the question number one is a two-parter. I snuck two in at once. It's kind of unfair, but it's that on his two most important points, I, I think Peter contradicts himself completely. So the, the first is that can miners defer to someone else's full node? At first Peter says that, the answer is yes, and that there's, the pool can pay this fixed cost and then distribute the cost downstream to a number of different clients who all reuse the same node, and so the cost is shared and divided among them. But then later he says that it's absolutely-- He makes a, he has a whole section of the, of his piece where he makes a big deal about claiming that it's impossible and that everyone needs their own full node. So can people defer to someone else's full node? I think the answer is clearly yes, but, but the point is he says both things, so we should just figure out which one, what he's trying to say. And then the second part of part one is that Peter gives, he makes a big deal about mining centralization, which is the entire critique against this idea, but he proposes, as far as I can tell, eight different definitions and measurements of this idea, none of which are that consistent with each other. Some of them overlap a little bit, but some have Absolutely nothing to do with each other at all, and more than half of those have nothing to do with what Bit three hundred does, so they're things about like the distribution of heat on, or distribution of resources on the Geography of the planet Earth, they have nothing to do whatsoever with the three hundred activations. So we should just get, what is the actual definition of mining decentralization or centralization? When does it go up and down? What are the examples? Question two is the, his section about how Drivechain affects Bitcoin, what's the only basis for rejecting it from Bitcoin is it had a negative effect? He only mentioned miners' costs, so my question is, is it really limited to that or intentionally or there's, is there something else that's not in there? A piece of writing, or is he tacitly agreeing with me that the regular user who doesn't mine and who just runs a full node or is a Bitcoin user, they aren't negatively affected by bit three hundred? And he's only saying that it has some mysterious effect on miner costs. So that's question two. Question three, at Balta County Badger in September, Peter said, quote, \"No one has written code, \"unquote, \"to do this, \" but the software, including a fully functional Zcash sidechain, has been on Drivechain dot info for more than two and a half years. So the download button is right at the top of Drivechain dot info. So the question is Peter, have you actually visited the website drivechain.info ever? And if not, isn't that sort of negligent to be commenting on it after we even hired you to write this critique? You're on stage, haven't visited the website one time. question number four, Peter complains that there's no math at the very end of his post to come make this complaint, but in the original, twenty fifteen article, there was an entire section labeled \"some math\" and it contains Mathematical arguments. So has Peter not read that, or is he not interested in that, or does he reject it for some other reason? And question number five, Peter complains, almost all of the complaint in his writing centers around the terms fixed cost and economies of scale. But Peter doesn't use these phrases the way they're correctly, because they always are inherent to one single decision-making context, and they aren't something that They're not something that you just have. They, they depend on the timeframe, and they depend on the current scale, and they depend on the sort of a given scenario. They're like choosing between A and B, but it's not something that you just have. and then, question number six, I would like to know if Peter agrees with me that miners' long run total costs equal their long run total revenues, which in the field of economics is uncontroversial. So if Peter is complaining about fixed costs rising, which is most of the complaint, then he's just complaining that Bitcoin It's very successful, and that the miners are earning a lot of money in transaction fees, and that the network is doing really well. And so shouldn't we just-- isn't that, illegitimate complaint? And then, question seven, I would like to know if Peter really doesn't understand why he complains about this in his piece. Why does the, the side chain kicks things off by committing to the hash of the full node software that isn't that-- it doesn't even, it's not even that wasteful, all things considered, and it solves an immensely important problem very easily, Plains about it in the piece, I don't know why. He says it's like an amateur mistake or something like that. And then, question eight, I'd just like to know if Peter actually believes that if side chains are a good idea, like, does he actually see any benefit on the other side of this? Like, does he agree that about the planetary scale, and does he agree with, of achieving zCash level privacy, and does he agree that we can just let people use different pieces of software, which if, where we just have people competing over which software they run," }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "09:16", "start": 555.81, "text": "and 21 million coins. Like, does he actually believe that that has any benefit? Because mostly, I would say probably a Blockstream type prototype of a person would have said something like, \"This would have been amazing benefits if we had achieved this, but we haven't achieved it yet.\" But I don't-- maybe Peter doesn't think that there is any point in pursuing this goal. And nine, I'm actually, I am curi-- Peter can, he's free not to answer this at all. I mean, he's free not to answer anything, of course, but I would like to know more" }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "09:48", "start": 588.26, "text": "conversations Peter had with Blockstream in twenty fifteen, or if Peter just has any idea or any guess about why it is that-- 'cause he does talk about this in his piece, he talks about why it is Blockstream has sort of abandoned the original side chains idea and has kind of retreated to Liquid, which is a lot like, you know, Ethereum doing these L twos and retreating to just something that's just a multi sig or something. It's just a big regression in my view, and a, a, a very significant event in Bitcoin's history. So I'm just honestly, I'm What he's up with that. And then the question ten is, you know, like, does Peter think that his own arguments are what stalled the sidechain idea from moving forward, or, and does he think that as a result of what he said, we've had all these altcoins proliferate and we've had all these other things happen indirectly, such as- The rise of the exchanges and the rise in activation drama and the toxicity and the paralysis that has plagued our, our project, and I think set us back on the task of taking on all the banks. So I don't know how much time that was, but I just read my ten questions. We got one minute left," }, { "speaker": "stephan", "time": "10:55", "start": 655.2, "text": "Paul, one minute left." }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "10:56", "start": 656.38, "text": "Well, I think, you know, I don't then I will surrender the minute. I don't think I have enough. But just say that that's just This conversation's been going on a long time, and that's just where it, it left off as far as I'm concerned." }, { "speaker": "stephan", "time": "11:08", "start": 667.8, "text": "Okay, well, thanks for that. And, Peter, let's hear your, I guess you don't necessarily have to respond to all of Paul's points here. I mean, you can make your own kind of opening argument, and then if you wanna kind of have the rebuttal time afterwards where you guys are gonna go back and forth on this. So, Peter, I'll, I'll let you take, you know," }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "11:32", "start": 691.72, "text": "Yeah, let's go. So, you know, I, I think like the way I'll go and, talk about this is, you know, start at really the big picture, which really comes down to, you know, well, what kind of thing does this really bring to, Bitcoin? And I'll actually start at the, the very last thing Paul mentioned there, which was this sort of idea of like toxicity and, you know, figuring out how to go and negotiate changes and all this. I mean, and the reality is, like, so much of this toxicity we go see Motives. And this isn't something that drive chains can fix. I mean, the fact is that people create altcoins 'cause they wanna go make money. And how do you make money? Well, the easiest way to go do it And the crypto space seems to be creating a new currency, pre-mining that currency, or at least, you know, issuing it, investing it, and hoping the price goes up, and then dumping it on other people. Like, you, you just can't get away, get away from that. Nothing us Bitcoiners will ever be able to go do will go change that, other than us maybe like cozying up to the SEC and like giving them tips or something. I mean, you know, it's, it's just inherent to the nature of cryptocurrency, and it's- You know, it's just not relevant to Bitcoin. Now, what is relevant to Bitcoin is, well, what do we use Bitcoin for? I mean, of course, some people use Bitcoin to go and upload, JPEGs and, you know, go trade them, but- Mostly what Bitcoin gets used for is sending and receiving money, and secondary to that, or potentially, you know, potentially on how you look at it, first to that is just holding money. I mean, that's really what it comes down to. And the applications that have really caught on for that is good ways to send and receive money. And You know, that's all well and cool. So then the question is, well, what is a good way to go send and receive money? And, you know, I think there was this idea with Blockstream initially that side chains would be cool, we'd have all these interesting new features. And, you know, I can speak to that in a couple ways, but say like the number one thing that happened there was Lightning went and like killed all these ideas, 'cause it's just so incredibly effective. You know, Lightning isn't perfect, but like the fact that you can just send money around the Really took the wind out of a lot of sales, you know, that's, that's just an effect. But then the bigger issue for like Blockstream was, well, what was the original idea? Well, it was a fairly complex proposal of merge mine side chains with some kind of undefined fraud proof, you know, some way of making that miners weren't fully in control of the money on a, on a side chain, and they thought they could do this, and the fact is that they failed, you know, and eventually Blockstream realized, you know, institutionally as well as like individually, the This idea just didn't work, and that's why they abandoned it and, gave up and decided to go do Liquid instead with Functionaries. And, you know, Liquid is a compromise between like what people wanted to do and what's actually possible. But, you know, that, that's kind of how that ended up. Well, and then of course, finally, you gotta go out and go and talk about, well, why is-- Like, why is this so hard? And what it really comes down to is, in Bitcoin, full nodes are the things that prevent money from being stolen. Go and create an ordering, miners go and create a, some kind of consensus, but the most important thing is, That your full node actually goes and validate signatures. You know, once you have like some kind of proof of work, that's really what keeps money from getting stolen, and a lot of people would love to go find clever ways to avoid that. You know, Drivechain's an example of someone trying to go find a clever way to go avoid that kind of system, but, you know, there's no getting around the fact that you need, you know, you need people validating signatures in some way to be able to go and pull off that kind of, independence. And then, you know, you can then get into the more technical weeds of, \"Well, alright, how exactly does all this fail?\" Alright, so- W-w-what is this \"minor centralization\" thing we don't care about? I mean, you know, we can go back up a bit and say, \"Well, why don't we just increase the block size?\" Right? That's an obvious thing to go do if you want more transactions per second. And, you know, that was really what the block size wars were all about. And increasing the block size is all well and good, but even if you ignore people's ability to run a full node, even if that problem is magically solved, you run into this issue that The more data miners have to go deal with, the harder it is to be a miner. And, you know, funny enough, like since we last started talking about this, Ocean, you know, is a new mining pool now getting started. You know, unfortunately, Ocean just faces so many issues trying to get their mining pool, you know, off the ground. And this is even when running a Bitcoin node is relatively simple these days. You know, you can easily run one with high enough performance and so on. But the problem with things like drivechains really comes down to the fact that they make running mining more difficult. And, you know, and I was taking some, trying to take some notes earlier, and, you know, you, Paul went and mentioned, you know, fixed costs and overhead and so on. And this is really what it comes down to, it's like, when you think of, you know, you trying to run a mining pool, you have a certain, you have a budget, right? Some of that budget is gonna go to fixed costs, the things" }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "17:00", "start": 1019.92, "text": "that Hashers you have at your mining pool. The higher those fixed costs are, the bigger a barrier to entry it is to run a mining pool at all. That's really as simple as that. And most of the things that I think Paul has gone talked about with mining costs are things that aren't like that. in fact, you know, mining is inherently decentralized at the hashing level, for a lot of reasons, and one of the big ones is that access to cheap energy is inherently decentralized. You know, solar power you know, flare gas, like all these things that are cheap energy, stranded hydro, these are all things that aren't in one place in the world. They're inherently in many different places around the world. So we got very lucky with that. But the mining pool side of thing, everything we add to mining pools to make them more complex to run, that increases fixed costs, makes it harder to get into the mining business. You know, if you don't like that, like say, you know, F2Pool as an example started censoring Ophac transactions, well, one of the ways you respond to that is by spinning up a new mining pool and not censoring those transactions. And the harder we make it spin up a new mining pool The harder it is that we, you know, the, the job that we have to go keep Bitcoin decentralized, that's really what it comes down to. And drive chains, because they act like a block size increase, inherently they have this problem of increasing the fixed costs. For all miners. Of course, they're even worse than a block size increase because drive chains are different pieces of software. Like, at least with a block size increase, I can throw hardware at the problem. You know, I can get a faster computer, I can get a faster internet connection. You know, it's not a great thing to go have, but at least it tends to be things where, you know, money kinda solves the issue. But when you're talking about a drive chain, and now there could be like a hundred different drive chains, well, now I have to go and hire guys to go run a hundred different pieces of software to try to eke out profit to make my mining pool competitive with a much bigger one that happens to be censoring transactions. You know, we don't want Bitcoin to be in that place. We want running new mining pools to be easy. You know, that's how we are in-- we get ourselves in a position where the response to censorship can be, \"Well, screw you, we're gonna start" }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "19:10", "start": 1150.32, "text": "Go set this up. Notably, I mean, Ocean, apparently, the initial budget including software development was like a six million dollar investment. You know, that's already kind of worrying, and hopefully that investment will actually get open sourced and it will be easier for the next guy, but we'll see. You know, last thing we want to do is make this problem even harder. So, yeah. I think, one minute" }, { "speaker": "stephan", "time": "19:31", "start": 1170.68, "text": "left," }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "19:31", "start": 1171.18, "text": "Peter? Yeah. I, I, I think that kind of sums up my, my opening arguments, if you will. Like, that's, that's, that's a, it's important thing." }, { "speaker": "stephan", "time": "19:40", "start": 1180.12, "text": "Okay. So, then that's, that's the opening arguments from each side. So, let's now have, we're gonna do five minutes of rebuttals, and we'll start with you, Paul." }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "19:52", "start": 1191.69, "text": "Okay, sure. So he started by saying like Drivechain wouldn't necessarily stop people from issuing their own altcoin, and I agree with that, although I think it's a strong deterrent because it gives you, it makes it so that the altcoin person isn't adding anything except, their own investment. They're not adding any new ideas. So you see what I mean, mostly what an altcoiner will say is, \"Oh, I would have wished, I would have liked to do this on BTC, but I couldn't because of such and such.\" So that's what, for example, People, David Vork, et cia, Namecoin people, said, \"It's all the people with a good, the Monero people, often in writing, they'd say.\" So, but this is a very minor point, really the, the ten questions were in order from sort of most important to least important. So, the mining centralization one, Peter did repeat that he was saying that, and some-- sometimes it's energy costs distributed around the globe, and then sometimes it's the fixed costs. The question of whether or not Drivechain significantly increases fixed costs or makes it to start a pool, I think maybe we should just focus on that because I'm absolutely certain that the answer is, is no, and in fact, it has a negative effect. So for example, the pool operator, just as the individual clients would defer to the pool's node, the pool can defer to someone else's node, and that is exactly what BIP three o one does. And even without BIP three o one, BIP three o one just makes this like a trustless relationship. Even if there was no BIP three o one, they would do that anyway, just for reasons of economics Reasons that Peter has outlined just in reverse, which is that no one wants to pay a cost that they don't have to pay. Again, Peter repeated this thing about the fixed costs, where he's, he's right that a fixed cost is something that you can amortize over people. But To some extent, like an ASIC, it depends on the context and the timeframe. So an individual ASIC is a fixed cost in, in a certain time-- on most, on a timeline that most people would just assume that Peter and I are talking about. And then on a long enough timeline, all of the fixed costs become variable costs. So if you just take a huge view and you say you're the dictator of the continent and you're gonna rule for two hundred years, whether or not you build eight hydroelectric dams or ten, that's a variable cost to you. You just think how much is it gonna How much electricity am I gonna get? But of course, when you zoom in, the hydroelectric dam is almost everyone would say a fixed cost, but so it depends on the context. But even in any context, the whole idea that the fixed cost of starting a new pool would be significantly increased by Drivechain is, isn't correct because they don't need-- the pool doesn't need to run a sidechain node, at all. So I, I don't know if we're ever gonna walk it. This is like the most important contradiction of all, and so I said it first. The fact Having trouble competing, I think Peter and I both know there's a bunch of other reasons, tacked on with that, but it, even if Peter were right, it would just say, demonstrate that it's very difficult to start a new pool if none of the other pools are doing anything wrong and that, Despite not having Drivechain is still difficult, and so Drivechain doesn't have any marginal effect on this type of thing. But a pool is proportional, you know what I mean? Like the, the pools add up to a hundred percent. So a pool is a special kind of thing where you won't automatically be able to, like if a one hundred percent of the pools that currently exist are behaving optimally, then there's, there's no reason for you to be able to break in, you know? So, I don't know, I, I think those are the important things. Like, I did ask about the, the history, I'm very curious about exactly what Blockstream decide. I mean, is it, it is really as true as Peter says that? People just thought Lightning was a lot better than, I think with Anthony Riard and other people, a lot of people, Rene Picard, these people, but author of Mastering Lightning, they are now trying to kind of walk a lot of things back. so I, I suppose that's kind of good news for me, as I think Lightning, the sun is, starting to set on it. So. You got one" }, { "speaker": "stephan", "time": "23:49", "start": 1429.23, "text": "minute left on this round," }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "23:51", "start": 1430.53, "text": "Paul. Well, I think, and I just would like to emphasize that the questions, I didn't, I should have mentioned this, but I didn't, but the questions are sort of in or-order from how important they are. So the, the question of what is mining centralization and do people need to run, can you defer to someone else's full node? The, the answer is certainly yes, that you can defer to someone else's full node, and that is why the effect on mining pool costs Is basically zero, because they can just use the sidechain node that someone else, someone out there is running. And, the one, the reason why it may actually improve mining Decentralization, is that unlike Lightning and unlike Ocean, you can just pay people out on the transaction that nets out all the hashers pay per share Every ten minutes, that is just a normal transaction on a BIP300 L2. It's no different than buying, you know, cheese or whatever. So you just pay them out every ten minutes, and that is what Ocean aspires to do, but that is what we could do with BIP300, tomorrow if we had it." }, { "speaker": "stephan", "time": "24:55", "start": 1495.2, "text": "Okay, great. So that's the first round of, well, first rebuttal from, from Paul, and now Peter, you've got, five minutes to have a round of rebutt" }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "25:06", "start": 1506.08, "text": "Yeah, I mean, like, if you're gonna go for most important, I mean, the, the simple fact is your claims about, you know, bit three o one and bit three hundred are just wrong. Like, if I'm gonna go and speak to an audience, I think the thing I need to go speak to is really what, why? And, you know, bit three o one and bit three hundred, they really don't have very much to do with each other. bit three o one is sort of this idea of, well, somehow we'll kind of go do blind merge mining" }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "25:36", "start": 1535.74, "text": "You know, it's a way to think about it's kind of like a, an, an auction per block, per chain, and you go pay money and you go get a hash, and that's considered to be consensus. But none of that has anything to do with the money on the chain. You know, that's what BIP three hundred is about. And, you know, I personally made this mistake when I read about side chains. You know, for the longest time, I just assumed, oh yeah, obviously, the way that we decide how this pot of money assigned to the chain" }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "26:06", "start": 1565.62, "text": "That related to this bit three o one idea of blind merge mining. But the verality is, it purely is miners are in control. You know, that is the Drivechain's proposal. Miners are in control. You have to have a majority of miners to do anything to money on a chain, and the only way of majority of miners, and you know, really the miners themselves can actually validate what's happening is to go to run Drivechain nodes, and if they don't validate what's happening, they can be participants in theft. Which poses enormous problems. And equally, if they wanna be malicious, well, they can just go take the money and that's that. Like, there's just no getting around that problem. And, you know, I think like where this kinda comes from is people have this dream that surely we can create some easy way to go and somehow have new consensus rules without having new consensus rules. But people just haven't figured this stuff out. Now, obviously, I think with Moonmath, as we'd like to go call it, with, you know, recursive zk-SNARKs and all this other Absolutely do things like drive chains that actually work properly and go and have this kind of withdrawal, but that's not what the drive chains proposal is. It just takes the shortcut of saying, \"Let's just assume miners are trustworthy and honest. \" And the honest, trustworthy miners, the only thing they can do with drive chains is either not participate, which case money just gets frozen, or they run a drive chain node, which creates all these fixed cost problems. I mean, you know, and like talking about like dams and all this, I mean, the definition of fixed cost is Simple. It is a cost that isn't related to how much hashing power you have. Like, this is a pretty simple thing. The node that I go run for a mining pool, that's a fixed cost, 'cause that's unrelated to how many hashers you go have. Like, it's a, it's a pretty simple thing. Talking about like hydro dams, all that, that's just a bunch of nonsense. I mean, you know, talk about like an ASIC. I mean, an ASIC is obviously a variable cost. An ASIC produces a certain amount of hashing power, and the cost is Power. Like, I, I don't know why we're arguing about this silly stuff. Like, these are very basic economic terms, and, you know, I would hope that we would be in agreement on this so we could move on to a, a substantial thing to go talk about." }, { "speaker": "stephan", "time": "28:14", "start": 1693.6, "text": "Okay. You've still got another one minutes forty-five on this if you have anything else you wanna get to here." }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "28:19", "start": 1698.8, "text": "I mean, I g- I guess the one thing I could quickly say is like, You know, in terms of, all this stuff, but, you know, altcoins having new ideas and so on. I mean, again, the biggest, you know, altcoin drama that's happening right now is about putting pictures, like low resolution pictures on Bitcoin. I mean, you know, there are altcoins out there that have interesting ideas, but they are very, very rare. I mean, the vast majority of this stuff's just marketing, and that's just the nature of it. I mean, it's a scammy thing. You wanna go make money, you scam doesn't quite work, but it's different from other idea, you know, and that's just the nature of altcoins. And, you know, if a couple of altcoins exist like Monero where they actually have a interesting idea and a different model, that's fine, and it's probably fine if they aren't actually the same monetary base as Bitcoin. After all, like Monero involves different trade-offs. Monero is fundamentally more vulnerable to losing everything due to crypto mistakes than Bitcoin. And it's fine if those people choose to have their own currency to go do that on. I mean, I don't, I'm, I'm okay with that. Like, if anything, there's arguments that this is actually a good thing, that they're firewalled off Bitcoin and that their failures don't affect us and vice versa. But certainly, the vast majority of the stuff is just scammy nonsense, and, you know, drive chains aren't gonna change that." }, { "speaker": "stephan", "time": "29:38", "start": 1777.82, "text": "Back to the show in a moment. With Bitcoin, we need hardware that can help us secure our coins, and CoinKite dot com makes some of my favorite hardware in the space. Most notably, the Coldcard, which I use as part of various setups that I have. The Coldcard is a very reliable device, it's very secure, and you can use it in all kinds of different configurations. Now, if you are a beginner, don't be concerned, you can just get a Coldcard and get a USB-C cable, and you can plug that into your computer and use it easily with software such Such as Sparrow Wallet or Specter Desktop or Electrum. Now, on the mobile phone, you can also use Nunchuck, and for those of you looking for a cheaper device, you can get the TapSina. So this one is a cheaper device, obviously not as secure as the Coldcard, but it is, a more accessible option for those of you who want something a little bit different, and you could even potentially use them together in some kind of multi-signature setup. Now, as you learn about Bitcoin, you can start out in a more basic way and then advance to more So for example, you can start out with a single signature, basic twelve or twenty-four word setup, and later do things like migrate into a passphrase setup or use a multi-signature setup or seed export. There's so many options, but it starts with having hardware that you can use to help you secure your coins, which you can get over at coinkite dot com. So go get your cold card at coinkite dot com, use code livera for a discount there. And now, back to the show. Okay. Alright, well, that's, that's sort of concluding the more timed, more formally timed segments, and, and now we're gonna have more of a, let's call it gentlemanly back and forth. but let's start with Paul. and so Paul, you can socratically question or challenge Peter on something, perhaps one of the questions that you, maybe you believe it wasn't answered or was not answered well, perhaps you want to ask a question now and, challenge Peter." }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "31:32", "start": 1892.26, "text": "yes. So if someone wants to profit from running the side, if they're a miner and they wanna profit from, take advantage of the revenues generated by the side chain, they don't need to run, a node. They can just get information from someone else's node. And the fact that nodes, again, is, it's the exact same con-contradiction as always, which is you, it can't be a fixed cost that is Split among multiple people, unless it's possible for one full node to be used by more than one person. If it were the case that I have to run a full node, and then if someone else, if a friend of mine walks into the room If they don't run their own full node, then they just like burst into flames or something. Then it would be the case that running the full nodes is mandatory, but it's because it's split. You, you really are-- you're, you're determined to have it both ways. You're determined to say this is a fixed cost that, is split among multiple people, and then you also have to say everyone has to run the- The full node, so I don't know, how to resolve this, contradiction. if I-- But I would say if someone is, if a client of the pool is deferring to the pool's full node, then what happens if a pool just decides to defer to a different pool? I, I mean, this is," }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "32:47", "start": 1967.19, "text": "this is the basis of the block size debate. I mean, that's really what it comes down to. The block size debate was about saying, \"Hey, we should go set block size low enough...\" That running a full node isn't a significant overhead for anyone. You know, that is really what it comes" }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "33:03", "start": 1982.99, "text": "down to. And right, but that's not what this is a--" }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "33:06", "start": 1985.89, "text": "Well," }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "33:06", "start": 1986.13, "text": "but what you understand that the block size debate was about was that different people wanted to pay different costs. They wanted the full-- Roger Viera really wanted the full node to cost more. I mean, I think you understand that perfectly." }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "33:17", "start": 1996.61, "text": "Look, what, what, what you want to do with drivechains, especially the scaling argument, which is really like how drivechains competes with lightning, is to go have big- Flux. I mean, that, that is the, that is the reality of that. And, you know, this is how tr- this is how drivechains can compete with Lightning. Well, look, as long as people go and actually go validate rather than just blindly trusting other people to run the system You have to go and run a full node, like there's no shortcuts to this. And when people stop doing that, things fail in very bad ways. You know, you can't get around that. Well, the great example being, if you're trusting someone else to run a full node, those people are in control of the money on the Drivechain, 'cause they can go lie and they can go approve withdrawals, or they can be pressured to go approve withdrawals. And money gets taken. I mean, like, in Bitcoin we try to keep- In Bitcoin we always try to keep so far away from this by keeping the cost of run fully validating nodes" }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "34:12", "start": 2052.08, "text": "low. Well, I fully agree with that. We want the every node to be as cheap as possible, but some people, not everyone agrees on how much it should cost, which is the whole point, is how to make it cost more expensive for some and less expensive for others. And that's if you don't agree," }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "34:26", "start": 2066.07, "text": "I mean, you're welcome to go and bu-- you know, sell Bitcoin and go buy a different currency. Like, I think that's exactly the problem that" }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "34:32", "start": 2071.72, "text": "Drivechain is supposed to solve, though, is that someone who disagrees doesn't have to do that. I mean, Roger really" }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "34:36", "start": 2076.04, "text": "didn" }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "34:43", "start": 2082.96, "text": "I mean, out of everyone I could" }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "34:44", "start": 2084.42, "text": "find, I, I've searched high and low for the reason why this technology can't exist, and I think everyone is deferring to you, and all you have is this contradiction on whether or not people aren't deferring to me." }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "34:56", "start": 2095.55, "text": "I'm just, I'm just some dude who has the patience to go sit through this. Well, you say it, you're the original. Yeah. Yeah, 'cause, like, I am the original guy who went and had the patience to sit down and write arguments about this. Like the majority of devs aren't interested in Social media or writing vlog posts explaining it to general audience. The majority of devs want to actually get real work done. You know, I specialize in this kind of communication." }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "35:23", "start": 2122.52, "text": "Well, you know that, you know, I'm-- We have a list, laer2labs dot com slash friends, and it's full of a lot of very technical people, including Renee Picard, author of Mastering Lightning, and Robin Linus, who invented the Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, your quotes are very," }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "35:38", "start": 2138.34, "text": "very optimistic how much support you actually have." }, { "speaker": "stephan", "time": "35:46", "start": 2146.07, "text": "Yeah. I've read," }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "35:59", "start": 2159.24, "text": "I've read, I've read" }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "36:08", "start": 2168.41, "text": "that, I'm saying I'm the only one who has the patience to go do things like sit through thirty-five minute long interviews about this silly topic. The fact is, so many devs are just tired of this subject and don't wanna have anything to do with it 'cause it's dumb. Like, you know, like" }, { "speaker": "stephan", "time": "36:27", "start": 2186.95, "text": "let me try to, let me try to, let me" }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "36:29", "start": 2189.25, "text": "try to, let me try to explain it." }, { "speaker": "stephan", "time": "36:31", "start": 2191.15, "text": "Guys, let me, let me just jump in here. I, I think what we're trying to get to the bottom of on this particular question is Do miners have to run, you know, so as, as the concept of drive chains, there are two hundred and fifty-six drive chain slots, and there would be, you know, Zcoin and so on, some of these other coins. And I think the cri-the criticism, as I'm hearing, as I'm understanding from Peter and others, is that you would create this additional, let's say, burden or fixed cost, as we've been talking about. And I think Paul's answer to this point is, no, the miners don't have to run these side chain or side, you No side dr-drive chain nodes, they can delegate that capability. And I b- as I understand, Peter, your counter argument here is more like, no, part of the whole point of Bitcoin is that you need to be able to validate everything, because otherwise the pools can lie to you." }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "37:25", "start": 2245.33, "text": "I, I think you're missing my point a little bit. So what it comes down to is that if drive chains are to work properly, you need miners to be running drive chain nodes and properly validating, 'cause otherwise you don't actually have separate miners. What you really have is a very small number, potentially just one dude, you know, running nodes that actually go do stuff, and then the drive chains start, stop working properly. So, you, you don't like, I think the thing is here is Paul's trying to get it both ways. He's trying to go say, \"Well, you can have this thing that works properly, but you don't actually need to do the hard work of validating anything. That's okay. You know, you can just trust the other guy to go do it.\"" }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "38:03", "start": 2283.15, "text": "But I do, I have it both ways." }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "38:09", "start": 2288.78, "text": "He wanted, he wanted to run a more expensive node, but Luke Dash Junior didn't. So the question is just, how can we exploit the fact that Roger was actually willing to run the more expensive node and thus only have them synchronize very rarely with this tiny hash once every three months, thus making it very, it's unbelievably impractical for anyone to lie, because everyone who's running the sidechain node is gonna report the same hash for three months, so it's gonna be extremely impractical for anyone to get away with the lie The slow synchronization, which would be way too slow for anyone to actually make use of, as an actual feature, but since it's synchronizing an entire three months worth of blockchain history, no matter what the sidechain's block size is, that is what would allow anyone to have whatever Bitcoin SV note or Zcash note or Monero note or whatever else." }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "38:58", "start": 2338.29, "text": "For starters, I mean, that's not even what you're, what, what the thing is. Like, you have to go put in these hashes every block for anything to go happen. You know, like that's, and, and, you know, of course you're-- What's wrong with that? And also, hang on, hang on, hang on. And also, remember, we're not talking about one side chain node, we're talking about hundreds of them potentially. Yes. You know, like you've allowed for that. So hundreds, even in your hypothetical example, still a lot of work constantly that no-- you know, that miners have to be doing to be updating this. Like that's just not feasible in a decentralized" }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "39:30", "start": 2369.9, "text": "environment. For each one, it-- people have to make a decision on whether or not they wanna try to lie. And for each one, look, it takes three to six months worth of lying, it's too impractical, it's too much of a deterrent, you know what I mean? You" }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "39:43", "start": 2382.51, "text": "know what I mean? There is no deterrent here. Like, there isn't a deterrent. There's nothing in drivechains that-- There's nothing in drivechains that stops this. Well, why do" }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "39:51", "start": 2391.31, "text": "you say that though? Because there is, of course. The fee, the fee revenue to the miners is enormous," }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "40:01", "start": 2401.14, "text": "Three, three" }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "40:02", "start": 2401.96, "text": "revenue and drive chains is not enormous because there isn't a block size" }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "40:05", "start": 2405.0, "text": "limit. This is the, this is the security model of Drivechain, though. If the fee revenue isn't low, then the chain won't be secure or viable. So this is fully admitted by me, one hundred percent. But the, the good news is that every reason to suspect the fee revenue will be ten thousand times higher than what is currently available. I mean, it's clearly" }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "40:23", "start": 2422.73, "text": "not, because the fee revenue of Drivechain doesn't have a block size limit. And that just like, those arguments with Bitcoin itself, there will obviously be, race to the bottom, and there's not gonna be fee revenue." }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "40:34", "start": 2434.02, "text": "I mean, it's like there's, there's no getting around that But Peter, you don't understand-- It's a basic math question of height versus area. Do you really not know the difference between price and revenue?" }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "40:44", "start": 2444.23, "text": "Look, I am well aware of all these arguments, but the fact is that in drive chains, there isn't a block size limit, so that there is no incentive for there to be any fees at all. you can always undercut the next guy. Like, like that's just, that's just the fact of how drive chains go work." }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "41:00", "start": 2460.36, "text": "This isn't true. Each individual chain has its own limit, so it's no different than the There's no difference between Ethereum and, BTC today. There is, there is nothing in" }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "41:11", "start": 2471.25, "text": "Drivechains that actually goes and makes it happen. I mean, I can understand the difference." }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "41:16", "start": 2475.53, "text": "Yes, of course, Peter, there is, because the designer wants the, their side chain to be popular, so they want their side chain full node to be a reasonable cost. It's everything, everything is going to be popular if you want your Drivechain to be popular, you go have low fees. Right. Well, yes, that's exactly why we have something like a-- Which pushes the rate to the bottom. Like, you can't get away" }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "41:36", "start": 2495.75, "text": "from that." }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "41:37", "start": 2496.61, "text": "But Peter, no, no, no, I almost-- We have to, we have to emphasize this point though about the-- Okay, Peter is saying \"rate to the bottom.\" He's referring to the fee rate, the dollar, like a dollar per apple or something, and it doesn't matter if you sell a trillion apples to Peter, but he-- This is certainly elementary school math that he's, well, yeah, that's This is an element, this is a very simple point. So do you under-- do you understand that the race to the bottom of the fees can be what maximizes the total fee, the price can go down and the revenue can go up, which is" }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "42:10", "start": 2530.42, "text": "exactly what we're having. If you're going to have a large amount in total, you need to go have some mechanism where fees don't end up at zero. Like, you don't have that in Great Drivechain. Why aren't" }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "42:19", "start": 2538.88, "text": "they zero? Why aren't they zero on something like Tron or whatever Ethereum, anything, any other alt network?" }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "42:29", "start": 2549.49, "text": "The fee won't be-- Doesn't make any difference. The side" }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "42:31", "start": 2551.15, "text": "chain can be fully centralized or decentralized, it can have an expensive node or not, it makes no difference, absolutely no difference in my argument at all. Look, Tron," }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "42:38", "start": 2557.53, "text": "Tron, look, Tron is able to go do, you know, have non-zero fees because they can go pick an amount in that because Tron is something that people have to go buy into rather than competing like drivechains would with each other. A better example is actually something like Ethereum, where that was the idea, but because Ethereum has technical limits, because It still wound up with non-zero fees. But that, that, that, that's the same reason why Ethereum doesn't go, you know, doesn't go work properly. Like, Drivechain can't get away from that. No, but a side chain of" }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "43:11", "start": 2590.61, "text": "Ethereum, no, but a side chain of Ethereum will also have its own block size limit that would just be similar to what Ethereum's is. And then when that one shows up, someone will just create a second one that has a different block size limit than maybe two. Well, which, which, hang on, which is the process by which fees" }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "43:29", "start": 2609.44, "text": "I mean, it's, it's just such a bizarre argument to go try to go make. Like, you don't, yeah, you don't think that, oh yeah, I have something where there is no, there is no, there is no cost to it, but I'll go make it up in volume. Like, you can't." }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "43:45", "start": 2624.59, "text": "But Peter, the argument is literally that it's one chain versus one plus n, so it must go up. But I'm already admitting to you that if the, if the revenue isn't there, then the chain won't be secure and then this idea will be a failure. but the prob--" }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "43:58", "start": 2638.32, "text": "But the problem" }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "43:59", "start": 2638.76, "text": "is" }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "43:59", "start": 2638.9, "text": "the chain can easily be sufficiently secure to go and screw over Bitcoin. I mean, remember, like all this stuff ends up competing with Lightning, in, in, you know, in a lot of the visions of the drivechains for pro- for opponents. In Lightning, at least has-- Well, I'm working on it. Hang on, hang on. In Lightning, at least has, easy to understand fee, you know, fee model, which does at some point go back to miners. Now, of course, I argue that on top of all this, we should have a built-in spenders option with some, some kind of, you know, security tax, like either influence with deflation or inflation." }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "44:34", "start": 2674.35, "text": "You know, this idea that drive chains will just bring magical fever to miners, just doesn't work. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't. And you have the overhead" }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "44:44", "start": 2683.71, "text": "problem. But Peter, you know, you, you go to like CryptoFees.info or some sites. This just, this is just the reality of what is happening every day. And you can just, you can, you just see, here's a bunch of projects that pay these fees. You, maybe the data isn't reliable, maybe whatever, but it's just, you know, it's certainly, for many, many years Dollars a day in, in fees, and I think that the Ethereum version is m-more unpopular than would be a unified thing where we have one coined behind all these different blockchains, I think people would like that even more. They would, they would say, \"I don't, you know, I'm...\" A lot of people, I think, are waiting on the sidelines saying, \"I don't know,\" you know, like if you talk to a normal person at Thanksgiving or something, they have no idea. I had a cousin who had no idea, you, you guys all think this is funny. I brought a, a, a Bitcoin, and then he asked about Bitcoin Cash, and then he was clear that he thought that they were And so this is what the layperson is very confused by all this, and I think that it would actually be more popular if we just had our completely the act together one hundred percent and we said, \"No, Bitcoin can literally do any software operation.\" And that is a total" }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "45:59", "start": 2758.79, "text": "pie in the sky because you can't make those people go away. You, you will always go have that problem without government interference. Like that, that's just around the list. Alright, Jen, so let's," }, { "speaker": "stephan", "time": "46:08", "start": 2768.29, "text": "let's, let's stop that segment there. Back to the show in a moment. If you're concerned about where things are going, money-wise, swan dot com can help you with stacking SATs. Over at swan dot com or using the swan Bitcoin mobile application, it's available for iPhone or Android, you can buy Bitcoin and also learn about Bitcoin. Swan tries to do the best thing for Bitcoin and for Bitcoiners. Now, with swan, you can do what's called a smash buy, you can just buy a lump sum, or you can set up an automated recurring purchase plan. Now, most people do some combination of, of those two things. This helps people longer term with the volatility, because they are stacking Sats for the longer term, and those people who've been stacking for the long term, five years or longer, have often done well out of this. Now, with Swan, it's easy for you to set up to buy Bitcoin and also withdraw to your own self custody for free. Swan makes it easy for you, and there's a range of different services available here. Swan can help you whether you are an everyday individual stacking Sats, whether you are a high net worth individual using Swan Private com or whether you are a business using the business service line available. You can find all of this over at swan dot com. This show is also brought to you by mempool dot space. This is the leading Bitcoin and blockchain visualizer. So you can use mempool dot space to see the state of the blockchain. You can see the mempool, you can see which transactions are unconfirmed and which are confirmed. You can search existing transactions and see, okay, what, what was this sent? What fee rate was this sent? What does the replaced by fee history? You can see a range of information around it, as well as other tabs that are available on mempool dot space, such as the lightning explorer or the mining tab. Now, also upcoming is the mempool dot space transaction accelerator. So if you're interested in this, there is a waitlist that you can go and sign up for. It's over at mempool dot space slash accelerator. This will be a great tool. We can't confirm when the timing of this is coming out, but get on the waitlist and you'll be one of the first to know. When this is coming out, and this is gonna be a great feature for those of you who need to accelerate your Bitcoin transaction by you paying out of band to Mempool dot space. So if you're interested, sign up at mempool dot space slash accelerator. And now, back to the show. Segment there, like I think, let's count that as Paul's, chance of, you know, questioning Peter. Peter, let's now, you have a chance to challenge Paul. you can ask a question and, you know, use a, use a Socratic approach or a, approach to challenge him there." }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "48:43", "start": 2923.0, "text": "I, I mean, like I, I'll be honest, I, I, I have, you know, I look at this and think like, \"Oh, I think we've covered all, like, Drivechain's not a complex thing. We've covered all of the interesting points there.\" You know, like there really isn't much to drive chains. It is two bits that are extremely simple. And the simplicity unfortunately isn't, you know, isn't such a way that doesn't work. Like, I mean, Bitcoin happens to be something that's extremely simple at the core, but fortunately it works. Drive chains went a little bit too simple and it doesn't work." }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "49:18", "start": 2957.61, "text": "A bit too simple and it doesn't work. So- Okay," }, { "speaker": "stephan", "time": "49:20", "start": 2959.61, "text": "so let me, let me ask it one or two questions just for the sake of the listeners as well, so that people can, you know, because they, they may have these questions as well. As, as an example, one of the-- and, and to some extent, you gentlemen, you both touched on this idea, this question of if miners were to try and steal, now Paul, I believe your argument is that they wouldn't have an incentive to do so unless the chain was insecure, But I, I suppose this is one area that I've been curious about as well, that I've seen it be said that, okay, imagine if the miners were trying to steal, and the response I've seen is this idea that somehow the, the network would try to do a soft fork to try to stop that miner or that group of miners from stealing. Would that not create a lot of soft fork, you know, cacophony and craziness of people saying, \"Well, I need to run this node or that node because I want to reject this particular, you know, stealing attempt\"? And maybe they'll be, you know, i-i-in the future that could get more complicated. I'm curious, h-how are you both seeing that? Is that a, you know, is that a problem for this drivechains approach? Would that create more politics and drama where currently it's not there?" }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "50:28", "start": 3028.34, "text": "I'm glad you asked that because this is unfortunately, a misunderstanding where it is another case where we actually do have it both ways, but people just kind of don't really see why. But what I mean by that is the security model of drive- Drivechain doesn't rely on people from L1, taking some sympathetic action, UASF or something like that. If it did, just as a kind of a side note, if it did, then notice that those people could already-- the sympathetic L1 people, they could already UASF to force Drivechain into existence and then force the specific Drivechain into existence. So you see what I mean? If you had this group of people who are like willing to take extraordinary action, then they would already-- But I guess the point" }, { "speaker": "stephan", "time": "51:08", "start": 3068.27, "text": "would be it's very hard to coordinate that kind of" }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "51:13", "start": 3072.57, "text": "The, the, the model of Drivechain is that the fees will outweigh the, the what, what can be removed. And so for, for example, let me just give you a tiny example, and all the math in the original November 2015 post That Peter said didn't exist or didn't, didn't enjoy or whatever it is, whatever the case may be. That was all that math is about, this question of w- will the miners decide to take the funds? And, just on a completely separate tangent, the miners can basically steal from anything, they can hold liquid funds hostage or UTXO hostage or even the Lightning Network hostage, and plenty of people have admitted that that's the case. But that's sort of a tangent. The, the math, like, so for example, if you took, like, the, what, what Which is like, it depends on the day, but I did one example recently with the seven point two million dollars per day math. You can go to CryptoFees dot info and see if it's a good day or bad day today or whenever you visit the site. But that is two hundred and sixteen million dollars a month, and at, if you just di-discount that with the NPV, net present value, then it depends on kind of like how many months you wanna go out before you just truncate and say that the, the life of a tech project, you know, ends after eighteen months or whatever, but that's like four billion dollars. So that's like, you know, tens of thousands, a hundred thousand BTC depends on the price any, any given day, but that, the point is you could fit like fifty thousand BTC in something like that, and that's just what Ethereum is currently doing today. And if you do that, then they, the miners will kill the goose that lays the golden eggs by stealing from the Chain, and that is exactly why they won't have any motivation to do it. And this is actually far superior se-- security model than, the-- what people are trying to do is get some kind of technical thing where it's impossible for the miners to steal, but that always means if there's ever some kind of bug or if there's any some kind of glitch or misunderstanding or whatever, some kind of like psyop campaign or something, if there's ever some way, then the min-- it means the miners are always waiting to steal, whereas if the miners have an incentive not to steal and they How can we get more people paying a Bitcoin transaction fee and grow the, the size of the Bitcoin economy and the network? That's always better than to have them be, them not want to steal. Now of course, the steal, the, the reason why it's shredded is many reasons why it's shredded into this one withdrawal every three to six months, which is unbearably slow. But that's in part because it makes it impossible for anyone to lie about what the withdrawal is supposed to be, since it's just this one hash. And so it's just anyone who would try to lie Is just, you know, they're not gonna succeed and they will only embarrass themselves. And but another reason is that the mining, the, who, the composition of, of hashing, and which hash belongs to which, which pool, those are things that can change enormously in three months. They could even react, you know, the pool operator may be doing something that the individual hashers don't know about or don't want to have happen, and so three months is more than enough time for them to- Stab the pool on the back. See, that's what I was saying before about the pool being proportionate. Well, I mean," }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "54:21", "start": 3261.18, "text": "I, I, I, I think you're, I think you're kind of getting a little far from like where Stephan started here. And I think, first of all, with regard to the UASF stuff, I mean, I, I think, you know, the simple answer to what Stephan said is absolutely, yeah, this can create enormous amounts of very, very, very disruptive drama. you know, we did, or well, at least Easily been in a position where the UASF had failed, but not clearly failed, or had partially succeeded, but not clearly succeeded, and all hell would have broken loose, 'cause you would have had different parts of the Bitcoin network out of consensus with other parts, with out a clear way to go deal with that. You know, if we'd been in a position where some big exchanges had decided, \"You know what? We do want SegWit to happen,\" some miners had gone along with that and created SegWit blocks, and some other miners hadn't, it would have been a real disaster You know, I, I could see the arguments that for Segwit this was worth it. I would make the argument that what Segwit would actually happen was people threatened that scenario. Said, \"Hey, if you don't go along with this, miners, this may actually go happen. You would be much better off just activating SegWit.\" You know, I think that's actually the more accurate interpretation of what happened there. But the bigger picture there is, that's dangerous as hell, and you really wanna be doing this for a very, very good reason. Now, inviting that kind of failure to happen more often just because some- Yeah, but I don't understand. So, hang, hang on, hang on a second. Hang on a second. So, inviting that failure to- I'm understanding that. Hang on a second. So, inviting that failure to happen more often just because some drive chain potentially fails is really ugly. And one of the ugly things drive chains does is because miners are now in control of money on the To do things like give them court orders and say, \"Hey, you know, you damn well better go comply and take this money and reassign it to someone else.\" You know, of course, I personally am the target of a lawsuit from Craig Wright trying to go do basically that and redefine the Bitcoin protocol to go give him a couple billion dollars that, well, he's never proven that he actually owns. And right now, it's very-- Hang on a second, hang on a second, hang on a second, hang on a second, and right now, it's very easy to go and say Look, this lawsuit is nonsense because I personally don't have the ability to go do this. You know, from miners' point of view, it's very easy for them to go say, \"Hey, we don't have the ability to go do this.\" Drivechains fundamentally changes that. Drivechains means that miners can go seize money, they can go move it to other people, and that's a very sketchy thing" }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "56:59", "start": 3419.13, "text": "to be involved in. Who exactly would be sued, though? Foundry or like all the, every miner, you know? And then they would have to have to have sued like" }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "57:07", "start": 3426.7, "text": "Foundry" }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "57:10", "start": 3429.9, "text": "order to go do that. And the problem is that that's a good example because of how bad it is, though." }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "57:14", "start": 3434.16, "text": "Well, but" }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "57:15", "start": 3435.12, "text": "think about it, like, think about what would really happen in that scenario. Foundry would just be able to say, \"Well, we think we'll probably lose all of our clients if we do this. \" Nope. And even if we weren't going to keep the clients, they could say, \"We gained this amount of Bitcoin by moving...\" Think about what it means, Peter. If I'm saying that, could you just let me finish my sentence?" }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "57:37", "start": 3456.7, "text": "This" }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "57:38", "start": 3458.06, "text": "isn Security model of Drivechain. So I'm saying that the miners earn a certain amount of money each period such that the net present value is like a hundred billion dollars. And maybe there's twenty billion dollars in the chain, and the quarter order is going to be-- But think about what it means, Stephen. Just pick anything, pick, say it's a hundred dollars then and twenty dollars total. There's twenty dollars total in the drive chain, and then it's worth a hundred dollar-- It's worth, you know, like a dollar a day, and that comes out to a net present value of a hundred dollars or whatever. These are made-up numbers. The point is, the miners are getting a certain amount of money. It's a magic money tree. This is a The court order says you have to take that twenty dollars out and give it to some other guy. Then the miner can just say, \"Well, I'm just-- You're asking me to just delete a hundred dollars for no reason. \" Look, you, you, you are giving a very lovely," }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "58:28", "start": 3507.89, "text": "everything went exactly the way you wanted scenario. The much more likely scenario, hang on. Look, you said this was not-- No, that wasn't my example. No, no, the example I would go, \"Listen, only applies for the change order fees. \" Can I go talk? Are you The example that's actually much more likely is that if drive chains activate, they don't really catch on. You know, you get a bunch of people interested in some drive chains, they put a bunch of money in, something more like Liquid, oh no, something more like Liquid, or there's some transactions, people basically, because, well, you know, it's kinda sketchy to go and steal money, don't steal the money, even though there really isn't that much incentive not to, and some court order comes along and says, \"Oh, yeah, we gotta go and change this.\" And something like Antpool and Foundry are probably gonna say, \"Well, you know, we can go to jail for failing to comply. We can comply because we changed the Bitcoin protocol to allow this happen in the first place.\" And we might as well go with it, because it's really only like, you know, fifty million dollars, and this is tiny part of our actual business. And now you get the whole mess of people then going and saying, \"No, no, we got to use-ASFF.\" Or worse, like you get another coordinator saying you gotta uasf it a different way. You know, this all invites an enormous amount of drama for frankly very little benefit. You know, like Drivechain's the model where-- Yeah, but the" }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "59:48", "start": 3588.09, "text": "security model is that the fees will be enough to dissuade the miners from not wanting to-- If you're just gonna say that the miners can just become a victim to various lawsuits demanding that they change this and that, I mean, you yourself gave an example of yourself being hit with a totally frivolous lawsuit that's based on nothing, so it's great." }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "01:00:07", "start": 3607.18, "text": "Because the Bitcoin protocol is such that I genuinely can say I can't do that. Right now for miners, you know, mining pools, mi-mining pools can genuinely say, \"We aren't in a position to go seize money. That isn't something we can do.\" But you wanna change the Bitcoin protocol to let them go do that. That is why this is so sketchy. And this is why I think it's in miners' own interest to definitely not allow drivechains go happen, 'cause they don't wanna be in a position where they can go steal money. Like if you, if you're They're really, they're very" }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "01:00:38", "start": 3638.62, "text": "limited because they have to declare the, it's like being buzzed through a gate that takes three months to get through. So they're very, they have a very, very limited Ability to direct the eventual destination of the funds. All, all they" }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "01:00:52", "start": 3652.72, "text": "have to do is go put a number by court order into their, you know, into their Coinbase's And the money won't get stolen. Like there is nothing in drive chains that actually disincentivizes this. You've got a bunch of stuff about saying about fee revenue, but like, if, if that's-- But" }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "01:01:11", "start": 3671.09, "text": "you see, that's the point is, if, the side chains have their own fate, where they rise or fall on their own merit. So if something about a side chain attracts a court order that destroys it, then that's the side chain's business. I make no claim, I don't even really, you know, I, I don't make any claim about what" }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "01:01:30", "start": 3690.1, "text": "If people want to use a Monero side chain, then they should, and if they don't want to use that, then they shouldn't. And if they want to use it for Bitcoin" }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "01:01:38", "start": 3698.81, "text": "miners and the Bitcoin consensus, you have gone involved the rest of us. Like you would have a good argument if you were talking about creating a new proof-of-work coin. Monero itself isn't dependent to Bitcoin. You know, they can go do their own thing, and this really not very relevant. That's the problem. It's its" }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "01:01:53", "start": 3713.88, "text": "own coin. We'd rather have all the flexibility of launching new software, but with all the same coin. That's the whole idea." }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "01:01:59", "start": 3719.49, "text": "That's all well and good, but you haven't come up with technology that lets that happen without affecting Bitcoin. You know, that's really what this comes down to. When you say affecting Bitcoin, I agree with your goal. I agree with your goal, but you haven't succeeded." }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "01:02:13", "start": 3733.06, "text": "You only mean that the-- like even in, you're even wrong about this. You're not right about almost anything that you say, but even this one thing that you're wrong about of the fixed co-- of the idea that miners might have an incentive to pay the full node cost. even that is absurd, because you know full well that that must be one billionth of what the eventual mining costs will be as Bitcoin continues to become more popular and difficulty adjusts upward. The marathon alone, you can look this up, they have like a selling general administrative costs or something that was like fifty-seven million dollars a year. So the full nodes already are, would, would, are utterly minuscule and they aren't significant cost to anyone, even the regular people who are running Running the full nodes just as end users who have zero percent hash rate and derive no income. The, the what matters is how easy it is. The full node isn't a significant cost at all under any circumstance. What matters- So even if it were the case that the miners were required to run full nodes, that even that would make no difference whatsoever. The cost of running the electricity and the, you know, the ASICs and stuff, they're not in the- Someone has to pay three thousand dollars for a Solana node or-- For only in the event of a withdrawal dispute, also. So which, which, what, what," }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "01:03:30", "start": 3810.89, "text": "Paul, what you are arguing is that it's okay to go and increase the block size. That is your argument. That's well, yeah, the whole point of-- Yes, it is. The whole point of drivechain" }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "01:03:39", "start": 3819.96, "text": "is to differentially increase it for some people and not others. So the whole point of-- Everything you said is an argument," }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "01:03:46", "start": 3826.5, "text": "arg- everything you said is an argument that because mining costs money, it's okay to go increase fixed costs. That is, that is your argument there. And the simple fact is, we are trying hard to go Fixed costs down. I mean, in particular to a lot of things like, Paul, Paul, let me finish. It has nothing to do with Paul. Let me finish. Let's put mining costs. Let me finish. So why we want to go keep these fixed costs low is because we want to go decentralize mining. We want- Actual hashers, the people, you know, pointing hash power at, things like Oceanpool to be able to go run actual full nodes and actually go validate what they're mining. You know, that is why we're trying so hard to do this. Unfortunately, Drivechain has no effect, zero effect on that. It certainly does, because if you want to go and validate what you are mining, you have to either trust someone else to go do that, potentially exposing yourself to all kinds of problems when that person lies, fails, whatever, or run nodes. You can't" }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "01:04:45", "start": 3885.79, "text": "No, I, I choose the first option. So like, let's say the side chain nodes are all designed so that the, the header of the side chain has the withdrawal hash in them for three months, so that you have, you can just look at the head SPV mode Or you can just look at, just look at anyone who's on the network, any block explorer or anything like that. Look, and again, because it's so difficult to debate your your argument," }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "01:05:08", "start": 3908.81, "text": "your argument is that it is okay for people to go and sit there, manually going and copying, pasting hashes, hoping it's correct. Like, that is just not something we want to go add to the Bitcoin protocol. You know, that is, that's something miners shouldn't want. Yes, you are. You, no, of course not. The Bitcoin" }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "01:05:27", "start": 3927.57, "text": "rules are just counting the thirteen thousand, and that's not the same thing. You are advocating" }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "01:05:30", "start": 3930.76, "text": "for a soft fork. You are advocating to" }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "01:05:33", "start": 3933.16, "text": "add this to Bitcoin protocol or to take op-5 so that the people who want to spend locked coins to this, the hash rate is growing. That's," }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "01:05:39", "start": 3939.62, "text": "it's a soft fork. If you don't follow those rules, your blocks are invalid. Like you are advocating for a change to the Bitcoin protocol to add this kind of" }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "01:05:50", "start": 3950.3, "text": "But you, you're just evading the issue completely. I think you're evading the issue. Like, the, the, this is why, this is why this is such a crazy argument. But let's say I'm a miner and I wanna start up a new mining operation and I don't run, and I don't run, we have a bit, Solana, and I don't, I don't wanna run a bit Solana node But I just used the withdrawal hash that I think, my other miner friends are using. What is the, what's the disaster scenario in that case?" }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "01:06:20", "start": 3980.79, "text": "I mean, the fact is, if that is what's happening, you're in a situation where, yeah, if, if this is what's happening, you're in a situation where drivechains aren't gonna go work properly. On the other hand, if they're actually doing their job, how do they not work properly? Because people start going and copying, pasting hashes and something goes and fails because people aren't validating. The fact that you people need to validate the way it's gonna work properly. It's" }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "01:06:45", "start": 4005.3, "text": "just you that just doesn't understand how it works, Peter, which is that well, it's tied to the end users. Those are the people, the Roger Veer type people, they wanted the block size, the BitPay, Coinbase, they wanted to pay. You are, you are not making a technical argument. They wanted to pay, and they have a full, they have a completely full node, and that node gives them the ability to find out if they want to. You're not making a technical" }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "01:07:08", "start": 4028.51, "text": "Like you are making, I hope things go work this way. Well, the fact you're talking about what Roger Ver" }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "01:07:14", "start": 4034.21, "text": "wanted, like, no, you don't get it, Peter. Some people want to pay the higher node cost, so the question is, how can you have some people pay small cost and some people pay large costs? That's the whole idea. That is the idea." }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "01:07:27", "start": 4047.94, "text": "Yeah, and your idea didn't work." }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "01:07:30", "start": 4050.16, "text": "I mean, you know, a good counterexample here. But what doesn't work? You don't even realize that a lot of the things you say are contradicting You're just making shit up." }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "01:07:39", "start": 4059.31, "text": "Like, you, you saying all this stuff contradicts, like, there, there's nothing I can go say that will make you not say that. I mean, this is just-- Now, hang on. How is it, how can it be a fixed" }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "01:07:48", "start": 4068.31, "text": "cost that's amortized if people can't defer to it? What is, what do you think is happening when the mining pool runs a full node and then they have all the other people not running a full node? They're trusting the mining pool, but they have reasons for trusting the mining pool. They have reason to If we could apply the exact same argument in, in, in an inverse sense, what are, what are you," }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "01:08:12", "start": 4092.83, "text": "what are you even talking about there? I mean, like, I'm, we" }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "01:08:15", "start": 4095.93, "text": "are mining pools, one topic, whole mining of whether or not you can defer to someone else's full node. And what does it even mean to run a full node? Because you could run a full node and then you could, you could actually conclude, you know what, actually this full node is bugged, there's something wrong with my computer. And so even running the full node isn't enough to gain" }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "01:08:38", "start": 4118.29, "text": "Watching the right way. No, we're just getting into metaphysics. Like, this is, this is very- There's nothing metaphysical at all. This is, we aren't talking about epistemology, Peter, because we are talking about epistemology because the- What a full node does is give you information. You, you are getting into" }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "01:08:54", "start": 4134.99, "text": "metaphysics around the nature of full nodes. You are just trying to" }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "01:08:58", "start": 4138.25, "text": "evade answering this one question because this contradiction just obliterates your argument, and I've been very polite by letting you meander around and around, but you-- Now it's time for you to just either admit that you're wrong." }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "01:09:08", "start": 4148.72, "text": "I think that of the two of us, there's one of us that's meandering and not the other." }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "01:09:14", "start": 4154.68, "text": "Yes, because I do." }, { "speaker": "stephan", "time": "01:09:17", "start": 4157.09, "text": "So I guess I'm not sure if we're making a lot of progress here. I'd like to" }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "01:09:19", "start": 4159.81, "text": "ask Stephan, do you think that you can defer to someone else's full node or not to get information from it? Like, what happens when you visit a block explorer? Does the world just, universe just burst into flames when that happens or what?" }, { "speaker": "stephan", "time": "01:09:32", "start": 4172.26, "text": "So the question I think you're getting at is, can you defer to someone's node? Obviously, yes, you can. But the question-- But I think the point, the counterargument is more about how easy it for people, is it for, is it for people to self-verify and to do it themselves, right? And I think as an example, you know, there's a lot of progress now in the ecosystem around Stratum v2, as an example, this idea that you can sort of separate the mining pools from the, individual miners and let those individual miners, you know- Create their own block template and select which transactions go into the block. And I, I guess, you know, people could have a concern that Drivechains could cut against some of that progress or potentially in the future we're gonna get maybe break pools or some of these other ideas. It's far from it. I think in fact," }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "01:10:17", "start": 4217.47, "text": "this is the only way that that idea will succeed is if you can pay out the miners on L2. And in fact, the miners getting paid out every ten minutes on L2 is fantastic deal for them because this reduces the leverage of the, the pools. So, If I'm," }, { "speaker": "stephan", "time": "01:10:32", "start": 4232.18, "text": "if I'm understanding you here, you're sort of saying you would have like a big block drive chain and this would allow the miners to get paid out onto that, but I guess that still doesn't- Because think about it, the miners," }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "01:10:42", "start": 4242.16, "text": "they're, they're very confident that they'll eventually get paid if they get paid on B300. yeah, but I think that to me, that doesn't quite answer the question of how this isn't for people to verify. Like, no, but I'm saying what it does, it does what Stratum v2 and Ocean wish they could do, which is it pay, you can do pay per share and you can get paid out every ten minutes, and in that way, yeah, lightning," }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "01:11:02", "start": 4262.91, "text": "light- this is why Ocean is, working towards lightning. I mean, that's not, that's not like anything necessary there. I" }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "01:11:09", "start": 4269.78, "text": "mean, you're not- No, but lightning is Cost and liquidity costs and tremendous channel risk with each person, if you wanna onboard someone to light- Sorry, that's, that's" }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "01:11:22", "start": 4282.03, "text": "just, that's just nonsense. Like, I'm sorry, but there's no nonsense about it. There, there are not tremendous liquidity costs around lightning, like ocean, ocean Ocean adding Lightning is a very simple thing for them to do, to do. They have, first of all," }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "01:11:38", "start": 4298.34, "text": "Peter, I'm not sure you should get your stories checked with them because people who are there asked them and they said running LN infrastructure is complicated and we have no intention of doing it. So I'm not saying that maybe I don't understand what they're doing. Well, I mean, though, like" }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "01:11:50", "start": 4310.48, "text": "Ocean is doing a lot of very weird stuff, so I wouldn't be surprised if they don't understand what they're doing. But the fact is, for Ocean to go pay miners up with Lightning" }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "01:12:01", "start": 4321.87, "text": "They could pay the miner." }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "01:12:03", "start": 4323.43, "text": "You have to load, you have to have the money that you plan on paying someone. This isn't an anonymous hash. My God." }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "01:12:08", "start": 4328.88, "text": "Paul, I don't think you understand the basics. Ocean has, Paul, Ocean has money coming in whenever they find a new block, right? But they get-- Paul, Paul, Paul, Paul, let me speak. Paul, let me speak. Okay. Ocean, whenever they go find a block, they have a pile of money that comes in. They can use that money to open channels, and they can go pay miners over those channels. If they choose to go set up the economics, such that payouts will happen when they find blocks, that's exactly how they can go do it. They find a block, they open a channel, once the hundred block, you know, unlock period has come up, they go use that money to go pay miners, and then they can just close the channels, I mean, this isn't a hard problem. And for, oh, Paul, Paul, Paul," }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "01:12:55", "start": 4375.47, "text": "Paul, Paul," }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "01:12:56", "start": 4376.59, "text": "Paul, let me, let me speak and on the three hundred. And on the incoming side for miners, all they have to go do is Have a channel to them and money will flow in on that channel and they can go spend that money out on that channel. I mean, there's nothing difficult about this. And this is much easier than trying to go and say, \"Oh, by the way, all right, which of the two hundred and fifty-six possible drive chains you want to go have money on? Oh, by the way, you also go need to run a Tor node. If you want to go verify, of course, it's gonna be a big blocker thing. So now you gotta go run a full node and all this stuff.\"" }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "01:13:35", "start": 4415.12, "text": "I don't understand why people try to go and add so much complexity to this. It's not a hard problem. Lightning is a way of amortizing multiple transactions over one transaction. It's, it's really a pretty simple thing in this context. It really can't be that. It really can't." }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "01:13:49", "start": 4429.76, "text": "So if we can easily compare the two scenarios, where in one scenario we have my proposal of just paying them out per share every ten minutes on this L2 side chain, just pick whichever one is the biggest. And so there will only be one. And then you compare that to Lightning. In the case of a new miner joining, which is, this is exactly what you wanted, Peter, this is the low barrier to entry, low fixed costs, little guy, he's joining. Nope. You are talking about something" }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "01:14:15", "start": 4455.06, "text": "different right now." }, { "speaker": "stephan", "time": "01:14:16", "start": 4456.12, "text": "You are talking about a hash rate, not mining pools. Let's have Paul finish. Let's have Paul finish that answer and then you, you can go back." }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "01:14:21", "start": 4461.51, "text": "Yeah. This new person wants to join. In my scenario, they just point their hash at the pool and they can" }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "01:14:29", "start": 4469.33, "text": "Hall," }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "01:14:30", "start": 4470.05, "text": "you are talking about" }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "01:14:31", "start": 4471.19, "text": "hashers, not miners here. I am talking about mining pools. You went and changed the topic to go mislead people." }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "01:14:37", "start": 4477.66, "text": "Well, I honestly don't know. You know full well," }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "01:14:39", "start": 4479.94, "text": "you know full well, I am" }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "01:14:41", "start": 4481.34, "text": "talking about-- You know full well we're talking about mining pools" }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "01:14:44", "start": 4484.16, "text": "here for barriers to entry." }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "01:14:46", "start": 4486.32, "text": "You now" }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "01:14:46", "start": 4486.7, "text": "changed" }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "01:14:46", "start": 4486.98, "text": "the topic to hashers. I don't know, I honestly, was not trying to mislead anyone, but I thought we were talking about the idea of Ocean to pay the hashers, the pool paying the hasher. Out every ten minutes. So is that what we're talking about or not?" }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "01:15:02", "start": 4502.34, "text": "When you went, you went into we're talking about overheads there. Now for Ocean to go pay miners, all they have to do is pay-- Are we talking about that? Can we listen to you say it? If Ocean wants to go pay miners over Lightning, all they have to do is do Lightning transactions to these miners. Like, if they choose, Paul, Paul, Paul, if they choose to do Lightning transactions on a pay-per-share basis Well, that is their choice. currently Ocean doesn't, doesn't do that, 'cause they know that they don't have the financial resources to deal with full paper share. I mean, a lot of money, a lot of money. Yeah, I mean, when I'm showing you back to what I was saying, which is" }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "01:15:37", "start": 4537.1, "text": "comparing the two ideas, I was just-- You're the one who cut in and said I was, yeah, which now you're saying I wasn't at all being misleading, and I was talking exactly about what we were trying to talk about. So" }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "01:15:47", "start": 4547.54, "text": "I'm gonna" }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "01:15:53", "start": 4553.65, "text": "continue And I don't know what you're gonna say after I'm done, but I would like to just give everyone something that they can take home at least, which is the-- in the scenario I outlined, the people connect, they do some hashing, they don't find a block because their hash rate is very, very small, and, you know, of course, statistically it's very unlikely that if you have a tiny amount of hash, you'll actually find the block, but they find some shares at the pool, and the pool pays per share, as what I've been saying, pay per share, so Taking the absolute theoretical minimum custody possible, they just pay them out on the L2 chain. It's no different than buying cheese or alpaca socks or whatever. So they do that. And in the scenario with Lightning, what the pool has to do is they have to make a decision when someone connects to them. They have to say, \"If we wanna pay this person, we must broadcast the transaction on L1.\" Oh, with a new two of two multisig output, paying the L1 fee, and we have to fund this channel with about as much money as we think we are gonna be paying them over the next time horizon of whatever this is. Paul, you know that isn't how Lightning works. That is exactly how it works." }, { "speaker": "stephan", "time": "01:17:04", "start": 4624.79, "text": "No, let me, let me just jump in and explain something here. I think that's not quite-- I, I kind of, I think I agree a little bit more with Peter on this point. It's not that the mining pool has to have direct channels with every participating hash I have to open those channels. When someone is new, yeah, but remember, you could say it, you could put it on, you could put that obligation on the individual hasher or miner in this case and say, hey, it's your responsibility to have inbound liquidity. And it, because remember, lightning has multi-hop, so it's not like you need direct channels between the mining pool and the miner in this case. Anyone who wants to join" }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "01:17:36", "start": 4656.17, "text": "the lightning, you're right about that, that's true, but anyone who wants to join the lightning network at all must do that with someone, I guess is" }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "01:17:46", "start": 4666.64, "text": "I know they don't have to do that, so I think that is a better call. You know" }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "01:17:49", "start": 4669.28, "text": "that Lightning is a road to network. I know you know this. Don't try to obfuscate it for our audience here. The fact is, if I was to go join-- I didn't even know that someone else would. If I was to go join Ocean and start getting paid, Paul, if I was to go join Ocean and start getting money in, I would go tell them, \"Alright, Which, you know, which Lightning account you wanna go pay out to, and they can go do it on the wallet I would go have. Like, and if I choose to go and set up a wallet with some inbound liquidity that's running twenty-four seven, 'cause I might wanna do it, that's fine. I don't have to get a channel open with Ocean specifically. I can use that same wallet for" }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "01:18:25", "start": 4705.94, "text": "anyone. Like that's true, but your point is you have to open some channel somewhere that has some inbound liquidity for this project, and you have to hope that you have enough through the threaded through the whole route, and it's-- I mean, ultimately, this Lightning solves that problem, but that is more expensive than the what I propose. Look, what you're proposing to, I'm making mining more decentralized. And also, just the fact that the Zcash side chain exists and, means that probably people like Foundry wouldn't want to touch it, so I'm further decentralizing mining. By, by offering them this, set of revenues. I'm not" }, { "speaker": "stephan", "time": "01:18:57", "start": 4737.22, "text": "sure people would agree there, because I mean, ultimately, if, if this person is a miner, they are likely to want to use Bitcoin, and they may be earning and spending over Lightning anyway. So it may not really be a big deal for them to like earn over mining, in this example from Ocean Drivechain. Well, yeah, but I'm just" }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "01:19:12", "start": 4752.75, "text": "saying it is better. My scenario is actually more advantageous to a small miner in, in every, in every scenario, because they have less total- Setup cost. I just think it's an irony that it happens to be-- it's not essential to my argument, but it's just ironic that it happens to be so anyway. Look, I think this may be one, okay?" }, { "speaker": "stephan", "time": "01:19:31", "start": 4771.02, "text": "So here's how I'm, here's how I'm thinking about this. What we're talking about here is The advent of Stratum v2 is, we're, we're talking about this idea because it's going to help mining decentralization. It's going to help more individual hashes actually be miners instead of merely hashes. Yep. But part of what's predicated there Is that person being able to run a Bitcoin full node? And in the Drivechain context, that now means running a Bitcoin full, full node and up to two hundred and fifty-six Drivechain nodes if they wanna be va-va-va-validated everything." }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "01:20:04", "start": 4804.99, "text": "Not to me, because they could still only run the Bitcoin core node if they only wanted to run that. And what people are still imagining that there's some enormous negative consequence of them not getting the note. It's because the node synchronizes so slowly that the-- you can rely on, you, either then, think about it like this, the network's either gonna be this huge successful network like Ethereum, where it's gonna have se- seven million dollars a day in fees being paid, and it has huge amounts of users. And that's really the only case that I'm interested in, because if something else happens, then it won't be secure, but I don't really care. I'm kind of That. So I, I skimmed the vital few. So I'm saying like, most new restaurants fail, you know? So I'm saying, okay, maybe a lot of these ideas will fail, but I don't care. We're talking that if it's really big, then all those people, you know, there's gonna be all, a huge number of users, and some percentage of them will have full nodes, and the, some percentage of them will have big projects, and it will just be very, very implausible since the node calculates for everyone the same hash every three to six months. It's just gonna be available information. It'll be much easier to get that information than it will be to do other things that the miner has to do, such as like keep up to date on which ASIC technology is being invented or something like that. It's no miners don't have to do that. Fundamental difference between the other ways that miners compete, which involve a huge mixture of fixed and variable costs. They compete over getting the ERCOT, demand management credits, new weird mining cooling ideas are invented, so they compete on millions of dimensions. It's pro- probably it's not an understatement to say millions of dimensions in some form or another. And this is just some random thing, and there's a pre- there's just a prejudice against this dimension, I think, because it would be so good for Bitcoin that people can't have trouble wrapping their heads around it about like, we, we care because" }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "01:21:55", "start": 4915.86, "text": "you're adding fixed costs that miners gonna have to go in and add. All, all this stuff double like, hey, hey, hey, Paul, Paul, when you go talk about things like, you know, oh, they gotta You know, if I go have a hashing setup and I go set up with Stratum v2 and I go to that bit of effort, I can just let the thing sit there indefinitely and it'll continue to work. I mean, I've done this before, you know, back in the day when, back in the day, like, back, Paul, let me finish. Back in the day when I was mining myself. I set up with P2Pool, which was decentralized hashing, and P2Pool, other than one or two technical reasons, would work just fine these days. And all I had to do was set it up and just leave it there. I mean, that is the world we wanna be in. We don't wanna be in a world where hashers like me now have to go track down websites and block explorers and copy and paste hashes for drivechains to go work and for fees keep coming in. Like, all that's nonsense. Well, we won't live in" }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "01:22:49", "start": 4969.83, "text": "a world of hobbyist miners ever because" }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "01:22:55", "start": 4975.09, "text": "Performers. And so it will get more and more specialized over time. And these days every miner has a business plan and things like that. You're, if you're really trying to say- That's not what's happening. It's about like if whether or not the miner can compete profitably. We don't want the mine- If someone is sitting there and they have the ASIC plugged in and they're losing money every month 'cause they spend a certain amount on electricity and what they get in is less than that That is not setting it and forgetting it. They're lighting their own money on fire when they pay their electricity bill. That's, it's irrational. That doesn't make any sense. I mean, it's" }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "01:23:24", "start": 5004.66, "text": "probably fair to say, go on. You're, you're, you're ignoring like the actual model of mining, which is you go find an opportunity you have, such as a cheap source of power. You have to find the opportunity. That's a fixed cost. You have to look for the opportunity. Paul, let me finish." }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "01:23:38", "start": 5018.41, "text": "Is it not true that finding the opport- searching for the opportunity" }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "01:23:44", "start": 5024.2, "text": "No, it's not, 'cause opportunities go and vary by amount of hashing power. you know, and again, but certainly don't have proof of this. Paul, no, it isn't." }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "01:23:53", "start": 5033.78, "text": "No, it isn't. That's fundamentally wrong. No, you're looking for it if you don't find it." }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "01:23:56", "start": 5036.72, "text": "Paul, your, your effort to go find these things scales with amount of hashing power. I mean, you're, you're, you're just throwing out nonsense here." }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "01:24:03", "start": 5043.13, "text": "Yeah, but the fact that it co-varies with the scale doesn't change the fact that it's a" }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "01:24:08", "start": 5048.09, "text": "Yeah, you're, you're just talking nonsense now. Anyway, so the, the, what, what we, what we go see miners go do is they go find, an opportunity, which tends to be a source of cheap power and/or a thing to go do with the heat. Now, as we know, those things inherently are decentralized because they come in small quantities, and you see things such as flare gas, where people go run a small number of miners on a location with some flare gas. We want those people to be able to actually participate in An actual block creation. That's really what all this comes down to. We don't want there to be a high barrier entry for that person to go do that, you know? And then, again, in my case, let's just say I had access to cheap power up to a certain amount. There's a lot of people in that same position as I was for the same reason as me. Yes. And We want those people to be able to, without very much effort, set up something like P2Pool or at least Stratum v2, s-do their setup once and just let it run. That is just incompatible with drivechains. And all you go, \"Oh, I wasn't incompatible.\" Because you are asking for a system where that person like me would have to go cut and paste drivechain assets for the system" }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "01:25:16", "start": 5116.1, "text": "to work. Well, you just have to like download P2Pool and you have to like poke in every now and then to make sure it didn't like crash or something, you know?" }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "01:25:26", "start": 5126.34, "text": "In a way that we can't make a bunch of drive chains just automatically do" }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "01:25:31", "start": 5131.71, "text": "this. Nothing is completely software though, as you know, Peter, because it's-- this is, this does cut back to what I was getting at before, which is that even if you run the software, you could still think, \"Oh, I've run the software,\" and then you would think, \"Wait a minute, did I run the right software? Or is there a bug in the software? Or do I have to update?\" And, you know, this has happened in Bitcoin's history also, where there have been Paul," }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "01:26:01", "start": 5161.1, "text": "you are arguing that because the world isn't" }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "01:26:04", "start": 5164.75, "text": "perfect, we should make it a lot worse. That is, that is what your argument boiled down to there. Because the world isn't perfect, because occasionally we screw up and people have to Paul, Paul" }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "01:26:17", "start": 5177.08, "text": "what, what the miner must do, so let's take the flare gas thing. They, they have to, they have to research opportunities to take advantage of the flare gas, they have to measure the flare gas and all this sort of stuff, they have to get equipment, and then they have to pay for the ongoing costs like, physical security, you know? This, the-- As I'm saying, the miner has enormous number of costs on different dimensions, and all the miners will- All of everything you mentioned there" }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "01:26:39", "start": 5199.19, "text": "scales with hashing power. It isn't a fixed cost, it is a" }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "01:26:44", "start": 5204.32, "text": "Everything there, even searching for the opportunity and because opportunity is" }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "01:26:48", "start": 5208.44, "text": "scales relative to how much" }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "01:26:50", "start": 5210.76, "text": "effort you go into. But there's no sense in which, you know, you're really trying to say that one, if there's ever any cost, no matter how small it is in an absolute term, like it could be like ten cents a year That will, that will irrevocably centralize mining." }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "01:27:06", "start": 5226.49, "text": "Nope, that's not my argument. My argument is that we all, we want to keep these costs as minimal as possible. Running the fixed node is a fixed cost But we don't want that to be an expensive fixed" }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "01:27:17", "start": 5237.93, "text": "cost. We want to keep these things small. The idea that miners' costs will be low is not, is in, in, incompatible with proof of work, which forces the cost to be high. Sorry," }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "01:27:27", "start": 5247.46, "text": "that is, that, that is nothing to do with my argument, and you know it. I just think the exact argument. No, it isn't. The idea that miners' costs will be low, I am talking about fixed costs here, not variable costs. Obviously, proof of work will scale to variable costs, and we don't want the thing is to just end up purely on variable costs." }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "01:27:47", "start": 5267.32, "text": "Do you think that there's, when Marathon pays fifty-seven million dollars a year in general and administrative costs, which you can look up on their site, is that a fixed cost?" }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "01:27:56", "start": 5276.63, "text": "Well, chances are the majority of that isn't, because it's related to the scale of their gigantic hashing system. Like," }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "01:28:03", "start": 5283.41, "text": "so if Marathon, Marathon has something in, but isn't it also the case that Marathon could just say that, \"One, oh, what if they misplaced, they ran the-- Paul," }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "01:28:24", "start": 5304.85, "text": "Seven million is a variable cost, not a fixed cost, because I myself have been a miner, creating blocks on the same level as Marathon, and I didn't pay fifty-seven million, because the cost to me scaled with the amount of hash power. I had a tiny percentage. So if Marathon" }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "01:28:41", "start": 5321.52, "text": "lights a briefcase full of a hundred thousand dollars on fire, then there was a mandatory cost. It was inherent to Marathon." }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "01:28:48", "start": 5328.68, "text": "Nothing in the Bitcoin protocol says Marathon needs to light a briefcase on fire. I don't know. I don't know what to" }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "01:28:52", "start": 5332.71, "text": "say, Peter. I think you just, you really hate This idea and I think you kind of just won't explain why, and I would like to know why. But I don't, I don't think we have 30 minutes explaining why. Maybe Stephane can translate for me, but I don't, this isn't real, this idea that mining costs may increase hypothetically by the need to run some free open source software sometime that other people are running and where the producer's extremely slow moving information is readily available on the internet, that is much easier to obtain than even stuff like troubleshooting P2Pool or like- Other basic stuff like how to make sure that the, the investment you put in mining, pays off, which involves some kind of planning and independent business modeling and running forecasts of costs and things. The idea that that would be definitive enough to block a technology that would transform Bitcoin from something that's very niche and reliant on a bunch of other stuff like the Lightning Network, which isn't going anywhere near as well as people thought, including myself. Over the last eight years, and that would give us tomorrow global scale, and privacy and unlimited flexibility and, and immediately humiliate all of our rival coins, so, by allowing us to copy them and I mean, you laugh, but what is your alternative? I'd just like to say, what is the alternative to global eight billion people?" }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "01:30:17", "start": 5417.59, "text": "Paul, my alternative is to go continue to work on technology that actually works. Like, you just gave a bunch of goals, and that's great to have goals, but your tech doesn't work. So, you know, like it's not really real. But you don't, again, you don't literally" }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "01:30:30", "start": 5430.8, "text": "claim that it doesn't work. You say it will work and it will change, affect mining costs in some way. So you actually" }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "01:30:36", "start": 5436.91, "text": "say that it It doesn't work. I mean, an SQL database, just the case of each-- Putting everything in one giant SQL database would go achieve all this stuff that you're talking about, but without achieving the goal of decentralization, censorship resistance. You know, well, I think, I think a full node is probably more expensive than Bitcoin Core. We've both, we've, we've" }, { "speaker": "stephan", "time": "01:30:58", "start": 5458.87, "text": "all been going for a while, so I think it's, it's probably a good spot here to have, you know, closing thoughts from each side. We've covered a lot of different aspects, but ultimately, you know, let the listeners decide. But, let's, let's have, you know, each of you just take a few minutes and give sort of your closing thought or your closing argument, if there's Paul, do you wanna, do you wanna start off there? And Peter, you'll, you'll get, you'll go after Paul." }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "01:31:27", "start": 5487.97, "text": "Okay, I'd just like to talk a little bit about why I'm doing this, which is that, I think that, w- it's not that I actually want any of the individual side chains, with the exception of one that Peter already knows about, which is that, I'm very interested in one. But I would launch that as an altcoin if I absolutely had to. I would prefer it as a Bitcoin side chain, of" }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "01:31:50", "start": 5510.92, "text": "People, I believe in the individual sovereignty and freedom of, different people, and, I felt sorry for the large blockers, and, they wanted something, and I thought, can we, what can we do to give them something that's almost everything that they want? They have this, they have to deal with the withdrawal, the three-month delay. And so we can give them something that's almost what they want, and it won't have any cost to the L1 participants. And this is why I'm, I'm kind of frankly obsessed with, 'cause Peter says that there is a cost to L1, but I really think that there isn't. And that is why, you know, I poured so much research into Peter's ideas, and I wrote this post, \"The Mirage of Mining Centralization,\" in January 2017, and why I, I follow him on Twitter, and why we hired him to write Thoughts, because he really says that he has found some way that this affects L1 in a bad way. Yeah, in some kind of net way also, because, don't forget, it's also part of my claim that all the hard fork drama will also go away when you have this, because Roger would never have wanted to campaign if Vitalik and all these people wouldn't campaign for, changes to Bitcoin if they just had this as an alternative. They would just do it over there. So, I'm very, very motivated to try to figure out, you know, leaving no stone unturned as to What, what is the negative impact that this idea has on L1? Because I really don't think that there is any. And, I, now I just kind of think that, I don't know, Peter has started arg- this, done this argument, and now he just kind of doesn't want to Admit that he was wrong or whatever, and instead he has produced this piece of writing that it has these contradictions in it that are immense, including the big one about whether or not you can defer to someone else's full node. So that's just That's just my s-side of the story, for lack of better words." }, { "speaker": "stephan", "time": "01:33:50", "start": 5630.06, "text": "Okay, great. Well, thank you, Paul and Peter. A couple minutes from you on your closing arguments." }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "01:33:55", "start": 5635.09, "text": "Well, I mean, I've made a bunch of, like, sort of more technical arguments and so on, but, you know, I think like maybe what I should go close on is, you know, with all this tech, I mean, people love to go talk about what their goals are, what their vision is, et cetera, et cetera, but tech has to actually work. And, you know, I myself, I had an idea for something that, frankly, Lightning does a lot better. And, you know, my idea was to, to build a bank, and I had a bunch of cool ways to go do things. And fact is, Lightning just outcompeted me in every single way. And my response, which I think was the same response, was say, \"Yep, they, they solved it. My Fidelity bond bank thing is basically entirely obsolete. It, it's never even given a chance to really prove itself. But, you know, great, It's the same. And, you know, the goals may have been the same, but the reality is I lost 'cause my tech didn't work. You know? And I think this is really what comes down with drivechains, is that Paul has been unwilling to admit that his tech You know, doesn't really work. It's something that's very simple, but it's not sufficiently complex to actually, you know, solve the big problems it goes and has. And, you know, people gotta go look at it, not with like starry eyes of like what Bitcoin could be, but with the hard reality of, \"Well, does this thing actually work?\" You know? And I also think this gets back to all these ideas like competing with altcoins and stuff. It's that, look, the tech has to work well enough to compete with altcoins. You know, you have to work well enough to compete with something like Ethereum, you have to work well enough to compete with something like Lightning. And if you're talking about, well, we'll just put money on this drive chain, which miners absolutely can't go steal, or potentially even more likely, miners will just fail to do anything about it 'cause, well, shit, now a majority of hashing power has to go I'm not sure that's really gonna happen. Now the price crashes. I mean, there's a lot of ways these things can go fail, and it's much more likely that if somehow the soft fork does get activated, nothing much will really happen in terms of working, and we open up Bitcoin to bunch of ugly attacks. Whereas, you know, things like Lightning genuinely are independent to Bitcoin, and they've proven themselves. And finally, I mean, maybe I can go say, you know, Paul Storek, He owes me like, one thousand two hundred and fifty dollars, and I should send him a Lightning invoice, 'cause last time he went and paid me, he went and paid me on chain, and I'm not sure Paul's ever actually gonna use Lightning, so this would be good opportunity for him to actually get a wallet and go and try this out." }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "01:36:26", "start": 5786.0, "text": "I paid him from a legacy, Bitcoin address too. Yeah, yeah, I noticed, I noticed that. So" }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "01:36:30", "start": 5790.21, "text": "obviously you had a very old wallet, and, might be time for you to actually use some of this tech." }, { "speaker": "guest_2", "time": "01:36:40", "start": 5800.43, "text": "Yes, yeah, it worked. I mean, these-- this tech works pretty well. I mean, I think there's edge cases that we'd love to go solve. I think there's definitely things where we'd have to prove to go scale better, but You know, to go and s-like present all these images of, \"Well, drive chains will do this, drive chains will do that,\" I mean, you gotta go prove this tech in ways that are, are actually convincing, and I just- Fact is, like, Drivechain hasn't done that, and frankly, my advice to Paul would be to move on. Well, can I move on? Is, is there anything that would convince you? With Drivechain right now, probably not, because the idea itself is just broken. Like, you, you've tried very hard and you've just failed. you know, whereas as a, as a counterexample, Lightning was something where I, when I, I remember when I first looked at it, I wasn't totally clear it would go work, but, you know, I read more about Pretty well, it's not perfect, can't necessarily scale to the entire world, but there are plausible ways to go fix this, and we see this with, Ark as an example right now, which is a plausible way that Lightning could scale to a much bigger venue. I'm not entirely clear that works, but it's plausible enough. And these things convince me because they're good technical ideas. They may not be perfect, but they're, they're" }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "01:37:56", "start": 5876.99, "text": "reasonable. Well, you know, there is one, and I have to keep going off, but the creator of ARC, he has said that Lightning is-- he created it because he thought that Lightning is broken, and he says that in the beginning of his ARC masterclass whiteboard video. Yeah, but to be" }, { "speaker": "stephan", "time": "01:38:08", "start": 5888.11, "text": "clear, even in the case of ARC, Barak has also said that ASPs would also be LSPs, and it's also in the context" }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "01:38:17", "start": 5897.84, "text": "of-- Yeah, he wants" }, { "speaker": "stephan", "time": "01:38:22", "start": 5902.16, "text": "I think there's lots of, there's a range of different views on how far Lightning can scale and potentially with other soft fork ideas or other ideas. I mean, he's got the lightning light right behind him, so of course. Yeah. So, so look, but I, I think, it's, I, I think it's been a, a good debate between you two. I agree. Hopefully, listeners have, had a chance to hear both sides. I've done my best to be impartial, even if I, I have a view, but obviously," }, { "speaker": "stephan", "time": "01:38:52", "start": 5932.48, "text": "in the show notes, I'll put the links to obviously, to the, to Peter Todd's post as well as to Paul's response, and, listeners, you can make up your own mind. Paul and Peter, thank you for joining me today. Thank you." }, { "speaker": "stephan_livera", "time": "01:39:05", "start": 5945.37, "text": "Thank you." }, { "speaker": "stephan", "time": "01:39:06", "start": 5946.77, "text": "So I hope you enjoyed the discussion and you found it informative. Make sure you leave your comments below or share the show out there with family and friends so they can also learn about this. If you're watching on YouTube, give us a thumbs up if you enjoyed the show. Thanks, and I'll see you in the citadels." } ] }