CD143: BITCOIN CONSENSUS ANALYSIS WITH STEVE LEE AND LYN ALDEN
01:25:59 Share

Bitcoin is sitting with new hires above A X, above eighty two thousand. And the kenza saga joins us now with a look inside the ice every time we can do. He said, why am I going to be a egypt w expert?

It's a big risk now.

Now look at you. We get we can get enough to eighty two .

thousand yeah, in twenty seventeen bin miners venezia, who are doing IT to make ends me. But now bitcoin, eight teaching thousand dollars this morning as teachers premium jump higher traders are now betting over two point nine billion dollars on bitcoin, soon rising past that eighty five cap on the popular creatives exchange dera bit.

The wider crypto market also seeing outsides gains this morning, either is eclipsed to bitcoins rise of thirty percent in the last seven days in salon as market cap topped a one hundred billion dollar level on sunday. On the back of U. S, elections saw a swell of protocl pt o candidates win office.

The total market cap of all the spot bitcoin E T S is now above eighteen billion dollars, with inflow surging in the last three trading days as institutions and their clients pile into the bitcoin trade post election. Within fin tech stocks, crypt aligned companies, coin base and Robin hood, both of whom are illegal, fights with the S C, C, or moving higher pre market, and most bitcoin miners are all seeing double digit percentage gains as well. Double temp r member promised that all future bitcoin will be mind in the us. And pledge to rapidly build out the country's energy production and transmission infrastructure, which is a great thing for those power hungry miners. This is one of multiple commitments made by the president elect to the crypt l industry on the campaign trail long with volunteers E S C chair gary ganzel er and to launch a national .

credo .

stockpile about microsoft thinking about fifty billion now, but thinking about Michael seller in all along what his viewpoint has been in how he he wasn't shy at all about he, he almost in real life is, has laser right? Almost in real life. But the starkers and the holders, they must be at this point. Anyone who has been stacking or huddling is on top of the world. Oh.

absolutely. A microstrip gy was the first move in terms of adding bitcoin to their baLance sheet, and that's why this national cricket stockpiles is so compelling. So essentially, the U. S. Government has sixteen billion dollars worth of bitcoin already on its baLance sheet that IT has a mass through these seizure Operations.

But what Donald trump is talking about doing is not only holding on to that, but has also been talking to senator mand team who put forth legislation to buy one million bitcoin over the course of five years, that ultimately you get to supply a bitcoin held by the U. S. government.

That is tent amount, what we have in golf reserves, five percent of the total big coin supply. So you're even see the U. S. Government potentially leaving into this hot day strategies.

You saying, well, either you just really excited about your job or your orange pulled or the other, I can tell how quickly talking, how much you know about to say you eat IT up, do you know?

No, I do. And I think that I think that especially that promise to fire sec chair gangs are on day one in office is why you're seeing stocks like queen vz and Robin hood do so well because you ve got coin basin fighting the regulator for over a year in court. You've got Robin hood that has wells notice in may so may not materialize in an actual lawsuit if you see a change of leadership at the top of the S.

C. C. So it's a lot of these stocks are optimistic about what a from present.

I mean, I saw Anthony y.

who we had a fund shown on on friday with the match and he's man .

and a list of his morn, and he took IT out on her again and he was tweet .

about her with her anti bitcoin stance being part .

of the not really .

the election loss is being .

at least involved .

taking her test.

But I mean.

there might be lot, but among the north of two .

hundred and eighty programs to lawmakers elected to congress, and you saw what, two hundred and fifty million dollars raised by the cripple industry, the cycle that money was effective.

Happy bitcoin monday freak. It's your host of dell here for another single dispatch, the interactive live show focus on actual bitcoin and freedom tech discussion. We are officially back in open water bitcoin.

Pump the right into my veins. I always forget how he feels. IT feels amazing.

It's good to be here with you all. We have a very important topic today. We will be having heavy Price discussion now i'm kidding. We will not be having heavy Price discussion, but we will be talking about bitcoin consensus and how bitcoin uh, works at the protocol level in terms of any potential changes or no potential changes going forward.

Um I have two of my good friends here to join us but before we get started, that intro was uh a clip from the largest pick in protest in the world, C, N, B C squad box that broadcast every morning our boy je turning reminding the world that the stacks ers and the hoddle are in charge and they are all just following our lead so though that said, we got Steve ly here. Um macaco in lead at spiral uh blocks formally squares open source development division. How's going.

Steve? Really, really good. And thanks for help me. And the kind of funding after two or three years, we still have to preface what block is.

I'm just I have say just the just .

now I do do I do as well.

And we have first time guest until the .

this .

match has been a long time coming. I came that hasn't happened yet. We have uh partners, ego death founder, ablin, odin investments and a recently published author uh with her broken money book and she's about release a sighed book that she's been teasing on noster we have left all in here. How's going?

England pretty good. Have to be here. Finally.

cheers. It's a pleasure. Um so we will be talking about bitcoin consensus. You guys just released a paper on this. Um you did a lot of work during the research paper.

Steve, where do you want us to start? What you what are you thinking is important? Take away here. Where do you want this discussion to go?

We can start really high level what this project is, what what motivated us to start IT also, I think will take about what what IT is not. Um so how about I start with that? So um what is what is this project? We felt IT was important for IT.

We we felt like one motivating factor is that there very there's we get a sense that there is very little understanding of um two fundamental things. Um first, bitcoin is really hard to change. And what makes you hard to change? Like why does IT a lot of us best in bitcoin or work on bitcoin with this underlying thesis that it's not centrally controlled and IT basically doesn't change what actually keeps that intact? That's one question.

And in the flip side of that is um if we the broader bitcoin space wants to change bitcoin, improve bitcoin, what does that look like? How does that happen? And what are some inherent risks with various mechanisms to pursue that.

So this project attempts to observe and describe how um how change is prevented and then also how IT has happened in the past. And then IT goes through one exploration for uh for future considerations of how I could happen um in in a risky way a sort of a cautionary tale um that you know a mechanism that we'd want to avoid. So and it's is also important to point out is an open source project.

Um a few of us came together to start to go from climb to a good starting point, but that's exactly what this is, is a starting point. It's not the it's not the end. And so we've had a couple dozen people in the space from with different perspectives on that coin um ranging from minor to E T F issuers to protocol developers to media influences who have reviewed IT in out to resource so anyone can contribute and we'd very much welcome that.

awesome. Um do you have like a convenient to share you are out or is IT just as long .

get up um get up as the canonical place to go venial but it's get get up com slash, bitcoin, dash cap C A P there go yeah .

I guess it's not that part of a domain. We will link IT in the shower notes. Um then what is your higher thoughts on this? Uh on this paper my .

view is that what's not think about consensus is that how consensus is achieved changes over time. So it's not like trying to analyze a static thing that's always been a certain way is that IT changes over time. So when when tosha was around, you know consensus changed one way, mainly him updating IT then as as the network is larger IT updated in different ways. My first article on the coin was in two thousand seventeen during the block size war, basically when that when that was kind of unfolding so kind of seeing consensus in action uh what was predicting um and so for me, that the high level take away, I think, is that consensus is probably has more moving part than people think and that we can one hundred percent rely on the past to dictate what future consensus, either opportunities and risks, look like because the field does at least gradually shift over time as there are new types of entrance or as as power shift around a little bit.

Yeah I mean, it's it's kind of like people think of big or as like a software project ah you know this open source project, which IT is. But it's also like this movement of individuals is all these individuals in different stakeholders and obviously those stakeholders grow over time in less big ones, a complete failure. More more people are adopting IT.

Um I mean obviously saw the etf uh launch this year also. I mean this is Michael sellers he Michael sale has first having. So for like newcomer's, they like Michael sellers, like the little bitcoin.

He's relatively new in the scheme of things. Um so we had a lot of new entrance pension funds president in the united states, you know all over the place. Um so I think it's almost it's almost more helpful to think a bit, analyse like this living organism because there's all these different constituents are like constantly coming into IT.

agreed. And that's also why we we don't want to look at this is like a paper the three people row and published and then we move on and people can read IT. It's instead it's a it's a living, it's a project and it's a living project.

We just happened to start IT, but we're hoping that ten years from now or more, it's still it's it's a timeless project and still can help be a valuable you resource within dickle. And maybe I I didn't speak to what this project is not. And I think it's important to because because that touches on such a controversial spicy topic of change and not change, right? So we've had lot. We are actually pretty happy.

We noted on thursday, I spoke at an event saturday and often i'm talking about IT along with our uh coauthor a red and and over all the receptions been quite good, really happy but there is also some people reacting saying that um yeah you know early concern that is going to like increase like a pro change project um and i've actually and then like and then they will go through some other things we we talk about in the project met there's been people um not liking that were saying alternative big coin implementations are like an important option in Victorin and and we ve heard the flip side yeah so what what this project is not no number one is it's not taking a position on changing bitcoin. Is not taking a position that we should ever change bitcoin or with th Epace o f c hanging b itcoin s pecifically w ith r espect t he c onsensus r ules n ot t aking a p osition t here. Um it's also not attempting to be a bluette int for how to change vital in or what bitcoin consensus should be. Is just trying to observe how IT, however, currently works in my orkan the future um and is also not advocating for any particular change like there are several consensus proposals that are being discussed within bitcoin right now. It's not taking a position or champion any other.

I think that's a good disclaimer topic in general about how bitcoin changes is a quite tough topic after twenty seventeen and a very hostile tension field dynamic that played out during that period. Um which is one of the reasons why I was happy to uh have this conversation on dispatch because I like the more spicy things.

Um but yes, there's definitely some set of the community that probably just immediately see this and think of IT as an attack. And bitcoin, I think I think the overwhelming laid a large portion of the research paper is basically just like outlining and try to define um characteristics at bitcoin and just providing easy a primer, which I think to be very helpful for people that are relatively new to the space. Mean historically trying to understand um how the protocol evolves over time and and and changes or doesn't change in particlar situations.

Basic took proof of work and took like time in space like you just had to be here and live through IT. Um and it's it's hard for a newcomer to come here and understand that. And there's a reason like every good mean is based on reality.

There's a reason there's a mean that you know i'm new to bit on and i'm here to fix IT ah because that happens very, very often. You see a newcomer come and particularly someone with deep pockets that buys a lot of bitcoin decides that they're going to try and impose their way on bitcoin. And I think this type of research definition, ally, was like all the different things that you guys outline in the paper.

Trying to prevent that to degree is like he sent them this paper and let them read at first. So they're like not coming in on a black slate. Before we continue you, I just want to shut up the freaks who have supported the show in our naster naval live chat which you can get an original T V I stream.

We have kivo who's at us twenty one thousand sites saying bitcoin is hope. We have the great gazoo who also act as twenty one thousand sets uh I think he's advertising um his final live stream on that out stream called a push radio seventy three hundred. Still the dispatch is a cure time for what you show.

We have no as responsable and trying to do everything the hard way to make no life more difficult um and I try and practice what I preach so this is the result of that. If I wasn't for you guys continue just for the show dispatch, what happen? So thank you guys.

Um so I mean let's let's go high level first. I mean, do. I what are you? So this idea that I.

Guess i'm kind of coming from the perspective that I think it's it's pretty much impossible for there to be any kind of real contentious bitcoin soft works in our future. I kind of feel like that period is past. Um I mean, Steve will started that.

I just curious. I like your opinion here. I do I kind of I kind of think gets almost like a good point. In terms of a lot of these proposals, like I think it's kind of just people spinning their wheels in terms of different software proposals right now because that seems like you're so far away from any abroad consensus on changes that they are probably unlikely to happen.

I generally agree there. There are several trends that we can observe um that have made IT harder. And the first of because is just figure than ever any metric copier Price, number of a doctors, number of businesses, number of you know podcast, whatever metric you choose.

It's ten next bigger than four years ago um and just with more of everything is hard to ordinate um a change is harder to to get consensus across ten times for more people, hundred times more people. Um it's also harder to measure consensus. Uh I made a little to earlier, which is like originally IT was just a tosh and so he could make a change and that was consensus.

He just pushed to change um obviously to my charger now so if for that reason alone I think I I agree um that I still think, uh I mean there's changes that there is. There is one change we have to make uh where I think a bug that happens like when we're gonna dead but someone would you have to fix IT before you know, if they going to work after the year twenty one hundred. Um there's other bugs in consensus and there's a change great consensus clean up, uh, which this fixes the number of those bugs.

In theory, we could live with those and just take the risk the risks associated with them. Um my own opinion is let's fix those. Um but there's still software development work being done to really get that prepared to IT bulletproof and ready.

Um but in terms like adding new features, uh, yet it's much harder. But there is there is more noise than never uh, in terms of I think there I shouldn't call I didn't just say noise. There's more talents of our developers than ever expLoring ways to improve vitamin and you know well intention ways um in addition to that, there is more noise than ever to get those changes in.

Um and a lot of those different proposals, they they overlap, they do similar things and it's extremely difficult even just within the protocol developer community take a consensus unlike yes, we wanted change and it's this option, not the other seven that are similar. And and i'm referring to the confidence category. Um I think said that um during the show we should talk about the uh a south fork scenario that we exported pretty deeply in this project and we should finally talk about which is where um you can not relatively small consensus is a relatively small group of people attempt as ofk and make strong progress towards that. So we probably want to talk about the six taker or groups first before we jump in in that but less definitely that show go through that scenario. Just I can we can have that conversation you can poke at IT and just of the audience .

here is a yeah let's break down first of all the difference between south fork and hard fork and then let's break down the .

six .

day holder groups sounds and either you can who wants to lead on that?

I can I can do IT. So basically um thoughts fork is when there's a backward compatible change um in general um and the rule set continues to function with the older nodes. Um that historically how bitcoin has has changed a hard fork is when um the rules are not back, we're compatible anymore. So the the block construction or the types of transactions are rejected by existing nodes and therefore you fork the network in the two truly different sets of coins that share a similar history.

But then we will diverge from that point um and so for an example of a hard fork was the vitality of bitcoin cash split um back in two thousand seventeen where as an example of soft k is tap root or seet things that um update the quinet in um backward compatible way um and four are six kind of stay holder groups we are trying to define uh what are the different sources of power in vicot um and how do they wheel that power so we basically, you know you could you could make an argument for three stay holder groups or seven stakeholder groups and we we landed on six and there is kind of discussion that went into that is pretty reason for IT, which is that we define stay colder groups as being sufficiently different if they know they have a power and an incentive to use that power. And if one or both of those variables is different, they're effectively a different stakeholder group. We're as um even if there's somewhat different, if they have effective with the same type of power and the same incentive to wheel IT, then there for most intense of purposes, kind of part of the same stay holder group.

So we landed on six after lot of internal discussion for the this initial framework and those are uh investors so um you know sizable holders of bitcoin or even as many, many numbers of smaller uh investors. Another one is economic nodes um so that's nodes for exchanges and payment processors and broken ages um basically economic note that do a lot of volume and therefore what what version of the software the running is highly relevant. Um then there's minors, of course, uh in terms of um you know adopting new changes or not adopting new changes and and what they include in a block uh that we have media influencers um basically and anyone that is um persuasive uh and has an audience in the packing in space.

And of course you know an entity or a person could be part of multiple these categories you can be an investor and the media person you could be an investor in a minor. Um and then the last two categories are two different types of developers. We have protocol developers, people that work on um bitting core or theory alternative clients and basically the the core underlying software that underpins the network. And then we have another group, which is um application developers uh that are building things like Violets or um you know alternative layers and and um building other things that um can connect the network or or optimize the network. And the reason we split those up is because they they could have somewhat different sentiments ah regarding the quit yes.

that sense me I mean.

I think it's a key aspect hears that there's a lot of overlap, right? There's a lot of individuals and organizations and said film multiple stay holder things, which just makes IT even a little bit more of mercy than that would be otherwise .

including people on the show right. Um authorities in invest in different capacity. And you know the two of you have largest audiences, media influences um you know so there's yet many, many people and companies can overlap touch a multiple stake LED groups。 But as then mention that's that's now we're defining. And is the the separation like the distinction of power and incentive?

right? okay. So still this is your show. Uh what is what you think is the most productive? Uh, next step in this discussion .

um yeah I mean there are several serve well novel and we think novel insights are and they can get spicy to so we can I don't think that the order but we can we start tackling those.

Um maybe one is your little mention in one of the groups of economic nodes and something that we chatted about before before and is like that there's I think there's a notion among a lot of the quinn's that um if you just if you run a bit coin, no, it's like it's it's your rules can change my rules right and and I mean on the safe on the face of IT, of course that's true. Like if i'm running biton corn, the lap i'm on right now, it's the software running on my computer. I am in control about software, so I can download the latest version of biton core and run those rules.

And those are the rules that basic labor on is running. But I can modify those rules. Uh, I ve self sovereign there. I can do IT. No one can stop me from changing their rules.

Or you can choose, or you can choose not to update, right? Betwen.

yes, sorry. yeah. Bacon core changes, consensus rules. I can just not to update that offer um or just you know manually roll that back but keep a uh you know updating but uh remove that change.

So yes, IT is certainly true on the face of IT that each individual in bitcoin is running the bitcoins offer. They unitarity choose the rules they run um but on the flip side, of course, is that you're only in control of your own know you can't control everyone else. So if everyone else does change the rules and you don't, then well and then IT gets IT IT.

IT depends on which type of fork we're talking about. But if is a hard for, then you're gonna be off. It's gonna a change lit. You're gonna be off on a different network in a different coin. So yes, you have that power to do that. But if literally the rest the world folks off and you're not a that network and everyone else in the world calls a bitcoin, then you did you were powerless in that extreme example. Um and I mean just .

just to add here, the whole point of soft works is that if you don't update in in a south fork, you you are still you are still part of the consensus of the glentworth. You can still you know participate in the system without updating, which is a key aspect of self watch with .

her forms correct and that's that's an financial alth works IT IT is um it's complex of and so in in a in a few minutes will go through a scenario where a will go through a specific type of software k scenario um in which what you just said the whole still holds s true but I still doesn't mean that is not risk um in in in in the fragile ity cannot uh be be the case with with a software k as well.

But the flip of that is also true if if i'm winning a note, my computer and I changed the rules, I like I didn't that doesn't mean anything for their network. Are the people I have to convince them to update the rules, if that is what I think bitcoin is. so.

The the b cap analysis you the the categories of economic nodes mentioned IT IT implies I mean the more volume done by a node meaning bitcoin sentence received um the more powerful IT is within that category. So if i'm just running bitcoin coron my laptop but literally don't even have a wallet with, I don't even receive coins that basically in come to control um IT really doesn't matter. So whether if you're a super largest exchange and you doing millions or ten to millions dollars of or more of volume per day is is a much bigger factor when IT comes to defining vitally.

But I mean, I think we're going after just we're going to 个 and this can be a very fluid conversation when my study for IT。 But like when twenty seventeen in twenty seventeen, what happened was we had there was two elements of twenty seventeen, right? So we had biton cash, which was a pure hard for right with reply protection.

So at that point with biton cash, when unfortunate, think early August. Um if you were holding bitcoin at that point, you had an equal amount of bitcoin and biton cash. There was two distinct so that the chains had shared history in the past but going forward, they add diverge history and you could keep both if you if you just wanted to sit there, if you're in a coma or something or you could sell one or the other.

And then later that year, we had sent to x which died on arrival because there was A A 发给 a was an off by one error in the code。 Um but secret x was made by pretty much every major company at that point in time. Almost every major company at that point in time supporting secret x and make controlled the overwhelming majority of economic nerves and set the two x preceded to fail and the steps .

will remained that's true. So my statement about within the economic no category um how much value you do matters that shouldn't be interpreters like there they are. The ones in charge is not like queen bees is in charge, cash PS in charge just because they do a lot of volume is just within that category. Coin baser cash up. I have more power than me running vacine on my laptop within that role.

Yeah I would also I would also add that uh secret x was a uh hard fork and we we identified in the paper um and we're not the first to identify this is that when you have a soft for versus the hard for, different levels of power matter differently. So when the hard for investors are very impact for right away because you can sell the coin that is out of favor, that is generally going to be the the one is the hard fork.

But if there you could sell the incumbent, but you could sell whichever coin you don't agree with uh and that is very impactful very quickly. Uh and even with futures market, you could you could a affect that even before the the split happens and therefore effect which one is likely to win after the split in a soft fork, uh, at least for quite a while, investors are not tally less powerful because um they have they don't have that lever to poll unless they decide they want to get out of the network entirely. They're not really deciding whether or not the new safford is likely to be um adopted or not.

Um and so ah I think Steve point about economic know is being relevant, especially that category um double be a somewhat different scenario than say with two x. So I think what we learned from the whole new ork agreement and that whole era is that, you know trying to push your hard for change that users and and you know the broader network doesn't like is obviously very hard to do. But in theory, they could they might have had more powerful example if they got together and decided they like the soft fork. They could have been a different scenario or different, a chance of likely could have success.

yeah. And if we look at twenty seventeen, I well, first I I don't think anyone know exactly what all the factors were that LED to the failure as I grew te two x but certainly one of the components was in the fall twenties seventeen bit. The next ran a future market with the two coins um you bitcoin and secret to ex.

And if my rect election is correct, that was something like a ten tender one Price difference between the two. And so that that that and we did look at up the the volume, the to the volume there was not as large as maybe I thought. So it's it's not clear how much important that had or or or like how representative IT was if the volume was relatively low.

But IT was IT was a real thing and people paid attention to IT. Um and that was certainly a signal for like what what the market was thinking, what the coin is and should be, which is the original rules not secrete to x. Um there is also earlier in twenty seventeen A U A S F movement and a lot of U A S F discussion on twitter.

And I recall correctly light coin um did A U U I S F, I I I definitely hear from a segment of the coiners saying like that was the race， like that the user movement U A S F saved the day from hundred percent hundred and ninety five percent hundred ninety five percent of exchanges sector. Um I think the that the media influencer part of that was powerful IT is IT IT like the people yelling and screaming. We're very powerful in twenty and seventeen. But again, like if you're if if you're just a small holder, you don't um you don't run a between business and you're just run a noto home that actually is like sending and receiving the coin every day, then running, running, running bitcoin and changing or you know and and and running like A U A S F. Sorry for the dog um isn't really gonna that alone is not going to be that impact .

for finally, not my dogs on air. We passed eighty six thousand. Let's go open world, big baby. People forget, every Price is was once in all time high. Every single number was one small time high.

Yeah I mean, I I think I think it's important at the high level to realize the first one. No change. It's almost it's like in warfare, right? Like the offenders always have the advantage.

And in bitcoin, no change. Is is that homefield advantage? I I think in in in general, when you're looking at any kind of change to the coin, the most likely outcome is is no change.

Um I mean a via call back to twenty seventeen, there was like very little organic support for secret x like IT was just there was almost no one that was formally advocating for an except for this like foreign letter that was sent out by the big companies and in the lead up to IT, uh the only people really talking about IT having a potential happening was saying that he was a chaotic outcome and IT provided uncertainty to bitcoin. Um and then you had a loud minority. Well, I maybe even a majority.

The loud people were saying that just wasn't going to happen, was bad for big. And if you look back on the Price action, what happened? What IT failed. And then we did our, you know, twenty x run in bitcoin Price shortly there. After I remember that this is one of the tragedies of me to leading my x account, I remember like self cus ran circus specifically saying that everyone should just piloted theory um because there was so much uncertainty in bitcoin land um that was on a relatively popular sentiment at the time with secretary to x looming on the horizon so was like there is almost no proponents for IT in like a in a vocal way as that thing played .

up yeah agree maybe we can walk through a potential future scenario which just adds to this conversation but but gets in a little one of the new um and that I mean you just had mad like it's um yeah the defenders have an advantage uh I I I agree with that but i'm going to walk through the area where we could get caught off guard so that we just why we dividing is important to discuss this so that we're not cut off guard and I would .

act so quick. I I can imagine and this leads into the point you're going to make I can imagine scenario where, uh, contentious soft fork does have a some some grass roots support but is contentious, right? So and I think we're seeing that to some extent now it's hard to measure exactly how big.

And one of the powers that media influence to have is to try to overstate the size of a um proposed thing or or try to understand that. And I can be very powerful because they can be um self propositioning in in a way you know people want to be on the the if something seems like it's gaining momentum, people generally more incline to go that route if they were kind of decided to begin with. Um so i'll leave IT a steep but basically I can imagine the snarl it's it's why I wouldn't call a base case. I do think it's mindful, be aware of and that's part of why we did this project is we figure that knowledge's power acknowledge um can help avoid some of what what could be pretty true tRicky or technical damaging scenarios in some contentious situations.

So so the scenario in is set up um what what but the actually OK the is one of the trends or observations that is important is that mining is more centralized than ever, which is sad and we don't it's not healthy. And a bunch people are working on making money more decentralized.

But the reality is right now you can get three people in the room, the CEO of the three largest mining polls, and they control something on the order and ninety five percent of hasty. And that I find that a bit alarming is not it's not as bad as that sounds just with what I said, because miners can switch from one pool to another and the those switching costs are relatively low. So it's not like red alert bad, but it's but it's yellow alert bad. That is something we want to improve our time.

Um I mean, before you continue, I would I would I would say that many centralization on the poll level is not as bad as IT was historically.

I mean, if you go back to twenty seventeen bit may probably indirectly controlled and this jim probably indirectly control like seventy seventy five percent to hash um and now he probably indirectly well not him because he left he left bit but like the bit man mafia probably controls about fifty percent of the hash. Now we have boundary, which is like the suit K Y C regulated mining pool that controls about thirty five percent of that. You can buy them together.

You get to like ninety, but they're two very different stakeholders. So I like it's it's I mean, I don't. And i'm not saying that is not something that we want to see improve. Um and yes, I am acknowledged the irony then i'm putting a lot of faith in A K Y C suit uh my pool but I will say that they seem like they have their heads on straight in a lot ways and I don't interacted the chinese side of the of the ball game. Um but in general, miners, I think would rather not have any kind of uncertain tior chaos for stuff.

So I think IT in general, if we saw any kind of contentious type of attack, type of change, um a lot of miners would act himself interest and try and seek out away to to mitigate that whether that switching calls, as Steve said, yeah primarily switching polls right. And now we do have like a you know ocean doesn't really have that much as rate, but we have the ability for people to self mine their ability to move to ocean and use that and choose their own. The block instruction or moto foundry, for instance, right? If they're doing one of the and just even more before, there's lot new last year when I say that the ant pool bit man mafia has fifty percent is because of of the way block instruction works. Basic like the central al back of ankle is handling a lot of the back ground for a lot of smaller apples. So there is a bunch of smaller people that in effect can be thought of best one pool and they all add up to fifty percent continue.

Yeah I go with everything you said um and the my statement about increase centralization. I you I over the past four years or so, four, five years. And that's because of the the last thing he said, which is bit main, such amputees like a front for for many of the other branded polls today, and but so in yes， it's true minors can switch away from pools.

But a scenario concerns me is one in which if there are some kind of business incentive for both um boundary and bit min, which I agree, it's kind of it's healthy to have two two very different types companies in two very different jurisdictions run by probably very different cultures that is healthy for bitcoin. But let's say there there are some commonality in some business motivation or the logical or whatever the convinces both um it's possible that you know all day to do is change this often are the running silently. They don't need to go through a signing process or communicated publicly.

They can do IT silently and um you know and change is offered to support some new consensus will will change um and in so in in in that scenario, there's um no fleeing of minors if there if they're unaware. Now also in the scenario um let's say there very less is I mean it's silent maybe that when the the minor start doing these two is reminding pools, but then a handful of economic notes and services adopted because they're climbing that they like some services, depend they are being built today or depend on a consensus al change, like their VC are funding them to do a start up in a service that depends on the consensus. Change is huge risk because as the firm stated earlier, the odds are bitcoins is not going to change, which means the service won't work.

But if if if the consensus change is supported by hashing, then those services could provide features that other customers to lock up big coin with those new rules and the rest of the network, the rest of the economic nodes do not can be blind to this or like you know, they don't need Operate. There's often are um they don't need even be aware of IT and this could happen and it's a very dangerous situation if the customers of these new services start locking up their big coin because while IT works fine, as long as the miners keep producing blocks that support those new rules. What can happen is if people are if are really locking up the coin in these scripts with the new rules that builds up a bounty.

The reason that becomes a bounty is that if the miners, if if haris decides to effectively fit one percent attack and roll back those rules, what the rest of the network sees is that anyone can spend that how soft works work. So if the rest of the network never updated the offered support, these new rules and the minor role back those rules, the rest the network doesn't lose any sleep IT literally doesn't change the rest of network at all. But what happens to the customers who had locked up their bitcoin with these new rules, they just lost all their money.

Um or I mean, what technically happens is there is a chain split, there is a fork. And those who locked up the bitcoin with the new rules and the services and economic notes to support the new rules would be on one chain, the rest network be another chain. And of course, that's like a total shit show scenario.

Just so hypothetically, uh the ample mafia, their fifty percent has rate and founded, they both update to the software. People are locking up funds, whatever, then they're still like ten percent of hash that's not but them. And let's stick well, just for for simplicity, say, let's say, someone minds a block and ocean, they construct their own block and then not running, you know, this corn code cigaret software.

And they spend that money. They take that money from the users that are have their funds locked up at that point. Then that software becomes a hardware, then there's a retroactive change plate effectively, right?

great.

And yes, so I mean, isn't there a game theory that as long as there's. But I guess at that point, so much of the hash is on the other side is on the secret software side that IT would have a significant amount more accumulation of of work. And while the other side would have like three percent, five percent of the hash, but at that point would become very obvious that a that secret self what happened and we would be hard for territory .

yeah think I mean, there's at least a couples in area to explore here. The one the one I think you're talking about is where you don't get one hundred and a high rate supporting these new rules. But like nineteen ninety five person or something and then like ocean or whatever still is supporting legacy, there can be a hard fork from that.

The scenario i'm talkin about is like let's just assume, uh a relatively cleaner, simpler er scenario where we go from zero percent of a great supporting a new role to one hundred percent um and then some transaction, some customers locking up funds with these new rules but the rest the vast majority of the network, not actually but economic notes, don't upgrade the requests after the to enforce the new rules. Which which and can have an out of ignorance that doesn't mean they're against them or or clearly means that they are not for them because they are they didn't not great, but IT doesn't. They are against them.

They just they could be unaware um and and then in that if IT let's say like a billion dollar like let let's say someone builds like some gambling caso mean coin trading service or something on you know with these new rules, you you can imagine that attracting tons of uh, customers so you want to get rich and like let's say a billion dollars is locked up in bicky transactions with these new rules. That's a large fountain. And all that has to happen then is a single person in the world that could be us.

Anyone could broadcast a transaction that spends all that billion dollars and pace yourself and then you give like half of IT to the miners in fees. And of now that transaction goes nowhere if the miners continue to support the new rules because that would be invalid with the new rules. So we just get rejected as invalid.

However, the miners are going to see this like half billion or billion dollar incentive. And at some fresh hold, they're gonna be like we want that money. And if there's a fifty one person attacks of the collusions among a very small set of mining polls, they want to to capture that guarantee and claim IT.

They they can do that. And if there if their calculation is correct that like the vast majority of the bitcoin networking didn't upgrade the Vicky rules, then is is only working off the small faction that wanted that really pushed ed for these new rules. Um another ingredient for the scenario is like another observation is important, understand.

Historically, every consensus change in bitcoin that has ocurred has been merged into the bitcoin four projects and IT comes through bitcoin core. And bitcoin core is one implementations of bitcoin. IT doesn't define bitcoin is just one implementation. But IT happens to be used by like ninety nine percent of the network, the dominant implementation, the network um so if the consensus changes merged there, IT doesn't mean bitcoin adopted. But if there's not huge controversy over a consensus change such as tap route is a good example or basically any change prior to cite with, there wasn't like a lot of controversy in Vicky.

And so the rest of the network just upgrades to the latest version of bitcoin core and then they have those rules um for this scenario though uh and what were observing is that that there might be protocol developers and in others and other stakeholder who want a consensus change in bitcoin, but the bitcoin core project isn't prioritizing evaluating IT or reviewing any changes and IT might not get merge diplo in core. So part of the big cap project, part of the the scenario that i'm describing is one in which an alternative client and like an alternative tive implementation is created to support the consensus rules and that can simply just be a fork of bitcoin core. And you add in the the consensus change and then getting adoption of that.

So a huge part of the analysis. And in the reason why in the scenario the like, I think the likely outcome is the most the network doesn't adapt these consensus rules is because they would have to switch away from bitcoin core to an alternative inflation. And that's a big decision.

Like imagine you're run a multimillion millar business if you don't have a great business need to for this new consensus change. Why would you adopt news software when the bitcoin car project has been something you've relied on for many, many years and that worked well? Like it's on its reputation of being secure, trustworthy, conservative around consensus changes. Um IT IT has that reputation for good reason and that's why most people run that software. It's a huge, huge chAllenge to get a network to adopt an alternate decent.

Yes, um. I mean, I think is kind of a cop out, especially after all the worker does did on the research paper a to say these two words, but a like rash. I mean, and I guess the beauty of bitcoin is soon not supose to assume that a grasp actors you just supposed to summer as greedier actors, but rational actors.

I mean, there's there's a game theory here where they wouldn't want to attempt some kind of secrets of or because there would be incredible messy. And you know, there there, there uses book, right? I mean in twenty seventeen g hang with a bit man like heavily supported b cash, but he never moved.

The majority was has over the b cash. He could not at any point moves you not are nearly seventy percent of the hash over the to be cash not just never happened and and there's there's something that's not objective and hard to quantify. But the reason presumably was because he was afraid that he's nobody without that right like he's got nothing and here he's afraid of of disrupting .

my golden goose yeah I I I hope that's true. Um so I mean I hope the scenario described is so far fetched and unrealistic that IT never comes to pass. But I think it's good to discuss IT um and and just so that so if if IT is easy as like everyone's like, of course we won't get in the well, let's have people thinking about that and having a top of mind so we don't actually go down go down that definitely hear from song walfers.

Um I mean, there's definitely frustration by people who have been earned, esty, working on like how to improve bitcoin technically with uh proposals and the frustration that IT doesn't get the attention from any active bitcoin court developers um or or not that many and IT doesn't get review cycles from the backward project. And I guess and another insight from working on the cap is um the kind of power that going core developers have, particularly the maintainers. It's it's like actually the opposite of what I hear a lot of people knew to bit me think like a lot of lot of people knew a bitcoin or even the people who have been around bitcoin for a long time.

But I don't really understand the biton court project or developers very well will assert that the maintainers like five people are in controller avoca like they can they can change bitcoin and were powerless and of course that's ridiculous and false. Um sure they can like click a button and merging a consensus change to picking core. But number one is public and transparent and everyone is going to see that and be like what the fuck you are you doing?

Um you know if there's not there's not consensus and over two people don't have to update te that software. Uh um if there is something that absurd, like there would be a fork of the vital core project and like people, the all the earnest you honest developers removed that so of course they don't have that power. But we but the flip of that um we observe that they do have, which is of a veto wish type power.

And I say that is because it's not a full veto, but because big coin core is so dominant in the network, it's it's so difficult to get to to ordinate the entire network to switch to a new project, a new implementation of bitcoin. Um if the bitcoin court project doesn't margin y consensus change, IT makes IT very, very, very difficult for the network to adopt that change. You would need to go through a scenario like I described five minutes ago. So I, so I I do do that power is is quite that is a big power by the become maintainers。

So I mean.

plenty of people are bullying .

me in the chat about audio quality and the quality. And I I I think the recording IT will be much Better quality. I am obviously not home, not my studio.

But I can hear a london Steve grade. So I think the report is the command grade, the. Is there an argument like I feel? Sometimes I feel like people came out of twenty seventeen like they took away the wrong things.

Is there an argument that there should be more hard works because it's cleaner than sf works like, you know, be cash? Obviously, the market can pully rejected that no one one of IT um IT didn't really have any kind of talented developers behind IT. IT was very much a um I think IT was just something clearly users didn't want right. And I was I was making the wrong trade off bonds. But is there an argument to be made that partially for contentious things, like anyone can hard for one of the cool, lest parts of a epcot is like little week, anyone can hard for if they want to, does IT not have like wireless edge cases of potential for chaos if you just have them just hard for and just see what happens.

I I mean I think I do that well. You sort of framed IT is like for contentious changes, I mean for non contentious changes. Um I I let me first state my my impression when I started really diving deep in the bacon in twenty and seventeen, my initial impression was south forks are just decidedly Better than hard forks.

They for any change that the software can be used and I don't know they get that simple. I think it's definitely there is a set trade off between the two. It's not as it's not that simple.

But having said that, I still think for any non content, just change a snow fork. Uh, it's its advantages, outward works. And because the if it's non content ous, no, we don't want anyone to fork off. We want to keep the network atack and the network is just so large and vast now IT IT seems incredibly difficult to get the entire network.

And you need a really, really, really long period of time, like five years or more look like for a flag day in which everyone has to have upgraded the rules within the net very, very long period time if you do IT. And like I mean, we show data in the paper on how long IT takes this nature court and I think average a year, whatever, right? I think if that the maybe that's the fifty fifty percent tio IT takes IT IT takes years for people that, that the whole network upgrade. So that's my thoughts on software persons. Hard for I think.

And I also think .

that so because hard works are very hard to pull off compared to the incubate network, most of the people that are in favor of a contentious change, let's say, the more progressive like people that are potentially progressive, they want a certain change. They have an incentive to try to make all of bitcoin change or they have a change that that is compatible with the existing network. Ah that's kind of what they ultimately want to do. So from their perspective, I would see why they're trying to you know they they instead push more toward a contentious software k then push towards contentious hard for work and just can't go play with.

Their own coin. And um .

but I mean, isn't IT doesn't go a reason that there are so many different times of stakeholders in bitcoin that almost everything will be contentious at this point.

Um well, the I mean I mentioned the great concern is clean up earlier.

I like i'm optimistic that, that will get i'll see that change and IT won't be controversial, but it's in the category bug fixes, right? So um as long as the the the suffers created super well tested veit um and then the purpose of IT is is clearly communicated, it's really hard to imagine any stake's holder not wanting to see IT because because even if you like, if her in the investors stay holder group and you only your definition or or the purpose of bitcoin in your mind is state a store value that all you care about. You should absolutely care about security that could ruin your story value.

So I do think that change is likely to get consensus, but new features much harder. But but again, if the way the dynamics now if the big coin core project can be convinced there is a change, including a new feature that is beneficial to the network and um doesn't introduce sufficient rest if he gets emerged in the big al core, that's a very powerful step because the inertia of the network is to run bitcoin core and then upgrade to the latest version of a vital core. So that requires a response then by the network to not have that change occur.

And I think cap route is a good example of that. Most people in the coin can't really explain tap route. Um I when I IT activated, I mean, I know if you if you if if if you you know on twitter or listen to your podcast, you ably heard of IT, but there's a lot of big winners who art on twitter um and a you so so even in twenty twenty one when activated, the you know and I bet a huge personal people in bitcoin or whole bitcoin weren't even aware of tap route and guess what they got IT you know they they um and so I think I think that could occur .

again yeah but IT was I mean a table might as well. I've been a decade ago like that was there's a different time and I think there is also a level complacency. Well, I don't know. We have just been out of twenty seventeen. We were like garden high tapper d i'd been like pretty well reviewed and like people are just like the stakeholder dynamic right now is really different.

I just I notes an incredibly controversial opinion and but I I just to me like I was I still I feel like it's a wrong take away from party seventeen with hard forks like for whatever like I know why the main reason were not we don't we we don't do hard for first is a security reason right? And IT IT makes sense to me, right? This idea that um if we do a hard fork there, all the previous kinds aren't backers compatible.

The problem of that is if there's a bug introduced or something like that, the network is cries to halt instead of people being able to fall back to older nodes. Are you run in other node? IT still works, right? That's a key aspect. This idea of sort works being backwards compatible.

And my ideal of like being opt in is actually kind of bulsted in my mind because if you have a great secret note, for instance, you're not seeing any secret transaction or any type of transaction like you're basically not interacting with the network. You just you're not verifying majority of of economic activity that happen in the network. And ultimately, you you have no choice but to be a part of IT.

So like the sort like when you're talking about consent rather than technical things, when you're talking about social consent, soft actually feels a little bit more insidious to me. IT feels a little bit more like the defender doesn't have the no change. Defender doesn't have as much agency in that situation.

Well, with a hard for like twenty seventeen. Yet IT was chaotic two degree. IT was a little bit messy. But ultimately, like if you just slept through the whole thing, you still had just as much biton as as before and and you just had just as much bitcoin cash before and you could just like waited out and see what happened on each side and you'd be completely fine.

I yeah some of us did quite well selling the big my career de, but you could just sit there and I I yes, just just really quick. But just for like something that's particularly contentious, like why like why I just weird to me that we don't see more hard works. Like why don't we just see like I mean i've just call IT up by by degree because like IT seems like a thing that most like A A lot of people a vocal minority have wanted which is up cat um is like why don't you just see like an opc at heart fork? You just do IT as a heart fork and then played IT out and see see what happens rather than trying to do this fall. It's song and dance.

I I mean, I think lin answer before is correct and answer that like I give what, let's say that happen. I think most observers, I certainly, including me, that hard fork would be destined to be the the next B C H R B S B would be IT would not get matched rate. Investors wouldn't Price IT very high.

I would just be this all to come almost certainly. And I think the people who are advocates for cat um they they don't want that. They genuinely enormously believe that cat makes bitcoin Better.

Their bitcoin. They want to see big coin have that. They want to see the big coin that all of us use have that. So is little said earlier there there they are not incentivised to do a hard hard work. It's like the opposite of their goals.

And point of my prior comment that um hard works soft works have different um different stay culture of different levels of power and in those scenarios. So to your point at um you know hard forks and soft twor ks uh affect those groups differently.

So in a hard fork scarier IT gives the investors a lot more power um the vast majority of the power where as uh in a in a contentious soft fork scenario or any sort of soft fork scenario um that gives economic notes uh and some of the other stakeholder groups generally more power than those uh investors, at least until there is a efficient long time that if they decide they don't only never anymore they could sell in and they therefore they could impair the network, but didn't really have much to say while that while that changes going. And so the network kind of move on without them. So I I agree that um you know obviously contentious outworks have risks, something as part of why we wrote this paper ah to explore some of those risks um but yeah I don't disagree with you.

I mean what do we do we agree that the first of the twenty one hundred bug that you mentioned that and no one figured out a way to do that, the software. So that's going to require our hard ford resume with something that we do way in advance that has a flag day that is like multiple clients compatible with, right? Like multiple released a big or compatible with.

So by the time we hit the art for you could be running, as you know, a five years back dated version, a biton is still comparable with the hard fork, but it's gonna require hard fork. But this idea that the the hard fork can never become the dominant chain, I think I think that might be misguided. Like because like biton as was fucking retarded, just to be Frank, like IT was never, never had a chance. That doesn't mean that we couldn't have something that may sense and had actual market demand that became the problem to change and became a biton. They could decide rich change bitcoin .

yeah IT would just be be um migrate to IT would IT would be really controversial, right? Because to set a date and like if you pick one year, I I think a huge portion of people would say that wait way to um soon and to get more people on board and not not only on board the change but on board of the activation mechanism m you'd need to pick IT to be like five years or more than the people who want that change.

Don't want to wait ten years for a flag that drop. So I think that's an interesting dynamic to discuss. So in in t that whole energy o that could be interest to add to the big cat project going deeper on that.

agree. Yeah, I think I think might take away from that thing is that is is not that hard forks can never win is that you need quite a lot of consensus to have the hard forks and the ones that were proposed uh or or activity ranging from b cash uh to secret two x just didn't hit anywhere near the threshold.

They will be required where something like a critical bug with the existing chain, that's that's the that's the highest um your obvious case for making the hard fork win. Um and there could be other other scenarios that are just um so powerful. May maybe so maybe before that, like twenty one hundred things happens, we have corner computers and that that that finally becomes like thing and maybe there's changes around that or something like that, like that, basically something that threatens the existing chain in such a way that the hard fork is clearly superior in that type of environment. Is probably the the news I I would envision for a successful hardworking .

um another but who I rapped I I want to know uh H I wanted to state another insight we had from the project which I took away is a really positive take away that I had not thought of before. And i'm not sure how many others have as well. But I know that there's like a element of the coiners who are concerned about with the emergence of E T.

S. And big institutional money and powerful entities like that, what what could that mean for the future of bitcoin? Um are they gna take control of bitcoin and d add like K Y C to the protocol at that. There's like a fear of that um definitely something which should be talking about in doing everything in our power to avoid. But from our analysis on this project, um I think there's a case to be made for the south custody individual investor having this proportion hour within the investor class.

And if you wind up in any kind of hard for scenario where in fork a and fork b that are being Priced or a futures market, where were speculating on fork a or fork b, which one's big coin? Which one do we that well, how does that market at work? Um IT requires.

Someone been, in the case of a hard fork, you, you, your, your big coin turns into two coins. I have the same x number of coins for both works. If I really feel strongly that fork a is that coin and fork b is not, and the fourth a is going to whole future value, then if if I I can put my mom out this, I can sell all the fork be and by I can double my stack size.

I'm forky. It's super attract a valley proposition if you have the guts to do IT and you believe in IT, of course, if you're wrong, you and you literally sell all of one and doubled on the other, you can going up the zero at going if you're not correct. But in that scenario, who are the investors that are in a position to do that and do that quickly? Its self custody investors, they not only own the victim, but they control the keys.

Whether if you think about like blackrock, fidelity um and big etf specials, there likely be very conservative because they don't own the coin. Their controlling, in fact, they don't even they don't oh IT and they don't control IT coin base, controls the bitcoin. Blackrock is just the issue and then of the owners of the shareholders.

So it's a much more complicated situation and obviously, black work. Very economies are highly regulated companies, so they're going to be very risk averse. There's tons of people involved in decision, the highly unlikely to sell one for dump IT and double down on the other. When is still contentious and being decided um even like corporate treasuries are gonna more slow moving, slow to act than a south custody investors. So you know given the early movement on such a market, can really suggest which what is bitcoin I think self custody investors have a lot about mean.

this is what the reasons why, like hard forks for content of stuff kind of a problem anymore. Not that like I pretend to be like the judge during execution of the ship. Um I would say steam mage earlier, like VC are some these are investing in things that require consensus changes.

I will just full stop say the ten one a has a big right where we will never invest in anything that requires a consensus change and that's not even necessarily ideological driven um which is also lines with ideology IT is just straight. If you invest in things that require consensus changes, you're probably burning your investors capital because that probably won't happen and you pick any individual consensus change. IT is very unlikely to happen on an individual basis. Um and I think I see that not from what I know, at least from the non dealt companies are eager of his investment. I don't think they've invest in anything that requires a consents of change in .

the correct that's correct. And I would say that the stealth one a is also in that category. Doesn't doesn't it's nothing particularly .

controversial.

Yeah yeah. I do think there's a lot of name day from like expecting bitcoin. The change for some of these new V C funded services.

I mean, I myself lost a bat um that I made a in twenty seventeen or twenty eighteen I I that ten million sets are that any prevent interpret would be activated by the end of I think twenty twenty there is someone of that and any private has never been activated and tapert activated like nine months after I the the the bed so well that that's not like eight nine thousand dollars so I feel I learned my lesson there something I was like really excited about and bulletin and I thought made a lot of them for biton. And I every every day in bitcoin, I learn how slow things move. And I, I, I, I very much embrace that now.

But yeah, if you're new a bitcoin in your VC, you're like, oh, all these shiny new things that can be done. They sound exciting. I can see how that can be um seductive.

But IT IT IT at minimum has to be acknowledged as an enormous risk. I mean, investing in start is already a high risk and then you are like a ten next mutilates. Er if not only the service that getting created, find product market fit and customers and business model, but you also need big coin to change. It's like a this small.

Also um any other insights you wanted cover uh from the paper.

One of the last ones is that we are defined state of mind which is that different different groups can have different level of conviction. So we again broke that down on the six categories. So one day of the spectrum, people there are four change, but they are also willing to expand resources to try to make that change happen.

Um then there are people that are now other side that are against IT and willing to expand resources um to stop that change from happening. Then you have the two that in a little bit where they either supported or against IT, but they're just kind of hands off. And there's two in the middle that are neutral for different reasons.

One is that they're ware of the change. They don't have an opinion, they decide on tea. I'm going to let the network figured that out or um they just don't even know it's happening. They couldn't tell you it's happening. Uh and so one of our goals with the paper um is to to get more people out of the unaware camp at least um to kind of increase the overall level of education, including for ourselves on how the network works and what some the risks are in consensus because I guess we figure at least I figured that um a more informed network is a healthier network.

No, yes, I agree knowledge power.

Yeah I agree, knowledge power and just what one last thing um again, it's an open source project is the beginning, not the end. So we very much welcome people to engage. We're not claiming this is a perfect analysis or that we will have all the answers here in this analysis.

So um there's undoubted things that can be improved and in new editions and islands at earlier going keeps changing as well. Even if this were a perfect analysis, IT wouldn't be a perfect analyses in in a few years. So we welcome contributors to uh uh file issues that they see, problems that people want to actually know, open P S and improve IT.

Uh we would like to see that. Um and then people who are um you really highly engaged in helping with the project. We'd love to have more maintainers of the project as well and people from different stakeholder groups. Uh you know a good diversity in in people who are engaging in the project would be would be great.

wonderful. Thank you guys for john Y. I enjoyed conversation. I hope to have both of you on again sometime in the future. And Steve, like pretty much a constant routine guest berlin, that would be a pleasure to have you back.

I appreciate that it's been great to be here.

There is a good discussion. So thank you guys for joining. Thanks to the freeze to join us in light chat, huge chat to the frees. You continue to support the show where the through podcasting two point of apps or through apps ms after a stream.

Um the top the top boost on podcasting two point apps from last week was eight mithra rode their freak with twenty one hundred sets, saying, good rip. Thank you. I I love having end back on and then takes up appreciated yes, please.

Thank you.

Our world is chaotic, but life found its way by channeling energy to bring order to chaos. IT is in our nature to six signals amongst noise, because IT is through communication and exchange that we evolve beyond the darkness, scale into the drawn of civilization, our evolution thrives. And exchange of all the info we try to convey, they flow through to the marketplace, inform the signals.

And n pete, this drives us too faciendo shape the world with our boys. Now let the market think so. We build me so we trade, we grow, we specialized to drive from the mind, our creations into reality.

We may progress in our process to get more for less advancing age of china logy spirity our money and bodies. The power to reach will be so. So the market becomes a channel for our connective energy to when value is traded to the value, we are aligned.

And so we evolve. This is how a most uncertainty life continues to grow. But the dawn of tech gave rise like speed information exchange.

So the transaction fast, further abstract money for energy, and became more mind and a few large entities to coordinate a trade, concentrating the power, resources and authority to create more and more of our money, distorting its signals, eroding its work and drawing us speck into the darkness. O. K. O.

When we destroy the mechanism of money, we destroy our ability to navigate through uncertainty. And when we can trade value freely and directly, we must trust a few to govern the mini. What happens when center around an auto complexity builds now LED realize observational, be true innovation when there is no freedom of expression.

What is whose and which problems can solve have our progress depends on hearing many sites. Why would we suppress the voice shaped our humanity of all? We cut up that make up society.

We lose side of the truth that forms are entire reality. Each person's contribution up our resilience say that we forget these differences of what strengths humanity. When communication breaks our words to the silence, our x become violent, and the world is divided and stop. The truth is twisted by our pain and our bias, eroding the common ground, making a more and more fragile .

to navigate uncertainty.

We must, so far, a bus ness. So everything gets tried and tested by the efforts until we discover the system that best coordinate us mirror's life's process of channeling energy to create signal from chaos in the era of technology, we transform energy into computational power, to process the noise of free markets and structure order.

And just by looking at numbers, arrive how much power is required to reduce chaos and inscribe a flow belly for all to verify that our transactions happened in line with shared rules, we don't need to seek trust when we can see IT is real tank consensus that allies us to. Of all, this is how most uncertainty allies continue to grow. And we have to hold our rules be preserve or in work, and defend our own voice, which lets the true market emerge.

The strength of the design lies in each of our participation. Since we are the notes channel our energy and to end, as we clam responsibility to and hold to our rights, we radiate the power that brings our truth in the light. And when that phone of like touches all parts of the globe and a ripples throughout society and IT returns as the home, that becomes the power, the spot humanity, to dig the same power that use the creation of the mind.

And when our are truly set free and they transact the limits of past boundaries, now knowing becomes owning and and what happens? Edge IT is food evolution. When things are the hardest, as we had for the light, we have to push through the door in these more of us.

We do what we do best. We take the chaos of the dance and use our power to create in these moments when you're all in alignment and a freedom of different ascents, us to a highest the step of IT all know that he is not done. IT is always start the fall done.