I was planning on not having an opinion on covenants and staying out of it and kind of letting the rest of the network decide but I'm now in favor of what shinobi said basically incremental conservative changes to bitcoin. I said all of that to point out that if my mind is changed maybe more people's minds are changing in support of this. But I'm just a user of the network that doesn't run a node.
If people want to change bitcoin, just copy the code, creat the “perfect bitcoin” and let the market determine if it’s good? People always think “their way” is best, blah blah. Let the free markets determine the best, not some random dude thinking his way is best and trying to change it.
Both are kind of past their prime… they’re in that bitter bitcoiner phase, always makes me think they have a sell or missed buy or three they just can’t stomach 😅
Loved this discussion with Shinobi, it's great to have the flip side of the story, even thought I have been oranged pilled by the Bitcoin OG, I've started to believe they may not anymore be the best voices of the original Satoshi mission to bringing Bitcoin (in term of electronic cash - implying self custody) to the whole world, thanks Peter for bringing this guest, looking for more guests on this side of the story
My question would be if transaction fee never hit the target to realize the covenant terms, are the coins burned? I would assume that products/services will have been rendered by then does this mean 27:13 that with 100% consensus, all parties could agree to a higher fee?
These people just seem like a bunch of children, self centred caring about getting there name in history for contributing to Bitcoin. This is global money for the next 1000 years, you are literally meowing and talking about JPGs and changes to allow shitcoins on Bitcoin. This will not ever happen, do better.
For the commenters saying they can’t trust someone in a mask, y’all should avoid Bitcoin because they never revealed their identity at all. Also, welcome to cypher punk culture.
Agreed. I don't understand why people cannot just judge the ideas based on their merit and need to see a face. You can really see that the plebs are entering Bitcoin now. Wait another cycle and people will be complaining that guests cannot be taken seriously because they aren't wearing a suit.
I'm most of the way through this. These 2 are immature and just want to experiment, flexing their brains with something. Something that is very serious without thinking it through far enough.
I don't think Bitcoin was designed to handle NFTs etc, could add a layer to it that would be separate but I don't see why Bitcoin needs it. Ethereum etc can handle that stuff.
@Peter, you are contradicting yourself. You ask, can you be self sovereign without owning a utxo, then you hear about the concept of shared utxos and you just want to be told that it is self sovereign. The point of being self sovereign is that you understand the details at least up to a level so that you remain in control the whole time. To then say you want it all abstracted away is a contradiction. Self sovereign users will appreciate the convenience, but they will also expect to be able to verify the technology, see the inner workings whenever they wish to from time to time, and then they'll carry on using the conveniences. Funnily enough, you are extracting the right information, but by intervening and saying "I don't care about that" or "I want it abstracted away", you're shutting down from learning more. Together, you can come up with abstractions that help others understand, but if you shut it down early, progress in helping people remain sovereign can't be made.
I didn't understand 90% of this podcast, maybe because I'm not technical enough or maybe it's because of the THC cookie from Canada... But the 10% it was fucking powerful. I'm not a maxi or a mini and I understand shit fuck all about the guts of Bitcoin, but I BELIEVE IN IT and as Knut say's bitcoin is us. I guess I need to do my part and say I'm with you guys and from the crowd in the back of this bus I'm rooting for you. Put it to the network vote, build a form of voting with your sats or with your utxo's somehow democratically if possible. I don't know man I'm high as fuck.. good one Peter
19:18 - So all covenants do is put restrictions on how you can spend UTXO" -yes - So they're making UTXO's more dynamic... NO YOU DORK! restrictions are the opposite of dynamism!
36:50 "If there is consensus among the rest of the network that we want to turn something on, miners should not have an option" But when it comes to fixing an OBVIOUS EXPLOIT and filtering spam... Then it's let's not do it because "miners will always mine spam"... CLOWN!
What are the implications of CTV and ordinals/inscriptions? Does this inadvertently add more abilities for their inscription behavior, like Taproot sorta did?
Nice to have Shinobi back, but it always creates great distrust in me if someone is this unable to frame the opposing sides arguments. Leads me to wonder what their own agenda and blind spots are.
so it's either gonna be the sandwhiches (CTV) or the cat (OPCAT) that's gonna be the next upgrade. I can't wait for covenant, so we can scale bitcoin from max 100 million users per year up to 1 billion users.
I will say just one thing: Anonymous coding/development proposals. Maybe not be as good on the feedback loop, but at least allows individuals to contribute their ideas to the project without being sacked by the current systems on the meatspace vulnerability vector. We all sorta knew this was coming, people getting persecuted by the old regimes for fighting for a good cause such as bitcoin (example the people who want mixers that enhance privacy and add doubt to chain analysis). Who knows, maybe the future of bitcoin development will be primarily Satoshi style: anonymous contributions to avoid getting found IRL and f*ed with via whatever available means. We know the world is not fair (yet).
This notion that small wallets cannot self custody is rediculous. Bitcoin is geniusly designed to block the new crew from 'oh I'll make it better"...ala iphone 87.
“Narrative wars” hold on a minute. Many people don’t understand the inner workings of a wrist watch yet we can argue till the cows come home on the practical effects time has on our civilization. So don’t give me that, “until you understand the code you can’t have insightful conversations about bitcoin” BS. Replace wrist watch with literally everything (airplanes, electricity, smartphones etc) Shinobi likes the sound of his own voice.
If Bitcoin isnt perfect, why doesn’t this dude create his “perfect Bitcoin”, copy the code, and let the market determine if it’s good? There will always be people out there who think “they can do it better”. I run my own node though so maybe l’m bias.
I stand by Saylor, Booth and Breedlove's theses that Bitcoin is a paradigm shift. Rather than that of someone who's just crawled from underneath a rock wearing his pants on his face.
GREAT JOB only part way through but what Shinobi misses to point out 2 fold, there would still be 100 on chain transactions for those hundred to get full control over their money, he assumes fees will come down to a level that is acceptable to a 'normal' person but MOST Importantly the virtual leaf TXs are invalid on the blockchain until the ones above them on their twig-branch... have been published, you ARE at the mercy of the provider to publish, alternative is everyone gets the twig-branch txs and can publish themselves at anytime - MAYHEM.
On an established L2 with CTV, you would ideally almost never have anyone exit on-chain. You'd just keep rolling VTXOs over to new ones. The fact that they're pre-committed to the base layer is good enough since that lets you exit on-chain if you NEED to. That's about as close as you can get without actually having your own UTXO on chain. CTV enables scaling with better L2 solutions like this, it doesn't scale bitcoin at the base layer.
thanks for the input. your comments bolded for clarity 𝗢𝗡 𝗔𝗡 𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗔𝗕𝗟𝗜𝗦𝗛𝗘𝗗 𝗟𝟮 𝗪𝗜𝗧𝗛 𝗖𝗧𝗩, 𝗬𝗢𝗨 𝗪𝗢𝗨𝗟𝗗 𝗜𝗗𝗘𝗔𝗟𝗟𝗬 𝗔𝗟𝗠𝗢𝗦𝗧 𝗡𝗘𝗩𝗘𝗥 𝗛𝗔𝗩𝗘 𝗔𝗡𝗬𝗢𝗡𝗘 𝗘𝗫𝗜𝗧 𝗢𝗡-𝗖𝗛𝗔𝗜𝗡. 𝗬𝗢𝗨'𝗗 𝗝𝗨𝗦𝗧 𝗞𝗘𝗘𝗣 𝗥𝗢𝗟𝗟𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗩𝗧𝗫𝗢𝗦 𝗢𝗩𝗘𝗥 𝗧𝗢 𝗡𝗘𝗪 𝗢𝗡𝗘𝗦. Your VTXO (presumably a LN type) is no use if the other party stops cooperating for whatever reason. I am led to beleive you can only create new VTXO's with the participation of EVERYONE who signed the PARENT VTXO and to be actually TRUSTLESS you have to follow this up to the root UTXO that is actually anchored in the blockchain. 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗙𝗔𝗖𝗧 𝗧𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗧𝗛𝗘𝗬'𝗥𝗘 𝗣𝗥𝗘-𝗖𝗢𝗠𝗠𝗜𝗧𝗧𝗘𝗗 𝗧𝗢 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗕𝗔𝗦𝗘 𝗟𝗔𝗬𝗘𝗥 𝗜𝗦 𝗚𝗢𝗢𝗗 𝗘𝗡𝗢𝗨𝗚𝗛 𝗦𝗜𝗡𝗖𝗘 𝗧𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗟𝗘𝗧𝗦 𝗬𝗢𝗨 𝗘𝗫𝗜𝗧 𝗢𝗡-𝗖𝗛𝗔𝗜𝗡 𝗜𝗙 𝗬𝗢𝗨 𝗡𝗘𝗘𝗗 𝗧𝗢. Only if YOU have the intervening transactions TRUNK - BRANCH - TWIG otherwise your leaf transaction will be rejected without publishing them all. Giving these out to everyone only invites someone publishing them to the detriment of others in a high fee environment 𝗧𝗛𝗔𝗧'𝗦 𝗔𝗕𝗢𝗨𝗧 𝗔𝗦 𝗖𝗟𝗢𝗦𝗘 𝗔𝗦 𝗬𝗢𝗨 𝗖𝗔𝗡 𝗚𝗘𝗧 𝗪𝗜𝗧𝗛𝗢𝗨𝗧 𝗔𝗖𝗧𝗨𝗔𝗟𝗟𝗬 𝗛𝗔𝗩𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗬𝗢𝗨𝗥 𝗢𝗪𝗡 𝗨𝗧𝗫𝗢 𝗢𝗡 𝗖𝗛𝗔𝗜𝗡. 𝗖𝗧𝗩 𝗘𝗡𝗔𝗕𝗟𝗘𝗦 𝗦𝗖𝗔𝗟𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗪𝗜𝗧𝗛 𝗕𝗘𝗧𝗧𝗘𝗥 𝗟𝟮 𝗦𝗢𝗟𝗨𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡𝗦 𝗟𝗜𝗞𝗘 𝗧𝗛𝗜𝗦, 𝗜𝗧 𝗗𝗢𝗘𝗦𝗡'𝗧 𝗦𝗖𝗔𝗟𝗘 𝗕𝗜𝗧𝗖𝗢𝗜𝗡 𝗔𝗧 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗕𝗔𝗦𝗘 𝗟𝗔𝗬𝗘𝗥. My point was if you didn't participate in making the ROOT UTXO then you are relying on whoever did. a defacto Custodian.@@slightlyfaulty
Please explain technically how one Shares a UTXO. In lightning you create a multisig transaction. With either your own node, or a watchtower you aren't 'Sharing' anything. What's yours is yours. The fees and so on are not just based on supply, but demand as well. If NO ONE CAN AFFORD a transaction, Fees NECESSARILY go down. That's how a fee market works. If you don't have your coins in position to spend in lightning much like if you don't have the ability to melt your gold bullion into coins because forges are too pricey. The fees being low during the ETF launch is showing this perfectly.
The moment at 21:20 where they are describing shared utxo's would be awesome to see Peter get a graphics designer to create a visual represntation of it while they speak.
Hey guys, thanks for another great show. Just going along the lines of this episode.. How come your Bedford bitcoin conference is basically excluding many normal earning folk eager to connect and share ideas/learn? £1000 is a little steep.. Let's be honest! It's £333 per day. Which doesn't sound bad if you're doing ok, but out of reach for many out there wanting to step up You always go on about wanting to bring the average joe blogs into bitcoin.. I don't understand the approach here? Tried to get my police dog training instructor bro to come along having got him up to the first level. One look at the fee and he bailed on me. We're both in North West London
Here’s another question: do most people or will most people want to be self-sovereign? And if so, are they willing to accept the responsibilities that come with it?
I'm with you. Does any of this improve scaleability? Or is it just non-sense? Also, If BTC achieves world reserve currency status what prevents "WTFH in 1971" ?
None of this makes me feel comfortable about the future of bitcoin. There should be a Bitcoin constitution that outlines the rules and core values that are nonnegotiable.
Everyone self-sovereign is similar to a libertarian ideal of no government or no laws in that it requires all people to be radically more independent than they have come to be. Maybe we can incremental our way there with little damage to normal life, but it would be a trade off between speed of approach and damage to normal people/life.
Too many extremely stupid people and mentally/emotionally flawed peeps who want to (or need to) be controlled and "protected". ... Perfect ancap system cant work for the 30 percent idiots
Because base chain fees could become so high that the vast majority of the global population would not be able to afford a transaction, and therefore would not be able to own an utxo.
Is it even a "settlement layer" if itcsettles transactions slower than the traditional fiat settlement layer? He wants to trade settlement speed for reducing net fees. If you trade away settlement speed , you effectively remove an aspect of its "salability across time", reducing "the properties of money" score. Result: an attack on bitcoin
Remember CTV is to enable better 2nd layers, it's not about improving actual on-chain usage itself. The whole idea with CTV is that by having transactions that pre-commit to settle on chain, you allow 2nd layers to transact with these VTXOs trustlessly because you can always exit to the base layer at any point. You can think of it sort of like futures contracts compared to spot. But in this case the futures contracts are always 1:1 with spot.
Shinobi is spot on about the narrative parroting and the total lack of understanding for where these narratives came from. It’s insane how prevalent it is. Ultimately, those who come from 2017 or earlier knew this day would come. The day the normies and the bad actors, uneducated, or biased, all come and join us. The classic meme “just heard about Bitcoin, and I’m here to fix it”…
Soft fork, none of the proposals require a hard fork. But Bitcoin will require a hard fork in the future, but we're all dead by then, unless it's done earlier.
if you batch transactions including inputs that's much more tx per block without increasing size. segwit was block size increase too, impatient thing was it wasn't a forced arbitrary hard fork like morons only do. block size alone is literally the dumbest solution
I really enjoy these technical talks, and demystifying some non factual stuff by actual experts, and not influencers.
brian trollz is an influencer and is absolutely influencing you
I don’t trust this guy. Reminds me of high school. Immature, not a critical thinker, one-sided.
Agreed slimeball
Another guy who thinks he knows better than everyone else and everyone else is stupid 🤦♀️
Does this guy really think that mask hides his identity 🤡
Used to love watching Shinobi's show back in the early days.
Nobody sees all of the attack vectors while they're busy playing.
I was planning on not having an opinion on covenants and staying out of it and kind of letting the rest of the network decide but I'm now in favor of what shinobi said basically incremental conservative changes to bitcoin.
I said all of that to point out that if my mind is changed maybe more people's minds are changing in support of this. But I'm just a user of the network that doesn't run a node.
If people want to change bitcoin, just copy the code, creat the “perfect bitcoin” and let the market determine if it’s good? People always think “their way” is best, blah blah. Let the free markets determine the best, not some random dude thinking his way is best and trying to change it.
Get Shinobi and Jimmy Song to discus whether BTC needs to change or not to achieve a variety of specific goals.
Both are kind of past their prime… they’re in that bitter bitcoiner phase, always makes me think they have a sell or missed buy or three they just can’t stomach 😅
I don't trust this dude.
Same. Snake
Loved this discussion with Shinobi, it's great to have the flip side of the story, even thought I have been oranged pilled by the Bitcoin OG, I've started to believe they may not anymore be the best voices of the original Satoshi mission to bringing Bitcoin (in term of electronic cash - implying self custody) to the whole world, thanks Peter for bringing this guest, looking for more guests on this side of the story
This guest seemed so sincere, I wondered if he is satoshi. 🙏
Great interview Peter
Shinobi: "I got into bitcoin because I love money" You have to assume everyone is a bad actor or eventually becomes one. Even guys like Shinobi.
My question would be if transaction fee never hit the target to realize the covenant terms, are the coins burned?
I would assume that products/services will have been rendered by then
does this mean 27:13 that with 100% consensus, all parties could agree to a higher fee?
Thats what im wondering too
These people just seem like a bunch of children, self centred caring about getting there name in history for contributing to Bitcoin. This is global money for the next 1000 years, you are literally meowing and talking about JPGs and changes to allow shitcoins on Bitcoin. This will not ever happen, do better.
For the commenters saying they can’t trust someone in a mask, y’all should avoid Bitcoin because they never revealed their identity at all. Also, welcome to cypher punk culture.
Agreed. I don't understand why people cannot just judge the ideas based on their merit and need to see a face. You can really see that the plebs are entering Bitcoin now.
Wait another cycle and people will be complaining that guests cannot be taken seriously because they aren't wearing a suit.
identity doesn't matter, conversation does. only morons who ad hominem instead of learn care about identity
I'm most of the way through this. These 2 are immature and just want to experiment, flexing their brains with something. Something that is very serious without thinking it through far enough.
I don't think Bitcoin was designed to handle NFTs etc, could add a layer to it that would be separate but I don't see why Bitcoin needs it. Ethereum etc can handle that stuff.
Don't like this guy at all. Really creepy aura about him
Everything he proposes my node will reject.
Now done. The problem with 'know it alls' is that they can't learn anything. Let's get some mature brains in the room please.
Shinobi is one of my favorite thought leaders in the space. Thanks for getting him on
What about Casey Rodarmor? Is he attacking Bitcoin or does he just like the jpgs?
sooooo can anyone tell us who is the guy that joined the pod after it started and sat on Danny's place?
This guy doesn’t seem very fun to hang out with.
I can’t take anyone that wears a mask seriously.
I take it you don't take Satoshi seriously either.
Satoshi is legit anonymous this guy is just soy infused beta energy @handyrams4822
@Peter, you are contradicting yourself. You ask, can you be self sovereign without owning a utxo, then you hear about the concept of shared utxos and you just want to be told that it is self sovereign.
The point of being self sovereign is that you understand the details at least up to a level so that you remain in control the whole time. To then say you want it all abstracted away is a contradiction.
Self sovereign users will appreciate the convenience, but they will also expect to be able to verify the technology, see the inner workings whenever they wish to from time to time, and then they'll carry on using the conveniences.
Funnily enough, you are extracting the right information, but by intervening and saying "I don't care about that" or "I want it abstracted away", you're shutting down from learning more. Together, you can come up with abstractions that help others understand, but if you shut it down early, progress in helping people remain sovereign can't be made.
Great post
I didn't understand 90% of this podcast, maybe because I'm not technical enough or maybe it's because of the THC cookie from Canada... But the 10% it was fucking powerful.
I'm not a maxi or a mini and I understand shit fuck all about the guts of Bitcoin, but I BELIEVE IN IT and as Knut say's bitcoin is us. I guess I need to do my part and say I'm with you guys and from the crowd in the back of this bus I'm rooting for you. Put it to the network vote, build a form of voting with your sats or with your utxo's somehow democratically if possible.
I don't know man I'm high as fuck.. good one Peter
Same narrative with fiat money, people don’t understand that system either and still fling crap at each other never gonna change
If you add enough computers to the block chain u can become the majority 51% and take over the chain.
19:18 - So all covenants do is put restrictions on how you can spend UTXO"
-yes
- So they're making UTXO's more dynamic...
NO YOU DORK! restrictions are the opposite of dynamism!
36:50 "If there is consensus among the rest of the network that we want to turn something on, miners should not have an option" But when it comes to fixing an OBVIOUS EXPLOIT and filtering spam... Then it's let's not do it because "miners will always mine spam"... CLOWN!
What are the implications of CTV and ordinals/inscriptions? Does this inadvertently add more abilities for their inscription behavior, like Taproot sorta did?
Yes.
Covenents, like check template verrify alow for some smart contracts on btc
Isn't he just making up the extreme anything goes side so that he can see himself as a wise moderate? Do such people even exists?
More people/interviews like Shinobi please.
People in their 30’s and 40’s aren’t ‘trolling’. They’re just being stupid.
Nice to have Shinobi back, but it always creates great distrust in me if someone is this unable to frame the opposing sides arguments. Leads me to wonder what their own agenda and blind spots are.
lol I always laugh when you have shinobi on because you guys have such a love hate relationship when I see you guys talk on twitter.
so it's either gonna be the sandwhiches (CTV) or the cat (OPCAT) that's gonna be the next upgrade. I can't wait for covenant, so we can scale bitcoin from max 100 million users per year up to 1 billion users.
I will say just one thing:
Anonymous coding/development proposals.
Maybe not be as good on the feedback loop, but at least allows individuals to contribute their ideas to the project without being sacked by the current systems on the meatspace vulnerability vector.
We all sorta knew this was coming, people getting persecuted by the old regimes for fighting for a good cause such as bitcoin (example the people who want mixers that enhance privacy and add doubt to chain analysis).
Who knows, maybe the future of bitcoin development will be primarily Satoshi style: anonymous contributions to avoid getting found IRL and f*ed with via whatever available means.
We know the world is not fair (yet).
This notion that small wallets cannot self custody is rediculous. Bitcoin is geniusly designed to block the new crew from 'oh I'll make it better"...ala iphone 87.
“Narrative wars” hold on a minute. Many people don’t understand the inner workings of a wrist watch yet we can argue till the cows come home on the practical effects time has on our civilization. So don’t give me that, “until you understand the code you can’t have insightful conversations about bitcoin” BS.
Replace wrist watch with literally everything (airplanes, electricity, smartphones etc)
Shinobi likes the sound of his own voice.
Welcome Shinobi😊🫡
The most interesting subject rn
It's annoying to hear The Blocksize War constantly referred to in plural, by almost everyone. It's not fucking Star Wars
If Bitcoin isnt perfect, why doesn’t this dude create his “perfect Bitcoin”, copy the code, and let the market determine if it’s good? There will always be people out there who think “they can do it better”. I run my own node though so maybe l’m bias.
I stand by Saylor, Booth and Breedlove's theses that Bitcoin is a paradigm shift. Rather than that of someone who's just crawled from underneath a rock wearing his pants on his face.
Once upon a time, Shinobi joined Peter and they took Connor Murray and Kurt of bsv to school. Shinobi is a legend.
My man Shinobi. Laying the facts out.
Erica next
Clearly Shinobi doesn't understand what Bitcoin is all about
can someone tell us who the guy who joined the show after it started and sat on Danny' place is?
One more thing. If these punks screw this up, I'm selling out and buying gold.
This was a fantastic conversation!! Loved it! Thank you!!!
one of my favorite episodes to date. great job, all of you!
GREAT JOB only part way through but what Shinobi misses to point out 2 fold, there would still be 100 on chain transactions for those hundred to get full control over their money, he assumes fees will come down to a level that is acceptable to a 'normal' person but MOST Importantly the virtual leaf TXs are invalid on the blockchain until the ones above them on their twig-branch... have been published, you ARE at the mercy of the provider to publish, alternative is everyone gets the twig-branch txs and can publish themselves at anytime - MAYHEM.
On an established L2 with CTV, you would ideally almost never have anyone exit on-chain. You'd just keep rolling VTXOs over to new ones. The fact that they're pre-committed to the base layer is good enough since that lets you exit on-chain if you NEED to. That's about as close as you can get without actually having your own UTXO on chain. CTV enables scaling with better L2 solutions like this, it doesn't scale bitcoin at the base layer.
thanks for the input. your comments bolded for clarity
𝗢𝗡 𝗔𝗡 𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗔𝗕𝗟𝗜𝗦𝗛𝗘𝗗 𝗟𝟮 𝗪𝗜𝗧𝗛 𝗖𝗧𝗩, 𝗬𝗢𝗨 𝗪𝗢𝗨𝗟𝗗 𝗜𝗗𝗘𝗔𝗟𝗟𝗬 𝗔𝗟𝗠𝗢𝗦𝗧 𝗡𝗘𝗩𝗘𝗥 𝗛𝗔𝗩𝗘 𝗔𝗡𝗬𝗢𝗡𝗘 𝗘𝗫𝗜𝗧 𝗢𝗡-𝗖𝗛𝗔𝗜𝗡. 𝗬𝗢𝗨'𝗗 𝗝𝗨𝗦𝗧 𝗞𝗘𝗘𝗣 𝗥𝗢𝗟𝗟𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗩𝗧𝗫𝗢𝗦 𝗢𝗩𝗘𝗥 𝗧𝗢 𝗡𝗘𝗪 𝗢𝗡𝗘𝗦.
Your VTXO (presumably a LN type) is no use if the other party stops cooperating for whatever reason.
I am led to beleive you can only create new VTXO's with the participation of EVERYONE who signed the PARENT VTXO and to be actually TRUSTLESS you have to follow this up to the root UTXO that is actually anchored in the blockchain.
𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗙𝗔𝗖𝗧 𝗧𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗧𝗛𝗘𝗬'𝗥𝗘 𝗣𝗥𝗘-𝗖𝗢𝗠𝗠𝗜𝗧𝗧𝗘𝗗 𝗧𝗢 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗕𝗔𝗦𝗘 𝗟𝗔𝗬𝗘𝗥 𝗜𝗦 𝗚𝗢𝗢𝗗 𝗘𝗡𝗢𝗨𝗚𝗛 𝗦𝗜𝗡𝗖𝗘 𝗧𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗟𝗘𝗧𝗦 𝗬𝗢𝗨 𝗘𝗫𝗜𝗧 𝗢𝗡-𝗖𝗛𝗔𝗜𝗡 𝗜𝗙 𝗬𝗢𝗨 𝗡𝗘𝗘𝗗 𝗧𝗢.
Only if YOU have the intervening transactions TRUNK - BRANCH - TWIG otherwise your leaf transaction will be rejected without publishing them all. Giving these out to everyone only invites someone publishing them to the detriment of others in a high fee environment
𝗧𝗛𝗔𝗧'𝗦 𝗔𝗕𝗢𝗨𝗧 𝗔𝗦 𝗖𝗟𝗢𝗦𝗘 𝗔𝗦 𝗬𝗢𝗨 𝗖𝗔𝗡 𝗚𝗘𝗧 𝗪𝗜𝗧𝗛𝗢𝗨𝗧 𝗔𝗖𝗧𝗨𝗔𝗟𝗟𝗬 𝗛𝗔𝗩𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗬𝗢𝗨𝗥 𝗢𝗪𝗡 𝗨𝗧𝗫𝗢 𝗢𝗡 𝗖𝗛𝗔𝗜𝗡.
𝗖𝗧𝗩 𝗘𝗡𝗔𝗕𝗟𝗘𝗦 𝗦𝗖𝗔𝗟𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗪𝗜𝗧𝗛 𝗕𝗘𝗧𝗧𝗘𝗥 𝗟𝟮 𝗦𝗢𝗟𝗨𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡𝗦 𝗟𝗜𝗞𝗘 𝗧𝗛𝗜𝗦, 𝗜𝗧 𝗗𝗢𝗘𝗦𝗡'𝗧 𝗦𝗖𝗔𝗟𝗘 𝗕𝗜𝗧𝗖𝗢𝗜𝗡 𝗔𝗧 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗕𝗔𝗦𝗘 𝗟𝗔𝗬𝗘𝗥.
My point was if you didn't participate in making the ROOT UTXO then you are relying on whoever did. a defacto Custodian.@@slightlyfaulty
Please explain technically how one Shares a UTXO. In lightning you create a multisig transaction. With either your own node, or a watchtower you aren't 'Sharing' anything. What's yours is yours.
The fees and so on are not just based on supply, but demand as well. If NO ONE CAN AFFORD a transaction, Fees NECESSARILY go down. That's how a fee market works. If you don't have your coins in position to spend in lightning much like if you don't have the ability to melt your gold bullion into coins because forges are too pricey. The fees being low during the ETF launch is showing this perfectly.
Can you finance a house with 15% down at 5% 30 year using only bitcoin?
one btc is worth your house, your wife, your daughters and all your chickens. so no financing necessary
SHINOBI have a X account?
brian_trollz
Unfortunately. Stay away from it
government covenant coming to a town near YOU!
a virtual utxo is a promise to pay...
This guy disapeared from Twitter
When is Block Digest coming back?
If it aint broke, whats there to fix?
Great show Peter. Well done all.
What's the fancy dress all about?
that entire covenant sounds pretty bad...
Welcome back, Shinobi!
👎
The moment at 21:20 where they are describing shared utxo's would be awesome to see Peter get a graphics designer to create a visual represntation of it while they speak.
Hey guys, thanks for another great show. Just going along the lines of this episode.. How come your Bedford bitcoin conference is basically excluding many normal earning folk eager to connect and share ideas/learn?
£1000 is a little steep.. Let's be honest! It's £333 per day. Which doesn't sound bad if you're doing ok, but out of reach for many out there wanting to step up
You always go on about wanting to bring the average joe blogs into bitcoin.. I don't understand the approach here?
Tried to get my police dog training instructor bro to come along having got him up to the first level. One look at the fee and he bailed on me.
We're both in North West London
Here’s another question: do most people or will most people want to be self-sovereign? And if so, are they willing to accept the responsibilities that come with it?
Brain melted
What's the point of the mask if he's showing his eyes?... Isn't that the bigger risk than mouth/face?
I barely understand any of this, but still an interesting watch.
Wondering if its even something that normies should even focus on.
Bitcoin = good.
GUYS!!! Right now big glitches are happening on the DEX, I did a vldeo showing that, when you exchange it gives you x 9
I'm with you. Does any of this improve scaleability? Or is it just non-sense? Also, If BTC achieves world reserve currency status what prevents "WTFH in 1971" ?
Satoshi?
None of this makes me feel comfortable about the future of bitcoin. There should be a Bitcoin constitution that outlines the rules and core values that are nonnegotiable.
Love your wisdom of consensus politics with devs Peter - keep up the good work. So great to see Shinobi and listen to his expertise.
Legend.
I like to think of myself as fairly tech savvy and I literally had no idea what your talking about more than half the time. 😅
If you want to watch Jeremy talk about this at length just watch the Hell Money podcast.
Is there no situation where a covenant is impossible to confirm? Therefore a frozen UTXO persists forever?
more of this please - developer stuff is the source. It's the new macro
Great show! It's a nice change from all the ETF discussions.
1:24:40 one says its the same the other says its more edvanced.
Everyone self-sovereign is similar to a libertarian ideal of no government or no laws in that it requires all people to be radically more independent than they have come to be.
Maybe we can incremental our way there with little damage to normal life, but it would be a trade off between speed of approach and damage to normal people/life.
Too many extremely stupid people and mentally/emotionally flawed peeps who want to (or need to) be controlled and "protected". ... Perfect ancap system cant work for the 30 percent idiots
nice one, pls more technical stuff!
Why not changing Bitcoin will prevent the majority of people from holding their keys exactly?
Because base chain fees could become so high that the vast majority of the global population would not be able to afford a transaction, and therefore would not be able to own an utxo.
55:30 what did you get sued for?
Is it Halloween again?
Very good episode.
how is that covenant ANY DIFFERENT than a legacy swift Final settlement?
Seriously? It's completely different in every way.
covenant is just a Bitcoin script, like every single utxo has a Bitcoin script locking funds. what in the hell are you talking about
mask??
Is it even a "settlement layer" if itcsettles transactions slower than the traditional fiat settlement layer? He wants to trade settlement speed for reducing net fees. If you trade away settlement speed , you effectively remove an aspect of its "salability across time", reducing "the properties of money" score. Result: an attack on bitcoin
Remember CTV is to enable better 2nd layers, it's not about improving actual on-chain usage itself. The whole idea with CTV is that by having transactions that pre-commit to settle on chain, you allow 2nd layers to transact with these VTXOs trustlessly because you can always exit to the base layer at any point. You can think of it sort of like futures contracts compared to spot. But in this case the futures contracts are always 1:1 with spot.
Shinobi is spot on about the narrative parroting and the total lack of understanding for where these narratives came from.
It’s insane how prevalent it is. Ultimately, those who come from 2017 or earlier knew this day would come. The day the normies and the bad actors, uneducated, or biased, all come and join us.
The classic meme “just heard about Bitcoin, and I’m here to fix it”…
Subzero?
❤
The twist I don’t think most people want self custody.
I'm 13 mins in.
Is the guess arguing for a hard fork or for soft forks?
Soft fork, none of the proposals require a hard fork. But Bitcoin will require a hard fork in the future, but we're all dead by then, unless it's done earlier.
Sheesh just use ltc
Is Jason Lowery next?
Finally all maxis are starting to realize small blocks is insane
Increasing the block size is not a solution, because it directly threatens decentralisation.
No. Decentralization is key. There will be banks on top of these layers.
if you batch transactions including inputs that's much more tx per block without increasing size. segwit was block size increase too, impatient thing was it wasn't a forced arbitrary hard fork like morons only do. block size alone is literally the dumbest solution
Naaaaa 😂