A (6:33)

Oh yeah, dude.

B (6:35)

So just my nostalgia.

A (6:38)

The biggest thing that I've Learned from since 2020 to 2025 in Shitcoins is how much I wish the bitcoin shitcoiners would go and use those shitcoins. I feel like I never appreciated how much we needed the shitcoins before. Yeah, I think I used to want them to die and now I want them to be more attractive, want them.

B (7:01)

To thrive so the shit corners will go back.

A (7:04)

Please take these people from us.

B (7:06)

Please. That's hilarious. That's hilarious. So I wanted to get you on because there's been a lot of loosely kept up with it. But one of the things with the spam debate and, and OPER and everything, there has been a new development and you have kind of been my source on this just because I. You. You've seem to have really kept up with this one. Well, you kept up with both of the last ones, but. So we had a bunch of really good conversations about. I was like, listen, this, this only makes sense. We should really just go into this on the show because I'm sure a lot of people have questions about what the hell is the cat? And it just, it. So there was a bunch of stuff about it being censored and now it was up on the mailing list again. I'm. I'm still very loose on it. I basically know what, what I've asked you and you have informed me of, but for the sake of the audience, why don't you give us the overview of kind of what you and I have already talked about. What is this new proposal? What is the cat, as it is being referred to, I believe.

A (8:22)

Yeah, so I've got the GitHub pulled up on my screen, so I'm going to go off of that as the source of truth. Written by somebody in NIM named Clear Ostrom. And it is essentially a new approach at trying to stop some of the spam on Bitcoin. Spam, as in NFTs, tokens, et cetera, et cetera. The cat is interesting because unlike previous attempts to look at how to stop spam, which usually revolve around like, you know, trying to introspect into the types of transactions and then, you know, like van opcodes or whatever, like 444 or 110 tries, you know, gets rid of OP if which, you know, the ORD envelopes, which is how you store or null, like NFT images on chain uses OP if traditionally. But of course, then the, the ORD guys will just be like, okay, we won't use OP if anymore. We'll use this, you know, opdrop or whatever other opcode, and we'll still make our little envelope like, you can't. It's basically the images are hacks in the first place and trying to like tell some hacker who. It's not like Bitcoin had like a please put your NFT here section, you know, so they found weird ways to do it and. And if you stop them from using that weird way, they'll just do it some other weird way. And so the cat kind of understands that and says, fine, we can't stop you from making these things and we're not going to try to stop you from making these things. Instead we're going to disrupt your markets, disrupt the trust in your markets and remove all financial incentive to do this in the first place. So you can do it all you want, but good luck trying to sell it. And so, and if you can't sell it, the thought is that, well, if you, if you mess up their markets and they don't make it a very like unattractive place to buy and trade NFTs, then you just won't have those problems at scale in the first place. And, and the way it does it is unprecedented and very controversial for good reason. It does it by and this is the short version, the, the, it's actually pretty, pretty detailed for a draft of a BIP at this early stage. But I, you know, in, let's see, I'm looking through it now so it's a lot to skin through. If anybody looks at Clear clear Ostrom on Twitter, I don't remember her name. It's got like some numbers in it. Oh it's at sign Ostrom. Ostrom 72158. Her link on her bio is the actual repo.

B (11:03)

Is it a new account or has it been around?

A (11:05)

It's new. No, it's new. It's definitely seems like a name that was made just for this. From what I can tell there's, I mean that's been brought up.

B (11:15)

I'll link to the GitHub so people can check it out and Twitter.

A (11:18)

And I don't blame this person even if it's really a girl. I don't blame this person for, you know, probably wanting to be anonymous because essentially what they're doing is saying we're going to get rid of the multi billion dollar market and all of your assets in that market. That's a pretty scary thing to do. So you know, I, I definitely wouldn't want my name attached to something like that. And I mean, you know there could even be like organized crime and who knows what in those markets. Those are definitely not like saints. All right. But, but so, so the way it does it, the unprecedented and highly controversial way it does it is but it's also brilliant in a way. It looks at instead of trying to find because ordinal transactions the way that they track their, their NFTs is they put them in the order envelope, they put the data on chain and then they use the ordinal theory which is how you track each satoshi according to their. It's contrived but it's Their way of tracking satoshis. You use the ordinal theory, which numbers your each satoshi and you say this satoshi number 1 million is this NFT. So whoever has satoshi 1 million just using that number obviously as random number, whoever has Satoshi 1 million has this NFT. And if you sell Satoshi 1 million to somebody now they have this NFT, the NFT doesn't actually move. And on a normal node, this Satoshi number 1 million is just a normal satoshi. It's just a normal. It doesn't have any op if in it, it doesn't have any data moving along with it. It's just a normal send of normal bitcoin. Looks like I'm sending you some bitcoin. And that's part of the brains of their ordinal system is that you know, you can't really censor the NFT because it looks like somebody's just sending somebody some bitcoin. The difference is the ordinal system knows well, that's not just any bitcoin, that's ordinal, that's satoshi number 1 million. And satoshi number 1 million is this dick butt over here. Whoever owns a million owns the dick butt. Yeah, whatever. One million is for sure something. The way that the cat stops at is it says, you know what, since you guys are essentially acknowledging that you're using bitcoin as this data storage system and you're using the satoshis essentially as like pointers in a database, you don't care that they're worth one satoshi. That's irrelevant to you because it's not worth one satoshi to you, it's worth one dick butt. Whoever owns the satoshi owns the dick butt. You've essentially acknowledged that this is a non monetary use of bitcoin. So we're going to take you out your word. We're going to use your classification rules which are pretty specified. There's no way that one of your innocent transactions would look anything like the dick butt satoshi. And that's because even though the individual satoshi just sounds like normal, it's historically attached to the dick. But so your normal bitcoin would never be attached to the dick butt in that way, but this one would be. It's tracked specifically by the ordinal wallets. And so it uses their rules. It creates a big list of non monetary UTXOs. All the UTXOs in Bitcoin that are explicitly 100% being used for data, basically they're just trapping data. Even though they technically are a satoshi. And it says that if you're going forward after, if the cat were to be activated going forward, nobody who is trying to. You won't be allowed to spend any satoshi that has been classified using this very deterministic method of saying, okay, this is derived from an ordinance being used as a data tracker. You won't be able to spend any of those satoshis anymore. And there's a few nuances in the rule to be safe. One, of course, it has to be derived from the ordinal. But two, there's a limit in size, and right now that limits a thousand satoshi. There's been some discussion as to whether it should be lower. Some people want it to be higher, but I think lower is better. There are some charts on the repo.

B (15:23)

That's what I was, I was about to ask.

A (15:25)

So.

B (15:26)

So let's say, because the ordinal thing is arbitrary in the sense that, like, I don't even have to know. Like, I could have an ordinal satoshi without even knowing that I have an ordinal satoshi. But, like, what's stopping? How would this not then prevent me from spending my UTXO if I've got, you know.

A (15:50)

So it's hypothetically possible. Say somebody made normal, but he doesn't care about ordinals. Or maybe he made a mistake and he accidentally sent his ordinals to an exchange. Like, as bitcoin, they can be burned as fees because it's counting. And the way that counts specifically, hypothetically, could be burned as fees, but let's say it's not burned as fees. Let's say it actually makes it in the UTXO into the output. And yeah, technically that UTXO would contain a satoshi that was attached to an orinal image. But in that case, the cat wouldn't affect it because it has a, what they call the max value MNU limit. And that is a value at which if the UTXO is bigger than, then it doesn't count. So right now it's a thousand. Could be smaller if they want to make it smaller. Or maybe they, you know, Depends on how much of these NFTs you want to catch. You catch most of them. There's a charts page on the repo. Let me look real quick. See charts. You catch most of them at the UTXO account by value. Yeah, here. So the chart that I'm looking at now, it's called the actual UTXO account by value chart. There's a total of 51,801,803 as of the block number. This was run on ordinals in or like image trackers UTXOs that are tracked to an image.

B (17:16)

51 million?

A (17:17)

Yeah, 51,800,000.

B (17:19)

Jesus.

A (17:21)

And that's, you know, more than a third of the entire UTXO set. And by data, it's more by Data, it's almost 40% of the data of the ETXOs. But data is subjective because it depends on how your client stores it. But at least on Claire's node and mine was similar when I did it because I compiled it myself to say see what this would look like. It was similar, but the data is going to vary a little bit depending on if your database has been cleaned up recently. And whatever is also background maintenance stuff that Core and Knots are doing. But essentially it's close to 40% of the size of your UTXO. So almost 40% of your entire bitcoin live state, which is the state that has to be referenced frequently because that's the bitcoin that is yet to be spent. Almost half of that is being used as like a data tracker for some nft, which is huge. Huge. Wow. Yeah, it's like I didn't realize that until this, until the cat came out, I didn't realize like wait, and all.

B (18:21)

Of these are sub. Like basically like a tiny amount of satoshi, like a negligible amount.

A (18:26)

I can show you my screen. So here we can see that less than 546 satoshi is 49.3 million of them. So 49.3 million of them are under 543.

B (18:44)

Oh, this is an exponential chart. This is not even like to scale. So like, because like the over 500k is 74,000, which isn't even slightly relevant in size to the 40. You would there. You wouldn't see anything other than that first, that first bar if it wasn't and a log chart.

A (19:03)

So yeah, you, you catch by making the limit a thousand, you catch like another 1.2 million. So it's a good argument to be made and I would probably, you know, I think we should probably move, if there were more discussion about this, probably is safe to move that limit to 546. So not even a thousand. Like anybody with less than let's say 547satoshi UTXO is safe. And it's very hard to imagine it's.

B (19:23)

Kind of on in the unspendable limit anyway.

A (19:29)

It would be very hard to imagine you'd have a 546 Satoshi output that was also inscribed and tracking an ordinal. But somehow for some reason you didn't anticipate that it was an ordinal. I don't know who sent you 546sats on chain and it happened to be the same output as their ordinal. It just seems extraordinarily unlikely that that would happen. But if it did happen, you know you're going to lose 546 SATs and so it's not that that bad. But also you could save them by simply just spending it and consolidating it with a very easy X up. So it would be very trivial to do something about it if you wanted to keep those 546sats, which might cost you 546sats to spend. Who knows. But so, yeah, so, so there's a limit. So that's how we protect innocent transactions, actual monetary transactions, from unknowingly getting in there. And that also serves as like a, an escape hatch for those who are super passionate about their, their NFTs and they just like, you know what? I'm going to consolidate all of my NFTs into larger UTXOs because, because I don't want, I don't want them to be deleted by the cat. And by deleted we mean removed from the UTXO set because it can't actually delete them.

B (20:52)

Yeah, obviously you can't actually remove anything.

A (20:54)

You just. So we're just, we're just cleaning up your, your, your nodes database, your live state. And it won't store those transactions in a TTXO set anymore. And, and it won't, it won't take up all that space and, but it also won't let them spend them and also works on stamps. Although for stamps it's different because stamps don't transact on chain anyway. So for the stamps it only removes the utxo. It doesn't stop them from spending them, but it's fine because at least stamps.

B (21:22)

Are unspendable though, right?

A (21:24)

The stamp itself is unspendable. Their cool like advertising spiel is like, screw bitcoin. We don't care about Bitcoin. We just want like forever art. And so we're going to put it in your UTXO set and make you store it forever. And so stamps intentionally says we're unprunable. You can do like an opportune nft, but they say no, we're better than that because we're unprunable. And so they intentionally put it in the UTXO set and brag about how you can't prune it, which is really seen as, at least historically, has been seen as one of the most damaging aspects of spam is the impact on the UTXO set. And so this, while it won't stop the stamps from spending, it will remove the stamps from the UTXO set, which essentially makes them.

B (22:10)

I have a question for you and maybe you don't even know precisely the answer, but because I know there are some where it's like, oh, you can't remove this because, like there's this apparent unspendable nature of a public key or whatever, like a proof of burn address, but you technically don't know for sure that it's actually proof of burn. Somebody could have actually generated the highly unlikely public key. Is this kind of the same situation with stamps? Because, like, I wonder, I've always wondered why there wouldn't be a kind of like, best Most likely, like 99.9% chance that you can prune this stuff and not worry about it sort of thing where I could drop everything that is apparently a stamp on the chain.

A (23:04)

There are some, and I had not done like an analysis, see, like how many of these would, would be affected by this. But there are some fake pub keys which don't actually correspond to any valid point on the curve. And so they could never be spent ever again. You can mathematically prove that, like this key could actually never.

B (23:24)

It just couldn't be signed for, right?

A (23:26)

Yeah, but that's only half of the total keys. So I mean, half seems like a lot, but when we're talking about basically an unsolvable amount of space, you take one bit away, that's half of the half of the data gone, but the other half are, are on the curve. So you could still make them all provably spendable if you wanted. Like if somebody said we're going to, you know, remove all the ones that can probably not be spent, which is even still a little controversial because like, yeah, I mean it's like hypothetically mathematically proved, but if we're wrong, like, I don't know, like it's, it's.

B (24:01)

Well, the thing is, is that you could totally do this on like just purely client side. It's like, like, do we even. It's not even like, like you, if, if somebody wanted to keep them, they could still keep them. It just means that if somebody ever tried to spend it, it's going to be really, really hard to spend because it's not going to be, like, quickly relayed. Everybody's going to have to request, do you have this information? Because I don't have this information anymore. You know, like, they're going to look for it again. I wonder if there's just like a. I don't know. I've always wondered that because, like, a lot of this stuff is literally unspendable. And it's like, okay, how do we designate it as unspendable? And it's like if it causes a delay to them, but they're using what is essentially an exploit, it's like, I don't really care if they have a delay, you know, like, it's not my obligation to make it work for them if they're doing it, if they're literally using in a way that it's not. You know what I mean?

A (24:56)

There's a really cool proposal by. I think it's Robin Venice that proposed it and it's on delving Dick, when I've heard some people talk about it where essentially it makes dust, like archives the dust. And then if you are the owner of the dust, you have to go through some extra steps to submit, like within. In the transaction. You have to tell everybody, basically, like, this is where the dust lives and I'd like to spend it. And it's a lot of burden on the sender. But it, but it, but it doesn't.

B (25:30)

Prevent them from being able to send.

A (25:32)

Right. So it shifts the burden of like, the resources from the. Everybody in the world who has to hold it. Your one penny to you. Like, okay, fine, you want us to hold your one penny, we're going to archive it because it's one penny. But if you really want that one penny later, you can go through these steps and prove where it's at and you can get your one penny back. You know, it shifts the.

B (25:52)

Yeah, I remembered the proposal, something like that. I can't remember who it was. It.

A (25:55)

Reuben, you said Linus. Linus.

B (25:58)

Linus, yeah.

A (25:59)

The guy who does the. I think he does a bit VM stuff.

B (26:02)

Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, I thought that was an interesting, interesting proposal because like, like trying to fit there. There are these like, kind of naive ways that would pretty much be 99% accurate, like insanely relatively accurate to clean up the UTXO set and lower a lot of burden without actually doing almost any damage. And you could, you could leave it up to. You could leave a path to recovery without actually, like the, the relative cost to, to benefit would just be. It just seems to make perfect practical sense to do something like that.

A (26:44)

And now there's an open question. How damaging even is the utxosa? This is funny. I've been, you know, watching the, the, the mailing list since this cat thing came out. It's very interesting to me. It's a, it's an interesting conversation because it's like, yeah, you know, bitcoin is permissionless. You know, the money is uncensorable. But it's like, but what if, you know, at what point is. What if it's like 80% of all the data? What if it's like 99% of all the data and you know for a fact it's like somebody's penny spam and they don't care about money? Like, do we forever say, like, no, you know what? Even though every single one of us knows that this is abuse, even though every single one of us is paying for this abuse and it's infringing on our ability to use this as money because we're so principled, we're not going to do anything about it. Like, at a certain point, it's like, dude, if all of us know unambiguously, we're certain, thousand percent certain that this is junk. I think it's kind of rational to like agree as a network, as good stewards of the network say, we're, we're not, we're not going to extend to you the same rights as like money. We're not going to treat you like money just because he used one. Satoshi. I'm, I'm, I'm, I, I get the, the, the resistance to get it. Because it's like, it's part, it's like core part of bitcoin.

B (28:01)

Yeah, from the, from the resistance. Steel manning the other side. Because I mean like, I, I basically, this is a soft fork and like this, this isn't really something that I would support just because of the nature of soft forks. And I, I said, I've argued with a mechanic about it actually on the show, is that I'm, I'm literally not even certain if the risk and difficulty of a soft fork is justified for this problem. I, I'm not, I'm not convinced that it even needs something that serious. But the interesting thing about this is that it's, it is, it's not. Even though it's quote unquote or. Oh, actually, no, let me, let me steal, man, the, the against. Since that's the position that, since that's a position I'm taking, is that sats are fungible. You know, like sats are fungible. The network needs to be dumb, right? Is it not. Doesn't need to say these are good sats and these are bad sats. And this is essentially what. And it makes sense too. I like the name. Or did they call it the cat? Did the person who did this call it the cat? Okay, they called it the cat.

A (29:09)

Okay.

B (29:10)

But the idea of the cat and the mouse is that like, you know, the only way to fight spam is an ongoing fight. There's no, there's no like perfect solution. It's like you have to like one on one respond. But the interesting thing when you and I were talking about it is that it attacks the market rather than anything in the protocol by simply clearing up. Oh, you're, you're listing these as non monetary transactions. Like okay, well we accept that and we'll delete these non. We'll essentially remove these non monetary transactions so that the monetary ones can continue to, to be usable or, or don't have to like deal with. We're not paying the cost to, to keep your non monetary open.

A (29:59)

Question how damaging damaging UTXO said is. You know, Gregory Maxwell has responded on the mailing list to Claire saying essentially that this was a negligible amount.

B (30:12)

Claire, the, the person's been responding on the mailing list because I, I haven't kept up with that.

A (30:16)

Yeah, so, so, so Claire has her proposal on the mailing list and Gregory Maxwell has responded and he said essentially to her that even if this were passed, it's only, it's a, it's going to clean up a negligible amount of data on the UTXO set. And I'm thinking to myself it's like 40%, right? Yeah. How is that? If 40% is negligible, then why do we care about like the, the, the, the two or three transactions that Citrier might do if they don't have OP return limits increase? Like why are we even talking about like oh no, we can't let spammers create fake pub keys or else they'll spam the UTXO set. Like if 40% is a negligible amount, then what does it matter? Let them spam the UTXO set and let's do whatever we want to do and don't care if they run it to figtub keys. Apparently if it doesn't matter like what's.

B (31:03)

The what then becomes the argument for raising the OPER turn limit at all. If, if that was negligible, you know.

A (31:12)

Like if ETXOs say that's irrelevant and not. Doesn't hurt Bitcoin at all. And we can just have, okay, 90% of the ETXO set spam. If it doesn't matter, then who cares? Okay, make them use sick pup keys then. I guess. I don't know. I'm not Gregory Maxwell, but, you know, he's pretty smart, so I don't know. I thought it was a problem, but, you know, this is. This is breaking news, not a problem, apparently. I don't know, trying to catch up with the moving, the shifting narratives here. And I, and I think hopefully maybe, you know, there's a lot of good that can come out of the cat. And I, and I do understand why people are like you said, you want stats to be fungible, you want the network to be dumb. I think that's totally fair. I think it's definitely scary to think that, like, the network could discriminate against a good SAT and a bad sat. And in general, I would never support anything that does that generally. But I do think, though, if it were a problem, if we did say, you know, if it were a choice between, well, you know, maybe you won't be able to run a node anymore because of all the spams there. I don't even know if that's an outcome that's possible with UTXO spam or not. I'm just saying if it were the case that the UTXO spam could materially result in, like, regular Joe can't run UTXO set or can't run the node anymore, or we have to do something drastic like, say, okay, maybe the abuse of the network isn't funnable with, like, people using it as money, which we kind of already have. Like, every network kind of already accepts this. Like, when there's an inflation bug or any other clear abuse, the network says, we don't care, like, what you thought, what rights you thought you had. This is obviously something that nobody wants and we're going to just, you know, roll it back or fix it or whatever this is.

B (32:53)

This is the thing that has always, like, bugged me about the conversation on censorship, on the idea of, like, especially, like, nimble policy being censorship, which is so ridiculous to me. But is that, like, it immediately begs the question as to what is a bug? Like, what is an exploit? Because you have to say, the only way to actually come to that conclusion is to conclude that what they're doing with stamps or creating fake pub keys and, like, shoving, using, literally, like empty opcodes or empty Script information that doesn't actually have a function, but just tricking it into paste it like into sticking in pieces of a jpeg. You have to figure out how to argue that that's not an exploit of the transaction format, of, of the, of the use of the system. Because as soon as we're doing that, as soon as you. That's the only way that you can say that any of this is censorship. Because otherwise you're saying we shouldn't fix exploits or bugs. Like, because so like, the suggestion that it's censorship immediately begs the complete beginning of the question. Like, it only works on your premise that NFTs are valid, transact are actually monetary transactions. Or they're the purpose, they're the reason that Bitcoin was designed the way it was supposed to be designed. Because, okay, what was it? 200 billion bitcoin transaction was an exploit, it was a bug, but it was valid. So by what right, if by all your arguments of like, oh, they paid the fee, oh, they were valid, oh, all transactions are equal or whatever, like by what right? How could you possibly, without contradicting your other statement, how could you justify that you're allowed to, that we're allowed to take that one out, that we're allowed to call that one a bug and not this other one. And that completely negates or is outside of the scope of whether or not we can do anything about it, or if there's a permanent solution or anything. It's got nothing to do with it. I'm talking about philosophically in stating whether or not this is an exploit or a bug. And whether or not we can do anything about an exploit or a bug or that we should even consider doing anything about it presupposes that you've already made a decision on it, you know, like, like, so you can't, you can't use that downstream argument to justify your premise when it only actually makes sense if you've already agreed on the premise.

A (35:33)

But if you think, and maybe this will come from this discussion, because one thing that I like about the cat the most is hopefully that, that it starts more discussions about spam in the first place. Because there is a big, like, there is a large group of bitcoiners, I think that just shrug. It's going to say, who cares? I don't care what they do. Let them spend everything they want. I'm okay.

B (35:50)

Some days, some days, that's me. Some days I'm just like, I'm so sick of this shit.

A (35:54)

And maybe if we can, you know, maybe Gregory Manchell is about to tell us, teach us all how the ETXO sets totally irrelevant and you can clog the whole thing. It doesn't matter. I don't know. But like if that's the case, it literally has no technical like technically harmful overhead to Bitcoin, then fine. Okay, I guess we can just ignore them forever. I guess I thought it was a big deal and I'm learning about that now. I'm only. The only reason why I'm more questioning it now is because of Gregory Rexell's post yesterday. That's the only reason. Before that I thought it was obvious. I thought everybody knew that spamming the utxosa was an obviously bad thing to do. But I'm hoping that there's more discussion on it because I want to know and maybe I'll even try to run some tests myself to see like how much of a. Is that even a good assumption? But there was a good tweet here from Claire I was finding while you're talking where somebody was accusing her of, you know her. Her Twitter bio is incentives are governance essentially that bitcoin uses. Let me actually pull it up so I don't mess it up here. Claire, you said it's Astrum Ostrom. Ostrom O S T R O M and actually she is a seven.

B (37:06)

Something has numbers after it.

A (37:07)

Yeah, it's 72158. Her bio says if Bitcoin is a global commons, incentives are our governance. And I think that's pretty, pretty clever I would say. I agree with that. So she's here. Somebody's talking about. She doesn't see the contradiction because she's conflating economics with morality. Incentives are a governments means that the fee market rules. If you pay the fee you get the block space. That's just neutral and what it is so clear responds you're treating pay fee get space as the only incentive that matters. That is not how Bitcoin works. Consensus rules and fees together define acceptable use. When a use turns Bitcoin into a permanent database for an external casino, that's a broken incentive, not neutrality. There have been several rule changes in the past and more will be needed. CE 2106 the fee creates an incentive against dust only if the dust is used as money. When people use the dust as data, the incentive is not enough to curb the behavior. And I feel like it's a good point because the. The fee nobody the fee is there to keep you from creating lots of small outputs, you know, because you have to spend the same fee almost. Whether it's, whether you're sending a dollar or $10 or thousand sats or 10,000 sats, you, you're much, you're incentivized by the network to consolidate and send in larger UTXOs. And that's a natural incentive that works really well. You would be an idiot to send like 50 cents worth of sats or 500 sats each to your buddy, like for anything. I mean it would just cost you more. So that incentive works very well. But, but, but when you create like an external incentive like these NFTs where somebody doesn't see this 360 SATs or whatever as, as 360 SATs, they see it as $10,000. Well, if you think that these, these 300 SATs are worth $10,000, you might do that all day long and you just might fill the entire network up with, you know, it doesn't matter to you to pay a dollar to store something that you see is worth $10,000. And so in that sense that, that, that incentive is kind of being worked around in a way that was never intended by the, by the network or the way it was designed.

B (39:26)

I mean that's an interesting, that's an interesting point actually on the idea of it being like my, my thinking or whatever is it like obviously the network needs to treat these, these as fungible and, but the, the problem is that the market itself is trying to make them non fungible. Like so an, an external thing is attempting to assign more value to the SAT than the network. Like, like it's, it's creating imbalance in like what it is. And that's, that's what this is. So I was, I was actually, I went to the, to the Twitter profile too and I thought this was a really interesting comment. So this was actually, let's talk about the censorship and stuff first because Stardon is actually responding to this. But I just wanted to. Let me, let me read this post. Just because this is the one I saw and I thought it was interesting says best not to oversimplify things. This proposal is deceptively clear both technically and politically. You don't have to like something to find it interesting and want to examine it. And that's why I'm having a show about it. It is, it is a interesting proposal. Since when did thinking become so taboo? And you can't deny it would be devastating to spammers. Like, that's the, that is the most intriguing thing about this proposal is that it literally like the idea is that they don't want any NFTs or JPEGs or dip dick butts. It's all because they can dump it on somebody. So if they can't spend it, they literally have to completely change their entire ordinal theory and everything. And now it's like okay, who owns. What are we wanting to make backwards compatible? Like we have to like it. It, it literally decimates the market because it means that all of their old tools and all of their old ways of saying this is who owns what become completely null and void. You can no longer send it to somebody else. And the only way that they can actually do it is to create another whole system on top of it with like a date in which it chooses changes which just makes it a big convoluted, inconsistent mess. And, and we'll run into so much subjectivity and be like, okay, well if I can't, I still can't even send this Satoshi. It doesn't even matter which one it is. How do we even know? How do we line it up and prove that this is the person who owns this one?

A (41:54)

One of my favorite things about the cat is it doesn't even try. Not even a little bit. Like they could have easily made it to where. And going forward, you won't be allowed to make ordinals anymore. The old way. You're going to have to make it a new way. It doesn't even do that. It says, yeah, Davis activates. You want to make more ordinals the same exact way you used to. You still can. You want to move your ordinals before it activates, you can. And they won't be in that same UTXO snapshot anymore. So you can escape actually simply by moving it before it activates. And you won't be on the list of non monetary transactions. So it's trivial to, to get around because it's.

B (42:28)

And if you consolidate your own UTXOs.

A (42:31)

Exactly. So good, great, you did it now. But that's my favorite thing about this because it doesn't even attempt whatsoever to stop you from doing. Just supposes that by creating like showing the network, showing the ecosystem that bitcoin is such an unfriendly place for that activity. You're not like, I think like sure, if you're a gung ho ordinals guy, you're going to like evade the cat for the rest of your life. You're going to make it your life submission, whatever. But most of these guys, like the 50 million UTXOs worth majority of these Random dudes, you cannot get like a shelling point around something that is. So they have a lot of choices. They have a lot of places to go to, NFTs. And the only reason why, you know, the few times that I even bothered listening to their spaces, the number one thing they yell is, this is the best data storage in the world. The most immutable data storage in the world. You'll have your satoshi forever. You know, it'll be tracked forever. And it's like, okay, but now all you're going have to change your. You're going to change all your target points. Well, well, it was kind of tracked forever. But you need to do this proof of key ceremony over here now. And you're going to have to. I know you like ordinal number 1 million, but now you're going to put it on, you know, number 13 million 752 too, because, you know, well, don't worry. Just sign with your old keys, put it on 13,000,752 and just pretend like that's you're on a tnap. Like they can do that and they will do that, I'm sure. But like that, it just destroys their narrative. It destroys trust in their markets. Some people don't understand how devastating that is. And I do. You know, part of my history as a shitcoin insider, you know, in 2019 and beyond, I used to run, you know, community for some of the biggest NFT projects there were. I became intimately familiar with, like, the kind of things you could accidentally say that would make people just go crazy. Like if they even like got the, the tiniest hint that you were about to like, change this. They actually fall in love with these rules. People think, oh, it's all pretend, so they won't care if they just make a new pretend. Like they actually care a lot. They become so the same way that bitcoiners do. Ironically, we care a lot about things like that. The block hashes match if tomorrow we said we're doing a new fork, but now all the merkle tree is totally different. Your signatures still work, everything's fine. Don't worry, your signature is the same, but the hash is going to be different. We'd go crazy. No, you can't do that. We want the same hash all the way to the Genesis block. That's part of bitcoin. And is it stupid? I mean, you could argue that it doesn't matter as long as you have your keys, right? But. But we care about these little rules and so do they. They Care a lot about like the little rules they've. That they've spent tens of thousands and billions collectively of dollars on. And if you destroy those little rules they, they, they, they don't like. They, you know, some of them might not care, but as a majority they absolutely care. And it's not just the, the bitcoiners they have to worry about. The other shitcoiners will be the ones laughing at them because like you guys were so dumb buying NFTs on Bitcoin, you could have just bought it on Ethereum where they don't fuck with you. Now you're going to have to pretend twice. You're already pretending like this satoshi is special and now you can't even say that anymore. Now you have to pretend like it magically jumped over to this other satoshi and now the other satoshi is the special one. Forget the first one. It's just too. They're going to be the laughingstock of the other shitcoiners. They won't even admit it. I saw Claire was goading one of the ordinal wallet guys because there has been talk about, well, they'll just do proof of keys and move, you know, change stats basically. And I asked it and I saw and I even asked him too in a retweet that said, you know, crickets. Like he said, would you support this proof of keys thing? Would you support moving all of the ordinals over to new satoshi? Which or do you think that would like degrade the value and what it is? He didn't want to answer, like even like hypothetically they don't want to answer because they know like bitcoiners can, can. Can cry all they want about how they won't care. But he knows if he answers this question, his community is going to go, matt, wait a minute. What? You're considering moving our ordinals to a new situation? Like to even admit that, like actually admit that like an official capacity would be devastating to them. Now they can use that as a threat to us to make us feel like they don't care, but they can't actually say that out loud. They're not gonna me end up make finally making a joke about like, oh yeah sure, just put an airdrop on it and I'll move whatever. But he's laughing, you know, but like it. I think, I think people are underestimating how much damage it's gonna do those markets. You're not gonna have big trends of crap coins on bitcoin anymore because they also Even if the cat never happens again, or even if it never even happens the first time for the rest of time, at least in the. As long as in the memory lasts of this event, they're going to be worried that like if they do make some big new NFT series that it might also get catted. Like, even if you don't even threaten them, like, why would. I'm not. If I was an NFT collector person, I'm not going to go to like some random protocol that is actively trying to delete my stuff. Like, I'm just going to pick another one that's kind of like an so. So in. In. In creating that kind of incentive, I think you're doing something more powerful than trying to stop them.

B (47:51)

Yeah, no, it's, it's undoubtedly, it's undoubtedly interesting. And I also don't quite get the. I think it's honestly just because everybody's so butt hurt about all of this stuff because, you know, I have, I talk with like knots people who just like can't even entertain or listen to anybody who says anything in support of CORE or like I get so much. I get hate for having merch on and, or Rob or whoever it is, anybody, you know, supporting the other side. And then the same thing, like I'm a scammer because I have mechanic on with the round table, you know, like in the reverse. Like. And it's just like, why is everybody. What the fuck are you so afraid of that you can't have like a conversation about these ideas? You know? And like all I can think is like. And then like, I wouldn't, I wouldn't support this, but I really kind of feel like. It's funny I found these start 9 posts, but this is kind of how I feel about it. You know, it just like, it's like, it's, it's interesting. It's interesting to me. And let's talk a little bit about the censorship and I think this is part of the whole like being butt hurt about stuff is. Everybody's just so aggressive on this. Anything that feels related to the OP return issue, there's so much just I guess PTSD or something. But so Start nine says. Not sure what to make of this proposal yet, but attempting to silence it is ridiculous. Allegedly. Ostrom7 2 Whatever submitted the proposal to the mailing list, but it was censored so she submitted it to the GitHub where it is now being rejected for skipping the mailing list.

A (49:43)

So that's, that's. That raised some eyebrows even among People who don't give two craps about the proposal and would never even remotely consider it because they are principled individuals. But they're not only principled about like, you know, just going along with whatever course says. There also happen to be principled individuals generally who care about like precedent. And so yeah, maybe I don't agree with this proposal, but why is it being censored? Exactly? Again, you can't say because it's, it's confiscatory. Because some of the quantum proposals that have been approved and are currently have.

B (50:19)

Oh in deep discussion are explicitly confiscatory. Like that's, that's the other thing is that we've, they're not out of the realm of discussion. Quite the opposite. And this is exactly why I, and for similar reason don't support the, any of the quantum proposals on that issue because it's confiscatory in a whole different way. And even, even if you give like five years, that's a whole different story of someone like, you know, like, let's say they're not attacked or you know, somebody has $20,000 in Bitcoin and they just have no idea that this is even going on. They're completely disconnected from it. They just think, oh, I've got my keys, this is in the background, blah, blah, blah, and, and this is their like long term thinking about it. And then we upgrade and there's happens to be one of the vulnerable addresses. They're not attacked. Nothing actually happened. Because the likelihood of this or maybe even the difficulty of having any sort of an attack on any keys takes six months, a year to break something. And normally, you know, might as well just mine bitcoin at the $20,000 worth, you know, that it would just cost them $80,000 to even attempt to break the key. And so there's like all these caveats, but then they miss it and then suddenly they can't spend their bitcoin is that, that's locked. Like if that happens to one person in a system in a thing like that, like that's a utter failure. You know, like this is, this is the sort of thing that like you just don't do. And to, and for the sake of being like, well, somebody's going to get satoshi's coins and be really rich because they broke cryptography. It's like that's the kind of the consequence of.

A (52:01)

But I still support it being discussed. It needs to be discussed.

B (52:04)

But yeah, but I've read it on the show. I've gone in deeply into the conversation. And I wouldn't censor it, even though I disagree with it. Quite, quite the contrary. I like explaining why I disagree with it.

A (52:14)

You know, that's important. I think if we, you know, pretend like these ideas don't exist, then how are people supposed to know they're bad ideas if they are?

B (52:21)

And especially when the proposal that we're talking about right now, quote, unquote, confiscates bitcoin in dust, like in dust UTXOs, you know, like it's stuff that people aren't, that people literally don't spend anyway because it's unspendable. The only part of it that is spendable is the shit that people are, you know, sending 10 SATs for to get $500 because they're selling a dick butt or something.

A (52:49)

And yeah, so, you know, so, so all that also. So there was the, there was the point about not being personal on the list. So that also brought some process issues with bit rules in general because currently it's kind of being enshrined into the BIP rules that you have to discuss on the mailing list before you can even be approved. And so. But if you have to be. I mean, are we essentially saying that the mailing list moderators are the gatekeepers to any idea being considered on bitcoin? Because it's one thing if it's like a nice place that they want to keep as their own private club of like extremely high quality content or whatever, which they subjectively determine to be extremely high quality by. If they want to do that, they need to create those rules. They need to like, they can't just do it, I think kind of like in such a subjective and unknown way.

B (53:40)

They can't play the. We'll allow any discussion. And this is an open.

A (53:44)

Right, it says in there that it's a lightly moderated forum.

B (53:48)

But also if we mostly disagree with this, we're just going to kick you out kind of thing.

A (53:53)

Yeah, like it says it's lightly moderated. It's anything but lightly moderated from what I can see. And so if they do want to have those rules, they need to be more explicit about what they are and kind of admit that. But then we do have issues though. I think one of the reasons why they don't admit it is because then you have to deal with the issues about. Well, I mean, if something's not popular to the moderators, does that mean that the bitcoin community doesn't get to discuss in any official capacity? Then they can pretend like. Well, go to Twitter and talk about it. But that's like, that's not, that's. The bitcoin has always been kind of like, and this is, you know, I've been a bitcoin apologist for at least 10 years, not more. And one of the things that we've always told people is like when they ask, because they inevitably do ask if they're technical. Well, who, who are the developers? You know, how is this thing not controlled by the developers? It's like, well, it's an open repository that anybody can submit changes or some on the scale. And they're just, they're just essentially doing the organizational and maintenance work of like pushing things through that are, that have been reviewed and are popular and you know, wanted by the community. You know, it's not just like whatever the maintainers want goes. At least it hasn't been that way in the past.

B (55:10)

You don't actually have to sell your bitcoin to access its value. You can actually borrow against it very easily without selling it. But when you do this, you need to be careful. You need to do this with a company that is trusted, one that has survived a bear market and one that will literally show you that they have the coins, that they have proof of reserves or some mechanism where you can look at your balance and know that it is safe. This is why I've been a huge fan and a customer of Leaden for a few years now. So one of the bitcoin backed loans that I got a few years ago to finish renovations and the basement and studio in my house, I would have paid three times as much bitcoin had I just sold it as it now takes me to just pay off the loan. And that's if I sell the bitcoin to pay it off, which I think I'm going to be able to get equity out of the house and pay off the loan and get all of my bitcoin back. This especially makes sense if you're making an investment. If you're doing something that is going to pay you income in the future, or if you're investing in bitcoin mining, it's a whole lot easier to beat the interest rate if you loan against the bitcoin and keep the bitcoin. Leden also makes this like crazy easy. Like if you went to do this right now, you could probably get the money by tomorrow. They do proof of reserves twice a year and I check. It's a very easy process. And you don't have to do monthly payments if you don't want to. You can just accrue the interest and pay off in chunks whenever it makes sense. And best of all, they just recently got rid of all the noise. They had some other features. They had Ethereum loans. They're like, nope, chop it. They had a yield product. Nope, chop it. They had loans where you could get a lower interest rate and they didn't have it on their books. They lent it out. Nope, chop that. Now it's just custodied, fully backed Bitcoin loans doesn't work for every single situation or every person. But there are some times where this is an incredibly valuable tool to have. Don't overextend. Remember Bitcoin is volatile and read the details. But if you need access to your Bitcoin's value and you just don't want to sell, Leden is a brilliant and simple tool for doing exactly that. And I've been a happy customer for a couple of years now. You can check out the links right down in the show notes. It's L E D N Leden. This has been one of the most damaging things to me. Sorry, put a pin in that and hold, hold, hold on to that thought. This might be very similar, but is that like. I think it actually does them a huge disservice and poisons the trust in both the openness and the objectivity, I guess of the conversation around this. To like you, there's this big difference between being like okay, this is super controversial and we're getting a lot of un, like non useful comments or whatever and then removing the unuseful comments. Then we're just going to remove this and we're going to prevent this from being talked about at all because, because it's controversial or we don't agree with it and we're just not going to do it. Like those are, those are totally different universes. They might kind of in practice look similar, but they're totally different universes for when it comes to trust. Like I'm, I'm perfectly okay with treating a stupid proposal as like with, with a legitimate response and then leaving it at that. But I think the largely seen as stupid or bad proposals for whatever reason should stay there with the reasons they aren't good proposals because then that makes it clear that a. You're not censoring stuff. Imagine if it's like our bitcoin was kicking out everybody doing the bitcoin cash stuff and all of that. And I had a bit of a problem with that even then. But it was Reddit, you know, It's a Reddit conversation. Like, like of course it's going to be a mess. Of course. So like there was a part of me that was like famous is like, well he's a, he's kind of a dick or whatever. But at the same time there's nothing saying that you have to allow this and the conversation becomes horrid no matter what you do. And there's like piecemeal moderating. It was going to be very, very difficult. But if this was a GitHub and, or a mailing list about actual proposals and somebody submitted an actual proposal that was Bitcoin cash or Bitcoin unlimited, then we have an actual discussion about it. And if somebody comes in and they're just flaming or like trying to turn it in Reddit, then okay, stop those conversations or pause them when they become unable to speak to. But you actually benefit a lot by proving that you actually are confident in your explanation or confident in your conclusion by leaving it there for people to read and, and actually having an open discussion about it. And so, and, and sorting out what is just comments versus something that people are actually considering or that is, that is a legitimate proposal. Whether or not it's ever like I don't think this is going to actually get soft worked in, but it's an interesting, it's, it's, it's unique among the other proposals on this issue. That's, that is at least something to give it credit to and I'm glad they added it to the mailing list because, and actually allowed discussion to it because if you had a good argument against it, you wanted to be on the freaking mail. You want it to be available for people to actually have that conversation and that you don't look like a bias, you don't look like you're just like disallowing conversation around anything that you just don't immediately support.

A (61:11)

Especially I saw some of the other things that they have approved. Like there's something, they approved the mailing list which is just titled Opera Turn Spam is no big deal.

B (61:22)

Something like that.

A (61:23)

It's just like, and it's just a rant, like a, like a 10 paragraph rant from some dude. Like I don't think return spam matters at all. It's no big deal. Screw this, stop talking about it. Who cares? And that was approved. Like that's not even proposing anything. There's something development about that and that just to me that feels a little like if you care about spam and.

B (61:44)

You know it's not about substance or value to the conversation. It's about, like, are you aligned with what everybody else wants to hear and.

A (61:51)

Right. And that's definitely, you know, I don't know. Is fam an issue? Like, that's the question. Because some people, I mean, what's your.

B (62:01)

What'S your take right now? Like, how. How do you feel about spam in general? Like, how big of a problem is it? And would you support something like the cat?

A (62:12)

I'm kind of like waiting with bated breath right now because of the last post. Gregory Maxwell is one of my absolute, like, most favorite bitcoin developers. And so I respect everything basically. We're basically on Greg Coin right now. Bitcoin is Greg Coin. If he ever were to pass away or quit or whatever like bitcoin, who knows what would happen to bitcoin after that. So he's got me thinking now when he called the cats, 40% of UTXO's ASPAN is negligible. Like, basically nothing. That's like, wait a minute, is he, like, being hyperbolic here or is he being serious? Because I might have to rethink everything I thought I knew because I thought the reason we did all this stuff with Oprah turn and you know, the reason why we've been even the original operturn existence in the first place was because of a threat of more fake pub keys. The Pepe stuff was starting to use fake pub keys and bare multistig and they said, no, this is bad. It's going to cause the ETF sale. We need to make a way for them to do this which is less harmful. Now this has just been like my programming. I guess my bias in bitcoin is that if you do things in a harmful way, it's going to harm bitcoin. I don't know. I never quantified that with numbers. So I've just kind of been taking them at their word. But now if we say it's negable, I don't know what I think. But yeah, if there is real harm, then that can be demonstrated through spamming the network, then I would absolutely support something like the cat ideologically. Because if I can't run a node because you feel like you want to, like spam each other, like 500 Satoshi, like, while I would rather not, you know, play the game of who gets to decide what's good and bad, I think it's a very, very slippery slope and a bad path to take if, you know, push comes to shove. Of course I would shove those things away if it meant that bitcoin was going to be impacted in any negative way, it's not. I don't. I don't feel ideologically like in. I don't feel like I owe them anything when they're so. I feel like discernment, something that we don't use enough in society as well as in bitcoin. Like, there's many things which, like, let's say, like, some stalker, some, like, freedom of speech. Like, I know the law. Like, guys obviously stalking some woman. But, like, he knows all the laws. Like, every time, like, copyright stops, like, no, I'm on a public sidewalk. I have a right to be here. I can record whatever I want. They have no expectation of privacy, whatever. And I get that. That's, like, important. Those are important rights. But let's say this guy is, like, you know, obviously, like, he's telling this woman, like, he's, like, winking at her. He's telling her, like, I'm. You're never gonna get rid of me. And, like, everybody sees this, and he's being so bold about how he's literally just harassing and stalking this person, but he's carefully doing it within the law. Like, I feel like discernment's important. I feel like a judge would say this guy's going to prison because we all know what he's doing. Like, if everybody knows what you're doing, you shouldn't be able to use laws and excuse. I feel like discernment is kind of just. It's like nobody wants to use their brain collectively. And I don't understand. It's dangerous because you get into the precedent of, like, subjectivity. But I don't think. I think even the spammers know this is spam. There's, like, nobody that thinks it's not spam spam. Like, there's. Nobody thinks it's monetary anyway. Put it that way, they might say, well, I love my nft. It's not spam. Fine. But we all know it's not the purpose of bitcoin. We all know that you guys are basically hacking this data on there and that this isn't what bitcoin's for. So I don't really have a problem when it's so obvious when everybody's basically in agreement on. And you can't get consensus without everybody being in agreement on what it is. I don't feel a problem with using my brain and saying, this is. It just is bad. And it's bad in a way that's, like, technically bad. It's not even morally bad. It's technically bad for the network, at least, if that's true.

B (66:00)

Yeah. And I will actually say I realized I didn't even finish the comment before talking about the proposal is deceptively clever, both technically and politically. You don't have to like something to find it interesting and want to examine it. Since when did, when did thinking become so taboo? And you can't deny it would be devastating, devastating to spammers. But the last line was that said we will not be supporting using the cat to freeze stamp and ordinal UTXOs. So just in case anybody thought that Star 9 was coming out in support of the cat, I want to make sure I got that last line in and I didn't get clobbered on social.

A (66:35)

For this guy Swan definitely supports censoring. Definitely. Good. You would, you would be insta cancel by like all the, all the people. It would be like CNN News guy Swan support censorship of bitcoin.

B (66:53)

Only dick butts. Only dick butts, man.

A (66:57)

I don't, I don't. Yeah, I mean, like, what I, if, if it's not a technical problem, if it's actually like, Greg Mackel is going to show everybody that, you know what, this whole time we've been saying we don't want to spam the UTXO set because it's so harmful to network, but actually, just kidding, it's not. Fine, if it's not harmful, then I guess, who cares? You know, I mean, can't really stop them anyway.

B (67:15)

Except for, you know, it was. And I, I, I've referred to the name. It's Lornick. I swear to God. That's not, that's not, that's not what it is. Merch actually said when I was talking to him, he was like, oh, you mean this person? And said their actual name or how it's supposed to be pronounced.

A (67:36)

It looks like it's pronounced Lornic to me. I know it does.

B (67:38)

It does. It looks like Lornick to me. That's what I've been saying in my head. And it, it's done, it's in there. But I had a private conversation with him, which was really cool, really good because he's been doing a bunch of tests on, like, node performance and stuff with all the new versions of Core and like, as, as upgrades go on. And his benchmarks, what he said, they're, they're getting better and better, even with the growth of the UTXO set. And there's even like, really subtle and like, odd things that they've been able to do to improve performance that aren't even obvious. One of them. I'm gonna. I'm gonna get this wrong because I'm just making up numbers in my head. But it was something along these lines is that essentially the data was being read at, like, again, this is. This is totally incorrect, but, like in 20 kilobyte or 20 byte packets or something like that. But there was some nuance about how like a, A normal bus or processing or whatever occurs and that you could actually bump it up to like, 35 or something like, like just. Just in kind of how you read the data or process the data. You could just make it more efficient. And then, like, this was like a huge. This was a huge boost to performance. And all it was was just a local decision on how to read it, like, slightly differently, assuming that there's, you know, more bandwidth inside the machine or inside the bus from the processor to the RAM or whatever it is. Again, I completely made up those numbers. But it, it was just interesting that it doesn't, it doesn't have anything to do with like, cleaning like, Utrixo or, or, or, you know, getting rid of spam or some cool math trick to better computer signatures or anything. It was just like, maybe we can actually assume that everybody's got at least a Raspberry PI and there's this much bandwidth to go between the, the. The two devices on the hardware, and we can expand this a little bit. Boom. Way faster. I thought that was like. That's like. That's like the. You know, like when you. When you have, like, a beautiful piece of artwork, you have, like a house that's just done exceptionally well. It's the little things at the end. It's the, the. It's the caulking that's really nice around the edges. It's a really nice trim. It's the third coat of paint rather than sticking to just two. It's the little annoying, like, filling in the gaps and the nail holes and all of that stuff that really makes it look good. Like, makes it look finished. But nobody likes that work. Nobody likes that work. That work is the suckiest work. It is slow and it is mostly thankless because everybody else is like, oh, it's basically done, but then there's 10 hours left of work to make it done done. And like, that's the sort of thing that it's cool to know that there's, like, people out there that are literally looking at the really dumb. Like, nobody gets thanked for figuring out that you can tweak how much data you get at any one second across the bus or whatever and make performance way better on a simple assumption. And nobody also wants to do that because there's nothing interesting about it. There's nothing, you know, there's no fancy new tech or new tool or breakthrough cryptography or, you know, quadratic scaling as opposed to log scale or whatnot. It's just. It's just gritty, boring. Like, look at it down to the tiniest little piece and can this little thing be made better type work? So I just wanted to bring that up because I thought that was interesting. So I don't know. I don't know either. I don't have the. I don't have the numbers. I, I go back and forth as to whether or not this is. There's the argument that it's bad because somebody could put C Sam and then, you know, on a node that becomes like a legal issue and now we have a fight. The. The fight that we. That, like, I don't want to. I don't. I'm not going to die on that, Hill. I will die on all money. Like, all SATs are equal. I will die on the hill of. If you send a monetary transaction, I don't care who you are, I don't care where you're from. I don't care what jurisdiction you're in or what you're using it for. It's money, and that's. That's ubiquitous. But I will not die on the all bytes are the same bites hill. And I don't want bitcoin to have to fight that battle to make the monetary battle work. Like we. They should not be attached to each other. I'm not going to defend. See, Sam, you know, like, that's not. I don't want that fight. Like, it's got nothing to do with bitcoin. It's got nothing to do with bitcoin, and it shouldn't be part of the conversation. Yeah, yeah, yeah, of course.

A (72:22)

It's just looking at spam at scale, it tries to stop essentially, in the same way that the dust limit or the fees don't perfectly stop you from creating dust. They're not meant to. They're meant to disincentivize you for making dust. You can still. We could still create a hundred little penny transactions or whatever. Whatever the dust limit is, nothing stops us. Except for the incentive that says, well, by doing this, you're taking what you know. You're being very inefficient with your Money, it's going to cost you more than you're going to get for doing it. And that's good, at least normally when it's money. But in the same way, the cat doesn't try to stop people from doing it. Just says by doing this, you are putting a huge disincentive to this, which, you know, you may not be able to trade it later. And so. And if you do are able to trade, it's going to be like trying to sell beachfront property on a beach that everybody knows might not be there in four years. Like, good luck. You're not gonna be able to get insurance. Like, you know, you'll be like, why is this beautiful home going for like $40,000? It's like, because you're paying $40,000 for like four years of a house. And if it's gone, you know, so the same thing. So that said, I want to just, you know, I feel I wouldn't cry if this was approved. I thought. Do I think it's going to be proved? No, not right now. But I do like the fact that it stands as a, you know, historically, when we talked about, well, we'll just, you know, say we'll just use fake pub keys. And then we'll say, well, damn, you know, there's like, that's the end of the story. Nothing we can do about it. I guess just better bow down and let you do whatever you want. According to Core or whoever. Yeah, nothing we can do, right? Well, this does show. At least there is something we can do. If you get too out of control and if it is harmful to the network, we could decide that. You know what? We are not obligated to let you use Bitcoin as a data storage system. We're not obligated to let you use tiny units of Bitcoin, Bitcoin to spam, you know, as little data trackers for your casino. We could collectively decide to just use our discernment and see with our brains that this is not Bitcoin. We're not infringing on anyone's right to spend money. This is not a even a moral judgment. It's a matter of incentives. And this is a broken incentive. We're going to fix it. I wouldn't cry if it happened. You know what? I wouldn't mind to watch the shit corners cry either.

B (74:46)

So.

A (74:47)

So, so, yeah. Glad that you had me. Want to talk about it? Definitely look forward to hopefully seeing some more discussion on the mailing list.

B (75:01)

I'm at least interested there. There's like the conversation around this has gotten. What's the word? I mean interesting, but it's, it's changed. The, the conversation isn't so simple and I like people thinking about ideas because it makes me wonder like there's a, there's a, there's a good response actually to the, that same thread with start9 or whatever is somebody posted. Bitcoin is improved with better math, not politics. But it's about using utrixo to compress the state bloat and, and basically putting certain. This is, this is similar to what we were talking about just a little while ago is compressing stuff that we can like 99.9% know is unspendable or is explicitly non monetary or is explicitly dust and then forcing them to provide more data, putting it on the owner to actually demand to be out of the compression. You know, like, like to man demand to be active again. And I really kind of like that proposal because it's not confiscatory. It's also something that wouldn't need a soft fork. It can basically be managed on the node side and if most nodes engaged in this, it would just mean that your propagation through the network is much, much slower. Which is totally fine because it's explicitly non monetary transactions and, but it can always be recovered. Like, like it's not. You're not saying nobody can use this. We're saying that we're not going to go out of our way to make sure that you can spend this crap that you have explicitly said is crap that has nothing to do with using Bitcoin as money. You know, and, and that is a more interesting style of approach to me is how do you, how do you get this like middle ground? Because I've always thought, this is why I thought mempool policy was actually the best way to attack this problem is because it's a soft disincentive. It's not an explicit. You can't do this. It's not an explicit. It's like, it's like go to your stalker example example. It's not saying that the stalker can't walk down the sidewalk. It's being very explicit about like okay, these are the laws, the laws are the laws. But instead letting other people in the neighborhood walk around right behind him with like a horn blaring right into his ear. It's like, well, we're going to use the law too and we're going to annoy the out of you because you're, you're bringing down the value of our neighborhood. You're saying you are literally intruding in our community. So we're going to disincentivize you from being here because you're a piece of shit, you know, like, and it's like that, that I feel like is the, is the real way and it's also the, it's the cat, right? It's the way of like actually doing a soft attack. And, and that's what bug bugs me so much about what core. About the decision that Core has made and that the or the core client has. The direction that they've taken is they basically said, we're not going to do anything about it. We're not going to disincentivize it. We're not going to. We're just going to be nothing at all. But at the same time, they've said that they make the argument that the reason they need to do that is because this is a problem. You know, that the UTXO bloat is an issue and we want them to use OP return. And it's like, but if it's a problem, like, like if we are admitting that there is a negative outcome of this, like, and maybe, maybe we're just using that for the simple sake of, like, it's a convenient excuse and really none of this matters and sometimes I fall in that bucket. But, but if it's not, if these are meaningful excuses, if these are meaningful reasons to do it, then it seems to me that it's still completely meaningful to create a soft disincentive, to just make it a little bit harder to get your shit in the chain, to propagate through the network and basically make it so that the default isn't going to serve you, you know, in exactly the same way that if you're stalking somebody in our neighborhood, we're just not going to make it. We're just not going to make you comfortable. We're not going to go. Go out of our way to make sure that nobody's keeping you from getting around the corner. Or I just might happen to drive out of my driveway at the same time that you need to cross it and you might have to walk around my car, you know, like, it just like, that's. That feels like to me, this the way to treat this. And it's like, why are we pretending that we can't? You know, it's like getting mad at the dude who's walking around with the blowhorn, you know, behind the stalker and then saying, you're not allowed to be mad at the stalker. It's like you, this is very obvious why I'm here and why I'm doing this. And I'm also not breaking any rules or doing anything. I have the same rights as he does. Give. I'm, I'm gonna blow the horn in his head, you know, like, yeah, that's.

A (80:11)

Such a good, that's such a good way of using the example. Yeah, exactly. And there are. It do it does seem that's the weird part about it. And that's what sometimes, you know, when I'm feeling conspiratorial, I wonder if like are the mailing list moderators like, you know, secret ordinal whales? Oh no, we're not going to let this, we're definitely not going to let this proposal get through because that could have an impact on our ordinal value. Like, yeah, I feel, and I'm totally, I would not be surprised, I hate to say it, you know, like everybody says, everybody says all the corporals say oh, we hate spam. But then, you know, you, you'd look a little deeper. It's like, do they really, they, they, they are all buddy buddy with all the people who make the spam. They go to the same events, they talk about the same stuff. I feel like in a way spammers have more to talk to with a lot of the devs than the non spammers do because they're the ones kind of pushing bitcoin's limits more. I mean, you and I, if we're just sending UTXOs back and forth and paying for stuff, we're not doing anything very exciting to a developer who is wanting to work on the protocol, but some guy who's trying to contrive new ways of storing lots of data very cheaply or human cheaply as possible and you know, create like zero knowledge programmability schemes to create like whatever, like these meta protocol like, you know, you're doing some fancy nerd stuff that might be a lot more fun to talk about to a protocol dev or a bitcoin dev, especially if they used to intern with certain programmatic shitcoiny things. I mean like so, you know, I mean, it does scare me though. I mean I want the bitcoin developers to be bitcoiners. I think that's not too much to ask. Right? It's kind of like you want the people that run your chess club not to. Yeah. Like, you know, you want them to care about the rules that make it a good chess club. And you know, if they got a bunch of friends that love checkers and they keep coming in, and they constantly want to, like, use up the tables to play checkers. And then all of a sudden, the chess club leaders are like, well, you know, 40% of the tables can be used for checkers. When that's when, you know, when there's enough checker players in the room, it's like, but wait a minute. But why? Like, this is a chess club. You know what I mean? So I just don't want. I just don't want. I want to be sure that the people who are in charge of maintaining Bitcoin code, who are now, you know, seeming to be more influential than ever before, than ever I can ever remember, almost any. I mean, and Brian Bishop is even pushing. He's been lobbying. I don't know if you've seen, but he's been lobbying to privatize core. And he is one, I think. Yes, it's in the mailing list. He's been very open, posting messages about how he thinks it should be privatized. And in a way, it's more honest to say, I think we should privatize core. He wants it to be. He doesn't think that this type of protocol development should be open to the public because he thinks it's a waste of resources and a waste of time to address the public. And it should be. It should be a closed group of people that know what they're doing and that are in charge of doing it. And the thing is, Brian Bishop already kind of has a lot of influence over the ecosystem. He's. He is, as far as I can tell, when I, you know, if you Google him, he's associated with the mailing list. He was one of the ones that helped migrate the mailing list to Google. So, you know, could be. Maybe. I don't know who the moderators are, but maybe. Maybe Brian Bishop is one of those moderators. He obviously doesn't feel like this should be an open thing anyway. So in a sense, if you. If you feel that way and you're kind of treating it that way, it's more honest to say. We should make it explicitly. We should make it more implicit that it is private. Because it's, you know, it's kind of deceptive to treat it that way and not be implicit about it.

B (83:58)

Yeah. Yeah. See, that's a. I don't know how I feel about that, because, like, to one. To one thing, I. I mean, sure. Like, there is a part of me that, like, gets that. And there's nothing, like, wrong with, you know, a private entity doing a thing. But it didn't start out that way. You know, it's a. The funding is for Bitcoin. The funding isn't for a company called Core. You know, like, it turned. It starts. It starts making it feel like the Bitcoin foundation, you know, like. Like we are going to. We're going to decide how it goes. And if it's a completely ubiquitous reference client, we. We barely even have competing clients. Like, Knots is the first thing that even comes close to being a competing client. Now, at this point, when it comes to somebody running something that just doesn't come out of the core GitHub to any meaningful sins is that you can't. You can't have it both ways, you know, like, which is what. Is what it kind of what it sounds like that they're wanting in that case. Mm. So, I don't know. Ugly old goat actually had an interesting take on that short little article that.

A (85:22)

He wrote or whatever.

B (85:23)

Just talking about how, like, it wasn't really about the issue. It was about. It's around this. It's around this idea of, like, how they treat dissenting voices and how they control what conversations are being had around this. Because, again, this isn't a private entity. Like, this is supposed to be a protocol and a system that everybody runs and is done in the open because everybody else is dependent on it. Like, it's a bit of a. It's a bit of a kind of read the room, like, sort of situation of like, do you realize what this looks like and exactly how bad the distrust would be if these conversations started just moving to private, you know, like, that this appeared to be something behind the scenes. And it's very hard to review and go through every. Like, I think they would only do themselves way, way, way more damage.

A (86:22)

I think they should leave Core public and go make a group and say, you know what? We're forking Core. We're private devs.

B (86:30)

That's a good point.

A (86:31)

Here's Core with us, the same devs that you liked before, and that is now the public one. Because it was the public one. It is the public one. That's what we've always taken for granted. If you want to prioritize it, fork it. Say if you like the work we're doing, same devs. We're now over in the. Here in this private entity, and we're going to do this ourselves. And so we're our client, please. Called official Core, whatever you want to call it. And that's now just called the bitcoin repo.

B (87:00)

No, that's a good.

A (87:03)

They shouldn't be allowed to keep it. Let the money that was being given for core work stay with core. Do your little private. You can't like, I mean if you're the like guys that run the ETF.

B (87:14)

It'S like the Bitcoin.com suddenly becoming like a bitcoin cash website, you know, like, it's like, man, come on, come on. I don't mean it like core's a fork or something like that. Like, like, like this is a hard fork and it's a shitcoin. I mean it in the sense purely that this organization was this way and now we're trying to make it this way and then it's going to taint how we like how the history of this appeared.

A (87:38)

Even if Core wanted to be private, there needs, like bitcoin development needs to be open, needs to be a common like, place of passionate developers with discussing proposals and kind of like iron sharpens iron and coming out with the best way of doing things and you know.

B (87:53)

So really dislike, I really, really, really dislike the appeals to authority and the notion that like, only if you're a developer can you have like a good proposal or a good. Or that somehow being a bitcoin developer makes you good at economics or something like, like that there's. Or understand the social and kind of game theory sort of thing. Because I can't tell you how many times if I've learned anything in life, it's that the dude in the garage is going to have a brilliant idea that he doesn't know any of the intricacies of or he doesn't know the trivia about, but he knows how the world works. You know, like, like he, he understands how bolt nuts and bolts fit together and he's going to be able to do something. He's not going to be able to explain it in the physics terms or whatever.

A (88:35)

He.

B (88:35)

And he's going to argue with the engineer and the engineer said, you can't never, you can never do this. It's never going to work. But then he's going to modify his thing and it's going to work beautifully. And then we're going to have to update how the engineer thinks about it because he's just going to know, you know, like the biggest and stupidest thing and the most dangerous thing from an authoritative perspective is to dismiss somebody who you think isn't good enough or doesn't have the right credentials to make a comment or to share an idea about this because you're going to have your foot stuck in your mouth at some point.

A (89:07)

Absolutely. And that's another reason why I feel like AI is such a threat to some of these groups because they've kind of like they've got this artificial barrier of, well, you're not even going to have access to the, you know, last 10 years of knowledge that we have. And it's not about knowing the thing, it's about the fact that you won't be able to know the thing. And so it's kind of like, I mean, you know, without studying the last 10 years of whatever's been discussed and. But with AI, it kind of like cheapens the, it kind of like shortens the gap. Like now you can kind of compress last 10 years in a readily digestible format. Get pretty like 95% caught up to what you need to know. And what you don't know, you can probably figure out within like a much. And you still have to be a smart person with the ability to critically think and, and, and understand. But you know, you can close the gap a lot faster now. And it's kind of, it's kind of like weakening some of the. Well, I'm a developer, so I get to be, you know, more important because I know how code works. It's like, well now I have a calculator, so I also know how code works. And so now Listen to me, Mr. Developer, I didn't idea just like you and the code part. Yeah, we all, we all can code. Duh. Look, my calculator does code. Yeah, monkeys can code. What happens when monkeys can code and they don't have their little club anymore of like, they can't join this club unless you spend the last 10 years learning like how binary works on like inside of a memory chip or whatever. Like you, you can just, yeah, bring your calculator and you just knock down that wall. That's scary. If you've always kind of lean on, there's that developer worship. I really don't like developer worship. A lot of these guys even, you know, I want to say, anyone say any names, but there are a lot of people that kind of get off on the fact that, you know, I'm a developer and ultimately like the things that they're like, yes, they know how to code, but they're not doing anything that's like, you know, they're not like earth shattering in terms of like other developers, but they still feel like that the mere fact they know how to program somehow makes them superior to like guys like you for example, or anybody who is like, really freaking smart actually understands how things work, but you don't know how to, like, write a script, you know, without going to GitHub.

B (91:23)

I can't even tell you the difference. I can't. I can't properly explain. This is something I ran into today, actually, the difference between a runtime and an environment. And it just drives me freaking nuts because I do not understand the mental image. But I can. I can understand if an idea is sound when it comes to how things relate to each other in a program and whether or not, like, I. That's one of my favorite things to do is to dig into, like, how it is that Bitcoin knows, you know, that Bitcoin is DOS proof or that, you know, that you can create a system for, for maintaining privacy. I don't know how to implement it, but I love. Dandelion is genius for preventing, you know, timing attacks on where you are, where the node, where the transaction is coming from in the node network and stuff like that.

A (92:07)

A lot of these guys are not even a tenth as smart as you, but they feel superior to you because they know the difference between a environment and runtime or whatever. Like, and it's just like, it's not actually that important. It's not actually like that impressive even.

B (92:20)

You know, this is actually something similar to a mic. Oh, God, I can't remember.

A (92:26)

I keep forgetting his freaking name.

B (92:27)

And I'm probably going to be debating him soon. God, why can't I remember his name? Wait, I've got a conversation going. I'm going to look him up. But he was talking about how, like, somebody had didn't know some sort of economic term that he was debating with Brock. Brock, Mike Brock. And I was like, see, this is why you don't even understand. You don't even know what aggregate demand means or something. I can't remember. I can't remember what it was. Um, but you don't even know what that means. So how do you even think that you can discuss this issue or whatever. And I'm like, man, that's good. God. Like, that's such a. Like, to me, that suggests that he is the one who is unable to reason. Like, he is the one who's having, like, a logical block. Because aggregate demand or whatever term it is, that's trivia. That's not. That's not logic.

A (93:28)

That's.

B (93:28)

That's just. That's literally. That's this vocabulary exactly. Like, it's got nothing to do with concept. Like, I might not Understand what mise en sin or meet cute is when it comes to filmmaking, but I can definitely tell you whether or not this is a. Like, how to tell a story has nothing to do with whether or not I can tell a fucking story because I know the trivia of, like, what it means for the.

A (93:54)

The.

B (93:55)

The main characters to meet for the first time or the. The aesthetic of the scene around it. What's the terminology? Who gives a. I can tell you a story. I know how to tell a story. And it's like, Richard Feynman, I think, had a really good quote on it because he was actually presenting. It was a. It was like a university in, like, Brazil or something. And he was trying to advise on, like, repairing their gar. Their. As he referred to as like, just like, horrible science, academia, like, platform and everything. And he was trying to explain something, and one of the students, like, challenged him on this, and he was like, like, do you know what this formula is? Or whatever? And he was like, no, I don't know it off the top of my head. And he was like, well, I do. I know this formula. And, and, and. And. And Feynman's like, well, that's a way. That's stupid. I can look it up in six seconds. Can you explain this concept or do you just. Have you just memorized a bunch of formulas that take me three seconds to go look it up in a book? I haven't bothered to waste brain space, valuable brain space, on a bunch of dumbass formulas that I could look up. It's just like, like learning your multiplication tables or whatever. So I have a calculator. Like, I, like, like, I don't need to memorize all of that stuff.

A (95:11)

What's 124 times 124?

B (95:13)

Go. Yeah, yeah, who cares? Let me punch it in really quick. If I ever need it, I can easily just call it up with a computer.

A (95:21)

How can you talk about block space at all if you don't Even know what 1 kilobyte times 1 kilobyte equals?

B (95:26)

Yeah, yeah, but, like, that's the whole. This. This whole idea between, like, trivia versus logic and, And I've run into this, like, so much of people. Like, you know, even if. If your whole theory is wrong, why would I bother learning the lingo? You know, it's like. It's like. It's like you don't even understand how it is that the Earth is at the center of the universe and all the. The concentric everything. Like how the. The complexity of the many ways in which Mars jumps over the planet and then goes, then goes under and between us and the sun. And all of this stuff is like, no, bitch, your whole premise is wrong. Why would I waste my time learning all of your trivia when I'm trying to explain that the sun is at the center of the solar system and it's actually really simple. Everything just revolves around the sun. So anyway, long, long side rant. But it just made me think of that because Mike Brock brought that out and I was like, man, Jesus, not even, not even the same universe a thing. And some people just don't get that. Some people literally think. And there's, there's this like kind of academia mindset of like if they know a lot of lingo, they like this feeling that they can speak about a thing. And people don't get it. You know that people don't speak the language and they like to use the words because that to them means sounding smart. And I've always kind of felt the exact opposite. I hate it when I end up using a bunch of lingo and stuff and I can't explain something. And again, Feynman, perfect example, he says like if you can't explain this to a middle schooler, schooler, like to a, to a grade schooler, then you don't actually get it.

A (97:08)

You know, that's so. And that's something that, and one of the problems I think it comes into what people's who maybe who aren't as conventionally intelligent view conventional intelligence as I feel like they feel like if you don't know the words then you're not smart.

B (97:23)

Dunning Kruger. Yeah.

A (97:27)

Yeah. And it's not even just, you know, not even just that guy trying to sound smart. It's also everybody who listens to him something like, yeah, he talked to Guy Swan. He didn't even know what a.

B (97:36)

Whatever random like he aggregate marginal utility.

A (97:40)

Yeah.

B (97:40)

So obviously like utility token is.

A (97:43)

Guy thinks he knows about economics. Haha. Like okay, you know, he explains it.

B (97:48)

With houses and, and fish. That's not economics.

A (97:52)

It's just, it's just.

B (97:54)

What about gdp?

A (97:56)

It kind of, it's kind of our societal east in America. It's kind of like our conception of intelligence in the first place and that, you know, I tell this to my, my, my son. You know, it's not about. He was wrong about something the other day. He was trying to find the optimal solution for something and the math ended up being wrong. It ended up not being the optimal solution. It was actually, it was a Lego race building Lego cars and racing them down a ramp. And so he thought, well, I think that if I just make my car as heavy as possible, it won't matter about anything else. So he just stacked a bunch of Legos and made a big brick car. Because that's a pretty good theory. Like, if it's heavier, it'll go down. And it ended up not winning. I had a lighter car and my lighter car ended up winning. But I didn't tell him, like, you're wrong. Like you were wrong, but, like, you were thinking about it in the right way. You should be thinking about it in terms of, like, how you know what, what actually matters in terms of making your car go faster. And then you should optimize for that. And so you did optimize for it properly. Your hypothesis was just wrong about what we should optimize for. But still, like, there's two. Two wrong answers aren't the same. Like when you ask somebody, how do you spell china? One kid says, S, W, H, Z, Y. Then we could say C, H, Y, N, A. Like one of them's thinking about it, the other one just has no freaking clue. And so I don't think they're both wrong. I think, like, one of them is actually, like, kind of right. I'm not going to tell him he's right because I want to, you know, make him wrong. But, like, he's doing what he's supposed to do to find the answer.

B (99:33)

He's. He's reasoning through why something is. And, and that's that, that, that. So understanding the why and the relationship, all you need is enough words to understand a relationship. You know, you don't have to. Hell, you don't need any words you can understand a relationship. This is, this is exactly why the, the redneck in the garage is going to be able to build things that so many, like, the engineers swear is impossible to build. And the number of times that this sort of thing, that I've run into that sort of thing in my life where I'm just like, like, listen, I'm gonna trust the guy with the hammer because I just, I'm telling you, he knows. He knows what works and what doesn't.

A (100:16)

Yeah, I had a, I had a, you know, very country mechanic fix transmission on my car 20 years ago with a little bit of JB Weld when everybody, when all the big mechanics shop saying, no, you can't fix it. It's gotta, you know, it's busted and you're gonna have to replace the whole thing like that block Isn't replaceable. This guy's like, dude, I can't JB Weld that. It's just like a little gash. Like, you know, I know how to do that. The books tells you, no, you can't do that. It's gonna, you know, impact the structural integrity of the system, whatever. Like. No, but actually, I don't think so. I think if I put on there, it's gonna work. It's not gonna break. I. I understand how the JB Weld is. I understand how this box put together. And if I put a ton of it on there, it's not gonna break.

B (100:59)

Listen, okay, I've had J.B. weld's break. I know exactly, exactly how I would do it to make it do break. But it not going to. It's going to don't break because I know how to do it. And he'll say it exactly like that. Nope, nope. This one's going to don't break.

A (101:19)

I couldn't afford the. Whatever they were trying to tell me. Seven grand for new transmission this guy gave me. Did it for 300 bucks. And I rode that car until it was. Until the tires fell off and, you know, 300 repair that. All the, you know, the guys at the, you know, dealerships and the ones that went to school, whatever, said, no, you can't do that. That won't work. There's no way.

B (101:39)

That kind of stuff is a story in my life, man, over and over and over again. My brother, too. Like, that's why I always take my stuff to. To my brother, because he gets it. Like, nobody. Of course he does. Kind of know the trivia of it all too, but, like, he can just. It's so funny. We. One of the things we did is we had a transmission lockup on us once. And it's like one of those things where, like now, now a lot of times, like in the new cars, they literally make it so you can't, like. So it's like really difficult. They tell you, don't change the transmission fluid. And it's like, what? And there's like a Honda that will have like. They have like a big magnet or whatever that's supposed to catch all the metal shavings to, quote, unquote, clean the transmission fluid. But it. It gets clogged up after a hundred thousand miles or 80,000 miles or whatever, and it just stops doing its job. And we had a transmission lock up on us and, and. And they said, no, it's total. You'll never. You'll never recover. This Thing. This. This thing is dead. And. And he was like, no, that's B.S. we're going to fix it. And so we flushed it, put in the transmission fluid, ran it a bit, tried to get it to change. Change gear, wouldn't change gear, flushed it, did it again, did it like three or four times. And then what he did is he bypassed one of the transmission lines, put in a new unit underneath the hood with an oil filter in it. So it went through the filter and then back. And after about like the second flush or whatever, we got to go into second gear. Like, we started it. It slowly came back to life. And then he put the oil filter in it. And eventually after it took like, you know, three or four days of just like, keep going back at this and then putting in the oil filter and then. And then piping. Piping it back in. That transmission lasted like two years. Yeah, it worked like a charm. The thing had like 280,000 miles. Like, it's just the whole thing was. Was a mess.

A (103:38)

And it's. You understood, like, why it was broken, how it works.

B (103:41)

You understood what was. Well, the problem was like, okay, like, well, how can we undo this situation?

A (103:49)

Or whatever out enough to make it go. Yeah, awesome. That's why the cat's gonna work. Because I feel like, screw your kitties. Screw your. Like, Claire actually seems to get it. I mean, I've. Like I said, I work in this space and I. I see how if you don't, like just the. Even the threat of saying all your old owners about to be unspendable like that nobody buys that. That's the house on the coast. It's about to be flooded in four years. Like, you just can't sell it. And sure they can. They can try to create a new showing point around some crazy little whatever. We're going to move your key over here with a proof of whatever signature in the opera turn. But like, you just killed the narrative. Like, people act like there's just this. People are going to buy it no matter what. And it's easy to think that when you don't understand the markets, when you're looking at it as an outsider and you think, yeah, just. I don't understand why people buy this. And so it doesn't make sense. So obviously they'll just continue to buy no matter what. But that's not the case. It's actually really, really hard to get people to buy these things. And you have to give them a story and they have to like that story. And if you change the story a few times too many. They don't want to listen to you anymore. Like it's kind of like the golden rule of shitcoinering. It's like you can't change. You've given us the rules. They're crazy. Okay, but we agreed and now you're changing them. Like you're not supposed to do that. And some might not care, but collectively they definitely care. So yeah, I want to see more discussion on it, but thanks for having me on, man.

B (105:26)

Yeah, man. As always. It's been, it's been way too long. We need to, we need to bring back. I want to, I want to like have like, like I don't think I'm going to make this like a full on shitcoin Insider episode like with the logo and everything, but I think I want to have like a little, a little nod to it. Like I have it. Have it in like the image or whatever. It's like it's like a bitcoin audible chat and there's a little shitcoin Insider there because like we need, we need it. We need to still do these every once in a while. Like I don't have. I don't dislike her. Like I've not gotten rid of any. I still talking about AI Just had an episode about AI a couple of days ago actually and I still like this format and, and it's good to have you on you always, always interesting discussions. So I appreciate it man. Thanks for, thanks for coming back and hanging out. Shout out to the shitcoin Insider for joining me again for a little bit of throwback and a fantastic conversation about the cat. I'm curious what you guys think about this proposal. To what extent you think a response is warranted to this situation to the UTXO bloat is even a problem. And do you support a soft fork? You support, you know, the tap root cleanup bip. What is it?

A (106:48)

444 and.

B (106:50)

Or the cat or none at all or V30. I'm always eager to hear and like talking to everybody about their, their perspective on all of this. I mean as long as they can have an adult conversation. That's not everybody on either side of this. But you know, shout it out. Call me stupid, say I'm a scammer for supporting or talking about one on the show or the other, I'm going to be here talking about it anyway. So I hope you guys enjoy it and like the show and enjoy digging into this stuff with me. Again, shout out to the shitcoin Insider for always being knowledgeable whenever I need him to be. And to our amazing sponsors, Leden I.O. for Bitcoin backed loans to synonym for their amazing stack of protocol and tools for re decentralizing the web. Check it out if you're a vibe coder and the HRF for their amazing work and the financial Freedom report. And then lastly, get Chroma for keeping my energy levels right and making it so I'm not being my hormone levels aren't being absolutely obliterated while I sit here and work life late at night. So thank you guys and thanks to the sponsors. Don't forget to check those out. Shout out to the audio Knots Love you guys. You're my crew and I'll catch you on the next episode of Bitcoin. Audible and until then everybody, that's my two cents. Sam.