Bitcoin Spam is Bad. So is BIP-110 | Giacomo Zucco

Summary

THE Bitcoin Podcast – “Bitcoin Spam is Bad. So is BIP-110.”

Host: Walker America

Guest: Giacomo Zucco

Air Date: March 13, 2026

---

Episode Overview

In this fiery, insightful episode, Walker America sits down with Bitcoin educator and curator Giacomo Zucco to confront perhaps the most contentious topic in Bitcoin today: "spam", "BIP-110", and the social, technical, and political rifts threatening the protocol’s cohesion. The discussion pivots from Zucco’s anti-spam crusade to a comprehensive breakdown of BIP-110, its merits, flaws, and broader implications for Bitcoin governance and culture. Zucco also shares updates on the explosive growth of Plan B in Lugano and the cypherpunk-driven Cypher Tank initiative, all while keeping the tone sharp, unscripted, and unfiltered.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Giacomo Zucco on Plan B & Cypher Tank

[01:22–12:30]

• Plan B Overview:

  • Originates from Lugano’s partnership with Tether (2022), with five main goals:
    1. Network of merchants accepting Bitcoin and stablecoins (USDT, CHF Stablecoin)
    2. Summer schools for global Bitcoin education
    3. Establishment of a "Bitcoin hub" for startups and research
    4. Creation of a VC fund for Bitcoin initiatives
    5. Launch of a multi-national Bitcoin forum
  • Rapid growth: From a handful of participants to “6,000+ people turnover during the last Plan B week” and over 400 merchants in Lugano accepting Bitcoin ([05:46]).

• Cypher Tank:

  • Bitcoin's answer to Shark Tank—funding both for-profit and non-profit Bitcoin projects, featuring unscripted, improvised pitching by MCs.
  • Resulted in “$850,000 total for six projects, three for-profit, three nonprofit” ([09:46]).
  • Positive reception led to discussions for more extensive future editions.

• Plan B’s Approach:

  • Noted strengths: grassroots energy, results-driven action, Italian “improvisational” style.
  • Recent expansions include university programs and a growing international presence.

---

2. On Bitcoin Debates & Community Division

[12:30–15:21]

• Debate Culture:
  • Zucco credits John Carvalho for introducing formal debate panels at conferences: “Panels, they tend to be…circle jerky...in debates you can actually make your statements and they are useful…to educate the public in a dialectic way.” ([14:10], Zucco)
• Need for Contention:
  • Both agree that Bitcoin debates foster critical thinking and challenge dogmatism; critical, as the protocol faces mounting “work-things-out-in-public” pressure.

---

3. Spam, Censorship and the Core of the Bitcoin Debate

[19:58–47:27]

• Spam is Definitionally Spam:

  • Zucco’s stance: “Spam is well defined…communication in bulk which is not welcomed or desired by the receiver in digital format. So that's very clear. And that was spam.” ([19:58], Zucco)
  • Fee payment does not legitimize spam: “If he pays a fee, it's not spam. That's nonsense.” ([19:58], Zucco)

• Filtering vs. Censorship:

  • Filtering spam is not censorship, particularly if done at the mempool rather than the consensus level.
  • “For me, fighting spam, if anything is a mempool thing. Consensus is not.” ([22:19], Zucco)

• Argument Evolution:

  • Early community consensus held that spam filtering should not be a consensus change.
  • As spam-related attacks (including “CSAM panic”) escalated, debate migrated toward proposals like BIP-110, shifting the Overton Window:
    • “The political spectrum of the Nazis moved so far on the left that now I remain a dangerous right wing pro core spammer.” ([29:16], Zucco)

• On Ordinals/Inscriptions:

  • Continues to denounce ordinal/inscription data as “retarded” and spam.
  • Argues monetary transactions are often indistinguishable from spam from a technical viewpoint.

• Layer 2 as a Solution:

  • Layer-2 solutions (e.g., Lightning, Ark) are critical for spam mitigation:
    • “The mitigation of spam is moving as much as economics we can to the second layers and to off chain.” ([38:16], Zucco)
    • Irony: “The camp of BIP110 right now…tends to be against layer 2s because he sees layer 2s as spam. It's the opposite. It's the answer to spam.” ([41:25], Zucco)

---

4. The BIP-110 Soft Fork: Dissection and Critique

[47:27–87:29]

• Knots Filtering Realization:

  • Emergence of BIP-110 signals relay-level filtering couldn’t curb spam as hoped:
    • “Does the emergence of BIP110 broadly just signal that the knots filtering didn't actually work at the relay level?... Yes, it does, but that signals an inconsistency anyway because what we were saying back then is… I know that filtering is difficult, but… we are still signaling and increasing friction.” ([48:31], Zucco)

• Philosophical Parallel—Immigration and Fallacy:

  • Zucco draws a comparison to immigration policy debates: wishing for total solution after partial measures fail is a psychological trick, not real pragmatism.

• BIP-110’s Weaknesses:

  • Criticisms include:
    1. Activation Mechanism:
       • “It includes an activation method…with a relatively low hash rate readiness threshold…If it doesn't meet that threshold, it will still activate regardless. Which I think is bad.” ([76:53], Zucco)
       • Opposes UASF-style “emergency” soft forks unless threat is truly existential.
    2. Emergency Framing:
       • Initial justification was “legal compliance” (now removed), which he describes as “a statist cuck thing to do” ([87:29], Walker).
       • Urgency around spam/CSAM is, in Zucco’s view, overblown and used for emotional manipulation:
         • “If you try to push an emergency on me, red flag.” ([77:29], Zucco)
    3. Sloppy Technicals:
       • Core v30 OP_RETURN policy change was “sloppy” and handled in a way that felt like a “power flex” or provocation to Zucco ([83:00], Zucco).
       • BIP-110’s restrictions break compatibility for certain wallets (miniscript/Nunchak), causing unnecessary disruptions.
    4. Wasting of Scarce Consensus Change:
       • “Changing consensus is harder and harder... This feels like a temporary emergency LED fork, which is not really an emergency. It's a waste of scarce coordination space for a good fork.” ([80:10], Zucco)

• What Will Happen?

  • Zucco expects BIP-110 to fail either due to insufficient miner signaling, or through post-activation abandonment:
    • “I think the signaling will be so low and any kind of future markets will signal such a low interest for this post fork coin... The fork will fail. And by failing it will reduce the credibility of what was my camp.” ([88:26], Zucco)
  • Predicts key anti-spam voices will become marginalized, weakening their camp’s credibility and diminishing community cohesion.
  • Memorable closing:
    • “That’s basically my fear. I cannot change it. What I can do is voice opposition to that because at least my credibility and enthusiasm will be unwavering and I can keep the fight until they recover from the loss.” ([93:46], Zucco)

---

Notable Quotes & Moments

• On ideological drift and social backlash:

  “The political spectrum of the Nazis moved so far on the left that now I remain a dangerous right wing pro core spammer.” – Giacomo Zucco ([29:16])

• On Bitcoin culture and tolerance:

  “Bitcoin, unlike corporate world…is tolerant of crazy weirdos as long as they provide something useful for bitcoin.” – Giacomo Zucco ([34:09])

• On wokeism and open source:

  “I think Bitcoin has been blessed… It was the most work resistant open source project ever. That said…wokeness in software was a problem.” – Giacomo Zucco ([60:38])

• Giacomo’s position on BIP-110:

  “I will explain and double down. There are many things I don't like on BAP 110…” – Giacomo Zucco ([76:53])

• Summing up the spam fight:

  “Bitcoin will not die for spam either. Not because spam is not a problem. I think spam is a serious problem in bitcoin.” – Giacomo Zucco ([34:00])

• On the future of BIP-110:

  “The fork will fail. And by failing it will reduce the credibility of what was my camp.” – Giacomo Zucco ([88:26] & [94:00>])

---

Key Timestamps

• [01:22–12:30]: Giacomo details Plan B’s explosive growth, the merchant network, and Cypher Tank’s success.
• [14:10]: On the value of debates and moving past “circle jerky” Bitcoin panels.
• [19:58]: Spam’s definition, the core debate about inclusion/censorship, and ordinals.
• [29:16]: Ideological drift in the anti-spam camp.
• [34:00]: How layer 2 solutions solve for spam, off-chain vs on-chain efficiency.
• [47:27]: Walker probes whether BIP-110’s consensus push was capitulation after failed filtering.
• [60:38]: Wokism’s entry into open source/Bitcoin, the impact on Bitcoin Core.
• [76:53]: Zucco critiques BIP-110 in detail.
• [88:26]: Zucco forecasts the likely failure and fallout of BIP-110.
• [94:00–96:40]: Closing thanks, plugs for Plan B and Cypher Tank, and playful banter.

---

Resources & Further Reading

• Cypher Tank: cyphertank.org
• Plan B Network: planb.network (and related Plan B initiatives)
• Walker America on Nostr: primal.net/walker
• Giacomo Zucco on X: @giacomozucco

---

Summary & Takeaways

This marathon episode provided a masterclass in Bitcoin civics: the technical, social, and political games that shape Bitcoin’s direction. Giacomo Zucco, an incisive anti-spam voice, lays out why BIP-110 represents a consensus-level misstep, rooted in performative urgency and, ultimately, destined for rejection. More broadly, the episode is a sobering exploration of Bitcoin’s capacity for dialogue, its resistance to cultural and ideological capture, and the eternal struggle to remain both open and robust in an ever-polarizing world.

Bottom line:
“Spam is bad. But BIP-110 is worse.”
The best hope for Bitcoin? “Move the real action off-chain, keep the protocol tight, and don’t confuse urgency with wisdom.”

Transcript

[Giacomo Zucco]

The fork will fail. And by failing it will reduce the credibility of what was my camp. The political spectrum of the noses moved so far on the left that now I remain a dangerous right wing pro core spammer. Bitcoin is tolerant of crazy weirdos as long as they provide something useful for bitcoin. People had wrote me in private and called me to tell me not to be friends with Luke. And my answer was F. People are now telling me that if I want to be a good person, I should not be friend with you, Todd, and you as well. And they have some ideas about bitcoin that I find not only wrong, but like super wrong. Bitcoin will not die for spam either. Not because spam is not a problem. I think spam is a serious problem in bitcoin. Why cut off your D? I don't care. Dress like a woman. The point is that bitcoin had it good. It was the most work resistant open source project ever.

[Michael Walker]

That said, you specifically listed your favorite and least favorite bips. You put bip110 in your least favorites.

[Giacomo Zucco]

I will explain and double down.

[Michael Walker]

Giacomo Zuko. Pizza, pasta, cappuccino in the afternoon. How are you doing, my friend?

[Giacomo Zucco]

I'm fine, thank you. Tired. Has been almost two years of nonstop activity with this Plan B craziness. And I'm starting to feel it because I'm not as young as I was when I created the BHB in Milan in 2014. So now I feel it, but I'm happy. Results are great. As always with Italians, what we miss is a clear structure, but not results. That's. That's something that is pushing me forward.

[Michael Walker]

Uh, can you talk a little bit, actually, just about what, what you guys are doing at Plan B? Just for. For those who may not be familiar, haven't. Haven't seen the stuff you guys have put out, haven't been to one of the Plan B forums or anything like that. There's a lot of stuff underneath your umbrella. Can you maybe just give folks an overview of it for those who don't know?

[Giacomo Zucco]

Absolutely. Also, the umbrella itself is not a super. Is a large one because there is a Plan B price, model and Plan B passport. So it's a very. It's a very popular sentence and phrase in bitcoin. So in 2022, I was not here. I'm right now I'm in beautiful Lugano. Well, this part is not so beautiful, but the city is beautiful and, and I was not here. And the company tether like Stablecoin, plus a lot of Bitcoin activity. I already knew them because they were funding with Bitfinex R research and BDK research and open test times research and proof Marshal research. So I knew them as funders and basically patrons of a lot of bitcoin research and development. And I was involved. And they basically they were in Lugano because they physically were Lugano. And they joined the city of Lugano with a memorandum of understanding MoU called Plan B with five main topics. One, the creation of a network of merchants to adopt Bitcoin as a payment and USDT because it was theta plus a stablecoin, a Swiss franc Stablecoin of the city of Lugano, which is basically Swiss francs credit for a cashback mechanism. So that was the first pillar. Second pillar was to create a summer school teaching bitcoin to young people from all around the world, Getting them to Lugano to teach them bitcoin technicals and business aspect. And that was the second. The third pillar was to acquire a historical building in Lugano and turn it into a bitcoin hub of startups and research and development and education and everything. So like a bitcoin campus in the heart of Lugano. The other one was to create a. A VC fund, basically some money to be put on top of this activity. And the last one was to create a conference, a world famous conference. So the city of Lugano and theater started to do stuff. In 2022 they did the first plan B summer school. I was not there, not invited, not even as a teacher. It started, it went and then they did, in October of the same year, they did the first Plan B forum, which was a conference about bitcoin. I was invited as a speaker. It was very good. I find it very interesting because it was not hyper technical, but there was some technical part. It was not hyper financial, but there were suit coiners already. It was not bitcoin only, but not because they were shitcoins. There was one actually back then, but now we removed it. But because there was a lot of freedom tech, which is adhesions to Bitcoin, like peer to peer communication, encrypted communication, drones, all these kind of Plan B tech. So tech, which is focused on resiliency, decentralization, individuals. So the conference started. Then they involved another company, Fulgur Ventures, which I also worked with because they invested in most of the lighting ecosystem in order to do the hub and to do the Plan B VC fund. And then they started to do actual payment in the city. So they created the payment system and the payment System actually is now comprised of more than 400 merchants that will accept Bitcoin for a lot of things like food, medicines, hotels. I bought my car in bitcoin so a lot of different things.

[Michael Walker]

The Gronis.

[Giacomo Zucco]

Yeah, exactly. Negronis and Spritz and many other things. So I was invited as a speaker in October 2022 that I was invited as a teacher in June 2023 for the summer school. And then they asked me Fulgur and Theater asked me to take over some of the functions. Specifically they gave the entire school program to me. So we created this Plan B network, Plan B Academy. We started to do free courses, business school, tech school and all these other activities. We started a lot of university program, the Polytechnic of Turin. We started a Bitcoin master in a master school, executive master school at Turin. We did one in Taipei and tut I'm going there to teach. I'm a professor now in Taipei for. For next month. So. So that was crazy. And. And then after that they put me in charge to some degree of the populating the ecosystem of the Plan B hub, which is where I'm now. So bringing in startups now here we have. We have Arc Labs, one of the two creator of the new Ark Protocol Arcade is here. We have the Swiss part of Ocean, we have the Swiss part with the main lighting developer of Ocean which is resident here. We have Deify incorporated here which is like something by Maskum of Hodl HODL and Bitcoin Balticon Badger. We have Bitvault which is a security startup for multisig and stuff like that. We have Liquid, the other liquid like LKWD which is a huge lightning operator, which one of the biggest lighting nodes. We have Blockstream and the Blockstream Research Institute which is incorporated here and other few startups of the Fulgur and Theta world. So this is also happening. And then the year 2025 was basically my entering this ecosystem and sorry, 2024 was my bike entering gradually. 2025 was the explosion. So what we did was creating a community which went from five people at the first Satoshi Spritz to 400 people during the last Plan B week. We created a Plan B week where we had basically more than 6,000 people turnover during the entire week of October of which more than 3,000 were attendees of the Plan B forum of Lugano. The Plan B forum itself was extended from Lugano only to Lugano and San Salvador. And maybe next year it will be Lugano, San Salvador and an Asian city. That's a possibility, but still not confirmed. And so that's growing and expanding. The Plan VC fund is operative, is investing in a few things, most notably the Plan B VC Fund and the Plan B Foundation for Nonprofit Projects was what I used to start to basically to bootstrap the cipher tank idea, which is coming from an idea of Mir and other people here in the local group. And you know what it is because you have been dragged into it with a lot of preparation, basically people. So if you don't know what we're talking about, go to Cypher Tank. Cypher like cypherpunk. That's the pun. And a tank like shark tank. It's a shark tank for bitcoin. I think for us the pun is even funnier because we say tank and punk in the same way. But for real, I don't know. Cypher tank or cypher Tank, depending on how you want to put it. And you go on cyphertank.org you find all the episodes and you find a great MC. Jonathan Mott, of course, but there is also, but there is also worker. And I have to say when you look at that, you will see that the great work that the MCs, they both actually, jokes aside, they were both great and they were both acting of absolutely zero preparation. So what I told them was I put them in a room and I told them there will be something happening, just go with the flow. And most of the things you will see is basically them being super professional with zero information and basically owning it and creating an incredible result. So the cyphertank was supposed to be a way to fund a few for profit startups with the Plan B VC fund and a few nonprofit projects with the Plan B foundation. We did 850k dollar total for six project, three for profit, three nonprofit. To know which one, you have to watch it. And so it was a success. So much so that when we finished, the main point was to have an event in Lugano around the Plan B forum during this Plan B week. By the way, the Plan B week is this idea to create this event around the event. So the form is the form and it's great, but it's limited in the capacity even. And so what we do is to create this week with a lot of activities around from going to the shooting range, a lot of bitcoiners shooting stuff. It was called Shoot at the Moon or Shoot to the Moon. And then there was a kidnap anti kidnapping training by Alena and her Glock team. There was institutional stuff about like capital markets with Blockstream, there was an official technical launch of the live of Arcade Layer 2. There was workshops to build seed signers from scratch and jade from scratch. So a lot of stuff from the super technical, super nerd to the financial, a lot of incredible things. So Cipher Tank was supposed to be one of those. Something we did for that week, but then the material was so freaking good that we decided to invest a little bit of money into making the production good quality basically. And the result is, I mean, as an Italian and as a bitcoiner, I'm not used to being involved in professional stuff. Usually I'm always only involved in al fast stuff. And in this case it was freaking good. So considering that we're now discussing a possible like even bigger and stronger and longer and uncut, as they say in south park, the movie second edition, it

[Michael Walker]

was a, it was a really great. It is true that you guys prepared us not at all in terms of Joe and I, but the, the, the pitches that were there were fantastic. Some hilariously not so fantastic, but that adds to the drama, of course. But it was. I liked the concept a lot and I think it's one of those things that hopefully just because of the, you know, it's, it's. Yeah, it was focused around bitcoin and everything, but it's still kind of this startup vibe. It has that Shark Tank vibe, but with bitcoiners, I hope, and I think that it has reached outside of the echo chamber a little bit because I know that was one of the goals as well, was try to make some content that's not just going to sit in this small niche of bitcoiners, but can actually appeal to a wider range of people with whether it be, you know, just some interesting tech, some a little bit of unplanned comedy, whatever it might be. So I love the concept and for anyone who hasn't gone to either the Lugano or the El Salvador Landi Forum, it really is a great time. Carl and I were at the first ever one in Lugano. We're just blown away by the city of Lugano also. It's like you didn't even know what this city was until we went there and then we were like, what is this magical place? It's just, it's breathtaking. The Negronis never stop flowing. It's like this magical city, but highly recommend people check it out. Extremely high signal as well. Really good programming and yeah, you know, always one of the other things that I like about the programming for both the El Salvador and the Lugano Forum is there's always a few spicy debates. There's always. They always throw in some very like, kind of contentious debates on whatever the topic of the kind of topic du jour happens to be. Right.

[Giacomo Zucco]

I have to give a tip about that because actually in Madeira's Madeira. So the origin of that is actually John Carvalho. So we were in Madeira and John was being a little bit negative sometimes he is. And he was like, ah, always this incredible but true. He was negative. And he said these panels, people always agree on everything. They're just secret jerks. So let's do a real debate like they do in debate class, like with two podiums with stuff like that. And he was discussing with made organizers. And then I just. I mean, it's open source. So I went to give the plan B forum organizers and John has an idea and Giv loved it. And then we organized it straight away for Lugano and we kept the format. And I think it's been very entertaining and also useful to understand things because during debate you have to put so panels, they tend to be like a little bit circle jerky. Why? While in debates you can actually make your statements and they are useful not. Not just to. Not just to change the minds of the opponents, but also to educate the public in a dialectic way. So I'm also a fan of those.

[Michael Walker]

I am too. And I think they do a good job of that. And hopefully, you know, the goal is like, okay, maybe you. Maybe you at least changed a couple people's minds, or even if you didn't change any minds with your arguing of your side, maybe you at least made people think a little bit more deeply about something. Whatever side of an issue you happen to be on, it's good to see bitcoiners up there representing all ends of that spectrum and debating it and trying to, you know, work that out in public. Like, that's, I think a valuable thing that bitcoiners do. And there's been a lot of working things out in public recently. I recently found out that you are now a spammer and it had nothing to do with Zucksbucks. You. You're a shitcoin spammer. And it actually didn't have anything to do with Zucksbucks, which is really the surprising part of this. Do you. Should we get into that a little bit? Should we get. Because right now, Jacqueline, I think the. We were just talking off camera. The. The last time I had you on the show was actually, it was a little while ago was when the. The ordinals inscription stuff was just, just popping off. We were having a discussion about that. I think it was pretty clear to everyone. They're like, hey, you know, you were very strongly the opinion like, look, this is, this is spam. This is garbage. This is junk. Yeah, it's probably going to get priced out as well, but we should call it what it is. It's, it's spam. You still hold that same opinion. Um, but apparently now you are Persona non grata in some circles. Maybe a good place to start is. Okay, maybe we'll start at. Do we start with. Do we start with Knots Core? Do we start with bip110? Where, where's the most logical place to start for this? Because honestly, I, I, I don't even know. Wish you could access cash without selling your Bitcoin. Leden makes that possible. The global leader in Bitcoin backed lending, LEDN, has issued over $10 billion in loans since 2018 and has a perfect record of protecting client assets. Why is a Leaden loan different? Well, with custody loans, collateral is not lent out to generate interest. No credit checks, no monthly payments. Apply in minutes and repay whenever you want with zero penalties. And proof of reserves. Reports verified by a top accounting firm are published every six months. LEDN gives Bitcoin holders a secure, transparent way to unlock liquidity without selling. Learn more @LEDN IowaWalker that's LEDN IowaWalker. If you're hodling Bitcoin personally or for a business, here's the uncomfortable truth. You probably don't have insurance. Most policies exclude Bitcoin, and the ones that don't, they only pay you back in fiat. What's the point of that? If you need to claim a loss when number go up, that's not insurance, that's liquidation. Now there's another option. Bdic. They're building an insurance marketplace on the Bitcoin standard. One Bitcoin lost equals one Bitcoin paid. They've integrated with Liana Business for enterprise self custody with personal wallet coverage options coming later this year. If you care about protecting your Bitcoin as Bitcoin, sign up for the waitlist at BDIC I.O. walker. That's BDIC I.O. walker Insurance on the Bitcoin standard Blockstream Jade delivers robust security with fully open source hardware and software. Its unique Genuine Check feature ensures your device is authentic, giving you ultimate peace of mind. With versatile connectivity options including Bluetooth, USB C built in camera and SD card, Jade offers unparalleled flexibility and in managing your Bitcoin, whether you prefer wireless convenience or Air Gapped security Jade has you covered. Its innovative design features, a durable metal case, a bright 1.9-inch color screen, and intuitive navigation buttons that make managing your Bitcoin straightforward and enjoyable. Jade also supports secure Air Gapped transactions via QR Code signing using the Jade Link storage device, keeping your Bitcoin safe without compromising convenience. Visit store.blockstream.com and use my coupon code WALKER for an exclusive 10% discount on your Blockstream Jade. Plus protect your Bitcoin sleep better. Stack harder.

[Giacomo Zucco]

Now let me, let me start from from our last debate. So what I was doing back there back then was to be super active. And I think I can everybody can check. I was going in every podcast by being super active in in. In the debate with a few positions. One position was spam is spam all this pseudo philosophical nonsense. What is spam anyway? Spam is well defined, is communication in bulk which is not welcomed or desired by the receiver in digital format. So that's very clear. And that was spam. And there is no. I tried to debunk the idea. If he pays a fee, it's not spam. That's nonsense. And we explain why bitcoin cannot have spam filtering spammy censorship. And I started to do this everywhere. I went to Prague to actually I proposed to to to Las Vegas a speech called Ordinals are retarded being rejected. So I brought it to Prague to BTC Prague and I have been.

[Michael Walker]

Well, it was a great speech.

[Giacomo Zucco]

Thank you, thank you, I liked it. Then I went to to Las Vegas with unconfiscatable and I gave a speech what is this censorship? Trying to debate the definition of censorship versus filtering. And then I went to your podcast, many other podcasts, of course the bitcoin podcast and also some other bitcoin podcasts in order to debate this. And I was super active. I think I've been even to some degree boring in how much committed I was the specific debate. Then there was the second debate which is now that there is spam well defined and filtering is not censorship. How much practical it is to fight it with what. What kind of tool. And I was very, very clear that I find fighting it with filters not a problem. Something that we can do. It does make little sense from a point of view of network network gatekeeping because of the way wet networks work. But it does make sense if you're a miner because at least your blocks are not included. Spam, you may give up a little bit of money because of that, but not even that much. You it can make sense even just to give a signal. I don't want to broadcast spam even. I mean what happens? People were saying yeah, but then you mess up your fee estimation. And I did check, I did run a libre rely which is Peter Todd's library that will rely any kind of shit. And then there is. I did, I am still running knots and I was comparing fee estimation is relatively good. I did also compare, there is some change of course I did compare also basically propagation times and stuff like that. I own some Asics so I was checking my miners and I did realize that it was not a problem to filter. Not very effective, not a problem either. So I fought against the narrative that oh, if you are filtering, you are censoring or you are destroying the network or this is an urgency. I was very active during the the Bitcoin Core Version 30 release, the pre release debate into being absolutely against what was happening both in the merit because the change was unnecessary, it was controversial, it was treated as non controversial, it was triggering a lot of unnecessary animosity and the process to go there was super sloppy and was a signal of a bad health of the core process in my opinion because there were PRs open, then all the negative comments hidden, then the PR was closed, then open it just for the friends of the developers to push some act and then closed again. And a lot of shenanigans and people that I knew, they were in the same office physically debating and gatekeeping the debate. So I was very vocally against that. And then the other part of the element was that people were trolling us, people on the other side, including my friends, core developers, they were trolling us like just for cough. If it's like mempool filters, they don't work. If you really want to stop spam, just make it consensus. And I was very adamant, no, this is a provocation, but it doesn't make sense. Consensus is a serious thing with a high cost for changing it, with a lot of opportunity cost because we have more serious thing to do with consensus and consensus is static, you have a few chances to change it. We are not Ethereum or Monero or Tron, we don't change the rules every month, we commit the rules and rules are a serious thing and we don't change it. And mempool filters are local things that we can update even automatically may not be a good idea, but we can, they are not as important. So for me, fighting spam, if anything is a mempool thing. Consensus is not. And everybody on my side Was agree with me. Yes, stop trolling. We are not forking off. Ha, you wish. We are keeping filters on. But then something happened, and that something was mostly the movement of a few letters around from spam to ksam, csam. And I started to really disagree with my own side. Back then it was basically a couple of people on my side, but most of the people seemed agree with me that that was a weird problem to discuss. Mostly because. Mostly because if you talk spam, it's well defined, but even if you just reduce slightly the rate, that's already spam filtering, spam filtering doesn't mean eliminating spam. That's impossible. Spam filtering is even just mitigating, even just socially signaling against or creating some social ostracism for the spammers. It's already good enough. We're not going to eradicate it. But with that argument, one single criminal image, let alone. There is all this libertarian debate to be had about the fact that a crime is the same thing as the image of a crime. And so if I put there the Hiroshima bombing image, I'm culpable of Hiroshima. But then of course, if we talk about specific child pornography, that's something that perverts will, will use in order to be somehow connected with that kind of horrible crime. So there's also this moral debate, and then there is a debate of practical tools to avoid it. So unlike spam, if you mitigate the rate of this kind of legal attack surface from 200 every hour to 100 every hour, you are literally doing nothing. So this is, I consider this an unfixable problem. Some people try to straw man this position as you are denying there is a legal risk. No, I'm saying the legal risk is there has always been there and it will always be there. And there is no, really, there is no meaningful way to reduce it. Then people started to say that the difference where because of contiguity of the data. So if you send the transaction with this kind of criminal image, which is contiguous versus not. And I started to. There are many reasons. This I consider, I considered and I considered this nonsense. And then this escalated to basically, if you don't do something with that, you are a pedophile. And that's, I mean, that started to become, to become a little bit nasty. And that was going around a lot. And then finally people started from this. Unlike spam, this was considered an existential emergency. Like, if this is not fixed, everybody will shut down the node because otherwise everybody's a pedophile or something like that and so it became okay, now we fork off. And at this point I was keeping my. So you know, there is this meme which is funny. Maybe we can find it later and you can put it into production. So Elon Musk also shared it and it's basically something like in 2006, in 2006 there is this guy with a little bit left leaning and then there is a left and the right wing of the. Of the political spectrum. The guy stays there. He doesn't move. He's still left leaning and. But the left, radical left is running away to. To move the Overton window so much that after a while he find himself to be labeled far right and he's still there. So that happened to me basically. I was a Nazi. I was against spam, against core behavior as a process. I was fully in that camp. But that and I repeating the same thing I was telling to you basically three years ago. I seen the same things. But now the political spectrum of the Nazis moved so far on the left that now I remain a dangerous right wing pro core spammer. And that's funny to see. There's also another meme, the one in which they, they push you. So basically there are red versus blue and the red are. The blue are pushing you and then they're you. You fall on the right with the red and the. The blue is telling you why are you siding with the enemy now? Well, I mean you. I'm still saying the same thing. I'm saying since three years, maybe I'm wrong, but you cannot pre. Oh yeah, this is the first one. Thank you. This is the first. So that's me. Sadly, in this one, nodes are left. I think that if you actually try to map it, you should flip it because I think nodes tend to be more right wing overall and some core developers can be a little bit woke left side. But if you flip it, I was there like center to right. Yeah, I mean I don't like spam. I'm very vocal about spam. I don't like core. I'm there, I'm still there. The problem is that the center moved to my left so much that I'm now a Pro spam core V30 shield. By the way, I never installed Bitcoin versus 30. I'm still very critical about that. And I'm still very critical about spam and legitimization of spam and ordinals. I still think they are retarded. And yeah, so there's that.

[Michael Walker]

I appreciate that overview. And you know, this has all Been just somewhat absurd to me because some of the initial, like I get the desire to want to reduce spam as much as possible. Like I have personally never published arbitrary data on the blockchain. Not even a single Bible verse. You know, who would do such a thing? Not even a single Bible verse for me. But it appears that now we've gotten to this point where, like you said, it's. It's doesn't matter that you have kept your same principles the entire time, have stayed steadfast in your messaging the entire time. You are somehow viewed as now a bad actor simply because you are not agreeing with every new leap that is made ideologically. And this is sort of like a. This feels like an identity politics game is what it feels like. It feels like that it's the same thing. It's like, you know, Ukraine flag in bio, you know, bip 110 in bio. Like all the, it's. It's all the, the signaling. Now you're a different story. You're always, you know, putting whatever insult was thrown at you recently in, in your, in your bio. I, I like that usually, but it, it's just a little strange for me. Yeah. Because. Well, wait, wait. What's your current. What's your current moniker that you have in your.

[Giacomo Zucco]

I think it's some, some VIP 110 guy told me I'm an ideological destroyer of bitcoin. So I think now I might.

[Michael Walker]

I mean, ideological destroyer sounds kind of good by itself, actually. It sounds like a cool, like, heavy metal band.

[Giacomo Zucco]

Yeah. And just before I was Distributed Authoritarian, which was the moniker that Gregory Maxwell was labeling on everybody supporting Star9 Lab's great work for Bitcoin nodes. So they were distributed authoritarian for filtering

[Michael Walker]

spam, which is just a statement that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but we'll leave that aside. I have, I have also, again, to clarify, I've never told anyone to run Core V30. I've publicly stated many times, I don't run it. I won't be running it because I don't know, I gotta check what version I'm running on my node down in my basement. But several versions behind because Bitcoin node software is backwards compatible. That's the whole point. You don't need to update with every new version. You really shouldn't either. You know, maybe wait a few years, like, wait, see how things play out. You'll be okay. And so always told people, like, look, you don't have to update your nodes. Don't do it. But simply Because I think that fees ultimately, you know, monetary use cases, price out, non monetary use cases, spam. And I haven't actively told people to run knots. I've actually, I have said run knots, run core, run whatever you want. I. I don't care what you do. It's none of my business. And I don't have time to care about what you do. I don't run Core V30. I don't spam the blockchain with any arbitrary data. I don't do any of that. But because I'm not fully on the, you know, the current ideological bandwagon, that makes me a bad actor and somehow compromised. Apparently people are receiving VC money too, which I didn't know. I wish some of that. If there's any VC money flowing around, you know, please send some my way. I wasn't aware of this, but this is, this is, you know, for you. It's an even more extreme case, I think, because you have been very actively crusading, more than almost anyone, against the retardation of the JPEGs on Bitcoin. And so I'm curious too, you know, to get into kind of bip110 specifically and the like. We can maybe go back to some of the CSAM arguments and stuff too. But honestly, those arguments, they're just, they're so. They're so mid curve that it kind of hurts to talk about them. Like it's literally the government meme. How would you like this wrapped counterterrorism or protect the children? Like it's that you're just doing that meme. But with regard to BIP 110 specifically, so, I mean, Luke has said, he has literally said if bitcoin will fail if we don't do this soft fork. Are you in agreement with that?

[Giacomo Zucco]

I'm not. But to be accurate about that, I think I can say I know Luke personally.

[Michael Walker]

Yeah, no, I know you do. You've worked with him.

[Giacomo Zucco]

Yeah, yeah. And I appreciate him a lot and I consider him a friend and a great mind. And look as a Luke vocabulary and a look. And what I say, what I used to say, is that his brain is a cathedral with a gothic one, which a lot of particular details, they are very consistent internally, but they tend to use the words in different way. So for him, bitcoin failing or bitcoin dying is not what trivially we would assign to that kind of terminology. For him, if some conditions are not met, bitcoin is dead. And usually there is an internal consistency in Luke, which is not perfect. Nobody's perfect, not even him. And nobody's perfectly consistent. You can, I think I can find inconsistency in, in what he says and what he. And what I say and I try to correct it. So it's not perfect, but he's more consistent than most. But he used terms in a way which is very, very different from other people. So the way Luke said, I think he. I'm almost sure he believes it and I'm almost sure that he may even be right in some of his definitions. Just that his definition tends to be very, very different from the common sense. Now many what I was not expecting, actually I was ridiculing the idea when some of my ideological opponents in the core field, they were in the core camp, they were telling me, but now people will ride up in Luke's idea that the sky is falling and we have to do something, we have to fork, otherwise. Otherwise Bitcoin is dead. I was minimizing and ridiculing that because I was saying, no, wait, Luke thinks that, but he's using Luke's speech and Luke think and I know what it is and I know what it means is not what you think. And people will never follow him because Luke was always the super useful maverick. And I tend to I'm friend with Luke and that has been. People had wrote me in private and called me to tell me not to be friend with Luke. And my answer was fuck you. And now I'm also friend with Peter Todd and people are now calling me and writing me and publicly telling me that if I want to be a good person, I should not be friends with Peter Todd and fuck you as well. And the main point is that I see them as very symmetric in my opinion. They are different in many cases, but I find their contribution to Bitcoin super important. I'm personally friend with both of them. They taught me most of the things I know about Bitcoin, both of them. And they have some ideas about Bitcoin that I find not only wrong, but like super wrong. I'm super strongly opposed to like Peter saying mess with the supply schedule. No crazy, unacceptable, go away. Like that's the door. Luke says change users are in charge. And if the users decide, if the majority of user, which is not very well defined outside of his mind, does want to change any rules, just change any rules. And I'm like, no, no ossification. I don't want that. I want the rules to be stable and predictable for the next century. So I disagree vehemently with them. Not Only in bitcoin things, but also in some off topic of bitcoin things like look things that probably should have. Maybe I'm misrepresenting him, but I'm just exaggerating to make a point. Death penalty for masturbation. I disagree. I clearly disagree. Or kill old Russian babies, otherwise they become terrorists. That's Peter, I freaking disagree. And they are both extreme. They're both, they're both brilliant people. But brilliant people can say crazy things because especially if you don't have skin in the game. Especially if you are, I mean there are many reasons. Maybe I also say some crazy things on some topics. And that's the beauty of bitcoin. Bitcoin, unlike corporate world, unlike the companies I used to work with before, Bitcoin is tolerant of crazy weirdos as long as they provide something useful for bitcoin. These two guys are both part of the history of bitcoin in a strong way. So now to get back to your question. I don't think bitcoin will die because of criminal illegal images encoded in it. I think that if it was going to die for that, then we have to make peace with the fact that it's dead. But I don't think it will die for that. But if I don't think there's any solution, I honestly wonder if there's one. And I honestly answer to myself, no, I don't think so. And I don't think the bitcoin will die only because of contiguous operator standard default child porn, because that would be retarded way to die. And I don't we can do something for that, but it's irrelevant and it will be irrelevant. And people misunderstand me because it's not irrelevant in the sense that the judge will tell you, oh look, is even if it's not, even if it's contiguous, you're free to go. Now it's the other way around. If the governments will ever try to attack Bitcoin by using this angle, which is possible because as you said, terrorism, children, that's all with the package. So if Bitcoin will be attacked with the child abuse angle by including something super bad and horrid in the transactions somewhere, somehow, I think the judge will not just not let you go because it's continuous, it will not let you go if it's not continuous either. And if it's not standard either, there is no reason the attack should be mitigated by these nonsense arguments. And so bitcoin will not die for that. Bitcoin will not Die for spam either. Not because spam is not a problem. I think spam is a serious problem in bitcoin. Why? Because Bitcoin is global consensus. That means that every full node must download and verify every transaction on chain from any other full node. Now, the way you you cannot solve this. This is an intrinsic issue with the design of Bitcoin. You can mitigate it. How? Well, with the. With two things. One, a rate limit. So you limit the rate. So you cannot have infinite blocks or frequent blocks because you have proof of work adjustment, difficult adjustment to limit the time rate. And you have the block size to limit the size. And so you have a rate limit. And not only you have a rate limit, rate limit. Are a spam mitigation always. But they are bad because they mitigate the spam. But they also mitigate the legit use case because they're limiting everything. In Bitcoin you have a rate limit with an unfair advantage to legit use. What is the unfair advantage? The legit use we know now can go off chain, can leave off chain, can aggregate transaction off chain arcs, lightning channels, lightning network in its entirety. Even fiduciary means like cashew means. So real use of bitcoin can move off chain. And I will argue that real legit use of bitcoin should go off chain as much as possible. Why? Because the blockchain is slow, expensive, censorship prone, spam prone and privacy weak on privacy. While the off chain is cheap, fast, censorship resistant, more you could have lightning may even work if they cut the Internet out of your country. We did some experiment with that. Of course you have security flows because you cannot close channels. So if your channel peer has Internet and you don't, that's bad. But if we are both off, we cannot change the channel, but we can still transact. So miners can prevent transaction from entering blocks if they have 51%. But they cannot prevent lightning transaction from happening. So lighting is even more censorship resistant. Lighting can be more private than on chain. We are not as private as we could be with lighting. But there is a limited potential to make lightning more private because it's off chain. So you don't have the original scene, which is every node must download every transaction. And of course off chain is spam resistant, unlike on chain. Because on chain if you spam, you force. Some people say it's not spam because you pay, but it is spam for this reason you pay once one inclusion and then you force every single full node to redondate your spam forever. This Is unlike email spam. In email, you send an email of spam and then you have to send another cost, nothing, but you have to send another. In Bitcoin, you spam once, paying a fixed cost, and then you have as a recipient every node forever, which is very bad. So my point is that the mitigation of spam is moving as much as economics we can to the second layers and to off chain, which is not just better for spam, it's better for spam, privacy, efficiency, speed, censorship, resistance, and everything else. Now, it's ironic that now for the way the subculture works and political movement works, they tend to create so political movements, they tend to create a package of ideas. If you are part of us for this issue, you also have to marry this other issue because that's the geometry of our package and you just have to accept it or you are the enemy. This kind of attitude created a weird situation in which the camp of BAP110 right now, very well defined, tends to be against layer 2s because he sees layer 2s as spam. It's the opposite. It's the answer to spam. So rate limiting is a good thing. So much so that I agree with Luke Dasher. We should reduce the block size. And I really think we should. And I'm able to argue forever that we should. That's one thing we can do, reducing the block size to limit the rate and then move everything that we can off chain, where spam is less of a problem. That creates an unfair advantage because off chain transactions, they can pool their fees to go on chain together. So basically, if we are in an arc, me, you and another thousand people, we can basically we can pull fees together to do one single ark round. While so we can. So let's say one transaction on chain costs $1,000. 1,000 Ark users can pool resources to pay $1 each. If you want to spam on chain, you have to pay the full block space. We cannot just pull together. Yeah, we can pull together, but then we're just sharing one single retarded JPEG and we cannot do 1000 retarded JPEG. It's very hard to pull economic activity of chain because the point of on chase spam is to use the space while monetary users, legit users, they can reduce the block space they use in order to go off chain. So it's ironic that the very things that can mitigate spam are now considered bad or taboo. Like people in that side are becoming increasingly suspicious of lighting itself or arcs or even bitvm. Bitvm is a culprit because it's something that may need some on chain space for some settlement and proofs. But the idea of bitvm is moving sats off chain. So the idea of bitvm is in exchange for some block space to close it or to prevent fraud, you are removing from the blockchain a lot of activity and monetary transactions. I don't like the frame. That was probably one of my first disagreements with the movement. I don't like to frame spam as opposed to monetary transactions on Bitcoin. Layer one, monetary transactions are spam, almost all of them in the sense that I don't want your transaction to be on my node, but I have to have it for the way bitcoin works. And when Bitmain did spam attack the network, so Bitmain did a spam attack. The spam attack was not jpegs. It was monetized transaction fake ones. So they were not paying anybody. But it was fully monetary from the outside. The difference with retardinals is that retardinal descriptions are even are. They are overt spam. So it's like we're not even hiding it. This is spam and we want you to know and we like for you to know this is spam. While Bitmain spam was hidden as monetary transaction, but it was still spam. So sorry, I'm ranting for too long. My main point is, my answer is no. I don't think bitcoin will die if BAP will fail.

[Michael Walker]

No, no. Giacomo, you know, this is always a safe space for rants. Well, okay, there's. There's a number of points I want to follow up on there. So let me. Let me try to. Try to try to frame them together here. I guess first question would be maybe a more direct one than I've got some more, let's say, like theoretical or philosophical, whatever you'd like to call them. But do you think that generally does. The fact that BIP110 is now on the table and seems to have been adopted by the folks operating in this Knots camp. And I don't like putting people into camps, but that seems to be the best way to describe them right now. So I'm not saying this as a pejorative, guys. I'm just. I'm using it as a way to label things. Yeah, I'm not trying to put. Not trying to put you in a camp. Don't like, don't worry, I'm not making a list. I think that's what they're doing actually. But does the emergence of BIP110 broadly just signal that the knots filtering didn't actually work at the relay level? It didn't work at that level. So it had to move to the consensus level. Because even Mechanic himself said he thinks consensus is the wrong place to fight spam.

[Giacomo Zucco]

Yes, it does, but that signals an inconsistency anyway because what we were saying back then is we know. So I was saying, and everybody was clapping in my side was I know this knot. I know that there is an asymmetry and that the intolerant minority of liberal relay can overcompensate even a majority of knots. I know that it's easier on a peer to peer network to propagate than to gatekeep. I know that filtering is difficult, but. And I know that if Core doesn't support a default for the network, the effect will be very low. The effect will be signaling like. Like a clear message social message, which is not very influential of an open network because anonymous people don't care about social messaging. But it can be influential in the. In the mid space, for example. I don't want retarding us in conferences. I want. So if you are. I cannot stop hackers and spammers and phishing attackers from operating on the Internet, but at least I cannot invite them to stage celebrating them with lies like you are innovating so we can at least gatekeep the social part, reject them from technical bitcoin conference physical meetups. At least that can be done. So filtering can give a social message and filtering can give some slight friction on top. That was our argument. So it's not novelty. You cannot say oh, but now it's not working. Well, we knew, we always responded. It doesn't matter. We are still signaling and we are increasing the friction a little bit because yeah, because we don't want to legitimize this. That was always the point. So we cannot say oh surprise, this is not working anymore. And that there is another thing which is deeper I think is that I've seen the emergency of this kind of problem, psychological problem. This situation should have a name, but I don't think it has a name. So there is a problem. You propose a solution which is proportionate to the problem. The solution is hard, so you fail to implement it. Because life is like that sometimes you fail to implement a solution. Since you fail, you find the next solution which is even harder, which is assuming even more things, which basically includes all the assumption of the first plus more and now you think that this one will actually win. And if you just say it won't, you are a defeatist. And like you, you say no, let's just go back to reason no, because that didn't work. Actually, let me say, let me try to be super unpopular here because I will take the classical anarcho capitalist anti border stance, which is very unpopular with everybody, right wing especially, and currently even among libertarians, I'm a huge minority. So my point will be with regard with immigration and I know now I'm losing any sympathies. I don't care, Fuck you. So I say what I think. So immigration is a problem because you have people coming in countries seeking for welfare, parasitism and you have different cultures that can also destroy some of the cultural beauty that was there because cultural shock is always a thing. And then you don't, in many western countries you don't have the right to discriminate. So you're forced to do integration even if you don't want. And then some of these cultures are more violent and you don't have rights of self defense because cops will take guns away from you and so you have to suffer and you cannot defend yourself. So all these things and then you have DEI policies. So some of these people will be hired instead of you, not because they're better, but just because they are different colors or whatever. So this is bad. So what is my solution? Well, I know it's hard, but my solution is remove welfare, liberalize self defense completely, liberalize exclusion, even when it's stupid and racist. It should be still free in my property. I don't want, I don't know, I don't want Italians in my property because Italians, I don't like that. That should be free. So that's my solution. Yeah, that's hard. That's utopian. You never. I know it's hard. I never said it was easy to implement Libertarianism, probably I'm going to fail, but that's the right proportionate solution. But then you have Trump and then you have another solution which just mass deport everybody. Man, this is just as difficult, just a little bit more. Because you have the problem of all the low pay workers to now deport. You have the problem of enforcement, which is crazy. You need to implement this kind of crazy surveillance, state surveillance with Palantir looking at faces so you can deport people. Then you have eyes, people shooting people if they protest. It's crazy. It's even worse, is just as difficult as the first. Just as unrealistic but now it's even ideologically inconsistent with freedom. So if I say, when I debate immigration, I say that. And Americans especially, they say, yeah, but I am suffering because my block now is full of whatever, like Mexican Pakistan, I don't know, they're shooting, raping or whatever. And so I'm suffering and you are proposing me to do nothing. Because what you're proposing is unrealistic. I know, but what I'm saying is that even the alternative you are proposing now, you are just falling for that because it seems newer. So the psychological trick is the first solution didn't work. So I was libertarian, but libertarian let me down. So now I'm going full status. Why? Because it's newer and I don't feel like repeating something that failed. I feel like doing something that is different. So this is like the opposite of the Einstein, Einstein quote. So doing the same things over and over again, expecting new results is the definition of stupidity. But that's. Sorry, Einstein, but that's stupid. Actually. Sometimes doing something over and over again if the alternative is even harder and even less realistic and also ideologically inconsistent is exactly the only thing you can do. Either nothing or you try again, Maybe with different styles, with different scale. Maybe you try to scale down, maybe you move and you migrate and you try with the different demographics. Maybe you try with seasteading or crypto anarchism online, or you try with Bitcoin. You try it with 3D printed guns to shoot to the cops. Do whatever. You don't shoot to the cops unless you have serious 3D printed guns. But what I'm saying is sometimes there is this fallacy in which the ideologically consistent method failed. So now I will move to an ideologically inconsistent method which will also fail and is obviously also going to fail because it's assuming even higher constraints than the previous. But the fact that you are compromising on the ideology makes you feel like you're finally becoming pragmatic. But. So let's move back to Bitcoin. Having the majority of the network filtering spam was possible, but hard. Having core keeping the same default was definitely possible. Not even that hard. We just needed core not to behave like they did. It failed. Now, making alternative to Bitcoin core as a default, we can, I think we will, I think I will help to do it because I think it's needed and beneficial to Bitcoin, but that any of these alternative becoming the new de facto majority, so much so that the same default on these new things. So let's say we fork Core version 29 and we make a new implementation. And I think I will help something like that with cheering and funding. But then we do that. Maybe we also become a competitor to Core and NOS, but we will never get to 90% relay share. So we're still to some degree failing. Now let's change consensus. Wait, to change consensus effectively you need the same things. So you need people to maintain your node. If we don't have core developers for my shitty alternative, let's imagine with the shitty alternative that also changes consensus. If Luke and two peoples are the only maintenance of knots, which I don't think is that bad, but It's a fact, bip 1 out of 10 will still be low on developers will still be low on miners. Yeah, you can fantasize that there is some kind of weird game theory that will magically give you everything, but it's just like saying, yeah, I mean libertarians failed, but with Trump King finally everything will be solved. And magically this time around, central planning will work and total power to police taste will not create any problem. I mean, yeah, this is not being pragmatic. This is just giving up a consistent over optimism to some inconsistent hyper over optimism. So you're trying to do something even harder, which will still fail, but now you're also compromising on principle. In the case of Bitcoin, the principle is not libertarianism, but is fixed rules. Not playing around with the rules, being conservative with rule changing and that kind of stuff.

[Michael Walker]

Somebody just commented in the Zapfest stream, Giacomo rants are the best and they attached some sats to that message. So thank you for that zapper out there.

[Giacomo Zucco]

So now you're financially compromised. That's like VC funding.

[Michael Walker]

I've been compromised. This, it's clearly. It's actually a Citria VC sock puppet account, I think. And that was. I didn't even know it, but they just compromised me. Okay, so once again we have a number of things to unpack here, Giacomo. I guess maybe the, the first thing here is I think that a lot of the. There's a lot of anger out there that I'm seeing from and like really vehemence from this BIP 110 camp crowd, whatever. And I think a lot of that is due to expectation setting. You know, happiness is expectations minus reality. Right. Well, if more of them would have understood what you said right there. And that was always your position that look, we can't get rid of spam. We can mitigate it though. We can mitigate it and we should mitigate it. We can't get rid of all of it. We're never going to get rid of all of it. We won't even necessarily get rid of most of it. We can get rid of some of it. We can make it more, less palatable to engage in this both in the meat space and in cyberspace. You know that I think that a lot of people had the idea that, no, if, if we just get enough, if I just run knots a little bit harder, then we'll get rid of spam. And when that obviously, you know, reality had different ideas because that's like, that was not a, it wasn't a realistic position for, for anyone to take. But some people did because they were talked into this or, you know, I don't know why, but then it was okay, well, we need to do something else. And the reason for the failure, it's not us. It's not our unrealistic expectations. It's that everyone else who disagrees with us is a bad actor and who's been compromised. And they're Epstein and their Mossad. And they're, you know, they're, they're clearly, they're all shitcoiners and they're spammers. It doesn't matter if they don't shit coin, doesn't matter if they don't spam. You know, it doesn't matter if what. It's just like they're. Anyone who disagrees with me and my increasingly extreme opinions which keep not working, must be a bad actor. And this, I think is just where things like completely, any semblance of dialogue seems to have just completely broken down. And I'm, I'm curious too. I mean, do you just. Let's, let's ask this very, very blatantly. Do you think Core V30 was an attack on Bitcoin?

[Giacomo Zucco]

Huh? So let me try to frame it this way. I think that, I think that the, the culture wars and the WOKE movement that are the last instantiation of the culture work wars is real. The Woke movement is so real that it's changed people's life. It got people fired. It was super virulent. In 2000, around a few years ago, it basically destroyed Star Wars, Disney, Indiana Jones. So it's pretty real. In entertainment, video games are completely destroyed. And even more seriously, outside of entertainment, entire communities and politics are destroyed by that. So that's a very real thing. I think that the Wok movement is disproportionately represented in software and especially open source software. And so you see something crazy. If you are interested in open source software. You have seen Linux, Torvald and I mean Jerry Applebaum before and everything in Rust and Tor and SQLite situation. So something really crazy in open source software now I think Bitcoin has been blessed to be not really that involved into that in the sense that actual. So we didn't have really Linustorwald equivalent because we don't have Linus Torvald, but also because Luke for a very long time was a sedevacantist Catholic that is saying that abortion is murder and that it should be theocracy small kingdoms with democratic. And it was. It would have been ostracized by any open source project years ago during peak wokeness, but it was pretty much respected in bitcoin and said so bitcoin had it good. It was the most work resistant open source project ever. That said, since wokeness in software was a problem and when you start to see many bitcoin core contributors and maintainers becoming transgender, which is not a problem, I mean cut off your dick, I don't care, dress like a woman. The point is that that was strongly associated with an intolerant movement in which if you don't use the self appointed pronouns you get ostracized by software because you don't abandon these to some kind of crazy demand of negation of reality. So the two person in question never did that. The two trans among recent big commentators, they never bothered anybody about pronouns so they behave correctly. But when you see two of them starting to become around there and then you see the conservative, super conservative or even reactionary sedevacantist traditional Catholic being hosted by the development. Luke was always tolerated. Even the weird things about Luke were always tolerating bitcoin. Now he's completely out. He's out of the physical meetups, is out of the security disclosure list, is out of the BIP repository. Not yet, but he will be hosted by the BAP repository, is out of the mailing list or with the translation project. Every single of those things in excuse like yeah, but look this these. But the reality is that he was tolerated before is not now. Then you see like you see something that people mock me sometimes when I say but say that but because it. Because it's not serious. And I agree, but it's a symbol, it's something. It's a sign. So a few years ago somebody came to GitHub and said blacklist in Bitcoin is racist so you should change it with block list. Which was stupid because the word block is Something else in Bitcoin and blacklist is not racist. So it was stupid. But one core developer, Insta, merged that because he said, I don't want drama, I'm scared. So he was scared of the Woke mob and he just Insta merged it. So that's a sign. I don't care for that. People protested that and they were banned from GitHub for protesting. That's a sign. That's a little. Bitcoin still has it good, the woke problem, but is there. And then you see bitcoin core developers basically grooming two girls with ethnic characteristics to become maintainers. And you see that it's very urgent and maybe the public doesn't see it, but I saw it that two girls that were strongly shitcoin leaning became maintainer because we needed girl maintainers because of diversity quotas and we needed ethnic girls maintainers. Then first one, then that failed, then the other went in. So you see that that's a problem. That doesn't mean the girl is not good, doesn't mean that she's by definition not competent. The problem with quotas is that they create actually a negative bias against the quota. Because if now you know that you have to have a girl, you become suspicious of the reason there is a girl. But then when that specific girl also becomes the flag of the spam relativization movement, like whatever. NFTs are like whatever. And when that merges, you start to be concerned about the wokeism. So that could be considered one potential attack. And I'm happy that the community is vigilant and reactive, maybe overreactive, but still, I think that if you. I mean, worst case scenario, we are just being hasos with the developer. I mean, okay, cry harder. Bitcoin must survive. Even if some people online are assholes developers. If the success of bitcoin depends on nobody on the Internet being assholes with developers, well, good luck, Bitcoin, you're basically dead. So, I mean, I'm sorry. Personally I don't think I have ever been particularly nasty with people. And if I have, I apologize. But I think it's good that bitcoiner were resilient to this kind of ideology potentially creeping in. Again, I want to stress this Bitcoin had it good so far. Maybe so good that the woke virus wave already is fading away already in the rest of the world. Maybe we also will have the pendulum in which we are back to Nazism. So we have the opposite problem. And maybe we just made it out. And wokeism is decreasing in media in Advertising and jeans advertising and whatever is getting better. So maybe we are out. But that was an element that was not made up. It was not zero. It didn't impact bitcoin seriously. But it could have. And I think it was legit to have some kind of vigilance and reaction about that. Then there is second. So that's. There was a woke attack on bitcoin, maybe a small one potential, some signs better to kill it in its infancy. Then the second point is elitism. This is not something woke, it's not something recent. This is something eternal. Whenever you have a tool or a subculture either in both cases you create a natural elite of people that care and they can become self referential, they can live in a bubble, they can become gatekeepers, they can become elitist, a snob. That freaking happens. That's inevitable. Bitcoin core. So bitcoin maximalists can become that. We have been accused to be that maybe whatever, cry harder. Bitcoin developers can also become that. And we non developers, we have to either learn to code or fund other developers or cry harder ourselves. That's, that's the way it goes. And I think that happened is that an attack on bitcoin? Could be, but it's not even. I don't even think it's. It's organized attack. It's just a natural evolution, this kind of elitism of technical people. It's just something natural. Then on top of that you have, you have another thing which is basically the geographical and cultural concentration of, of bitcoin development. Just like we had ashrate concentrating in China and the US Development concentrated in two physical offices, one in the us, one in the UK and most of the maintainers are basically in those offices under a couple of companies. Is this an attack on bitcoin? I think people that did that created those two companies are genuinely trying to help bitcoin by funding bitcoin. I think they are the best intention but did create an increase in the monoculture. The fact that it was UK and US and not Italy or not because I'm proud of Italy sounds a little nationalistic. It may seem nationalistic, but I'm Swiss for tax reasons. But anyway, what I mean is that Italian culture has a lot of problems. A lot of problems. I'm not really super proud of Italy in many regards. But there are a couple of good things. One is food, of course. The other one is that we are pretty impervious to woke ideology. We are. I mean we really cannot become politically correct. We are incapable of political correctness. We are Berlusconi. I mean, we cannot be that, so that we are pretty resistant to political correctness. So UK and US especially big cities, London, New York, San Francisco, yeah, that's basically the epicenter of the disease. So you had, basically you had geographical concentration plus technical elitism reinforcing woke penetration in bitcoin. Still to the point that it was not for me a serious practical problem, but it was a symbol of something potentially scary. Then on top of these you have shitcoins. Shitcoins are an attack on bitcoin. Unfortunately, inclusivity and dei, they did end up attracting shitcoiners. And maybe the woke virus is connected with some relativism like whatever, which can be seen as a legitimization of shitcoins. So I think there are several issues that are independent, completely independent, but they did converge into something that looks like a continental attack. I don't think it is to be very clear. I think that. And it was also this was probably something that got connected with the CSAM discussion and help my cancellation from the BIP110 camp, which I will oppose anyway because I'm against the Ford. Jeffrey Epstein. So I think that Epstein funding Joy Ito in MIT was a super normal thing. I mean this guy lived off influence spheres and especially Epstein was specialized in not only in massages, but also in new technologies. He was selectively trying to fund and interfere and get influence in new technologies, many of them. Bitcoin was an emerging technology that was interesting. So it's absolutely normal and if not super nice that he told MIT DCI to do bitcoin stuff. Ito received money, Ito used the money and the money ended up in the greatest bitcoin, the first big bitcoin startup ever, which was Blockstream. And the money entered that. But then Blockstream was against Stellar and Ito's money went also into Stellar, which was a shitcoin. And so Blockstream people say, no, this is incompatible. So the money went out. When the money was given, Ito. So an MIT guy, which was a good Epson pal, also invited over Austin Hill, which was the co founder of Blockstream, the business guy Austin Hill brought in the poster boy of Blockstream, Adam Beck, quoted in the white paper. And Adam went, now if I'm not even as nerd as Adam, I'm almost the business guy sometimes. But if one, if in any startup I know if the business guy tells the tech guy come to be the poster boy for the company in a freaking island, the tech guy will not even remember, let alone Google. But Even remember the name of the handshaking opportunity, photo op opportunity. You just. You just freaking go on any kind of helicopter island and you don't go to examine any, like, federal report on underage prostitution of four years before. You don't. I mean, maybe you do. So in 2014, I have to say it because it's the honest thing to say. Sorry if that changes your opinion of me, but if in 2014 I was trying to do bitcoin things, I was, I was. I just. I just had to quit Accenture the year before and I was trying to do bitcoin startups, and if somebody told me, come to teach bitcoin to a billionaire on an island, the last thing I do is to even write down the name, let alone doing a deep search on the name. I just go. And I'm not the nerd, I'm the business guy. The one that should be aware of potential compromises in terms of public public relations or, or, or optics, let alone Adam, Adam freaking Beck. He just would go to speak about bitcoin wherever he still does. Like, if you call Adam today, Adam, we have to talk Bitcoin, and you just throw him a random Chinese name, he will just go, adam Beck. And so that was also another. Sorry, I'm ranting again. I think I completely.

[Michael Walker]

That's okay.

[Giacomo Zucco]

Okay, let's go.

[Michael Walker]

Okay. No, you. You've tied in a lot of threads. Okay, so. And actually, Giacomo, I. I did specifically ask. I didn't actually ask if Core was an attack. I asked if Core specifically and the changing. Well, bringing the OP return limit to just be in line with consensus. Because that's really what it did, right? Consensus. There is no, like there. It's a relay policy thing. It wasn't a consensus rule that. That be at that level. In a word, was core v30 specifically an attack in the way that it's being framed, or is this just the natural result of some of the things that you described earlier happening, like culminating. Do you know what I mean? And I'm going to ask you to be brief on this one, because I want to get into another one after this.

[Giacomo Zucco]

Yeah, the latter is. I think it just is not a coordinated attack. Is the final coming together of all these elements, technicalities, some level of disrespect the users due to technical things, the geographical concentration of people living in a bubble and what is not controversial to them cannot be controversial to the users. And some wokeness that may create sympathy for shitcoins, scams and spam. Like. Well, the wokeness created selection process which got one shitcoin friendly developer in and a very influential position. In order to defend her, they had to defend a shitcoin friendly position.

[Michael Walker]

Fair enough. That was. That was succinct, Giacomo. So you Italians can do it, you know, it's just. It's not in your nature, but. Okay, next question. You posted a tweet that was, I mean, probably sacrilegious and blasphemous, but you specifically listed your favorite and least favorite bips. You put bip110 in your least favorites. Would you like to publicly atone for that or would you like to explain your rationale for it?

[Giacomo Zucco]

Perhaps I will explain and double down. There are many things I don't like on BAP 110. The first I don't like is the fact that it includes an activation method. Even without consensus, that means that it will activate with a relatively low hash rate readiness threshold, 55% as opposed to the traditional 95%. That's already something bad, a bad precedent. And if it doesn't meet that threshold, it will still activate regardless. Which I think is bad. I think it was bad. So let's just do for a moment UASF on segwit. I think this was bad. When drivechain proponents said that they wanted to do it, I spoke against them. It was bad. And I don't dislike. I do dislike some elements of drivechain, but not so much. I think it was bad. When Jeremy Rubin tried to do it, which by the way, was a huge Epstein friend, he tried to do it with ctv. I was against that. And I like ctv especially now. I was a little bit skeptical. Now I'm very sold. But it was bad. You don't activate something risking a split. Because the fact that rules don't change are more important for money than the Fed, the rules are particularly good. So an important fact of money and networks in general, but especially money, is that you don't change the rule arbitrarily. And so you do that when there is total full consensus. If that means that we cannot have arbitrary features anymore, well, try harder. Consistency and reliability of the base layer is more important than your feature, including CTV. So it's totally natural for me that BIP110 is just like that. The activation part, I dislike it. If you do the same without the activation part, I can be way more tolerant. But then again, why the activation part is justified because everything is presented as an emergency, like sky is falling and if we don't do something, Bitcoin is over this could be true someday. So I'm not saying that it's impossible that we ever come to some kind of existential moment in which either you do something or Bitcoin is that that can happen. I realize it can happen. But as a prima facie heuristics. Sorry for the pardon me French, as a. As a. As a first reaction, I'm skeptical. So like, it's like a commercial thing. You come to my house, buy these, or you die tomorrow. And you only have one meal to buy and to decide. Oh, wait, wait, wait. Red flag, red flag. If you try to push an emergency on me, red flag. That doesn't mean that I know for a fact the emergence doesn't exist. I'm saying I'm being skeptical. And my skepticism was not. Was not addressed to my satisfaction by the answer. What is the emergency exactly? Spam? Well, no, actually it's going down from the retardinal era, not up. Well, is encoding of illegal images. Well, you cannot stop one illegal image to being coded ever. So it was always a risk. Let's use Tor for our nodes. Let's try to lobby in order to protect us. Let's do something. But we cannot stop it. Yeah, but it's continuous. What does it even mean? And by the way, we can do a continuous transaction. It will not be continuous in Luke Dashiell's terminology, but it will be in any other person's terminology. Anyway, so I see the emergency. I dislike it. The emergency is a justification for the activation mechanism. And the emergency was actually the explicit reason. So legal compliance was the explicit reason mentioned in the first draft of the fork. Now it has been removed. Okay, but still the same full proposal started with legal compliance as an emergency, and then has been removed. I'm sorry, I dislike that. It makes it. Not even CTV was as bad. Not even VIP 100 like big block VIPs. At least they have children are dying emergency. Roger Ver was like sky is falling. Children are dying. That was bad for me. Samson was mocking that. I think weird reason, because when you try emotional manipulation to create an emergency, even if you believe it, that's. That's. That's the red flag. And so there is that children are dying or are being raped by Epstein or whatever kind of emergency if we don't do something. So let's do something immediately. And then you remove that reference from the. From the fork. But it's still the same fork with the same timeline with the same emergency that is temporary. Now, some people claim that temporary support never exists in Bitcoin, that's false. But the fact it's temporary only match with the fake emergency, which I consider a fake emergency. Otherwise, if you think it's a good fork, just make it permanent and then we can hard fork if we don't like it. But why temporary? So you're trying to please look who consistently thinks that's an emergency. And I know why I think so, and I disagree. And you try to please people that understand it's not an emergency, at least in the sense we will use for the term. So that's bad. Then you go into that and you see that the other thing is that I dislike is that it's a missed opportunity because changing consensus is becoming harder and harder. I don't even know if it's possible anymore except for existential bugs fixing. And with this existential bugs fixing, I don't mean Luke doesn't like it. I mean the node stops running, if not keeps running and you just have somebody shutting it down because now the image is contiguous. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about bug that will kill the network, technically speaking. So except for that, maybe we don't have many chances do a fork anymore. Maybe not any, Maybe some few last. This feels like a temporary emergency LED fork, which is not really an emergency. It's a waste of scarce coordination space for a good fork. CTV may be a waste as well, because even if it's good, it may not be the best. So it was against CTV activation, not just because it was unsafe, but because it was potentially wasting some better opportunity to do a fork, including a spam addressing fork. Because for example, within a good framework, block size reduction I think could be a good fork for limiting spam alone. It will never pass. But maybe with Chiza in some context it may pass. Covenants may also reduce spam. Why? Because covenants help the UX and the safety of off chain transaction. And if transaction can pull fees off chain, they can overcompete and out compete scam spam, which is also scam on chain. So you see, it's a waste. And then there are some sloppy things. For example, the alleged emergency is OPreturn versus 30 version 30 in Core, which is now unbounded in policy as much as in consensus, even if even that. So let me say something. V30 is very sloppy because they tried to unbound it making like consensus. But then that was controversial. It was. So they closed the PR and then they open another one which says, well, let's not unbound it let's just put it 100. Basically, let's just put it super huge number. It was at least the first PR was controversial, but it was at least consistent. Like remove and make it like consensus. The second, which was insta merge, was equally controversial, but this time around it doesn't even make sense. Like just at this point, just freaking remove the limit. That limit is a joke. It's almost, I would consider almost a provocation. I don't know if it's intentional, but seems like a power flex, like a gas lighting power flex. So I want to remove it. That's controversial. I still remove it, but I pretend I don't because I put a super huge number. Now it's not controversial. It's emerging. So V30 was bad. The reaction is also bad because if the emergency is up return contiguous data, which is sanctioned by the community because up return has been accepted or whatever. If that's the problem, then you are saying that inscriptions were not an emergency because they're not contiguous and not accepted. They're not. So why are you fixing inscriptions with the same fork if the emergency is up return, just fix up return. Be consistent with the emergency narrative. No, we fix up return and well, let's just pack also some inscription patch. But no, you say that the emergency was the contiguous. It's confused, it's all over the place. It's many inconsistent narrative put together. So I really dislike the fork because even if I don't like spam, certainly don't like csam and I don't like scam, all this iteration of the letters and ordinals are spam and also scam and well, description are spam, ordinals are scam and csam is csam. It's all bad. But this solution is very bad for several points. And that was the topping on the cake, which I don't think is super serious, but it's annoying. It's another ugly thing. So in order to stop escriptions, this version of escription you cut out opif in the typescript. Opif is not something necessary, but it is the standard output of some miniscript policies. So some wallets, including Nunchak, may output an op for you. Don't freaking break it. You may. If. I mean, if didn't exist, the miniscript will not output it, then Nunchuck will not adopt it. But now that's the case. If it's not, if there's not a real reason to break use case with consensus change, don't break it. Nobody will lose money because of that realistically is not really an emergency. It's not a problem. It's not confiscation also because in worst case scenario would be freezing because then after one year the funds would be unconfiscated because it's temporary. But still it's, it's. Yeah. So yeah, I really disliked this vip.

[Michael Walker]

The. The framing of it. The initial like legal compliance framing is just such a statist cuck thing to do to be honest. Like that that's its own form of wokeism is like statism is its own form of wokeism just under like a different rapper bit where it's the same thing. It's like we have to pander to this. Like except instead of pandering to blue haired commies, you're pandering to the, you know, the totalitarian state which is like, you know, a different, different flavor of the same sort of retardation. But I appreciate the breakdown there and, and also like the little bit of the technical side as well because I think that is important for people. I mean what do you think the, the realistic chances are of this thing? Like I guess what's the. What do you think is actually going to. To happen when we get to this? And I would also say on the temporary side it's like okay, it's temporary. It's like there's nothing. You know, what's that old saying that there's nothing so permanent as a temporary government decree. It's like maybe the same applies here, I don't know. But what do you think is the likely outcome of all of this? Once, once this enough node starts signaling

[Giacomo Zucco]

for bip110 I think that not enough ashrate. I think ashrate will not signal in 55% until the very last minute. Then it may happen. I think that it will just. I think so. Let me put this way. I think the signaling will be so low and any kind of future markets will. Will signal such a low interest for this post fork coin that that signal in mining will. Will stay very very low if. If there is any chance that this doesn't happen. Because for example, I don't know anything. A very good campaign, something new. If I'm wrong, I think what will happen is that if there is any signaling at all, people will signal it overwhelmingly because it's just better not to be for coughs for a lack of signaling. If you can just flip a byte, you do it because it costs you nothing and it keeps on ssi. So either there is no signaling at all, which I will assign a probability of 60%. Like yeah, one block on Ocean, my friend Bob will do something. Maybe it goes to 2%, but we are so low that nobody cares. The date passes and nothing happens. Otherwise. If the day approaches of the mandatory signaling and there is, let's say 30%, 35% which I don't think there will be, then it may very well go to 60 or 70 because it costs nothing then for after the mandatory activation of the signaling, everybody will signal. Then there will be the mandatory enforcement of the rule. In this case, in the first case everything failed already. In this case there will be the mandatory activation of the rules. Now I think most miners will produce BIP110 compliant blocks for a while. Why? Because it doesn't cost you much to do that. You just give up a little bit of fees from the remaining retardinal subscription which are very few and up return. So it's a very low cost to mine a compliant block and a very low risk because at least you don't get forked off in case they win. But then this is the first challenge, create compliant blocks. But the second challenge is if the best chain include non compliant blocks which will happen, will arrive somebody even just to piece off look, or even just because it's the government to create the discord. Somebody will create a block not with CSAM but not necessary, but just non compliant. And then another block on top and then another. Maybe it doesn't happen immediately, maybe after a month, maybe after. But before one year three blocks will be created which are not compliant. Or one non compliant blocks with two blocks on top which may also be compliant. Now what the BAP is asking you is not just create a compliant block but ignore the biggest chain and go with the minority. And no rational miner will do that. Or one ideologic miner, you know, one single guy on Ocean with an Isaac. Maybe Bob, but I think Bob will start to see, maybe it's better not because you don't want your work to be completely wasted. So when there will be moment to actually enforce it, it will fail. So in the first scenario I mentioned, the hash rate signaling never goes close to 3% or 4%, which I think is more likely. And the second scenario, what you have is basically that the main chain goes on like nothing was there. Like ignoring the fall completely. My node will follow the strongest chain, the best chain. And then I think what will happen is that some people very committed with this fight, including Ceded, Luke and Mechanic and Crater and a few others, the leaders of this revolt. They will so Luke will probably not ever run a bitcoin node again. It will remain on a node doing nothing because he's consistent and he's not there for profit. He's not there for money either. Luke is there for the ideal and I know him. And he will probably be cut off of bitcoin entirely on a technical sense. And that would be bad for bitcoin because Luke is an important dissenting voice in bitcoin. So Luke is self cancelled technically. Maybe other people like other. Most of the other bip110 people, like my friend Knut, my friend Hodlnout, I think they will just. They will just accept the fact and go back to bitcoin node. But then their credibility will be diminished for a while, which is also bad for bitcoin because Knut is a. Is a freaking good person and a freaking good brain. And his point, Bitcoin was based on good intentions and it would be reduced in terms of credibility and commitment. Both of them, I think they both odon out and Knut, they will just accept the loss and go over and they say, ah, too bad, maybe we will try again. But their credibility and their enthusiasm for bitcoin will result diminish, which I think will be bad for bitcoin because they are right on many things. Right to be critics about core, right to be critics about spam and many things they say are right. So I think the outcut will be bad because I think the, the. The fork will fail. And by failing it will reduce the credibility of what was my camp, which was fuck spam and fuck core process when it fails for some reasons. And, and so, yeah, that's basically my fear. I cannot change it. What I can do is voice opposition to that because at least my credibility and enthusiasm will be unwavering and I can keep the fight until they recover from the loss.

[Michael Walker]

No one could ever accuse your enthusiasm of wavering, Giacomo. It's one of the reasons I always appreciate hearing from you. And I've kept you a little bit long now, so I want to get you out of here. Only a little bit late. But you're Italian, so you're used to being late. I think it's fine.

[Giacomo Zucco]

Right? I used to have a cappuccino at 8pm oh boy.

[Michael Walker]

Oh my God. I'm gonna have to edit that out. That's. That is true blasphemy. You know, from. From coming from Lugano there. Even though you're not. Not quite in Italy, you're almost in Italy there. But thank you for this, Giacomo. This was. I'm glad we got a chance. I hope that people, if you listen to this again, we talked at the very start about debates. Maybe you change a couple people's minds or at least make them just think more deeply. It's not that your position that you're holding is necessarily wrong, but every position could benefit from more nuance. I know I always can try to bring it. And so I appreciate you coming on here and giving your perspective on this because I think that you have, again, nobody can doubt your track record in terms of being a crusader against spam for a long time. Nobody can doubt that you have the receipts. I've got the receipts. Multiple conferences and podcasts around the world have the receipts. And so I think people should take what you say seriously in this regard because I know that your heart is in right place. We're both in agreement that, you know, ordinals are retarded and, you know, spam. Spam is retarded. It's just a question of what's the best way to actually deal with this in a realistic way. And so, yeah, I, I think this, this. I hope this conversation is helpful for folks out there. I want to thank everybody who zapped this conversation. 2,349 sats on Nostr live streaming this. So thank you guys. Use bitcoin as money. You can use it as money just by holding it. Yes, that's a store of value. But you it. Bitcoin is a great medium of exchange too, and you should use it as one. Lightning is not a, is not spam. It's just sending sats in a really good way. So, Giacomo, where do you want to send folks? Where can they find out more About Plan B? Ciphertank.org For the show, which they should definitely go and check out. Where can they go to find out more information about Plan B?

[Giacomo Zucco]

Plan B Network is a vitrina site with a lot of information about the forum, the Academy. So usually is Plan B something. Plan B Academy, there is some free courses, but Plan B Network, you use that to go around to plumbing lugano, local initiatives, cypher tank and everything else.

[Michael Walker]

And you're just Giacomozuko on X. Right? For those who want to follow your rants and call you a bad actor and things like that, please direct all

[Giacomo Zucco]

of your hate, invite me to your island and do whatever nasty thing you want to do.

[Michael Walker]

Be careful what you wish for, man. You gotta be careful these days. Well, Giacomo, this was a pleasure. Always appreciate it. I'm going to go have a cappuccino it's the afternoon now so I can finally have a cappuccino. You enjoy your your late night cappuccino. We'll both be burned at the stake for being blasphemous. But always good to talk to you my friend. Great to see you.

[Giacomo Zucco]

Good company. See you soon. Bye.

[Michael Walker]

And that's a wrap on this Bitcoin Talk episode of the Bitcoin Podcast. Remember to subscribe to this podcast wherever you're watching or listening and share it with your friends, family and strangers on the Internet. Find me on [e-mail] walker and this [e-mail] on X, YouTube and Rumble. Just search at Walker America and find this podcast on X and Instagram @titcoin podcast. Head to the Show Notes to grab sponsor links. Head to substack.com walker America to get the all episodes emailed to you and head to bitcoin podcast.net for everything else. Bitcoin is scarce, but podcasts are abundant. So thank you for spending your scarce time listening to the Bitcoin podcast. Until next time, stay free.