transcript

Speaker 1:
[00:02] Bitcoin is this somewhat of a hero's journey. It is a call to adventure in this technological cyberspace world. This very powerful tool for self-sovereignty and a check on government's authority over your life. It's a global, universal story, and it's something that everyone gets different value out of. And you constantly have tests. Every day, you hold Bitcoin as a test. There's plenty of post-quantum algorithms that have been proposed that a classical computer can trivially break. You could be bullied into putting in broken cryptography into Bitcoin. Everyone's just kind of throwing stuff against the wall right now and seeing what sticks. You have to go from 15 to 2 to the 256 before this is actually a problem. It's almost like people are setting up a chessboard, like the boards being, like the pieces are being laid out on the board right now. And we'll see where the trajectory of these things go.

Speaker 2:
[00:56] How's it going, man? It's good to see you.

Speaker 1:
[00:58] Doing well. How are you?

Speaker 2:
[00:59] I am doing good. This is a show that we've been promising to make for a long time. I think we first talked about doing the hero's journey in Bitcoin like six months ago. And finally, we are here. We're going to do it.

Speaker 1:
[01:12] I think it's even longer than that. I originally thought of this as a concept show when Pete used to still run the show.

Speaker 2:
[01:17] Oh, there you go.

Speaker 1:
[01:18] And then I brought it back to you. So, you appreciate me, though, for my think-boying and not just my technical chops, whereas Pete brought me in as his nerd to come in and explain all that stuff.

Speaker 2:
[01:33] Well, not originally. Your original appearance on What Bitcoin Did was a think-boy show about a piece that Eric Weinstein wrote.

Speaker 1:
[01:41] That is true. I was just playing it up because Pete's not here to talk about it.

Speaker 2:
[01:45] That's right.

Speaker 1:
[01:46] That was August of 2021. That was my first podcast appearance ever, really. It was before Anchor Watch and everything else. And then we just saw each other like three weeks ago in Bedford. We were just there at Chico too. That was awesome. It came up again because for those who have watched the talks from the show, American Hottel did that talk at the end about this is not an interview, this is an intervention. And I made the point to Hottel and you before it all started that Pete was kind of absconding on the end of the hero's journey by stepping away from Bitcoin. So that can maybe be a little bit of a preview jump off point.

Speaker 2:
[02:27] Yeah, I think we need to explain what the hero's journey is, because until you... I'd heard of it as this story out concept that's used in basically every film, but do you want to explain what the hero's journey is?

Speaker 1:
[02:39] Yeah. So, popularized by Joseph Campbell, the hero's journey is basically a very compelling story arc and how you could compartmentalize stories. I think most people, the easiest one for them to grok would be like Star Wars. Like Star Wars, the movie Star Wars, like the original trilogy is the hero's journey where you have this call to adventure. You go forth, you get like this help from outside people. You find guardians and mentors who kind of bring you through this journey and you go through challenges and temptations and then at like the climax, you're like in the abyss. You're like in like the throes of trying to figure out how to resolve things. You overcome all of your adversity and lean on all of your training and your mentors and you get to the end and you succeed. And then the last gift is you kind of return that treasure to the community, right? Lord of the Rings is another great one.

Speaker 2:
[03:40] The Matrix. You got Neo who like refuses to get involved, then he gets pulled in.

Speaker 1:
[03:46] He gets the call to it.

Speaker 2:
[03:46] Orpheus is his mentor and then he's the one.

Speaker 1:
[03:49] Exactly. Right. So when you start thinking about it, and this is something that is just like a high level arc of telling stories is just a very compelling one. It's what people want to see is like someone goes on a grand adventure. They learn new things. There's adversaries and there's challenges. There's a loss of sense of self. You could think of that maybe when Luke gets his hand cut off and finds out Vader is his father, right? Like is like the bottom of the journey. And then he uses that conflict to kind of rise up above all of it. Right. And so that's like at the highest level. And I've thought for the longest time. Looking at that story for me personally, and I think for many people who get into Bitcoin, Bitcoin is this somewhat of a hero's journey, right? The call to adventure though is not, I'm going to go out and slay dragons. It is, I want to opt out of the banking system, or I think the banking system is unfair. It is a call to adventure in this technological cyberspace world, right? It brings many people to get on planes and drive around and go to meetups and do other things too. And those are kind of like mentors that you see along the way. People who, for me, when I got into Bitcoin, it definitely would have been Andreas Antonopoulos, right? Was very like someone who, as a mentor, I never have personally met Andreas, but was very impactful for me in understanding kind of the story of Bitcoin as this very powerful tool for self sovereignty and a check on government's authority over your life. And as I'm thinking about this now, like laying this thesis out just now, it's also interesting too, because when you came into Bitcoin, your journey may look a little bit different. Because if you came into Bitcoin over the past five years, maybe Michael Saylor was your Andreas Antonopoulos, right? And for you, it was boosting the returns of your investment portfolio, right? And like Bitcoin is a very large tent. It's really anarchy, right? There's no one really in control. And so we're kind of like this massive big disorganized tent of different interests and alignments, right? But for me, like getting into Bitcoin, and maybe I'll just start talking a bit about just my journey in Bitcoin. Back in 2013, I had multiple friends that were telling me, hey Rob, you should really check out Bitcoin. I was a Ron Paul libertarian and the Fed guy. I had some gold and silver and people were telling me, check out Bitcoin. I kind of pushed it off, which is actually the start of the hero's journey, is it does start with denying the call to adventure. And almost everyone you talk to in Bitcoin, they very most often, they hear about it a couple of times before they actually look into it. It's a very common motif if you talk to anyone in Bitcoin in their journey, very rarely is it someone said the word Bitcoin and then I was fully invested, right? And so having this like call to adventure, like you have this thing like the supernatural aid, which is this idea of like something cosmic, like the force in Star Wars or the ring in the Lord of the Rings, right? And I think just Bitcoin itself is somewhat also kind of like that supernatural, like it's something that's other worldly that kind of changes your perception. And through the act of using, holding, leveraging Bitcoin, you are able to better exercise your own sense of personal development. It's a funny thing too, I think a lot about is that you have to kind of like take this on a case-by-case basis because I don't want to be fantastical and just say, the end of the journey is hyper-Bitcoinization, and because that's just kind of like arbitrary wish fulfillment. But the act though of discipline and saving and giving yourself the means and the tools to be able to kind of build and like kind of reflect on your actions is a really, I would just say like a interesting idea of thinking about, right? And it's an element many people talk about when they got into Bitcoin that they started thinking longer term, planning for families, taking more better care of their health, challenging themselves and pursuing and working harder, right? And when it comes to just Bitcoin in general, like that's kind of like the jump off point, right? You don't have any exposure to Bitcoin. You hear about this Bitcoin thing. You start going into it. I started going to New York City BitDebs in 2014. My actual, the actual jump off point for me was after people have been telling me to get into Bitcoin all across 2013, my friends and I were all like computer gamers. We all had our graphics cards and Dogecoin came out. So we all started mining Dogecoin with our GPUs like solo mining blocks because it was like this funny, silly thing. And you download the Dogecoin client, it's all in rainbow font and comic sans. You're like, okay, I know Internet culture. This is satire. This is inspiring enough to actually learn more. And that's when I went to New York City BitDebs. And I started just really going deep into Bitcoin. This is like the end of 2013, beginning of 2014. And for me, like that was a very challenging and humbling prospect because I was in a room with a lot of people who knew infinitely more about me about not just Bitcoin, but computers, programming, distributed systems, decentralization, right? And it's a whole culture nomenclature threat modeling. All of these things are entirely different to any other kind of software project or any kind of real financial product that has ever really existed before. And the reason why it's a journey is not everyone completes the journey, right? And this is just in stories in life in general. People for either internal choice or external circumstances deny the call, and that's where the story ends, right? And the reason why I like thinking about Bitcoin as the hero's journey is, it is a very optimistic positive way of thinking about you having agency and being able to have control over your life and having a financial tool that actually supports that vision for you.

Speaker 2:
[10:03] Do you wish you could access cash without selling your Bitcoin? Well, Ledin makes that possible. They're the global leader in Bitcoin-backed lending, and since 2018, they've issued over $9 billion in loans with a perfect record of protecting client assets. With Ledin, you get full custody loans with no credit checks or monthly repayments, just easy access to dollars without selling a single sat. Ledin exclusively offer Bitcoin-backed loans with all collateral held by Ledin directly or their funding partners. Your Bitcoin is never lent out to generate interest. I recently took out a loan with Ledin. The whole process was super easy. The application took me less than 15 minutes, and in a few hours, I had the dollars in my account. It was super smooth. So if you need cash but you don't want to sell Bitcoin, head over to ledin.io/wbd, and you'll get 0.25% off your first loan. That's ledn.io/wbd. If like me, you're heading to Vegas for the Bitcoin conference this month, then Club Orange is the app you need. There's a million things going on at the conference, and it's the best way to find all the after parties and side events and connect with Bitcoiners while you're there. I've been using Club Orange since it was Orange Pill app, and it's my go-to whenever I'm traveling. Not just for conferences, but for finding meetups and events, and merchants accepting Bitcoin wherever I am. There are over 19,000 Bitcoiners on there, and it's a great way to stay connected, whether you're on the road or at home. If you're on there, drop me a DM and say hi. And if not, search for Club Orange on your app store, or go to cluborange.org. Bitcoiners, as you know, with fiat money constantly debasing, wealth preservation isn't optional. That's why I recommend Swarm Bitcoin, a team of dedicated Bitcoiners who work with families and businesses to build and secure generational wealth with Bitcoin. Strong relationships with clients are at the center of everything Swarm does. A dedicated Swarm private wealth representative, which is a real person that you can text and call, will help you build a Bitcoin wealth strategy using Swarm's comprehensive platform of Bitcoin services, including tax advantage retirement accounts, advanced Bitcoin cold storage using collaborative self-custody, inheritance planning with both trust and entity accounts, tax loss harvesting, asset backed loans, and more. Swarm have helped over 100,000 clients since 2020. And if you're serious about acquiring and securing Bitcoin, I recommend Swarm. Meet the team at swarm.com/wbd, which is swan.com/wbd. If you hold Bitcoin, your phone number is one of your biggest vulnerabilities. SimSwap attacks are one of the most common attack vectors targeting Bitcoiners. Somebody socially engineers an employee at your carrier, moves your number to a new device, and they're into your accounts. It happens because traditional carriers put a human in control of your phone number, someone who can be bribed or tricked. But CAPE is a US mobile carrier built from the ground up with privacy and security at the core. They don't ask for your name or social security number when you sign up. They collect the minimum data required, delete it as fast as possible, and never sell it. When you sign up, you receive a 24-word passphrase just like a Bitcoin wallet. That's the only way to move your number. Not a customer service rep, not even CAPE's own staff can do it. You're the only person who controls your number. If you hold your own keys, you should hold your own phone number too. So head over to cape.co/wbd and use code WBD at checkout for 33% off your first six months. That's cape.co/wbd and use code WBD. It's funny when you talk about this though, because I can see myself in this story. When I first found Bitcoin, well, I started with Ethereum and a load of shit coins. And then I guess the mentor for me at the time would have been towards the end of 2017, just after the fork wars. I was reading a lot of the stuff that Pierre Richard was posting. I'd never met him at the time. And that was the thing that convinced me really to go Bitcoin only. But Bitcoin, this is what makes it sound like a cult, right? Because Bitcoin is just software, it's money. Why does it inspire this kind of story arc?

Speaker 1:
[13:57] Well, why Bitcoin specifically has this story arc of the hero's journey?

Speaker 2:
[14:02] Yeah, because no one has this with the dollar or with the pound or with the euro.

Speaker 1:
[14:05] Well, so the beautiful thing is that the hero's journey is a literary concept. You can apply that story for a fictitious medieval empire or a dystopian cyberpunk-like matrix, right? It's a general thing that you can apply to everything, but most people, and this is also why many people compare it to the matrix. Most people just go around in the world and they're very happy with the financial system as it exists today, right? And so you have either a friend that mentions it or something pulls you in. And I think what's interesting about Bitcoin is that it's a global, universal story, and it's something that everyone gets different value out of, in the sense of, I would venture to say the people who got into Bitcoin in 2022, 2023, kind of following Michael Saylor, have an entirely different perspective from the people who got into Bitcoin during the Silk Road, or people who got into Bitcoin during the bank crisis and collapse, the bail in that happened in Cyprus in 2014. So every person comes to Bitcoin with their own unique perspective and context and how they view the world. And that's why it's a beautiful universal thing because Bitcoin is a tool at the end of the day. I always will say that Bitcoin is a means to an end. It's not the end of itself. The Bitcoin and wealth accumulation, it is a system that allows you to leverage to achieve your other end goals. Bitcoin really should never be the end goal of your life or your ambitions, right? And so, like I mentioned before, the refusal to the call, like, oh, it's too volatile or it's not, you know, like it's a scam or whatever else. Most people kind of like Peter out there. But it also kind of calls on this sense of community where people all around the world and even though we all have different perspectives. Someone, you know, someone had a mentor, Andreas Antonopoulos, like Michael Saylor talks about how he listened to a bunch of Bitcoin podcasts before he got in, right? It's this kind of like, again, the network effect of Bitcoin, where you get to kind of build this system of different people who see Bitcoin differently and use it for different reasons, and it grows that tent larger and larger. And you constantly have tests. Every day you hold Bitcoin as a test. Do you sell it or do you hold it? Right? And so it's something that you constantly reinforce over time as you continue to hold it, you kind of invest yourself deeper and deeper into this journey. And I think that you have large moments in Bitcoin, and I think one may be coming up in the next couple of years, but we'll get to in a bit. But you mentioned it before, the block size wars. The fork wars is a perfect example of this major crisis moment where everyone comes together. You had smaller versions of this with Mount Cox, or other exchanges getting down and hacked, FTX. I would say really the block size war is the most significant one of this. And in The Hero's Journey, it's called the ordeal. A thing happens. That's when everything gets really soft and fuzzy. People form alliances. I'm thinking about the block size wars, coalitions form, and there's a big action, a big to do of something going to happen. And ultimately, with Bitcoin over time, as it continues to financialize, part of that is the reward too. How many countless stories of people who have held Bitcoin for 10 years, and then they retire, or I think a really great example of this is actually Pete up in Bedford. So, and he's not here to tell the whole story, right? But he was gambling in a bunch of crypto pump and dumps and buying miners and losing money left and right. He talks about his recovery from addiction, but then he got to the other side of all of this and the challenge of his own self-development. And what did he do? He didn't just go get a yacht and go, fuck off. He went to his local community. He was like, I'm going to buy this coffee shop. I'm going to buy this football club. I'm going to build something. I'm going to get security teams to help patrol and keep the peace in my local town that was deficient. He was bringing back the reward and treasure that he earned by being part of the Bitcoin journey and returning that treasure to the community. And I think that's just one of these things that I think every person is free to do whatever they want with their wealth and their means. I think he's a great example, though, of someone who is trying to do better, right? And realizing there's a responsibility that comes with wealth. And that's kind of like as a big picture, you know, you can break each of these sections of the hero's journey down to different parts, where like the three big pieces are the departure to start the adventure, the initiation of the trial of whatever happens, and then the return home. That return home, though, is like, I think a lot of people when they get into the Bitcoin, they just think about like, and I'm going to have a bunch of money, and I'm going to be rich. And then understanding, like, what does it mean to actually leverage and use that wealth after the fact, right? And I think that was at the highest level, and we can dive into particular points and pieces that you think are interesting. Like, I think that's, you know, I think it's a universal story because Bitcoin has all these different perspectives and how people view and see it. And it's one of those things that I, I think it's a helpful mental model as people are in their journey wherever they are to think about kind of like the greater purpose and pull yourself out of the context of your current life and what you're living and think about it from, you know, where do you want to be in a decade or two?

Speaker 2:
[19:46] Yeah, the thing that I think is the most interesting is how Bitcoin has changed in the last decade plus. Because if you got into Bitcoin before 2021, it was this like rebellion counterculture thing where the key fundamental values were the self-custody, running a node, decentralization. And then we were weirdos for, like if you were saying that Bitcoin was going to go to 100 grand, then the biggest institutions in the world are going to be buying it. Like you were kind of a weirdo. And then 2021 happens and that starts to really shift. And I think that the core fundamental values of Bitcoin start getting a bit diluted, where running a node is not something people talk about nearly as well. Actually, I guess with the Bit 110 stuff, it's more and more. But these don't become the core tenets. Instead, it's like buy strategy or buy an ETF. And really, like if a broker is coming to you, telling you about Bitcoin and you buy an ETF, you're never touching Bitcoin. Do you ever understand what Bitcoin truly is? And what does that do for the future of any contentious changes in Bitcoin?

Speaker 1:
[20:50] Well, that's an interesting place to jump off to. So I would agree that Bitcoin... Now you could always dig in and make this like further grouping ins and sections of like Bitcoin's history and phases. I would agree that we're actually like in like the larger sense, like Bitcoin's second phase. Where the first phase, it was a niche technical project. And sure, for the first year, like it was super, super niche. Most people weren't doing like using or touching it at all. But this like institutional adoption phase, which was always inevitable, right? It was always... And I say it was always inevitable. It's easier to say that back now, like say that today with all of these ETFs and kind of this institutional adoption, let alone Bitcoin treasury companies and whatever else, in that when I got into Bitcoin, I was so confident in just the basic properties of the network, that this was something that will have value, and that it would be a good asset to hold. And part of that adoption was always going to be institutions.

Speaker 2:
[21:58] Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[21:59] Like there was never a world where Bitcoin actually succeeded, and it was used on the periphery, on farmers' markets and darknet markets.

Speaker 2:
[22:08] 100%.

Speaker 1:
[22:09] Sorry. Like it just never... And it was just never going to win in the sense of actually being a successfully bootstrapped financial network, if it never went beyond that. So with these new cohorts, they have different perspectives and values of what happens at Bitcoin. You could say we got our training wheels with the block size wars. I think it's very... I try to be careful in drawing parallels because I feel a lot of Bitcoin culture who came in post 2017 almost like to live action role play the block size wars, and they view every conflict with someone they have in Bitcoin through the lens of this one conflict. And I think that's a dangerous generalization, right? I mean, there's that phrase, if you never want to be fight, like generals fight the last war. And so like you can't view everything in that sense because facts and circumstances change. Significantly this time around, there's millions of Bitcoin that are being held at institutions. That wasn't quite the same case in 2017. And in this monetization upswing of Bitcoin, you have to view it as almost like a rotation of capital into new hands. If people are buying Bitcoin at 100,000, someone's selling it at 100,000. And you have this changing of the guard. And it's very healthy to do this, right? Every Bitcoin, unless you mined it yourself, was sold to you by someone, every Bitcoin you ever bought. If it wasn't through mining, someone sold it to you. And if you mined, realistically, you were either doing it very much in the early days, or you're doing it as a hobby now. There's a couple people who have the professional infrastructure and operations to manage as a profitable ongoing business. But those are, in this capital rotation in general, I think it's important to kind of reflect and understand the people that you are selling to may have different values for what they think Bitcoin is important for than you. And Bitcoin as a network of anarchy, economic weight is a very important factor when trying to resolve disputes. And so if you have millions of coins being held by these institutions, I think over the coming couple of years, there is going to be another clash. I used to think it would be the Wall Street suit coiners, if you want to call them that, to the cypherpunk OGs or people that are in this for the core properties of Bitcoin and they don't care as much about the quarter to quarter number go up. That's correct, but I never would have guessed the context would have came through is around the recent discussions that have been happening around quantum. I don't want to prematurely call the fire alarm and say that there's a crisis ongoing. I'm just observing conversations that are happening and conversations I've had in person. I was just at Opnext in New York City this last week. And not only were a bunch of the conversations around quantum computing, it was about how to manage like Satoshi's coins. And so to start, I'm going to, for the sake of this conversation, put aside the specific mechanics of a quantum computer. Because one, that's not my area of expertise. And two, there's probably way better people that you could bring on to talk specifically about this. I'm trying to take like a step above the technological breakthroughs and just talk about like in the event this were to happen, what would you do? I would caveat it up front that like I haven't like, while there's been big advancements in quantum, there are still basic things like factoring a number larger than 15 that haven't happened yet.

Speaker 2:
[26:21] Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[26:22] So like the rest of this quantum adjacent conversation comes with a huge asterisk of where I sit today, I never want to, I do not like being bearish the ingenuity of mankind, just as I never want to be in that position, right? So a lot of people I know, and I think they're not wrong for doing this, it's just not the way I want to think about it, is like, oh, this is like fairy dust, never going to happen. But specifically, like going up next, hanging out at PubKey in New York City after, and having three, four different conversations with people, and their adamant position was, we have to freeze all of Satoshi's coins, because BlackRock or the institutions as a group, will never support that. And the way this conversation happened several times with me was, okay, but they don't control the network. And the response would, in almost an eerie sense of like a uniformed, like everyone has the same exact script, was, okay, we'll then have fun getting market sold in to, in a chain split.

Speaker 2:
[27:31] Just to add some context to this, for anyone that's not been like following the quantum debate, if we get a cryptographically relevant quantum computer, the threat is any public key that's exposed, the coins there can potentially be stolen. And I think there's something like 6 million, 7 million coins that have exposed public keys. And then the debate really is round, if this is real, which I'm kind of with you, I think, I don't know if it is, I don't know if quantum computing will ever get there, but I think we should be having a discussion about this at least. I think just bearing your hand in the sand is probably the wrong take. Then what do you do with those coins? Do you prematurely freeze them so they can't be stolen by a future attacker, or do you just let them be taken? And I've got a pretty strong view on this. Obviously that could change. But I remember when we first spoke about this, I don't remember if it was on the podcast or if it was in private, but it was probably a year ago or something like that. You were actually on the side of freezing coins and I wasn't at all and I still am not. But has your take on that evolved?

Speaker 1:
[28:29] Yeah, no, it has. Initially hearing about this, well, so it's interesting because quantum was always one of those things. Now, mind you, since I got into Bitcoin was, well, with quantum computers, elliptic curve cryptography is entirely broken. So that was like standard FUD for years. In the background all the time, someone, it was almost like the thinking man's FUD, because it wasn't just like Bitcoin is a scam, or like it's too volatile, or like a thousand other reasons why Bitcoin is not good. This is the thinking man's one because it says, but what if the entire system of how computers and cryptography works breaks? What then? And it was, like I call it the thinking man's FUD, because it at least attacks the core premises of how Bitcoin operates as a technology in the network, to be able to actually try and crack in there. At the time, I was on the side of, yeah, sure, freeze them. Because like if Satoshi is gone, he has plenty of notice, why not? And I hadn't really put much thought into it since, maybe until like the past like month or two, with people kind of winding up more, like talking more about it. The one other thing I just want to explain too, is the reason why if you have a split in the network, this is just general Bitcoin, not even specific to this issue. If you have a split in a different change of the rules, you have to basically, since miners cannot simultaneously mine both blocks, they can only mine one block, one of the chains, they have to make a decision on which chain they want to mine. And you are able to basically express your economic power in these chain splits by either selling your coins on one chain and buying the other, or as just a general hedge, you just don't have to touch either of them. If a chain split happens, you don't have to sell your coins. You could just have one frozen Bitcoin and one non-frozen Bitcoin, right? And if the chain split happens, your Bitcoin is in cold storage, you don't have to worry about it. If your funds are at an exchange, you're at the whims of how that exchange expresses their opinion, which is actually the first immediate concern. Is that you have not even the ETFs or like the institutions. If you're just a person who holds your funds at an exchange and this were to happen, you're at the whims of how the exchange decides to express it.

Speaker 2:
[30:52] Yeah. Can we just take one quick step back before we get further into this? Because you're talking about this as a hard fork. If this happens, does it have to be a hard fork?

Speaker 1:
[31:04] No. And everything I just described doesn't require a hard fork.

Speaker 2:
[31:07] Okay.

Speaker 1:
[31:08] You can have a split without a hard fork.

Speaker 2:
[31:10] Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[31:12] Chain splits happen pretty regularly in Bitcoin, like once a week, where you'll have two miners who find a block at roughly the same time, and then you'll have a race on who finds the next block on top of which. So it's like the blockchain is going like this, and all of a sudden it splits out like this. You have chain A and chain B. You don't have to have a fork to have that happen. You just have to have two different miners find two different acceptable blocks.

Speaker 2:
[31:35] And then the longest chain wins.

Speaker 1:
[31:38] The heaviest chain wins. Which is a very important distinction, not to get too in there, because what happened with Bitcoin Cash is they did an emergency difficulty adjustment algorithm where if blocks weren't found a certain amount of time, they would drop the difficulty, and then a bunch of new blocks would get found. This is actually why Bitcoin Cash is, I think, Bitcoin Cash Block Explorer. I've never, let me, so Bitcoin Cash is currently at block height 947,000, and Bitcoin is at 945,000. So there are 30,000 blocks ahead of us. That was a hard fork with what they did, but you necessarily don't need a hard fork for this. And it's actually just while we're on the conversation, it would be a soft fork most like, well, I believe it's most likely a soft fork because you're just saying, hey, these UTXOs that are spendable are no longer spendable. And since that's a restriction of the rules, you would be able to do that as a soft fork. Now, as it relates to like Bitcoin, the carrot in the stick, the carrot is, hey, if we could just take a couple million coins of the supply, Bitcoin is even more scarce now.

Speaker 2:
[32:58] Yep.

Speaker 1:
[32:58] Right? And Satoshi can't even spend his money anymore. So what happens if Satoshi comes back and sells his coins? We get to kill that FUD, we get to make it 21 million and make it like 19 million or whatever. It actually, I think it'd be a little bit lower, but that's the idea it sold. And the stick is, if you don't agree with us, we're just going to sell all of these coins into you. Which means that the chain that you would want to be worth less, very quickly, if it's worth less, miners are going to not build on that chain anymore. And then you have an insecure network, like, because the, you have an insecure network, because it's like with Bitcoin Cash, let's say they have 1% of the hash rate of Bitcoin. At any moment, the entire Bitcoin network hash rate can just start mining Bitcoin Cash and reorganize blocks, right? If you have a proof of work blockchain, you want to have most of the available compute that uses your hashing algorithm mining your chain. Because if it's a minority, people can start playing funny games, right? And during the immediate split, there's a lot of people bouncing hash rate back and forth. Cause the cost, like to go from chain A to chain B is one quick command line software. And you can send it to a whole fleet of miners pretty quickly. So you don't have to, it's not like people have to go in there and flip a switch on all of these physical machines. It's all software. So the switching cost is negligible, if not zero. And when you think about this, what was, I'm not going to say alarming, but what was very eye-opening for me was having these conversations in person and just this very cavalier attitude of, well, the institutions won't allow it.

Speaker 2:
[34:45] Because that's essentially saying the institutions have won at this point over Bitcoiners.

Speaker 1:
[34:50] Not only the institutions have won, the institutions are where Bitcoin derives its value.

Speaker 2:
[34:54] Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[34:56] That's actually what is being said. When you say the institutions have blessed this chain, you're saying that their thesis and vision of what Bitcoin is, is the champion. Now, I don't pretend to understand or know how this is going to evolve. I think this is a very interesting conversation, in that it goes really to the core principles of what Bitcoin is. And thinking about it, honestly, the basic premise for people who don't want to freeze these coins, it says that Bitcoin confers onto you property rights. And those property rights are never violated.

Speaker 2:
[35:40] If you already self-custody Bitcoin, you know the deal with hardware wallets. Complex setups, clumsy interfaces, and a seed phrase that can be lost, stolen or forgotten. Well BitKey fixes that. BitKey is a multi-sig hardware wallet built by the team behind Square and Cash App. It packs a cryptographic recovery system and built-in inheritance feature into an intuitive, easy-to-use wallet with no seed phrase to sweat over. It's simple, secure self-custody without the stress. And Time named BitKey one of the best inventions of 2024. Get 20% off at bitkey.world when you use the code WBD. That's B-I-T-K-E-Y dot world and use the code WBD. The thing that keeps me up at night is the idea of a critical era with my Bitcoin cold storage. And this is where AnchorWatch comes in. With AnchorWatch, your Bitcoin is insured with your own A plus rated Lloyds of London insurance policy, and all Bitcoin is held in their timelocked multi-sig vaults. So you have the peace of mind knowing your Bitcoin is insured while not giving up custody. So whether you're worried about inheritance planning, wrench attacks, natural disasters, or just your own silly mistakes, you're protected by AnchorWatch. Rates for fully insured custody start as low as 0.55% and are available for individual and commercial customers located in the US. Speak to AnchorWatch for a quote and for more details about your security options and coverage, visit anchorwatch.com today. That's anchorwatch.com. Do you want to pay less in taxes and stack more Bitcoin? Of course you do. Well, by mining Bitcoin with BlockWare, you can. Under section 168K of US tax code, Bitcoin mining servers qualify for 100% bonus depreciation. This means every dollar you spend on miners can directly offset your income in a single year. And that's true for both business owners and W2 earners. If you have $100,000 in ordinary income, you can purchase $100,000 in miners and potentially offset your tax liability entirely. BlockWare's Mining as a Service does all the heavy lifting. They secure the rigs, they source the low cost power, and handle all the day to day maintenance. So you get to stack Bitcoin every single day while drastically shrinking your tax bill. Get started today at blockwaresolutions.com/wbd, and use code WBD for $100 off your first miner. That's blockwaresolutions.com/wbd. This is exactly where I stand on this. And I think people sometimes take a short-sighted approach to this, where property rights are a key fundamental value of Bitcoin. So we cannot, as Bitcoiners, steal someone else's coins. And that is what we're doing if we freeze those coins. And I think when you try and look at the long-term value of a frozen Bitcoin fork, I think the long-term value is actually far lower than Bitcoin as it is today. Short-term value of Bitcoin as it is today, if we choose not to steal those funds, get stolen by a quantum computer and then dumped on the market, sure, it's going to go down a lot in the short-term. But long-term, it retains all those fundamental values. And I think people just will, are looking at this too short-term. Like, I don't mind if someone wants to dump 2 million Bitcoin on the market. Like, it's going to suck for a while, but we'll get some cheap sass.

Speaker 1:
[38:43] Yeah, there'll be cheap Bitcoin and there are definitely secondary and tertiary impacts to that. There's also a big assumption, is you're telling me the moment someone starts cracking public keys, like Satoshi's coins, and starts reverse engineering them, one, we're making a big hand wave that this is actually workable at reasonable scale, which is a very big hand wave to explore this conversation. I don't believe anyone, even the people who want to free Satoshi's coins, do not want to do this until they have some reasonable sense of certainty that this is going to happen, right? And I'd be really, if someone in the next four or five months is like, here's the code, like, let's update this, like, I don't think it's going to fly. I think to actually get capitulation on this, you need to start seeing this being probable or close to happening, or a demonstration with one of them happening. But you need to simultaneously hand wave over all of the physics breakthroughs and the engineering breakthroughs. People who are very big proponents in thinking that this is inevitable say that this is strictly an engineering problem at this point, that all of the fundamental physics has been done. I take them at their word at that because I'm not a physicist. It also means that they're able to engineer and design and build these systems in such a way that they're cost-effective, and that they're able to do it at scale. So as a little bit of context for this, when Bitcoin first started, you got 50 Bitcoin a block. Satoshi's, what are generally attributed to Satoshi's coins, roughly a million, were sent to the default address when Bitcoin first started, which were called pay-to-public key. Since they are public keys, they are bare public keys. Like any wallet you use today or any wallet you've used in the past 10 years do not support public key. Pay-to-script hash and pay-to-public key hash, which is like you would know them as like the one addresses, the legacy original ones have been around since Bitcoin since the beginning. And the script ones, pay-to-script hash came around I think 2014, that began with a three. These are like before SegWit, before the box size were. If you've ever seen a Bitcoin address with a one or a three, it's pre-SegWit. Because those addresses are hashed, a quantum computer cannot trivially reverse engineer the hash is. It's a different problem. This is the computer science, like the algorithm is called Shor, like Shor's algorithm is reverse engineering public-private key cryptography, whereas reverse engineering a hash is called Grover's algorithm. And to my understanding, even though Grover's algorithm brings some optimizations, it's not a trivial thing like breaking a public-private key. So most addresses up until Taproot are totally quantum safe. Taproot, unfortunately, exposes a raw public key when you deposit to it, and then you tweak it if you want to use all of the Taproot tree stuff. And with this, some of the quantum proposals like BIP360 say, hey, we should just get rid of that, like keep Taproot and pay to Merkle hash. Like you want to have one. A great thing about Taproot was one address could have many, many spending conditions nested within it, so you don't have to show them all. That you could do if you just disable the key path, which is the raw public key. Just to explain specifically why, if you have the, all Bitcoin is secured by this elliptic curve. I actually, with my friend Fundamentals, started like twice a month math podcast called Magic Internet Math. We've done five episodes and we've only covered elliptic curve cryptography. And it's the vibe is like at the bar, post-bitdebs, if you want to talk about how the stuff works, how to go there, right? So we don't, we try not to, we start very, very basic, like I would say junior high level math, all the way to elliptic curve cryptography. But with these quantum computers, if you have the raw public key, which is the point on the curve, you're able to reverse engineer the private key, but it can't undo a hash. So all this to say, Satoshi's coins are vulnerable, and all the Taproot coins are vulnerable, because they are the two address formats that expose the raw public key.

Speaker 2:
[43:07] And this is the number that I said earlier. So it's somewhere between six and seven million coins have a public key viewable on chain, I think.

Speaker 1:
[43:15] Yeah. And also if you reuse addresses.

Speaker 2:
[43:17] Yeah. So that's one of the attack vectors, because there's a short and a long range attack with this. So that's the one where these quantum computers have as much time as they want to try and derive the private key from the public key. There's no time limit on that. But if we get a quantum relevant quantum computer, then there's also the mempool attack where as you send a Bitcoin transaction, you expose your public key. And if it can solve the private key from that public key in less than the time it takes that to get confirmed, they can potentially steal the funds that way as well.

Speaker 1:
[43:49] Absolutely. So for those at home to rehash it again, when you go to spend Bitcoin, no matter the address type, you have to reveal your public key. Because that's when you provide your signature and say, yes, this is my Bitcoin, it says, okay, but to what public key, right? Your signature is tied to your public key. And so whenever you go to spend, you have to reveal your public key no matter what. And to your point, a long range versus short range quantum attack, I'm not going to pretend to be an expert. From my perspective, long range versus short range means basically a long range attack is all of Satoshi's public keys are available today to be looked at. They have been since January 3rd, 2009. Since Bitcoin started, those public keys have been sitting there. Anyone could have had a quantum computer trying to crack Satoshi's coins since the beginning of time, basically. Now if I go to send you Bitcoin, Danny, and there's a quantum computer that can solve this in less than 10 minutes before it gets into the next block and gets confirmed, that would be a short range attack. And that actually a short range attack actually just entirely destroys how Bitcoin works at that point. Because if I go to send you money and someone can steal it instantly, that's a total collapse. My assumption would be that the time it takes between we can reverse engineer a public-private key pair with a quantum computer and being able to do it in under 10 minutes at scale, so you can just attack all the coins, there is time, I would guess, even if it's parabolic accelerated growth, it's still going to take time to get to that point. This goes into one of the other talks, I saw it up next, which was Jonas Nick, who's like the lead cryptographer at Blockstream. He has new protocols called Shrinks and Shrimps which are these new post quantum proof citing algorithms. There's a couple of general in the bucket of types of approaches. The most reliable ones though, rely, as I said earlier, quantum computers really can't undo a hash, so most of the safer, the well-tested signing algorithms are hashes. You're doing a hash instead of it just being a raw public key. Now, there's massive trade-offs with this stuff, and it's a, I would say, a rapidly evolving and advancing field. So in the next year, they'll probably bunch new breakthroughs. But one, the signatures are much larger. A typical Bitcoin signature right now, I think, is somewhere between 60 and 80 bytes, something like that. So it's pretty small. These are hundreds of bytes on the smallest side, if not a couple kilobytes on the heavier side. And so there's a question of, like, when you're designing and architecting this, if you got to a world that was post-quantum proof, you would actually want to, you would get a decrease in the transactions per second, because the blocks are going to be fuller quicker. Now, an interesting talk that Jonas made, and he made a point that this is strictly unrelated to what Bitcoin should do, but as an observation, the reason why we want small block sizes is because we want anyone to be able to trivially run a node and do the computation related to maintaining the Bitcoin ledger for yourself, right? So every person who wants to participate in the Bitcoin network can reasonably access hardware and it will allow you to do that. Quantum, these signatures that Jonas was demoing, well, he was presenting about it up next, are one sixth the computational complexity of an elliptic curve. So Jonas' observation was, I'm not advocating for this. A case could be made for a block size increase because if the whole point is making sure that the nodes are computationally robust enough to manage and verify the transactions, we now have a much easier computational load CPU cycle-wise. It'll take up more space. So that's context that's relevant. And I think over the next coming years, there'll be more and more to do with that.

Speaker 2:
[48:03] The problem with that though, is that this is going to be contentious anyway. And adding a block size increase, whether it's the right or wrong decision, is just going to make it more contentious because of the block size wars. And blocks are empty at the moment. I know that if we get a quantum computer that is going to be capable of the short-range attack, then people are going to be trying to move their funds to a quantum-resistant address as quickly as possible. So blocks will get full. But assuming we have enough time, which may be a big assumption, why not just leave the blocks alone and make this as uncontentious as possible at this point, if it is an actual existential risk to Bitcoin?

Speaker 1:
[48:41] One, yeah, they are related, but not required to happen together, right? I think in general, what would be nice is if that like, as the cryptography gets hardened in and there's kind of consensus on this is a valid way to secure Bitcoin in a world with a cryptographically relevant quantum computer, you would be able to have this as an option. You're going to pay higher fees because it takes up more space on chain. You can let it sit there. And then you can re-evaluate if everyone does a mass migration over to this. The funny thing too, just to think about this when we're actually talking about blocks like through put in space, like if Coinbase has like two, three million Bitcoin, they don't have to have two, three million UTXOs. Most of them are kind of omnibus aggregated thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of Bitcoin sitting at these addresses. You can actually pretty move most of the economic worth pretty quickly without it being a massive headache. What? I'm just thinking through the other thing, I guess, to keep in mind is actually before I get into that, there was a really great talk from Robin Linus at the MIT Bitcoin Expo last week where he talks about, I'm going to keep it at a high level without going too deep into the details, but he has a paper called BinoHash. And he basically has figured out a way using many, many quirks of how Bitcoin works to create scripts that today, without an upgrade, can actually be made in a quantum proof way. He actually does that hash-based signing algorithm today.

Speaker 2:
[50:25] Against both short and long-range attack.

Speaker 1:
[50:28] Yeah, yeah, it totally works. Those transactions are 10 kilobytes each. And they're not standard. So like mempools buy default one broadcast them. But he did it on mainnet. It works. He proved that it works.

Speaker 2:
[50:42] That's very cool because this is one of the big things. Like I know a lot of the criticism from the people who are, I guess, more bullish, if that's the right word, on these quantum breakthroughs, is they are desperate for devs to quote unquote do something. And obviously, through the discussions you're having, devs are taking this seriously, are talking about it. But one of the risks of rushing something through is that we get a suboptimal solution. And if we wait, things like this might appear that our ways of doing it without really making a change and without having a negative impact on how Bitcoin actually works.

Speaker 1:
[51:13] Oh, I'm going to agree and say it's so much worse than suboptimal. You could be bullied into putting in broken cryptography into Bitcoin. There's plenty of post quantum algorithms that have been proposed that a classical computer can trivially break.

Speaker 2:
[51:30] Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[51:31] So like being pushed into executing and deploying something, you could actually not have to be suboptimal. It could just be rugging everyone's money. Right? So I think I encourage, even if I disagree with the people, having a discourse and a discussion and thinking about and game-theoring out and making prototypes and like proposals, like I'm for every single one because it helps flesh out a discourse, right? Even people who I disagree with, I'd rather get it out, flesh it out, flesh out a discourse. And this was bit 361, which got a bit number this past week, which actually just proposes freezing Satoshi's coins, right? And basically you would have a declared window of in the next X amount of time, you have to move your coins afterwards, they get permanently disabled. I think if Bitcoin were to go down that path, you would have to be presenting that stuff now years in advance, even before it gets like activated or implemented to help with that discussion. The tedious thing is just from my observation, everyone's just kind of throwing stuff against the wall right now and seeing what sticks. Right? Even like Jameson Lopp was one of the authors of BIP361, he was like, I don't even like this. It's just an idea. Right? So like that's why I try not to get too worked up on what someone's proposal is. I'm more concerned about thinking about the value, the values of which Bitcoin confers onto its users and making sure that we are not very conveniently trying to dissuade and... We're just not trying to push something out that would just make the institutions happy. Even Peter Wille, when this conversation first started, and this is back on February of 2025, so this is over a year ago, specifically says, of course, they have to be confiscated. Peter Wille said that in February 2025. And I find it interesting. I have much respect for him. Interesting to say that because it's such a definitive statement of a change in Bitcoin when he's typically very measured about any public comment about one change versus another. I mean, to read his full quote, of course it has to be confiscated if and when, and that's a big if. The existence of a cryptography breaking quantum computer becomes a credible threat. The Bitcoin ecosystem has no other option than soft-forking out the ability to spend from signature schemes including ECDSA and BIP340, which is Taproot, that are vulnerable economic computers. The alternative is that millions of Bitcoin become vulnerable to theft. I cannot see how the currency can maintain any value in such a setting. This affects everyone, even those who diligently move their coins to their post-quantum protected schemes. Saying that even if you were the responsible user of the network and you go and move the coins, you have this negative tragedy of the commons where the supply gets kind of like sold and dumped out.

Speaker 2:
[54:57] He's obviously done amazing things with Bitcoin. He understands Bitcoin far better than I ever will. But that's not right in my opinion. Like I don't think you can justify stealing people's coins because someone who you deem a bad actor is going to steal them in the future. It's still theft. Either way, it's theft.

Speaker 1:
[55:15] I agree with that. The thing that is an option to everyone who holds Bitcoin today is that when this day comes, you just don't sell either side of the fork.

Speaker 2:
[55:29] Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[55:30] But you have to hold your coins in self-custody to be able to express that opinion economically. Yeah. It's not an option. I mean, it's too premature to say what exactly I would do. I mean, I've talked about this with the team at Anchor Watch. And the initial thought is we could maintain two different nodes and let you basically pick what network you want to look at. You can just kind of toggle which chain. Exchanges have a lot harder of a time reconciling this because then you have an issue of if you send coins to someone, like you have an issue of did you send it to the Bitcoin network chain? Because if I give you an, I could give you a legacy Bitcoin address today, and you could send Bitcoin cash and Bitcoin to that same address. Because it's pre-segment, so they look identical.

Speaker 2:
[56:21] But why do exchanges have an issue here? Because like with the Bitcoin cash fork, like it took a bit of time, but eventually most exchanges at least for a period of time, took both Bitcoin and Bitcoin cash. So why couldn't they just do something similar?

Speaker 1:
[56:34] Well, it depends. At first, it took a little while to list Bitcoin cash.

Speaker 2:
[56:42] Yeah, it did.

Speaker 1:
[56:43] That was not immediate. I had a buddy that got into Bitcoin years ago, held it at Coinbase. He's like, what's this Bitcoin cash I have in my account? Because he bought it in 2015 and came back in 2020 to look at it. And by that point, it was worth a fraction of its value, which is if you were to fully skin in the game, express your opinion and sell one side of the fork for the other, that's another reason why you have to self-custody it, because otherwise you're not going to be able to actually do anything with it. I just think it's one, operational adds a lot of complexity to running an exchange. I'm not saying it can't be done. You have to use a double your infrastructure stack of maintaining two nodes, two copies of the blockchain, two different records of transaction histories. Like, it's not something that's straightforward and easy.

Speaker 2:
[57:28] And that's an issue for the Bitcoin-only exchanges, but the Coinbase of the world have a thousand coins on them anyway. Sure.

Speaker 1:
[57:35] I think that's a good point. It also comes down to who gets the ticker BTC. Yes.

Speaker 2:
[57:40] I think that's a really important one.

Speaker 1:
[57:42] Right. So you could easily just say, this is BTC. And that happened all during the block size war. It was like bitcoin.com or something was like all of the Bitcoin nomenclature, when you click on the links went to Bitcoin Cash Software. Right.

Speaker 2:
[57:56] Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[57:59] My core concern around all of this, and there's a bunch of things too like Hourglass, which I'm sure you've talked about, which basically works as a way of giving the miners an increased block reward. Hourglass v2, which just came out, is one bitcoin that is quantum vulnerable can move per block.

Speaker 2:
[58:26] Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[58:26] And at that point that basically you would work with a miner to like give them some piece of it. So they'll include your tree. Because the idea is that if you have multiple, you would need multiple teams with quantum relevant computers that are cracking the bitcoin. If team A says, oh, I'm going to take one bitcoin, send it to myself. And team B said, hey, here's one bitcoin and here's 0.1 bitcoin for the miner. Like 0.9 bitcoin for me, 0.1 for the miner. Then the miner is going to include the one that pays them in the block. And so it turned, and then you could game theory out of whatever that price is, but you'd be able to get there. These are all, I think it's good that's in the discussion stage and trying to figure this out. My concern though is just basically Bitcoin losing its own sense of purpose and a sense of kind of like bending the knee to large interests in general.

Speaker 2:
[59:23] It's such a mess. And I think the interesting here is that like cryptography is always a game of cat and mouse. And at some point, there's no reason to think that a regular computer wouldn't have broken ECDSA. And there would have to be some kind of change in Bitcoin. But this just accelerates the timeline potentially with a huge caveat of the potentially side. But I can't see how this is resolved in a non-contentious way. I think it's going to be a real mess over the next decade, however long.

Speaker 1:
[59:55] I think decades, the right timeline for this to all get played out. I try to keep an eye on these breakthrough papers that are changing everything. And I don't mean it to be a dick. I'm just, could it factor a number larger than 15 yet? Bitcoin public traffic keys are very, very large numbers. And the factoring part is really important because the entire security of Bitcoin relies on the fact that it's way easier to multiply two numbers than to divide a number and find it like what, right? So the number 15, three times five is 15. But looking at 15, hmm, how do I break it into pieces? Oh, it's five and three. The larger the number gets, the more complicated it is to break out those individual pieces. And so we're not even at triple digit numbers. And Bitcoin public private key pairs are a number between zero and two to the 256, two times two times two, which is more atoms in the observable universe. So you need to get parabolic exponential growth doesn't even begin to cover it. If forever we've never been able to factor more than 15. And they'll factor larger numbers, but you'll find out they use the equivalent of like an ASIC of like a very specific pre-computed logic to help them find the answer. At that point doesn't really count. Cause they're, they basically know the answer ahead of time and they're kind of giving the path on how to find the answer in the code. You have to go from 15 to two to the 256 before this is actually a problem.

Speaker 2:
[61:30] And the other frustrating thing on that is that one of the arguments is that like the physics is solved. This is now an engineering problem, but it's still a huge engineering problem that needs like novel breakthroughs. Like it's not, none of this is trivial.

Speaker 1:
[61:42] Yeah, and that's actually something I learned at Up Next is that there's not like one approach to do this. There's multiple teams with different perspectives on how to do this. And because of that, sounds to me that like the engineering part may be just as hard as the physics part, because no one knows the right way to go about it yet. It's something that I have a very strong feeling that over the next year, this is now the topic du jour. Like this is going to be what everyone talks about. It's going to be that, you know, every time someone goes on a podcast, you're going to ask them their opinion one way or another.

Speaker 2:
[62:18] But this is why people are going to talk about. I totally agree with this and that. And this is why I think the Hero's Journey part is like an interesting sort of starting point. Because for us, one of the things we've talked about over and over again here is property rights, which is, for my entire Bitcoin journey, has always been one of the key fundamental values of Bitcoin. But for someone who's come in and bought an ETF because their broker said Bitcoin is digital gold, like do they know about the property rights part? Do they care about the property rights part? And how does that skew the argument?

Speaker 1:
[62:47] No, not only do they not know, they probably don't care. And the reason why I say most of them probably don't care is because if they did care, and they would hold self-custody Bitcoin, they'd be more ideologically aligned and read it on it, right? And short of like a tax advantage play, they'd be holding it in self-custody. So all that to say, this isn't not a straightforward problem to solve. This isn't like most generic FUD in that it's someone who just needs to think about things a little bit more like, or like read more Bitcoin books or go on more Bitcoin podcasts, like they're gonna have to act, like this is not a solved problem. The most bullish thing, and I think people who are critics of this would lean on that as like, why are you even talking about this? It's not gonna happen. It's fairy dust. Goes back to though, I don't like being bearish on the achievements of mankind. And we've already seen exponential sudden changes to our life with AI usage, that I'm not gonna confidently say, ah, yes, they can do with AI, but they can't do with this. And the really wild thing about AI, I guess the technology of large language models and transformers and all this stuff, all of the fundamental pieces to do this stuff was available like 30 years ago. Like there's an alternate universe where like all of the things that you do with AI right now, that's like breaking through, could have happened 30 years ago. It was just sitting there and you needed to find the right engineer to execute on it. Very much in the same way of Bitcoin. Like Bitcoin could have easily been a decade younger. Like came to life a decade earlier. It just came when the right engineer came forward and clicked all the pieces. So I try to be mindful of that, of not it just takes one person to figure out the answer.

Speaker 2:
[64:36] Yeah, it's like I'm not a quantum expert. So to some degree, you have to sort of trust the science. So if you do that, then you have to start having these conversations. I'm not saying that I believe this is going to be a threat in five years time, but at some point, I kind of have to assume that this is possible. And so from that perspective, you have to start talking about solutions and the solutions are a mess. And I don't think we have a great solution right now, but time will hopefully fix some of that.

Speaker 1:
[65:04] So, my personal work, what I've just been thinking about this over the past couple of days since I got back from Opnext, what I would love, and this is putting my cards out on the table of like, what I think is important here, is I would love for Robin Linus' binohash to get the basic minimal technical support, so that if you were really, really passionate about doing this, you could just go do it without talking to anyone. The biggest blocker to that is the mining pools don't have binohash as a standard transaction. On the technical side, what this means is that Bitcoin nodes have default mempools. If everyone followed the BIP 110 stuff, Bitcoin Core changed the relay rules for transactions to go from 80-byte op return to 100-kilobyte op return, right? Was it 10 or 100? Anyway, and because of that, you have this big change in what the miners naturally propagate. All of the binohash stuff is not natural to propagate in the default rules. But if you're telling me today that I could spend $100 to basically do the pre-compute work of binohash, it's actually a proof of work puzzle, and how you create the transaction, you have to spend a bunch of GPU cycles to create a proof, like you're brute forcing hashes. So you spend $100. And if I could just click a button, spend $100, and just like send this to the network, and you're technically quantum proof, what I think is really important about that is it instantly dismisses all of the FUD, because if you really, really, really, really want to have a quantum proof UTXO, you can do it today. And the moment that that's technically an option, it deflates this urgency. It's just massively just like, okay, is it going to be rough? Are some coins going to get stolen? Maybe. But like, you have a path to independent autonomy and agency to be able to secure your money if you want to. And I think that's like the perfect place to start. Just if you could get it technically working and it's ugly and messy. But you know what? One, all of the custodians have teams of engineers who will make it a trivial, easy problem. And for everyone who doesn't self-custody, they'll never even know about these details. Then you'll need some sort of wallet software that will let someone in their basement do it, which is important for the network being fair and distributed and give everyone a shot at doing this. But that's where I would want it to go. Like that's, that I think if that would happen over the next year, if over the next year, BinoHashwork became a standard transaction, and then you could if you were so motivated to, able to get it in there, then cool. Then like everyone now has an answer. It's sloppy and messy, but you know what? When I got into Bitcoin in 2014, it was sloppy and messy too. And everyone who's at an institution using a custodian can, if they want to, handle it in the background without any extra overhead.

Speaker 2:
[68:02] See, I love that because in 2017, when Bitfinex released the futures markets for the upcoming fork, that was almost like a, it was kind of like a poll of what Bitcoiners thought the real Bitcoin was. And there was obviously people putting skin in the game and betting money on what the real Bitcoin was. This almost seems similar, different dynamic, but similar in the sense that if we see enough people adopt something like that and try and move to quantum proof addresses, then you kind of get a taste of what the market really wants. And if that is like a large majority or like even a small majority of Bitcoin, then you kind of get an idea of the direction people want this to go.

Speaker 1:
[68:40] Agreed.

Speaker 2:
[68:41] I like that as an idea.

Speaker 1:
[68:43] Just the one thing on the futures market, incredibly important for resolving messy disputes, because it lets economic actors express their interest. The one thing is you need to actually have the quantum fixing team. Whatever they're going to do, they kind of need like a final proposal for people to actually appropriately price it. Because if you tried doing that today, there'd be a bunch of, I don't know, maybe, exactly. So you need to get like a cohesive fork proposal. But then once you do that, running a futures market is another great way to help to still advance around the market.

Speaker 2:
[69:17] One of the things I've just thought about during this conversation is the pressure that freezing Satoshi's coins puts on Satoshi. So just for this conversation, let's assume he's alive. And it's taken insane discipline for him not to sell those coins in the last 17 years. Clearly, if that's the case, if he is still alive, then that's a decision he's made. And at this point, I would assume that he plans to never sell those coins because it's already more money than you could ever wish for. Like, he's clearly not motivated by having more dollars in a bank account. And if you try, if you propose freezing the coins, you put Satoshi in a position where he has to move them or they get stolen by the quote-unquote like good Bitcoin robbers. And if his perspective of it as of right now is, I want those coins to be stolen by quantum, by saying you're going to freeze them puts him in a position that he may not want to be in where he has to expose that he is still alive. And so I think the pressure that that adds is unfair. And again, like, it's coercive behavior on property rights.

Speaker 1:
[70:27] That's a great point that Satoshi, assuming they're alive and around, maybe is very happy with this outcome because it very cleanly gives the coins to someone else. And genuinely, an awesome way, and I mean awesome in the word like awe, like awe-inspiring, like someone is actually able to bend the rules of physics to reverse engineer public or private key cryptography. Maybe Satoshi's like, cool, take it.

Speaker 2:
[70:54] Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[70:54] Like, you gotta, right? And Satoshi's like, coins were necessarily required to be mined because when Bitcoin first started, there were no people mining Bitcoin.

Speaker 2:
[71:09] We'd still be on block long.

Speaker 1:
[71:11] Right. The network never would have went. And actually, the first positive difficulty adjustment doesn't happen until December of 2009. And if you look at the strength of CPUs at the time, you needed like seven computers mining Bitcoin. You needed like seven to ten computers mining Bitcoin at the same time to get the initial difficulty increase. So for the first year of Bitcoin's existence, less than 10 computers were mining Bitcoin at the same time. Not 10 ASICs, not 10 laptops or computers mining Bitcoin. So those coins just kind of had to be made because they weren't worth anything at the time, right? And you got to keep the network propagating going forward. So that's a good point too, that the rest of the network is trying to make a decision of trying to discern the motives and intents for why their Bitcoin should be moved or frozen without their permission. To me, I don't think that's a... I feel like that's a tough Overton window or a crossing of the Rubicon to do for the network. I try not to be too silly and hyperbolic, but the Mt. Gox coins haven't moved since they got hacked, right?

Speaker 2:
[72:24] I didn't know that.

Speaker 1:
[72:26] Mark Capelles did a poll request to unfreeze those coins a couple months ago.

Speaker 2:
[72:34] I think, when you try and think of the motives of Satoshi, you have to, in my opinion, think that the person that enshrined the property rights on Bitcoin would want to retain the property rights on Bitcoin.

Speaker 1:
[72:48] I would like to think so.

Speaker 2:
[72:49] It's going to be a mess, man.

Speaker 1:
[72:51] Oh, it's going to be messy. And here's the thing, it's going to be messy in discourse. It only actually gets messy if there's actually observable progress in quantum computers.

Speaker 2:
[73:03] Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[73:04] And then you could say, you could look back on this episode two years from now and be like, those idiots, they're talking about this. Nothing's happened since then. I would welcome that. I would love it. Awesome. Amazing. Like Bitcoin then lost some of its most powerful FUD, Bitcoin to a million dollars. Right. I would love nothing more for that to happen. We'll just see though. Right. And I don't pretend to have answers, but I know we kind of hijacked the idea of the Hero's Journey, but I just got back from this conference and having multiple conversations with people around this stuff, and well, we have to do this because of BlackRock, and we have to do this because Coinbase won't support it otherwise. I'm not sure if you saw Brian Armstrong did a tweet about how he's going to spend more time evaluating the quantum stuff going forward. It's something that I'm mindful of. Like, it's almost like people are setting up a chessboard, like the pieces are being laid out on the board right now. And we'll see where the trajectory of these things go. But I think it's going to accelerate and become more of the mindshare what people talk about. And if the technology matches it, then it's going to accelerate even more if we start getting more and more breakthroughs. Not like here's a white paper hypothetically that does something, but like we're factoring numbers, we're getting coherence, which means they're not like the quantum computers are stable and able to do these computations. Then we're in a whole different world.

Speaker 2:
[74:27] If you had to bet on it now, who do you think would win in that potential fork scenario? Would you think it would be the Bitcoiners that care about property rights or the Black Rocks, the Coinbase of the world, with the economic weight?

Speaker 1:
[74:42] My guess would be the people in Bitcoin, the anti-institutional side. Maybe it's a little bit of hope on my side. This is definitely a whole different animal compared to the Block 5 wars in 2017. I would be hopeful that while there may be incredible short-term price volatility, that there would be a way to pull through it. The miners are a very relevant side for this cohort too. If they're profit-maximizing machines and the unfree side falls apart, then in price, then they may not mine on it anymore, which then causes a lot of headaches for the propagation of the network. It's funny because in 2017, going into it, I was like, oh, I cannot wait to sell my coins. Cannot wait. Cannot wait. I'm going to sell my B-cash and I'm going to get more Bitcoin. And at least as of right now, I don't know where it falls yet, but it's still so early that maybe as things continue to evolve, I'll get a more informed opinion. But right now, I'm hoping that it would be even with short-term price volatility, the property rights side of the chain would work.

Speaker 2:
[76:06] Never bet against Bitcoiners. I did the same in 2017, sold way too early before B-cash had its final pump. But still, I think it's much higher than it is today. Rob, this has been awesome. I'm going to see you in a week. Thanks for doing this. Anywhere you want to send anyone. We've not even talked about Anchor Watch. Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[76:25] Anchor Watch. So we do Bitcoin custody and insurance. There's a lot of interesting things, no announcements for this podcast, but a lot of very interesting things coming out. We've now launched Uninsured. So if you're interested in just Uninsured custody, you can just check out anchorwatch.com. If you're interested in Uninsured custody, anchorwatch.com. You can get ahold of me of Twitter, at Rob One Ham. We're going to be imminently launching multi-institutional custody, as well as a couple of new ways for businesses that we're working with right now for API and white label access for people who want to be able to add the ability to leverage our tech and maybe not our keys or our insurance. If you just want to be able to pull that in, but you could also add insurance depending on who you are. And our ability and what I'm putting a lot of thought into product development and execution this year too, is around more ways that we can make accessible, like safely storing Bitcoin and kind of think of new ways about it. That will include probably a generalizable API so that you can host your own keys on your own infrastructure. But if you want to have like a with batteries included wallets management software that can help you generate your transactions, get deposit addresses, get transaction history and all that stuff. Those are things that we're going to be imminently coming out with as well.

Speaker 2:
[77:45] Awesome. Well, thank you for doing this. That was fun. We kind of got off the hero's journey, but this is going to be a huge topic of conversation in the next few years. But thank you, Rob. This is cool.

Speaker 1:
[77:55] Well, thank you. The hero's journey, the abyss at the bottom. This may be the overlooking the next abyss in the mass chaos. Of a new fork war.

Speaker 2:
[78:04] Just add this to more first turning things. We'll be out of it soon.

Speaker 1:
[78:08] We're in the first turning now. If you talk to the Bitcoin bugle boys, we're in the first turning.

Speaker 2:
[78:12] I mean, they called that way too early. They called that before Iran.

Speaker 1:
[78:17] They did. It's just first turning things.

Speaker 2:
[78:19] The Iran thing didn't seem very first turning, but we will see. Awesome, Danny.

Speaker 1:
[78:24] Thanks, Rob.

Speaker 2:
[78:24] I'll speak to you soon, mate.

Speaker 1:
[78:25] See you.