Projects
![]()
No projects found
Investors
New
DAO Treasuries
DATs
Lend / Borrow APRs
Chains
Categories
Spaces
Bitcoin Vegas, Trustless BTC Bridge, Bitcoin+
Recorded: May 30, 2025 Duration: 1:07:03Space Recording
Short Summary
At BTC Vegas, discussions highlighted significant partnerships and growth in the crypto ecosystem, with a focus on user experience and innovative yield strategies. The introduction of BitVM aims to enhance Bitcoin's scalability, while the community embraces a decentralized future.
Full Transcription
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Hey guys, can you hear me?
Yep. yep okay so yeah it seems like uh dylan hosting um he's not able to speak so we'll just begin here
um yeah we're up in vegas btc vegas. It's been really interesting. I didn't really attend to any of the talks, but we were meeting partners and miners and exchanges and service providers and stuff, various partners within our ecosystem.
excitement overall in the industry and where we're at.
And I think we're past the threshold of no return for Bitcoin and crypto.
So, you know, great validation from institutional side and the projects themselves are maturing,
it seems.
It's been a lot of focus on user experience.
user experience from from the technical side there's been a lot of push towards solving things
in um in the proper ways so you know on one side there's people pushing and saying we need stuff
that's really usable um i attended the cardano talk about uh doing a bitcoin bridge on cardano and
that was interesting really good ux um not not clear on the on the technical side and then on
the other hand there's really smart people saying hold on like these bridges are not safe like how
are they done let's make sure those are proper.
There's no real Bitcoin bridge out there.
People are running ahead and thinking that they need to create an ecosystem,
liquidity first before creating those bridges.
And so there's two camps.
And I think you need a little bit of both. But UX is getting pretty good now for a lot of projects,
especially with some of these smart contracting platforms that can do things like account abstraction,
where you can store, you know, it's just going to be like a bank account,
even better than a bank account when you could just authorize with your thumb or your biometric, your face login.
It's getting there.
And on the technical side, there definitely hasn't been a solution yet.
The BitVM guys are working on a BitVM3 version,
and I spoke to many of the other people working in that side of things,
and they all have interesting ideas.
We all converged that there's no real good solution yet.
Few people running on test nets and it is a real exciting time in Bitcoin.
And, you know, looking at proof of work versus proof of stake, there's been some debate on is the security model of Bitcoin going to last?
On the other hand, we've been surprised by Bitcoin for a long time.
You know, the miners keep, even if the miners aren't profitable, they tend to hold.
aren't profitable they they tend to hold the institutional sides they're they're holding um
The institutional sides, they're holding.
there there's a different sort of mentality between these these networks and and the bitcoin
side of things and uh the interesting talk by jack mall maller strike and after that was michael saylor but the the cool things that i got from that were
um there is uh no need to sell your crypto even if you need money to live
like jack sold he sold all of his fiat dollars he emptied his bank account
and he's living off of his Bitcoin.
But how does he do that?
Like he creates loans.
He basically borrows against his Bitcoin, holds dollars just to spend, and he keeps his Bitcoin.
The traditional problem is the lending and borrowing is very high.
There's a big premium on bitcoin and why is that it's
because there's uh over 11 years there's been a um an average 50 growth every year right and
that creates a huge premium for people doing this because people are willing to pay 20 to 30 percent
uh to borrow against their bitcoin to do this exact strategy and there's demand for that
but he he's pushing it down under uh 10 down to 9 if you have good credit that's really cool because
uh if you can roll loans perpetually and you're only doing this with maybe three to five percent
so say a 20 to one ratio of your holdings,
then you could basically just live off the crypto while never selling it.
You're still holding and you're just covering
your costs and needs to live that take dollars
and you're still holding your Bitcoin.
And the only difference is instead of 50%
year-over-year growth you're getting getting 40% because the loan is 9%.
In the U.S., it's interesting even further because as you roll these loans, there's no tax.
I know in other areas like Canada, I think every time you roll over a loan, it's a tax event.
But either way, in the U.Ss it's really interesting to do that strategy and
i think these institutions or many whales are starting to do that they're not actually selling
they're just they're loaning to themselves and then using that money to live because you don't
need to be uh hold holding your dollars right because dollars are always depreciating um yeah on the technical
side it's it's been interesting because we released the white paper we got really good um
interest um you know some new interesting partners that really liked liked us guys at
goat network um take a look at us and we're converging on ideas with what they're doing,
what we're doing, and combining new value adds
of how to scale Bitcoin through these technologies
and taking what they're doing, what we're doing,
and combining powers.
Of course, there's intersections where things can apply
and parts which can apply.
Some of those are really valuable connections to make,
especially from the founder level, CTO side,
when you get down into the roots and roots and figure out like what the core value
proposition of some of these projects are you end up finding some value and you find how you can
combine uh with what you're working on um but in our mind uh yeah what we came up with is pretty foundational i think um there has been no
like up till up till today in bitcoin there's been always an attempt to try to scale btc uh
in through side chains right like you're holding your bitcoin yet you're creating a representation on another chain and then you're able to do
more stuff, right?
And prior to maybe 2017, people were just saying, let me just create a clone of Bitcoin
and then you just do more stuff on the sidechain.
And first of all, there was no real emphasis of what you would be able to do with that Bitcoin
other than it's just a new network, new block limit,
and maybe some smart contract platform.
But there was no thoughts on how that would scale.
And then on top of that, how would you move your Bitcoin?
Really, you would just use some custody provider or federation or
multisig, and that wasn't good enough.
So that's why it hasn't really happened too much.
And Blockstream was formed and tried to do this and, you know, attempted to create ways
to create these side systems off Bitcoin without creating new coins or new networks uh and it
failed didn't didn't really take off but with bitvm uh yeah we we spoke about this at the talk but we
didn't we had to be very um succinct and explanations are also take too long but maybe i can expand on
on what some of these things we meant were when we,
we spoke, um, cause I had a lot more I wanted to cover, but obviously there was not enough time
and it, and the audience wasn't so technical. And I think our community is a little bit more,
uh, in tune with what we're doing so we can get deeper and, you know, um, and then go back up to the value proposition of what SysCoin is
to tie it all together.
So when you're creating these bridges
and what BitVM provides for is
when you have a blockchain and you're trying to secure it,
you have the trilemma, right?
You have, it's in database or distributed design,
it's called the cap theorem.
And you can't ever solve all three variables,
consistency, availability, partition tolerance.
Consistency is, is everyone seeing the same thing,
the latest state in the same way.
And so in Bitcoin, everyone runs a full node
and they all see the same block hash
and it takes real money to fake those blocks.
That's why blocks become consistent
because it costs real resources
to create alternative histories.
The Bitcoin network supports an extension,
Cisco network supports alternative histories, has to,
but it chooses the one that has the most work behind it.
So consistency is done.
Availability means are you able to send a request and hear it back?
In Bitcoin, Syscoin terms, are you able to send a transaction and are able to use the system
or able to maybe connect to someone to hear about it?
And that's provided.
And then partition tolerance is where there was sort of a trade-off in bitcoin and
proof of work and other blockchain networks um that is if there is you know adversaries or people
attacking it will it resolve right and uh interesting thing about um what the longest
chain rule in bitcoin was it supports attacks and
then in the end it resolves through choosing who has the most work who did
the most work around around the chain and then it just resolves to that so it
didn't really completely solve the theorem but it stretches the some of the
variables so that it's able to get able to achieve beyond what maybe a database would be able to offer.
Because the database is centralized, and if you decentralize, you're able to get a little bit further to solve the CAP theorem.
And when you think about bridging, you are going from one of those systems secured to the cap theorem into another.
And because there's that gap, you can't really borrow the security of one and put it in the other.
And that's been the problem because if you have a lot of Bitcoin stuck in this vault, like say 1,000 Bitcoin,
and the cap theorem is completely different on Syscoin, then you just have to attack Syscoin
for the duration of the time needed, and now you've gotten your 1,000 Bitcoin. So a bounty
starts to open up, and this is why these things haven't been adopted until today.
But what BitVM provides for is the ability to create solutions on Bitcoin,
but start to borrow the cap theorem of Bitcoin itself
and apply it to these other systems.
Not sidechains yet, because that's our contribution.
But just in terms of just doing some roll-up that puts all of its state on Bitcoin,
you're able to provide for the full cap theorem security of Bitcoin.
Yet, you have a ZK roll-up where all of the transactions are happening somewhere else.
And that competes with something like maybe lightning networks where lightning networks is you move your bitcoin out to
some system and then you're just signing your state around um in that system and it's just for
like um fast payments and stuff like that it's's not completely secure. There's a bunch of attacks in Lightning Networks
because there is no consensus around it.
And ZK proofs create the security,
but it's less scalable than Lightning Networks.
However, it allows you to do much more,
like smart contracts.
So there are people that saw that and say,
wow, you can borrow the cap theorem of Bitcoin.
Although it's not full security of Bitcoin.
For example, if you use BitBM and you move your Bitcoin into the side system that's sitting on Bitcoin itself, it's throwing everything in Bitcoin.
So it's a native Bitcoin roll up or L2.
You still have to assume that there's some time limit you're willing to accept,
where if Bitcoin rolls back further than that in an attack, your system, your bridge isn't safe
because there is like a bridge in between the side system and Bitcoin, right?
And that assumption could
be pretty big like maybe two weeks but all these designs are making that assumption that maybe it's
one week or two weeks or a few days two weeks is pretty arbitrarily chosen by bitpm protocol but it
could be any number uh and the idea is like um it takes a lot of money to do that and likely
The idea is it takes a lot of money to do that, and likely most of the miners would have to collude to do that.
First of all, Arvio knows who the miners are.
The beautiful thing about proof of work and even mining centralization is that you end up finding out who these people are,
and they are held accountable socially legally whatever and other like proof
of stake it's may not be the same but proof of work you you know who people are they would lose
social reputation miners would jump off those pools so there's a lot at stake if they try to
do these things and the other component is if bitcoin is able to roll back two weeks to launch these sort of attacks, these developers would consider the experiment over that it shouldn't ever do that for that long.
A few blocks is fine, but two weeks, it's too much.
And that would eliminate the confidence in using Bitcoin.
So these people are playing with those assumptions,
and let's just say that's a fair assumption.
Let's just say whatever number is chosen, two weeks or three weeks, it's fair.
Beyond that, you can't guarantee security, but below that, like two weeks, it's fine.
So let's say that is the security that we're playing with.
And most of the market is accepting that.
Like the Bitcoiners, they're moving across these chains.
They're accepting that it won't roll back more than two weeks.
If it rolls back more than two weeks, you know, you got bigger problems like Binance, for example, would accept deposits and withdrawals.
And then happening within two within two weeks
you'd be able to double spend across exchanges and stuff really it's it would be pretty bad
um what we came up with was the ability to start to borrow that cap theorem and apply it in the
sense of using syscoin itself because traditionally you would have syscoin security and bitcoin
security and all you and you take the lesser of both and attack that and attack the bridge
uh a combination of bitvm and then what we did with our new merge mining solution
a combination of those let us borrow the cap theorem of Bitcoin this two week security of Bitcoin
and apply it to this bridge on Syscoin
even though Syscoin has its own consensus
that cap theorem, the security is borrowed from Bitcoin itself
and that's pretty huge because
the reason you might want to do that
use a sidechain is you get all sorts
of flexibility of using that sidechain.
You're not hindered to having to put all the state in Bitcoin, all the data.
There's not enough space.
There's no DA layer.
Decentralized sequencing and other applications become much harder of scaling Bitcoin.
So there's construction of the bridge and then there's application of it.
The application suffers unless you have a sidechain.
So a few things that we did from 2014 on about 10 plus years, we focused more on the application side.
Once there is some unique bridge, how would an ecosystem form and be scalable through Syscoin?
And our journey has been trying to learn about how to do that.
First of all, we would have a UTXO layer and you have an EVM layer.
So you keep both.
The UTXO layer is good for one thing, EVM is good for the other.
The UTXO layer is good for one thing.
EVM is good for the other.
And there's like a native protocol conversion between the two for assets, which is fully decentralized.
And then the second part to that is, okay, once you have, most of the users meaning everything should be on the edges, just like how the Internet scaled, how any network that we've ever seen in human history is ever scaled is you always scale towards the edges. settlement layers or base layers that are typically slow and steady and secure.
And then you create the ability to have computing on edges.
In our case, we're calling them edge chains for that reason.
So you would have the layer one, which we have two and a half minute block times.
It's painfully slow.
There's been users saying it's so slow, it's hard to use the system.
It's designed like that on purpose because if everyone's using that system,
then that thing can break and it requires the nodes that you're using to have to scale up and the cost goes up and that centralizes.
There's less nodes being able to run.
Instead, with lower block limits and settlement times that are slower,
it decentralizes, right? There's more time for the blocks to arrive, more assurance on finality,
lower hardware limits to run this thing, stuff doesn't break intermittently because there's a huge surge in demand,
less denial of service, all sorts of good things happen, right,
as soon as you alleviate that concern. And then you put your stuff in ZK layers or the edge computing layer to really scale.
That's where users belong.
However, that's not without trade-offs either because as soon as you
start to scale on the edges you have partition right you have one edge chain you have another
edge chain how do they how do they interact and that's what we're working on with zk sys is to try
to create a zk layer uh anyone can you know compete with it and create their own zk layer but the zk layer
that would allow the edges to be able to be composable so if you have a uni uni chain and a
maybe a dy dx uh or hyper liquid chain on the other you'd be able to compose right they'll be
able to send each other messages and see liquidity and use liquidity across.
That's the vision, right?
But these things, necessarily,
I think it requires a sidechain, right?
Because you need to settle on a layer one
and use the DA layer and scale through a modular approach.
And you're sharing security through Bitcoin
just through merge mining.
If you were just putting everything in Bitcoin and you're trying to do this as another layer,
you would need a consensus design to ensure that your next layer is being a settlement
layer for the edge, edge chains.
And I think that's much harder, maybe even impossible to do.
I think that's much harder, maybe even impossible to do.
And I think it's almost mission critical that these things have to exist when you apply Bitcoin scaling.
Because if you don't, then you're back to square one.
You've just created another monolithic layer that's not going to scale.
and when maybe you have 10 or 20 TPS,
the costs go up and you're left guessing
that why did we join this or create this system
when the whole point was to scale it to the masses
or all the bots in the world
and you can't even do a fraction of it, right?
And then you have many other solutions saying,
well, anyone can create a roll-up on Bitcoin
and anyone can copy this, but then you can't have composability and each one is on its own island
and you don't have the ability to combine forces.
So you necessarily need to have this middle layer that lets the edges start to come together
and grow each other as they grow individually.
There's other little things like sequencing of that whole thing.
It likely is going to be done through some computing nodes, right?
And the way we're thinking about it is, in the Ethereum world as well,
it's called based sequencing.
You want the base layer, in this case, it's Syscoin.
There's no special nodes in Bitcoin, right?
So you create the special nodes in Syscoin, which is called Sentry nodes.
And you want them to take care of sequencing this application layer, which allows the edge computing to happen.
Why wouldn't you just let anyone do it?
Well, because then if anyone can join, they may have bad intentions.
They may create bad MEV.
They may try to screw around with the system because they have nothing at stake.
So you want people that are vested, have best interests of this design, of the system, they have some money in it.
So they would like to see it appreciate in value and grow, not just altruistically, but with actually something that they have at stake.
So that allows you to have more alignment with scaling the whole thing you know you have the
the validators of of syscoin that are sequencing the zk stack and earning more rewards through the
fees and possibly subsidy and on the other hand you have guaranteed liveness and decentralization
guaranteed liveness and decentralization of the ZK computing layer that's powering the retail
to come in and use this thing at scale. And the whole thing is tied to the security of Bitcoin.
And you've got this really interesting bridge that allows you to borrow the cap security
of Bitcoin and apply it to the bridge. So decentralized sequencing and the ZK layer
and modularity with data availability,
all this stuff requires sidechain.
Yet the missing piece was how do you create a secure bridge?
If you have to trust the sidechain, it won't take off.
Like if you even assume 66% security of sidechain,
for example, Ethereum.
Ethereum is pretty secure.
Why can't it be a Bitcoin sidechain?
If there's enough Bitcoin there,
over time, possibly ETH to BTC tends towards zero.
And at some point, it's not defendable if there's a lot of money in there even if it requires 66% of ETH over certain duration it could happen
so I think it's not accepted these solutions to apply because it's much harder to create like a bridge between two very separate systems.
Through simple merge mining, it's very easy to create a connection to BTC miners that
are securing both systems without the miners really caring or spending resources to make
those connections.
They're completely separate systems.
Just the mining is tied together
i wanted to um ask you exactly about that you were talking with god they understand and others
understand the value that syscoin has in my opinion is something unique to syscoin that we
have that relationship with the miners that's why we we have 50 of bitcoin
hash rate out how important is that for us to implement the bitcoin bridge and how that
positions in the space you know to make it possible and be a use case yeah i know it's a good question because the actual solution we came up with was to, it's not only merge mining, right?
Merge mining by itself is not going to be able to secure a bridge.
And many people are trying to do this as well.
They just merge mining and then BitVM bridge and you're done.
BitVM bridge and you're done. That's not enough.
That's not enough.
In practice, it's pretty good. But the thing is with merge mining, you could always
create alternative histories. You're not borrowing the Bitcoin cap theorem. You're just,
you're not transferring that theorem over to the side chain. You're just borrowing it. So it's not
really secure. You can go attack the sidechain with a fraction of the Bitcoin hash rate and
create an alternative history with no recourse and steal from the vault by double spending it.
We defended against it through finality. So selfish mining, if you're trying to create
alternative histories by selfishly mining on Bitcoin through the side chain and merge mining uh finality stops
that yet we still fall back to like the bitcoin longest chain rule even though there's finality
so that's a really interesting thing finality lets us get have da so we can create the modular
approach to the edge computing if you have data availability um you need to have finality because
the data has to be removed from the chain.
It can only be removed when things are final.
If things are never final, you cannot remove data.
So because we have finality, we can add the DA,
then we can have a slow settlement there,
we can have roll-ups to scale.
And there's one other thing you need to do when you have BitVM.
You're creating a game on Bitcoin and you don't know which alternative histories of Syscoin are valid because Bitcoin knows nothing of Syscoin.
And you can create attacks.
It'll cost you a lot, but you can create attacks and create alternative histories of
Syscoin.
And when you're using Bitvm, you're basically trusting a light client of Syscoin through
a ZK proof that the burn of Bitcoin has happened and you can claim it on Bitcoin.
You burn it on the side chain, you bring it back.
You need to validate that and since
you can't validate the whole chain always this is too much work to do that you're you're verifying
a zk proof and you're verifying the last two weeks of information two weeks of data you still
don't know which one's true you don't have peer-to-peer you don't have the miner in the zk it's just the block
state and you can create bad state if you want it will cost you money but you can do it to try to
trick this bridge this the light client in this bridge if you do that how does how is anything
any protocol running on bitcoin ever going to decide which one's right, which one's wrong?
Traditionally, you would either trust a proof of stake, you know, trusted signature of validators.
Again, you can fake that if you have enough money or you trust the longest chain of Syscoin.
Again, you can fake that through a merged mining attack, just create an alternative history by borrowing the bitcoin hash rate and it's not defensible um at scale because the cap
theorem then is back to just syscoin right you need to defend against that in a more realistic realistic way where if big money was on the line it could be still secure so what we did was
yeah we we basically worked with the miners and we came up we saw that there was some information
being provided in the bitcoin blocks that provide more information about the chains that they're
mining and these we this we called merge mining tags it was it's doing that they're mining. And this we call the merge mining tags.
They're doing it for maybe two or three chains,
but for various different reasons.
Like Rootstock, they're doing it as a watchtower
in their own chain to detect forks.
Cordell, they're doing it to,
they're throwing some data in,
I learned yesterday as choosing the validator.
So Cordell basically are using Bitcoin as sort of a staking mechanism.
And then they put data, the miner votes for who to delegate the validator on core to create the next sequence of blocks.
Very different solution problem not related
and then we would we put we want to put tags in there so we worked with the miners and created
this tag and so every merge mine block that's in syscoin validates that the bitcoin block has this
tag in it and the tag is just says sys and then the block hash the the the fifth block back
so it's likely final it's actually more than five blocks back but that removes the false false
positives in case the miners are you know mining on a fork um uh erroneously like they mistakenly
are on a fork somehow um it would remove those false positives. So we put one recent block hash in there,
and now we know for sure that the Bitcoin miners are committing
because they're creating the Bitcoin blocks.
If they misuse that, they're going to lose the Bitcoin block reward,
so they have a lot of money on the line to not do that.
And they're committing a s of money on the line to not do that and they're committing a
syscoin state back into bitcoin the merge mining information that previously was in there that's a
that's like a combination it's called a merkle route but it's a combination of the hashes of
all the blockchains so you don't get information like what specific Syscoin block or what specific namecoin block is included in Bitcoin.
And if you know the specific block that they're committing to, then you can do much more, right?
Because now in our BitVM design, we took that a step further and we said, OK, if we had this information in Bitcoin,
we could eliminate the cap theorem assumption of Syscoin in this bridge and borrow
Bitcoins directly because, again, we're playing with the cap theorem here.
So there's a new assumption on availability, but security is preserved.
And that was our goal is to preserve security.
And I'll discuss why this tradeoff makes sense for the availability.
But basically, we're one of maybe two or three projects
that have done this with the miners
and the miners have accepted this.
We've shown the white paper.
We've validated that it makes sense
and they've accepted it and are starting to mine it.
Basically, the tag allows us to detect a fork, right?
And like I was saying, you don't know which side of Syscoin is right.
There could be someone that's creating a 99% fork.
Like they put 99% of the power towards the fork,
and it's not the real chain.
Like what Binance is on and what all these other service providers are on
is on the right chain, but it's just only 1% of the mining power behind that.
And they could technically do that.
You still need to stop that attack if you want to say that you're borrowing Bitcoin security and not just Syscoin security, right?
How do you do that? Well, if the tags are all recent syscoin blocks, and if the tags are all the miners are
throwing them in there every time they're creating a block, then as long as you have one honest miner,
you will see that there's a fork. You will see that there's alternative history being stored
in Bitcoin. Like one of the blocks ends up being different and not connecting to the rest.
When you play it back in BitVM during a challenge,
you have to send all the block headers and make sure they all connect.
As soon as one's not connecting, you throw your hands up and say,
this chain doesn't connect, so I can't accept this.
And whoever's in BitVM would earn a bounty through the challenge period.
And no operator would commit to that because they know they'll be challenged.
So you basically assume that one of the miners will be honest.
Just like in BitVM today, it assumes that there'll be one honest challenger,
one honest operator in operating basically to allow you to withdraw the availability component of the cap theorem.
And our thinking is one honest miner is much better
than imposing the cap of the side chain.
That's much more acceptable.
It just takes one of the honest miners.
And the trade-off
there is the bridge would be the bridge would stop when these miners try to attack this right
and you can configure this variable it doesn't have to be one it could be 10 or something safer
as well like if 10 if um if more than 10 are different you stop. But let's just say for simplicity, it's any number of blocks that don't connect.
Because we've removed false positives, we can say most likely it's an attack, so we stop.
It would just mean that if you're using the decentralized bridge, which mostly it's institutional, not for regular users. This would be institutional people settling up.
And most people are using atomic swaps through our UTXO layer.
They would be using atomic swaps directly.
It's faster, safer, quicker.
You just have to find a counterparty, like in a marketplace.
You'd find who's able to take the other side for a small fee.
But the providers of liquidity would be settling up
through the decentralized bridge.
The decentralized bridge would stop as soon as someone's attacking it.
It's better than letting it go and then having the attack happen.
We say, if there's an attack, you stop.
You wait until it plays out.
Obviously, the alternative is someone keeps trying to attack
to stall the bridge forever,
but it costs them real money, right?
Because they have to do proof of work, possibly lose Bitcoin rewards.
Also, remember, proof of work is detectable.
You can also almost impose who is doing this attack
because it's coming likely from a mining pool.
So in this sense, having mining pools is a big benefit
because you can see who's doing the attack.
Miners can simply divert their hash away from that mining pool
and the mining pool basically loses its social reputation.
And they've basically not got anything.
All they've done is tried to spam or create a nuisance.
And they've cost themselves a lot in that situation.
So there's no, like I was saying, there's no solution to the cap theorem.
All you can do is play with the variables.
But the most sensible one is to make it so that you don't trust the cap theorem of the sidechain.
And you trust only the cap theorem of Bitcoin.
And 1 of N security is much better.
So our contribution is to provide the 1 of N, yet allow the sidechain system, sidechain design to play out with the DA, with the decentralized sequencing, and the roll-ups, and the ZK layer, and all that stuff.
sequencing and the roll-ups and the zk layer and all that stuff so that's the cool thing is um
So that's the cool thing.
sometimes you have to go a little bit technical to explain it but hopefully it makes sense like
that it's that there's a reason for why you'd want to do all of this work if you change any of those
variables you change the tag design you change the da finality multi-quorum thing that we designed, you change the idea of ZK,
you change the base sequencing concept and don't do it, you try to do like a Solana style monolithic
design. If you change any of those variables, it's interesting, the whole thing to me doesn't
make sense, like it just breaks down everything that
we describe it has to happen in that order like in that design there could be like minor tweaks
to things but i feel like it's it's really interesting to see that the design we've
arrived at is if i was to start all over again i would probably redo the same design again
in the same way.
It wouldn't change much.
If you were to start a new project and do something new or whatever,
I would end up probably working on the same thing and doing the same exact design. So that's the cool thing that we not only didn't hit a dead end,
but we arrived to this ideal design naturally.
And it's just coincidence all this BitVM stuff came at the right time
and we feel like we've connected the dots.
And the tags are live, they're on mainnet.
So the next step for us, we have ZK Sys sort of trying to deploy on testnet here
with the latest ZK stack. And then we launched deploy on testnet here with the latest zk stack and then we launched that on
mainnet i did some vibe coding with ai to get that going recently it looks good just waiting for that
to finish up and then on the other side work on this bridge the bridge like i was saying ux guys
are hungry for something now the technical guys are saying we need to solve, you know,
BitVM is very unoptimized.
So we need to solve these, but I think they're converging
and we'll be able to have something, at least a prototype.
There's test nets out there.
We can most likely launch something in beta
as soon as we launch this ZK-Sysk system which we're working on right now
modularity right I mean you mentioned all the components we have the components but it doesn't
necessarily mean that we are tying to a specific solution to that module we can we can we can have
some flexibility of course since the the core Cisco elements are there,
we are not giving up, but we are always open to explore.
In the case of CK, which is expanding so fast,
there are many projects doing a lot of development, right?
And everyone is learning from each other.
We are pushing forward, getting the best UX for the users.
The best compatibility, I guess, is the winner in my opinion.
Yeah, exactly.
Like where I think where the Syscoin advantage is like the mode of that platform ends basically at the layer one.
And then the ZK is leveraging the components of Syscoin to create an ideal layer two.
Anyone can create layer two, even optimistic ROPs and compete.
And we're not going to stop them.
We have to create one showcase basically to say like we've leveraged all the components of Sys in an optimal way.
And we create a holistic design with edge computing,
this is one thing that's possible with great UX and scale.
You can create others, but they all share the common benefits of the BTC stuff and the DA layer and the possibilities
of decentralized sequencing and the tokenomics of Sys that are geared towards
gas and cheap gas for these people to settle on the chain.
Yeah, but we can probably go more like the event. what was our experience?
You know, everyone was looking to contribute
more value to the ecosystem.
We had time to meet important partners,
specifically our mining partners.
That was great to find a good model then here in the event.
Of course, Patrick has been here as well.
We have been enjoying a good time riding his cars.
You have to know that there is not only one Biscard,
there is another one.
And I think that, well, that's actually coming from Jack,
but we are not usually in too many events.
And we are in the key events.
And there is value on it, right, Jack?
I think this time we have seen it in,
not only that it's something that we understand,
something that is happening in the space.
I mean, the Bitcoin community itself,
it's more ready to what is the vision of syscoin web3 etc yeah like in previous conferences um
before these few years it was bitcoin and that's it and don't even talk about anything else
and you now have a changing of guard where there are the Michael Saylor types
that are just concerned about Bitcoin
because it's like the capital reserve of everything
and then there is this push towards
well, we need to scale Bitcoin.
We need to provide value.
Like the Ethereum guys are taking direct attack
at Bitcoin
through social media right now
talking about security budgets
and stuff like that.
They may not be accounting for
other various revenue streams
that miners are creating in decentralized
ways. Like for example
Syscoin has
EIP-1559
integrated and there's a security budget that's always paid to the miner, forever.
A static security budget, 10.55 coins.
And that's EIP-1559.
So, the idea is, like, when there's high demand, bigger than that budget, the EVM layer ends up becoming deflationary because more coins get burnt,
like how in Ethereum, coins are actually getting burnt if they're more than the block subsidy,
if the demand is high, right? In the same way, we pay the static subsidy of the miner,
but more coins actually may be burnt by the people using it to pay the gas.
more coins actually may be burnt by the people using it to pay the gas.
And because it's very slow block time and lower gas limits,
during these times, the gas price will be going up
and there will be a good amount being burnt.
And the miner now, due to merge mining,
a lot of merge mining designs,
they just follow Bitcoin's deflationary thing to try to pump themselves up in some way, right?
But that doesn't work because, you know, at some point, they're relying only on fees.
And for a sidechain, that may not be anything tangible, right?
So you have to create like a long-term security budget for these Bitcoin miners to mine the side system for a long time or forever.
We have that static subsidy that's being given to the miner forever. And so this means that
even if deflation happens on Bitcoin and it goes towards zero, there's systems like Syscoin that are going to keep giving subsidy.
And that's revenue that can grow and shrink depending on how many of these chains they're mining.
The ones that are providing any sort of value anyways.
mining community long term for them to want to keep doing this for them to want to secure these
So if Sys takes off, it's going to be providing the security budget back to the Bitcoin mining community long term for them to want to keep doing this, for them to want to secure these bridges.
bridges and also due to the fact that the subsidy of the rewards will be dropping and it's without
if you take away merge mining you really do have questions of long-term security budgets i think
um because you know we're speaking at dinner about this last night and it was almost, yeah, it's interesting because at some point most of the population owns or knows about crypto they bought.
What happens then?
There's no more buyers.
Everyone's just holding.
The thing ends up starting to collapse because difficulty starts to go down because miners are not making more profit because the price isn't going up anymore.
And the difficulty is astronomical. So it drops and the price drops everyone's still holding
there's no more new buyers um it's almost like musical chairs at that point right because the
subsidy ends up going to zero there's no more new buyers the The price isn't going up. Difficulty keeps going up. At some point it stops. There's some sort of peak.
economy to fund debt. But things like merged mining start to flip that and give some hope
that the miners will have these various revenue sources inside and outside of ecosystems and
provide different sorts of subsidy to keep them going long term to provide more stability for when eventually everyone who was
ever going to buy BTC, I mean the population is always going to keep growing, but at some point
the velocity of new people entering into Bitcoin starts to go down.
starts to go down 100 100 okay how about the Bitcoin class vision I think it's a good time
to do a refresher on the on the whole on the whole vision we have for for Bitcoin plus not necessarily
jet seen us as a syscoting and it's actually a syscinting, right? It's something that has been pushed, you know, slightly,
and we are getting more of that now, especially now,
that the people is more ready to this, to these solutions
we are bringing, to this vision, all the elements we are putting
together to make it possible.
It's not, I mean, CKC is one element, it's probably representative,
but it's not necessarily the CKC is one one element
It's probably representative, but it's not necessarily the only thing for from Bitcoin plus the Bitcoin breaches
Also part of this and there is more coming, right?
Yeah, yeah Bitcoin plus is like the is like the is like a gateway
One example of a chain such as ZK-Sys.
ZK-Sys is sort of one of the edge chains that we'll create
that lets you have an ecosystem and have it scalable through ZK.
And if there was other chains, it would be composable through that gateway.
And people can create different gateways, right?
You can create a gaming gateway and then have gaming edge chains
running inside that. Our take is to create a Bitcoin-centric sort of gateway with ecosystem.
And the Bitcoin bridge, although likely it will be connected to Syscoin directly to layer one,
the Bitcoin will be going through the gateway and into these edge chains
and the focus point of a lot of these chains will be again like as we see some of the institutional
people like jack of strike and michael saylor talking about these things they want to people
want to stack bitcoin they're not going to sell. They want to put them in lending and borrowing platforms.
They want to put them as collateral to DAOs and other things
in some ways where the Bitcoin never is sold.
It's just lent and borrowed in safe ways for some safe yield.
And that would power an economy around it,
an autonomous economy running in smart contracts
and that's the idea of the gateway is to create it technically what it's doing is creating
recursive proofs uh the proofs are stored it's almost like a different chain the middleware
chain that's zk proven but the zk proofs of the edges are stored in the gateways and then the gateway
creates one final proof and stores that on syscoin layer one um and the edge chains would be you know
having some bitcoin focus and that's why it's called bitcoin plus to have more of a you know
a bitcoin focus where where you actually deploy the bitcoin to put it to to put it to use in lending borrowing
and other defy apps that's a so uh like inspiring but it's also challenging right moving uh and
getting uh all this potential bitcoin but but we are offering a decentralized trust minimizing way
to do it.
We are removing, like not sorry,
removing something in somewhere in the middle,
we are just redefining how you can participate
in the economy.
Be an actor, for example, the role of the century now is more important.
And that's how we are inviting community
and other potential new community to join us.
And it's a way for people that call value,
to contribute value to our ecosystem.
I'm talking about economic value.
And apart that separate from the other type of value,
we also need, right?
I think we also need more people doing development
and we are definitely working towards that,
improving dots and stuff.
That's part of what we want to have
sooner, right? But maybe you can
expand more, Jack.
Yeah, some of the teams we're seeing are doing more
let's expand an ecosystem, do some VC
raise and create liquidity
because liquidity is the biggest problem.
In my mind, yeah, all that is important, but you need to solve,
you need to have like a decentralized solution first.
And most of the smart people we talk to all agree that it's all about, if you don't have decentralization, you can't create the solution.
And anything you do is going to be a short-term patch towards the final goal
and you can try to create some noise but there's an ethos of your project right and the ethos
is it going to be that you want to do a centralized approach of first and then
try to become decentralized later um and that's etched forever right that you've gone towards you're okay with going that route of
not having to decentralize many people will realize as they get deeper is um you necessarily
have to decentralize to make things like decentralized sequencing possible and base
sequencing is something that's needed to scale at the edges in a safe way.
So our thoughts are that there's not many different ways to solve this in the most decentralized way,
like the borrowing, the cap theorem stuff.
Most of the designs end up having some loophole
that creates a cap theorem constraint of the side system.
And for us, we've come up with a solution that doesn't do that.
And we've wrote the paper for that.
So happy to debate if people have different opinions on that, but we came up,
that's our contribution that we've came up with the solution.
And that allows us to sort of have like a design that again, like you tweak
any of those variables and it doesn't work.
And so, and Patrick's been running with this final ledger campaign. again like you tweak any of those variables and it doesn't work and so
and Patrick's been running with this final ledger campaign it makes a lot of
sense to me it's like there's not many designs that will really work here at
with decentralization with scale with modularity and merge mining all put
together it's like merge mining is the key to it all. So in some ways, you need to solve the problem
and then provide the value on top,
provide the incentives, the liquidity and all that.
And the concept of final ledger ties people more to a vision
that we're doing something bigger.
It's not just a cookie cutter ecosystem.
You're trying to do a sort of organic,
like how Bitcoin took off organically
um you want to get into the into that sort of uh ethos where you're doing the things open source
you're doing things for the good the good reasons not to pump some bags of few vcs um as they exit
in the bull run type of thing i mean vcs provide a lot of value as well to bootstrap,
but they're typically looking for instant returns
and that can handicap your design
that you're looking to create a decentralized way.
And sometimes decentralization is less profitable
for centralized entities
that are trying to take advantage of that, right?
So you want to try to remove those incentives and create something useful that will work for people
and then look to expand that with injection of capital or whatnot.
But the retail is, I think, getting people profitable, getting people stable and secure,
Getting people profitable, getting people stable and secure, getting them into a vision, they can collectively form and create something profitable themselves as well without requiring this external stimulus.
So, yeah, it's one of those things where we've always focused on the problem set.
And a lot of it was we were too early solving everything,
didn't have the proper bridging in place.
And it seems to be that the pieces are coming together
to finally bring it back into Bitcoin
and finally solving that problem.
And I think Bitcoiners would be more accepting
of a decentralized solution that doesn't
rely on side
sidechain security like it does
with anything before
that we came up with
as an industry
Fantastic
would be nice to have
questions from the community
I think asking in Twitter,
sorry, in Telegram groups. I'm not checking the Discord. When I am trying to open more
apps, unfortunately X is shutting down, so that won't allow me to keep talking here.
Yeah, but probably here under this space, you guys can make questions.
I mean, the community, not only for this space,
we can follow up after this space in official community
channels.
Yeah, I think that's from my side.
Maybe we can contribute the final of this space.
we can do the final of this space.
Yeah, I think we're,
if anyone has any questions,
just raise your hand
and we'll see if we can bring people up.
My X spaces is kind of broken.
I only see myself as a speaker.
Elon kind of needs to get this,
get this app together.
But yeah, we'll answer any questions
in the Discord.
I guess as far from my side, as far as marketing goes,
I think that's one of the big questions everyone always has for us.
What are we doing?
We're always trying to collaborate with people,
and I think this conference is going to be one of the better outcomes ones
as far as outreach goes.
One guy I was talking to basically runs one of the biggest radio shows in Guatemala.
They're doing user onboarding, kind of like fresh Web2 people that are looking to do investing
people that are looking to do investing and get involved in crypto in general um you know i
and get involved in crypto in general.
explained to him about syscoin and our in our bitcoin core uh you know centered uh production
like how we do things also talked to him about superdap um he was really excited about superdap
uh and really excited about you know just generally what we were doing. And that was kind of like the consensus I got from everybody that we spoke to at the event,
was that everybody was really, they paid attention.
And that was kind of refreshing, because normally when we go to these conferences,
you know, especially like an Ethereum conference or whatever it may be,
the central, you know, they're kind of listening,
but they're like not listening because they've heard the same like L2 nonsense, whatever,
you know, they've heard the same pitch over and over and over.
Here, there was definitely more of a like locked eyes, just really high interest in, you know, what we're doing.
And, you know, it was, it was, it, it felt good.
You know, I'll say it felt good.
This felt different.
The atmosphere is definitely different, especially at the conference itself.
You can kind of tell that the, you know, the Bitcoin community is being more open as far
as, you know, who they're, who they're trying to outreach to, because like the bubble, the whole bubble theory just doesn't work.
Like every everything gets you can't reach out to new retail.
Like we're not getting new buyers.
We're not really, you know, nothing's happening as long as we keep trying to sell each other.
And that's already in web 3 the same nonsense
and what ends up happening is you know now we're seeing that all these different uh you know
bitcoin ethereum everybody's now trying to reach out outside of the bubble um and so yeah there's
definitely a shift there um for us we'll have you know we'll be reaching out to a lot more i want to say new
like new crypto people people that just aren't involved in crypto at all um like i said we'll
have we'll be reaching out to the guy with the radio show we'll be doing something with him
uh we'll be doing something there's a university here called unlvV in Las Vegas. I was fortunate enough to kind of last minute meet a guy who's running classes basically there.
Like basically met him like right at the conference was already over when we were leaving.
And then he like just saw me and he's like, hey, man, are you here for this?
And I was like, yeah, he's like, and then he introduced himself and I was like, oh, this is cool.
So same thing with him.
He's like, OK, well, let's let's get something together and let's uh you know so we'll be doing uh some collaborations
there at the school um he'll probably be using super adapt onboard people um yeah overall was
like it was good it was a good experience um i think this is one of the better events that we've
done in a while and yeah if you guys have any questions, you know, feel free to ask us in the Discord
and then we'll try and answer everyone's questions.
Yeah, I would say just, yeah, here here maybe a couple of questions
if someone wants to put up their hand
and ask or we could just do it on
Discord as well
yeah
and if I can't see the hand
so if there's no questions then i think we can
uh we can wrap this up here yeah i can't either so it's cool we'll just uh
yeah jump in discord for any questions then
cool thanks for joining us everyone Thank you.
