Projects
![]()
No projects found
Investors
New
DAO Treasuries
DATs
Lend / Borrow APRs
Chains
Categories
Spaces
BTC: Truths, Lies, Unknowns. A debate between @EdanYago & @Justin_Bons
Recorded: April 2, 2025 Duration: 1:51:22Space Recording
Short Summary
The discussion centers around Bitcoin's scalability, security, and future potential, with debates on its ability to fulfill its original vision and the role of innovations like Bitcoin OS in enhancing its capabilities. Concerns about Bitcoin's long-term security and the potential for decline are contrasted with optimism about its growth and the broader adoption of blockchain technology in financial systems.
Full Transcription
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right, let's get things started.
We have a special episode today of The Aquarium.
I had Justin on many times in the past.
Dave recommended I grab Yago.
Justin has made some, he makes a lot of claims about Solotum versus Ethereum,
but he also makes a lot of big claims.
Some of them I kind of squint at regarding Bitcoin.
And I don't want to put words in your mouth, Justin, but it's
long-term unsustainability. So Dave, Mr. Dave Weisberger, he recommended I grab Iago and
facilitate a debate between the two. So what I want to do first is kind of have Justin give a
quick intro, Iago, give a quick intro of yourselves, your backgrounds, and then we can dive right into
it. For people that want to come up and ask questions, are we taking a Q&A or are we
conducting a Q&A portion towards the end? But for now, or for the majority of the broadcast,
it'll be Iago versus Justin. And I really want to hear some of these claims. If things need to
be pushed back on, I'll do my best to do that and uninterrupted right
uninterrupted uncensored and remember please if you're going to join um save the questions towards
the end you want to be a bit more structured today so without further ado justin um please
intro yourself and then we'll go to iago thank you let me just pull up my chair here.
Okay, so this is going to be fun.
I've actually been hanging out to do another one of these Bitcoin debates.
I tend to do them every so often.
I think I'm one of the bigger Bitcoin critics out there, if you don't count Peter Schiff,
who I don't think quite gets cryptocurrency as a whole.
So this is a different type of debate for that reason. So just for my background a little bit, I've been a full-time cryptocurrency researcher
for over a decade now, a professional researcher and investor.
And a lot of what I do is part of Cyber Capital, which is a long-term liquid token fund.
It's the oldest liquid token fund in the whole world now.
And we do a lot of fundamental research.
And as part of that, we're very conviction-led.
And as part of that, I'm very outspoken as well towards Bitcoin.
So this is, I think, the first part for introduction.
I'll leave the debate part for the next part.
So yes, I'm Justin, crypto researcher, investor, debater,
and just happy to be here thank you
really thank you for putting this together i really appreciate it yeah my my pleasure justin
jago welcome sir we have never spoken before so great to have you on stage uh it's great to be
here looking forward to the debate um yeah so my background um i um was working on machine learning and neural networks in 2011 at
carnegie millen um i read the wrong white paper by mistake and it screwed up all of my life plans
because the white paper was the bitcoin white paper. And I was floored by what it was describing
because in my reading of it,
it was describing for the first time,
the missing element of the internet,
which was digital property rights.
And I've been involved in the Bitcoin
and crypto ecosystem ever since,
have built some cool technologies,
launched a few successful uh
projects and companies uh most recently um i um well not most recently but a few years ago launched
uh helped launch sovereign and build it into the largest bitcoin d5 ecosystem um at the time. And now with Bitcoin OS,
we're bringing a degree of scale
and the full functionality of the ability
to run any computer, any software on Bitcoin.
So looking forward to the conversation.
Brilliant.
Audience members and MobiMedia community,
please, please, please retweet the conversation. Brilliant. Audience members and MobiMedia community, please, please, please
retweet the space. Follow Justin and Iago. We want to get as many people in here as we can. I think
it's going to be a good one. So before we get started, well, rather, let's just jump into it.
We can do that at the end. Justin, I want to start with you because I've heard often you make claims about
Bitcoin where I don't necessarily agree, but I'm also not, I would say, educated and well-versed
enough to kind of challenge your claims. And so one of the things I wanted to do was bring on
someone like Yago and have you guys go back and forth. I know that most of us got into Bitcoin,
or rather got into crypto because of the promise of Bitcoin.
Yago's mistakenly reading the white paper.
And many of us found Bitcoin in either random ways or intentional ways.
Mine was a bit more random.
So I want to open the floor to you, Justin.
I want to hear what got you into the industry.
Was it Bitcoin?
Was it something else?
But more importantly, what is it about Bitcoin that you think is unsustainable?
And anything else that you think is important to, important to highlight in the introduction?
You know, a hundred percent.
And I think it's important to like preface this a little bit as well, where I'm coming from.
Like I'm a, I'm, I'm a Bitcoiner from the school of 2013, right?
So like from my perspective,
I'm just continuing on the goals of the project
and the goals of the cypherpunk movement.
And I don't think that BTC is in that network
with that free letter acronym
is at all able to continue that vision. And I can
go into the details of why that is, but I'm very much coming at this from the cypherpunk perspective
and actually saying that BTC is actually a betrayal of that vision and a betrayal of a lot of those
promises of back then. And if you contrast that with today, BTC is not at all the same. So I'm very much here
of the school, like I'm actually the old school continuing and saying that that's actually not
BTC anymore. BTC has become something entirely different today. And my rebellion was very much,
I disagreed with Bitcoin changing, right? I was part of the block size debates.
I fought against the changes that happened in Bitcoin.
And once we lost that war, I became a Bitcoin critic.
So in that regard, I'm perfectly consistent.
Iago, I would love to hear from you if you want to challenge anything that Justin has said or present your own thesis.
Well, I mean, I don't think Justin said anything yet. I would be very interested to hear what he
says because I don't want to put words in his mouth. I think the one claim that he's made,
and so I think I'd rather give him some rope with which to justify this, is that Bitcoin in some way has betrayed something and is no longer the same and that it's not able to accomplish whatever those goals were.
whatever those goals were.
So let me, without referring to Justin's views on this.
I really appreciate the good faith argument, by the way.
Well done.
And I know we've been wanting to debate for a while,
so I'm happy we finally got to do this.
Continue.
Absolutely, Justin.
So, you know, let me address the arguments in the abstract and then Justin can respond with his own personal views of this.
is that Bitcoin has a few really important properties
that we almost never talk about.
So in my introduction, I said that what floored me about Bitcoin
was the fact that it introduced an entirely new concept,
which is digital property rights.
The ability to take property rights into an environment
which is becoming increasingly important.
I assumed that most of our lives would be digital back in 2011.
And as time has gone by, I think that this reality has only continued to unfold.
And that if we continued with the Internet as it was in 2011,
that we would have tied a 21st century technology
to the political and economic sophistication of 3,500 BC.
So in 3,500 BC, the pharaohs controlled the flow of everything on the Nile.
And and no one had any property rights other than the pharaoh.
And in 2011, a few pharaohs controlled the flow of all information on the Internet.
And nobody except, you know, Mark Zuckerberg and and Sergey Brin owned
anything on the internet all of your data was owned by someone else and this
is this is a very very poor way to build a society right property rights are not
just the basis for freedom they're the basis for prosperity they're the basis
for innovation and so I I thought it was extremely important that we build a system which can provide property
rights.
And the way to think about property rights is that they basically are access controls
and their assets.
So access controls is basically your private key and you get to decide, right?
That gives you permissions over everything that that key controls, not someone else.
And the other important component there is that there has to be a public element, right?
So property rights are a public thing you you publicly globally
own this thing and so you need a ledger which is able to write and provide the
world proof of your ownership of something Bitcoin remains to this day,
a pure play ledger,
which is able to provide a global ledger
and settlement mechanism for what is today
still a relatively constrained set of property rights,
but it is doing that job incredibly well.
It has added that kind of functionality to the internet and we just haven't
fully expressed the full power of that yet. So I'm going to just fully agree. Let me just finish
my thought. So in terms of having betrayed the vision, I don't see that at all. In terms of
achieving and continuing to grow, I think we can all see that Bitcoin is growing
and being adopted at a pace and degree
that no technology in the history of man
has ever been adopted.
It is becoming a fundamental component
of our entire economy as we speak.
And if anything, I think I was overly pessimistic about its ability
to progress in that way. And so I would say that Bitcoin has been and will continue to be
an astonishing success story, a once in several thousand generations success story.
Okay. No. So, and you're right and quickly pointing out that before
i hadn't presented any uh critiques yet so for the first say 95 of what you said there i i entirely
agree with you right because i'm on board with this idea of decentralized property rights of
transparency of an asset ledger etc i'm on board with all of those ideas right so i think there's
a few critiques i'd like to present today.
One is a lack of capacity.
Another one would be a lack of security and scarcity.
I'll start with capacity since then I can directly respond to what you're saying here.
Like, I agree with you.
This kind of system of property rights that everyone in the world could use, that sounds
amazing.
But that's, see what I, do you see what I just did there?
I just added a qualifier that discounted Bitcoin, right?
Because everyone in the world can't use Bitcoin, right?
If everyone in the world wanted to just do one transaction,
just a basic one-to-one value transfer,
it would take more than 20 years.
Like that's how long the transaction queue would be
if everyone else would stop transacting.
Like it's a fantasy, right?
That's my position.
I'm like, I'm all in well.
Like I'm a Bitcoiner, right?
I'm for that original vision.
I'm for empowerment.
I'm for, but I think we actually need to give that power to everyone, right?
That's my point.
Like Bitcoin at seven transactions per second,
it doesn't have the capacity to realistically actually serve that use case, right? Like you
say Bitcoin is a huge success, et cetera, et cetera, but all the usage is on the other blockchains.
Bitcoin's just gone up in price. People are just speculating on it. Like Bitcoin being a purely
speculative investment play thing for the rich, that's not
it being a success. I don't care how far the price goes up. That's not success to me. Success to me
is actually fulfilling some of the original goals of the project. Bitcoin becoming money,
Bitcoin being used en masse, right? That's literally technically impossible because the capacity is just not
there on the layer one, right? That's, I would say would be critique number one. Maybe I'll give you
a chance to respond to that first. I think a bit of a back and forth is more productive. Wouldn't
you agree? Yep, certainly. Awesome. Thanks, Justin. Okay. So I think Justin, it would be fair to say that what you're referring to is the fact that every single Bitcoin block has only four megabytes of data. And there's a Bitcoin block only every 10 minutes. Right. So that's a very, very small amount of data in which to write what could potentially be all of the transactions that the world would want to
support. And you're absolutely right. Bitcoin, if you think about it as a chain,
is never going to support that capacity. But I think that is sort of one of the fundamental mistakes that people
are making when they think about our industry at all in fact people sometimes
call our industry the blockchain industry which is ridiculous because
nobody wants a blockchain nobody is buying a blockchain what people are
buying is ownership they're buying security they're buying reliable
property rights and they're buying frequently enough the ability to speculate on those things.
What are they buying when they're buying Bitcoin?
So what they're buying when they're buying Bitcoin, and I think I'd be happy to ask you this question, but I think it's very obvious what people are buying when they're buying bitcoin when people are buying btc what they're buying is the right to control a truly sovereign asset
um and the the first kind of asset which they don't require anyone else in order to transact
from my perspective from like the perspective as a blockchain technologist, let's say,
that's a trivial feature.
That's a trivial ability.
Bitcoin is like, you know, that's 15-year-old technology.
Like, okay, I agree with that.
Justin, I would just say, gentlemen, just let Yago in both ways,
just please let him finish that thought before you interrupt.
It makes it for a more fluid back and forth
So sure so so I think just in the mistake you're making is the mistake that most people in this space are making which is that they think it's about
Technology, it's not about technology. It's certainly not about blockchain, right? Imagine that
The the the diamond mining industry called itself the digging holes in the ground industry.
That would be a deep confusion.
The goal is not the digging of the holes in the ground.
Imagine you had massive conferences and people were talking about the throughput with which they are able to dig the holes and how deep their holes are.
It's totally irrelevant.
irrelevant what is relevant is the security and reliability and degree of
trust which is associated with the ledger for the purpose of settlement and
provision of assets and there's no question that Bitcoin is by far the most
trusted chain the train which has the highest degree of global acceptance and which…
You're not addressing that argument.
I was talking about people can't use it.
Justin, give me a second.
So why am I saying all of this?
Because you're saying that Bitcoin, the blockchain, cannot handle that kind of throughput, which is absolutely true. If you are naive about how protocols scale, then you think, well, look, I can't run the entire world, the internet does not operate where everything
is routed through a single layer. There are multiple interlocking layers, which are, or
systems. You're still not addressing my argument, by the way. I am. But if you keep interrupting,
you won't hear the response. All right.
So the question is, are we able to provide Bitcoin level
security by introducing additional systems to Bitcoin?
And until relatively recently, I would have said
that the answer is no.
So a lot of people put a lot of hope in Lightning Network.
I have a deep history with Lightning Network.
I never thought it was going to scale.
But today we have new cryptography, which is very well established,
which allows us to take huge amounts of transactions or any kind of complex compute
and turn it into a tiny little proof, which can be used to connect it to Bitcoin.
So, for example, you can take thousands of transactions, aggregate them into a single proof,
write that proof to Bitcoin, and once that transaction is mined,
all of those transactions are mined with Bitcoin security.
Another thing that you can do is you can take entire blockchains and
you can turn them into tiny little pieces of information in the same way so for example one
of the coolest experiments that was done is a blockchain called Mina Mina is a constant sized
blockchain where most blockchains continuously grow in size Mina is always exactly 22 kilobytes because every single block is a
recursive proof of the previous entire blocks. And so you could literally take the entire MENA
chain, place it into Bitcoin and effectively have a system secured by Bitcoin, which can perform
its own transactions in large number.
May I respond?
Absolutely.
Okay.
So I asked before if you wanted to back and forward, and that wasn't exactly a back and
forward.
So if we do back and forward, it has to be both ways.
You need to give me a chance to also respond to what you're saying, because you just gave
me like 10 different points, right?
It's like if we want to have a productive debate here, if you give me 10 points, it's
very difficult for me to respond to all of those. But if I may just steel man your argument
just a bit, basically, I'm saying Bitcoin doesn't scale, right? So therefore, you can't scale those
benefits to the masses. What's the point if only a fraction of people can use it, right?
You actually agree with me. And that's why you're presenting L2 scaling as an alternative way to scale while preserving the qualities of Bitcoin.
Am I still manning your argument correctly, Yago?
I think so far, so good.
Good. Excellent. Excellent.
Well, I actually spent the day today studying Bitcoin OS and Sovereign and Bitcoin Air 2s
because I wanted to prepare.
I was looking you up and I was seeing how
deep you're into all this stuff and I suspected
that that's where you'll take
this argument. So yeah,
I spent time studying it.
Are you very familiar with the technical
design of Bitcoin OS?
Yes.
Okay.
So, I mean, then you know, right?
Like, it's okay.
So, I would posit my conclusion based on looking at it is that it is technically decentralized.
Oh, actually, no.
Sorry.
I take that back.
There is some sort of centralized sequencer, right?
The documentation was completely lacking sequencer, right? The documentation was completely lacking though, right?
There's either a federation, a multi-sig,
or some sort of centralized sequencer, though.
It's not documented.
No, no.
It's not documented because it doesn't exist.
So with Bitcoin OS, so what we were able to...
Hold on, hold on.
May I, it's faster.
I don't want you to give the full presentation here. I've already listened to a bunch of presentations today on this. No, no. The, I think it's just being used as a data
availability layer. I don't think the validators themselves can actually verify that proof.
That's why you need some sort of external mechanism that's then checking on that.
I'm sorry, there's a little bit of a diversion from our debate. I'm just trying to understand.
Okay, so maybe let me explain what we've done and why I think it's important. So what we, even if it's not centralized, it's slow
and expensive and doesn't scale. So that's my just, I won't give you my full reasoning,
but that's my conclusion. Sorry, go ahead. Sure. So let me explain what it is,
because it's not a layer two. There's no data availability. It's not a rollup.
it's not a layer two there's no data availability it's not a roll-up what
boss is is literally referred to as a roll-up in that in the documentation
right I don't know what documentation you've been looking at Bitcoin OS
documentation it's referred to as a Bitcoin roll-up just that I'm not going
to I don't know what you're referring to I can tell you it's not a roll-up.
What it is, is it's an operating system built on Bitcoin, which allows people...
No, I'm sorry. That statement is nonsense. That's just marketing BS. What are you talking about?
I don't know what you're talking about. I'm happy to explain, though, if you're interested.
Okay, go ahead and explain. I'm listening.
All right. So what Bitcoin OS is, is it's an operating system built on Bitcoin,
which allows us to take arbitrary compute, convert it into a proof of that computation
and write that proof to Bitcoin in a way which allows you to execute various things.
So you can issue on Bitcoin new kinds of assets.
You can build rollups.
Other people can build rollups and are building rollups on Boss.
You can run dApps on it.
So it's not a rollup.
It's not actually even a layer two.
It's a system which facilitates.
How do the miners validate the proof?
So the way the miners validate the proof so the way the miners
validate the proof is that when you create a smart contract with boss you pre-commit to the computation
so uh when you create the actual utxo and then when someone runs a computation if
And then when someone runs a computation, if they try to cheat, anyone who is participating in the network can also write a proof to Bitcoin showing that they're cheating. And so what we've actually done is we've written a ZK verifier
into Bitcoin script, and we've created an interactive protocol
where instead of Bitcoin itself or the miners
having to do the verification themselves,
all they need to do is process proofs of the outcome
of a verification.
But from a functional perspective that
is equivalent that is the same equivalence right how are the
transactions ordered within the roll-up the transaction decides that so again
it's not a roll-up the ordering of transactions is Bitcoin it's Bitcoin
consensus no no you're right this is the off-chain this is the off-chain
execution how is the how's the ordering. How is the ordering done? There is no ordering.
There's no necessity for ordering, right?
Is it per scene basis then?
What's the ordering?
There has to be...
So let me provide an analogy,
which I think will make it easier to understand, all right?
So let's say we're playing a game of uh of 20 questions
right that's the that's the software the the application is running a game of 20 questions
i feel like we are playing 220 questions right now i'm trying to figure out the details of this
i'm i'm wondering though for the sake of this debate uh maybe i i can just for the sake of
argument concede i don't actually believe it,
but I'm going to do a full featured critique on this soon.
I'm actually inspired to do so.
I'm quite intrigued.
But I think for the sake of argument,
I don't believe you have the same functionality as Ethereum,
but for the sake of argument, I can concede that
because I'm also an Ethereum critic
and just a critic of L2 scaling in general.
So we can just go straight there.
I'm not sure.
Like, what you're saying to me doesn't make sense
because it contradicts.
Like, there needs to be some sort of,
like, how are the rules enforced, right?
There needs to be some sort of external.
There's a big hole in the documentation.
I'm going to figure this out.
I've spent like four hours on it today,
but I need more time, honestly. Look, do you understand how a roll-up works? Yes. Right. So when a roll-up
writes its proof to Ethereum, how is Ethereum securing the transactions of the roll-up?
How is Ethereum securing the transactions of the rollup?
Because it's enforcing the rules of the smart contract.
So the smart contract knows how to interpret the proof.
What is the smart contract?
And Bitcoin doesn't have smart contracts because Bitcoin doesn't have a Turing complete virtual machine.
That's where I'm seeing the problem.
That's what OpCat might fix, right?
But OpCat isn't implemented yet.
So I have no idea how you're
actually doing it's like vm can't do this i know i can't do this personally how is bitcoin is i kind
of want to call bullshit here right of course of course you have no idea how we're doing it first
of all you're not technical and second of all what we've i mean i mean i'm not sure it's fair to call
me not i mean i'm not a computer scientist okay but i have been a full-time cryptocurrency
researcher for over a decade i think i think it's maybe unfair to say i'm not technical here
no i think i think skepticism is warranted but the truth is that we've managed to perform this
and demonstrate it uh on bitcoin mainnet the code is open source and look look and if it is okay
let's say i concede that like the way you're doing it is
insanely inefficient right like i think a single one of those transactions takes up like one tenth
of bitcoin's block space right and then you have to space that out over 26 or six transactions i
don't recall but it's extremely computationally expensive that's why i'm saying it's and with
bitcoin's 10 minute block times that means compared to, say, fourth and fifth generation blockchains, it's extremely slow.
And at any sort of demand, it would be also much more expensive than the other solutions out there.
Can you concede on those?
Look, Justin, I'm going to suggest we change tech a little bit because I think it's going to be extremely boring for people to listen.
Yeah, I suspect this is boring for the audience
as well. This is very technical.
Yeah. It's technical
and also
we're not actually getting... My last point, but I think
that was a bit of a change of tech there, right?
I'll concede on the validation
bit for now, but because
Bitcoin has 10-minute block times,
because block space
is still limited, that means it's still
relatively expensive, right? Can you concede on that compared to competitors? Yes, Bitcoin is
expensive and will continue to be expensive. Including on the L2, right? Or on Bitcoin OS
in this example, if it were to have any significant demand, right? So, no.
The answer is no.
I'll disagree with you on that one.
That's fine.
On a per transaction base, look,
the way that we've constructed our system,
if you were to build layers in the way that Ethereum has built layers, then indeed it becomes extremely expensive.
In fact, Bitcoin wouldn't be able to handle it all because the way that Ethereum have built out
their layer two system is that you take all of the transaction data that is occurring on all
of these different rollups and you dump all of that into Ethereum. And so Ethereum, before it
didn't scale and now it doesn't scale even more.
They had to massively increase the blob space in order to handle this.
Blob space, by the way, is the data, right?
Is the data space of the chain.
That is not the approach that we've taken.
Okay.
Yeah, let me just be very clear on my position.
So my position currently is that when it comes out to building a quote-unquote L2 uh you know off-chain scaling let me just simplify it by calling it off-chain scaling i
think ethereum is superior as far as i understand it your claim is to match ethereum l2s and now
you're saying even exceed yeah honestly i'm gonna i want to i want to jump in here all right so
justin i want to jump in here for a second because i i do i we can we can do a debate on BOS, and I think that'd be an interesting one.
I wanted to summarize one of Yago's points. You both agree one Bitcoin block has four megabytes of data, and there is a block every 10 minutes.
Yago says that Bitcoin is never going to support the capacity that Justin wants to to support but this is one of the biggest fundamental mistakes people make is it doesn't need to support that right
so people are buying bitcoin they're buying the right to control a truly sovereign asset you can
move it across space and time without erosion and this is the first of its kind so i i want us to
stick to bitcoin and kind of um and the points that you know before that yeah thank you thank
you i'll steer it back if i may just i think you were just
explaining a lot i would appreciate if i could get a few words in all right so uh what i don't
want to do is have a uh debate about the merits of bitcoin os because i don't think you understand
it at all i think there's a more fundamental point here the more fundamental question i don't think
you understand but justin but i think we should have this debate another time i will agree with The more fundamental question is, are we able to build and do things with Bitcoin that were not possible a year ago and not possible two years ago? And are the technical problems associated with building additional functionality into Bitcoin tractable?
In other words, is it possible to build more into Bitcoin?
So the answer is very obviously yes.
We've already seen demonstrations of this.
Can they respond?
No, let me finish.
You said just a few words.
You're really dominating this conversation
right let's keep it i don't i don't think i am let me make a point the the the big unlock that we saw
was the introduction of taproot taproot has introduced huge amount of uh new design space
into bitcoin we saw through that the introduction of nfts in the form of ordinals and brc20s
and runes and now we also have zero knowledge proofs being verified by bitcoin
does this solve everything no but what it does do is it provides us with the ability to continue to
scale bitcoin and it provides us with the ability now to take any arbitrary compute
It provides us with the ability now to take any arbitrary compute and verify that compute in Bitcoin.
So, yes, it is going to be expensive to do this.
But that doesn't matter because you're able to perform huge amounts of transactions or huge amounts of compute and amortize the costs of them with a single proof.
proof. And this is a true scaling technology. Okay, to Noah's point, I will keep the Bitcoin
And this is a true scaling technology.
OS critique for another day because I don't actually believe the claims here. I don't think
they add up, but I'll stay away from it for now. Now, when it comes to quote unquote L2 scaling
or off-chain scaling, you keep referring to this as a way to scale BTC, or it's just not.
And I'll just apply the same type of thinking I would when I look at something like Ethereum,
right? I've become a critic of Ethereum because I don't believe in L2 scaling, right? I don't think
that building additional blockchains, competing blockchains, private blockchains, is a way to
scale a decentralized blockchain. No, a way to scale a decentralized blockchain.
No, the way you scale a decentralized blockchain
is by scaling the decentralized blockchain.
Like all of this stuff that you're saying
in terms of ordinals, it's all pointless.
It all doesn't matter if all the blockchain
can do is seven transactions per second.
It's all just fantasy.
It's all just like,
they literally cannot be used as scale for any significant use case at all.
What is your specific critique of Ethereum scaling?
My specific critique?
Okay, it's multifaceted.
So actually part of it is that it fragments the ecosystem.
So you end up having a...
What you really want is you want a completely frictionless
experience of composable DeFi, right? And you want that entire ecosystem to be combined because that
creates a much more compelling experience. The ecosystem that's leading in that regard is Solana
right now, right? So let's assume, I'm just going to assume for argument's sake that let's say
Bitcoin has the same capabilities Ethereum does, which means it can build fully decentralized, fully trustless layer twos.
Right. I can make that assumption and still argue against that.
Right. Because the point is, you end up having all of these different private companies creating L2s that end up competing with each other.
And there's a misalignment of incentives,
basically. And that doesn't create an ecosystem that's combined because you have differing rule
sets. And it's actually not possible to create an interoperability, a seamless interoperability
mechanism between them. You can only do that if you enshrine, so to speak, or if you do things
like based rollups. Based rollups, on the other hand, I think are very cool.
But that's only if you say incorporate in the Bitcoin context,
a based rollup would be you actually incorporate that into like Bitcoin core, right?
You'd incorporate that into the L1 design.
And then the rollup is kind of part of the L1.
Like what L2 scaling is in Ethereum is not that.
You have all these separate companies building out L2s.
And from my perspective, they really just, it becomes parasitic because these are really
just Ethereum competitors in disguise who are lobbying not to scale Ethereum and are
taking its users in fees, right?
So I see somewhat the same thing playing out in Bitcoin, but not taking off because Bitcoin
is so much
worse at what i consider a bad roadmap all right fantastic uh so let me respond to that in two
levels first of all i think you're changing the goal posts here you don't you haven't noticed it
yet but but you have right your complaint around ethereum scalability is that it has broken the composability right slightly more
specific let me be more specific my complaint is not actually the L2s my
complaint is not scaling the L1 just let me just clarify sure but I think that
why why is that the problem the problem that you're pointing to is the problem of composability right you want to
have DeFi composability on Ethereum but you also say yes there are paths to do that Ethereum just
hasn't done them yet okay so here's my two-point response one your initial argument was that BTC
transactions would not be able to scale but BTC transactions are not a question of composability.
Even if you have BTC now able to trustlessly move
and be transacted at huge volume
on a whole bunch of different systems
with Bitcoin security,
that has nothing to do with composability.
And so that is very much an Ethereum problem,
not a Bitcoin problem.
I was referring to DeFi, but yes.
Exactly.
But that's not what we're discussing, right?
What we're discussing, where you started, is that Bitcoin cannot even scale BTC transactions.
But that is no longer the case.
We're able to scale BTC transactions, to perform transactions at huge volumes without encountering the problem
that Ethereum has because that has nothing to do with composability.
There's also UX trade-offs, right, Matt, huge UX trade-offs.
I don't think that's a small hurdle.
Now, with regards to the second point, you also point to the fact that there is, for
example, based rollups, a path forward
for Ethereum to actually continue to build composability and not have parasitic systems.
They're not taking that path, just to be clear. But I think it would have been a good one.
No, I'm not taking the base rollup path. It's not appropriate for Bitcoin.
But Ethereum isn't either. I just want to be clear about that.
But we have been building with a deep awareness of the problems that have emerged on Ethereum.
And so we've built a different system which avoids to a great extent the problems that you're describing.
So we're not building a roll-up.
We're building a system which allows multiple different systems, roll-ups or not, to plug into it and provide composability.
So that's going to take longer and there's still work that needs to be done but in terms of your your initial criteria the ability
to scale btc transactions that is certainly already available to us what are we talking about no no
to scale btc so to have all of the benefits of an on-chain transaction the ux the
security the the you know the the uh you know everything the only way to do that is on-chain
you haven't scaled that there's massive trust trade-offs and if there's not trust trade-offs
there's ux trade-offs with what you're doing that's the same critique i have for ethereum
layer twos as well i think it's fine that you're doing it, but let's be real here, right? About Bitcoin's capabilities. That's reality. All right, Justin. I think we can
summarize this as a philosophical question, right? You seem to be a technology pessimist,
whereas I am an optimist. What are you talking about? I'm saying we can't.
Justin, you really need to let me finish sentences.
You think that there's going to be problems.
UX problems, composability problems.
No, I'm saying there are.
And I believe we can scale.
Hold on, let me just be clear on positions.
I'm the optimist saying that we can scale block the layer one.
To be clear, you don't think we can scale the layer one.
That's why you advocate for L2 scaling.
Otherwise, I misunderstand your position quite severely here.
No, it's extremely easy to scale any layer one, right?
Okay, so scale the layer one while preserving decentralization.
I believe we can do that.
I think we've solved the blockchain dilemma,
which is why restricting L1 scaling is so anathema to me
because all of these trade-offs and centralized trade-offs
for a large part that we're making
and like competitive trade-offs and fee trade-offs,
they're all unnecessary from my perspective.
That's the big sacrifice.
That's the big betrayal, right?
Bitcoin was meant to scale.
It's not scaling.
And we have all this complicated, convoluted,
trusted, federated BS to replace it. And it's not good enough. That's why all the usage is on other blockchains like Solana and Sui right now. Right? I think I think Iago highlighted it, right? People that are buying Bitcoin are buying it for the right to control a sovereign asset, an asset that doesn't have a corruptible monetary policy, an asset that you can move across space and time without erosion.
already it already does what it needs to do i understand it's no longer to i understand it's
no longer a peer-to-peer cash system the way that it was originally intended but it's evolved into
something else why can't bitcoin just why can't the layer one of bitcoin just be what it is and
continue to grow that way there's there's another dimension to this as well which is something i
specifically wanted to talk about today which is security so i actually think bitcoin gets its
security from its fees and the
original design of bitcoin was always that it would scale and therefore have a large number
of transactions because it's useful because people actually use it to buy coffees or whatever right
and then or defy and then a large number of small transactions would end up paying for the security
budget now that didn't happen because bitcoin didn't scale and now bitcoin in my view is going to like severely collapse in like eight to twelve years from now because the
security budget is deficient like we did where the hell is the security going to come from so this
whole idea of like oh the it's fine if bitcoin doesn't have utility well that also means it's
fine that bitcoin doesn't have fees which means that Bitcoin is not going to be secure, which means
Bitcoin will be forced to increase its inflation rate. I know there's a lot of steps here, but it's
very important to understand the bigger picture here and understand the consequences that some
of these choices have. And that paradoxically end up also destroying the very values and the
reasons for why we make these compromises in the first place. So you think you're protecting decentralization by not scaling,
but in reality, you're making Bitcoin irrelevant and making it more centralized.
Okay.
So because I don't think we can have a satisfactory technical conversation here, I'd like to...
That's unwarranted, sir.
I think we both agree to move on because it would be kind of boring to the audience.
Yes.
So, look, Justin, the fundamentals, thinking about these things from first principles really matters.
I think it matters to you.
And I think you have been wrong about this kind of thing in the past in very, very clear ways.
So early on, you were a huge proponent of Ethereum.
And a lot of people, myself included, were convinced that Ethereum, the way it's constructed, which was basically designed to be a monolithic system, would not scale.
And the reason it doesn't scale, and this is really important to understand,
the reason it doesn't scale is because what the shortcut
that Vitalik took and that every single smart contract
blockchain has taken since is that the way you create smart contracts, which is basically what is a smart contract blockchain has taken since is that the way you create smart contracts which is
basically what is a smart contract it's a publicly verified computation it's publicly verified
software is that he took the entire piece of software the entire virtual machine the entire
code base and all of the data and shoved it into a blockchain. And then every single full node and every single validator
needs to redundantly rerun
every single computation.
And every single computation is a transaction.
And so this does not scale.
Instead of building a world computer,
he built an entire world
which needs to compute
the same computations
over and over again.
Can I respond?
No, I'm going to complete my thought.
And so that's the problem with Ethereum.
And that's why we were able to see that Ethereum would struggle to scale.
Now, you're making the same mistake
with Solana again, right?
You think, well,
if we could just build bigger machines.
This is a store man argument
i'm going to let you speak but you're basically constructing please please let him finish
justin and then you can respond but the problem is that that is that paradigm that entire paradigm
of smart contract chains is the paradigm of verifiable compute via redundancy smart contracts through redundancy what ethereum
realizes that that doesn't work and so what they opened up was the beginning of a new paradigm
which is verification via cryptography which is what zero knowledge proofs are now the way that
they've gone about that and introducing that of course it
has stumbling blocks but ultimately i think ethereum will do quite well just as you do
in terms of being able to build a more coherent system uh uh um which which effectively does
scale in that way because the technology allows it it's not not there yet. Right. But that's not my position.
We already know fundamentally that the technology allows us. And so the real question is, does this technology mature before this doomsday scenario that you've described where Bitcoin fees do not support to the network well today's
today's Bitcoin fees generate on the order of four billion dollars for miners
every single month as bitcoins price increases that will increase a bitcoins
price doubles it becomes eight billion billion of minor revenue every single month.
And that is going to continue for decades.
Every four years, there's a halving, sure.
But Bitcoin's price doubles every two years on average.
And so Bitcoin is able to outpace that halving for decades.
I'm sorry, that's a lie. That's not accurate, those numbers that you're giving.
I'm looking it up now, but it's it's not fees are not the same as inflation right
inflation is going away and fees i mean towards pay yeah that's that's that's that's the that's
the block reward that i'm talking about okay so the question is so basically if i bring your
argument down to to its bare essentials your argument is that the technology necessary for scaling Bitcoin will be
outpaced by the halvings that are occurring in in the minor reward and so
my argument is very simple we're nowhere near seeing a reduction in my in overall
minor revenue minor revenue is on the whole still growing and will continue to
grow for many decades and on the other hand we're on the precipice, right? We're actually already now
introducing the technologies that are going to allow for massive scaling for Bitcoin over the
next 10 years. And I'm very proud to say that I've been a major player in making this happen.
So when I call you a technology pessimist, what I'm
saying is that you think we will not achieve the technological outcomes that are required
before your doomsday scenario clock stops ticking. Yeah, okay, thank you. Wow. So yeah, so your numbers are just flat out wrong. Anyone can look those up. So much to respond to. Look, I just want to point out to the audience, it's a little bit disappointing, but I want to point out to the audience that you didn't actually address my argument and you made a number of straw man arguments instead.
my argument and you made a number of straw man arguments instead.
First of all, referring to Ethereum.
Look, I initially supported Ethereum because they promised to do sharding, right, which
is a form of horizontal scaling where you can actually break up the workload across multiple
groupings of miners, right?
When Ethereum pivoted away from supporting sharding, I also stopped supporting Ethereum.
Okay, so this whole idea that look, Ethereum is
proof that we can't scale a blockchain and then calling me pessimistic. I think that's ridiculous.
And the story is not like Ethereum had this great revelation. No, I talk, I talk to the core
developers through, through this whole time period. And basically the problem was, is they
didn't have the skills to develop sharding. They couldn't do it. They said it was too hard.
And funnily enough, so they went a different route.
And other blockchains have successfully implemented sharding, by the way.
So I really feel like those developers should have just fired themselves and let someone else do the job.
But that's why Ethereum is in the horrible place where it is today.
But yeah, I feel like I'm not really – it's hard to have a back and forth with you because
you do these really long grandstanding speeches right yeah yeah no it'd be help if maybe you
could just like moderate that a little bit but look i mean i mean for me like you say
justin how long have you been going and talking now without me interrupting and you know what i'm
if i if i go back and time myself and maybe my perception is completely wrong
then i apologize no acquit me am i completely wrong so i want to i i don't think it's constructive
to focus on that i do i do think that maybe we can maybe we can but but but i just want you
there's a key aspect of a debate as moderator you need to ensure that there's short time for
the speakers or else there's a disband and Sure, and I can always improve and I can always make adjustments to my
point of departure. So
with that said,
if we can make
singular points that are
moderately extrapolated
on and then allow the other
person to respond, I think it would make for
a more
inclusive back and forth
and more fluid debate.
So Yago made the claim earlier in his talk that Bitcoin is going to scale times a thousand,
times 10,000, I think you said.
L1 scaling?
I didn't say anything of the sort.
I don't believe there is any limit to how much we're able to scale Bitcoin.
Okay.
But the L1 is not going to scale, right?
Like, we understand that, right?
I mean, you're barely able to get OPCAD passed.
I mean, a block size increase is completely off the table.
So let me just, I want to go back to the original question.
And I think because you guys are both very educated and technical, it goes in multiple
directions.
I want to understand Bitcoin as it is today.
Why is that not enough, right?
In the way that I see it, layer two scaling
or whatever kind of scaling in regard to Bitcoin,
it's icing on the cake, correct me if I'm wrong,
but Bitcoin as a store of value,
as a place for me to store my wealth,
where else would I put it? It's without a foundation of value, as a place for me to store my wealth, where else would I put it?
Without a foundation and utility, right?
It's literally insecure.
And it's going to force an inflation increase.
That's the opposite of a store of value, right?
It's insecure and inflationary, right?
And so it's not a safe place to store your money if I'm correct about that.
Insecurity and inflation.
Okay, so I want Yago to respond to that, please.
So actually, I agree with Justin that if Bitcoin were not able to generate sufficient fees,
then it would become insecure.
I think the crux of Justin's argument is that Bitcoin is not able to act as a settlement layer for
a large number of transactions that get cleared elsewhere, but settled to Bitcoin.
That would be very surprising because every single financial system, every single payment
system that we've ever built has the separation between a settlement layer and just so maybe not everyone
right a settlement layer is where the the assets are ultimately moved and clearing is basically
uh the the the cloud of a large number of transactions that get aggregated to the
settlement layer every single system that we've ever built in the history of mankind has worked in that way for the purpose of payments, finance,
DeFi, any finance and DeFi have to work that way because you can't shove everything through the
same pipe. It's very inefficient. That does not scale. May I respond? Sure. I really want to add with a reality check here.
Okay, look.
I recently did a calculation.
If all of the users just wanted to do one transaction, the queue would be over two months long.
That's today's number of users, right?
Bitcoin OS, the transaction that takes it up, right, takes up one-tenth of the block size.
That means you can't
fit more than 10 of those roll-ups. Justin, I'm sorry. Now you're not letting me speak because
I'm trying to give a reality check here. What I said before, it would take more than 20 years
for running the world to do a single transaction. How is that supposed to work with an l2 ecosystem is that under the hypothetical okay is the 20 years thing under the hypothetical that everyone using the bitcoin network is making
a transaction at the same exact time um no no that no because that wouldn't work right so everyone
this is hypothetical but like the time it would take for the bitcoin network for everyone in the
world to do one transaction the queue would be over 20 years long. Obviously, the whole system would just break down and would cease to function. That's the
reality of it. Because that's the reality of BTC right now. It's this kind of plays pretend. It
seems to work fine as long as no one uses it, and then we can all pretend as if it works. But it
doesn't work because the capacity just isn't there. With that sort of capacity, right?
Like self-custody, like Bitcoiners like to talk about self-custody, right?
Self-custody en masse is literally impossible with BTC.
Impossible.
The only way to achieve that is through centralized custodians.
Because the on-chain capacity isn't there.
Right?
For people to own their own keys.
Yeah, go ahead. Yago, do you agree that the capacity isn't there. For people to own their own keys. Yeah, go ahead.
Yago, do you agree that the capacity is not there?
No, absolutely not.
And a lot of the stuff that Justin says
is just technically not true.
This idea that we have to do transactions
that are the size of a tenth of a Bitcoin block,
this is simply not the case.
This is from Bitcoin OS's own documentation that I studied today, by the way.
Okay.
I'm happy to have another conversation with you.
I want to stay away from BitcoinOS.
But let me summarize, I think, the difference in views.
And I think it's an important difference in views.
Okay. summarize I think that this the difference in views and I think it's an important difference in views okay the Justin is extrapolating from today right it's true that if today you wanted to go and have every single person out of eight billion people make a transaction in Bitcoin because it's eight
billion transactions it would take many years to settle all of those
transactions. Okay, fine. The history of technology, however, is that if you assume that nothing is
going to change, you are always 100% of the time wrong. And in this case, that is the assumption
that Justin is making. And that is why he is 100% wrong. May I respond?
No, not yet.
Let me finish.
The doomerism around Bitcoin has existed from the very beginning.
Everyone has always said it will not achieve this.
It will fail.
Bitcoin has died a thousand deaths.
Justin is inviting it to die another death.
That death is never coming.
And so I would like to reassure everyone that there is no basis to assume that we would be so stupid as to try and do 8 billion transactions in a naive way on Bitcoin.
Instead, what we've built is the technology to take large numbers of transactions and aggregate them down into a single transaction.
And that technology exists, but it's not perfect but it too
will continue to improve and so the history of bitcoin has been one of succeeding despite the
doubters the history the future of bitcoin is exactly the same thing and the future of bitcoin
is that it will scale through cryptography and the and to drop off, but I want to thank Justin,
because Justin, you are raising valid and important points. And I think these conversations
are important. People need to understand the limitations, but you, I think, are getting stuck
on the limitations of today and those limitations are already dissolving.
If I may just say one thing,
so you also have a chance to respond to it as well.
I think what I didn't mention is that all of this does come with a type of
political analysis, right?
Of the governance of BTC.
And according to that analysis,
I don't see Bitcoin changing before it's too late.
And before it's too late is eight to 12 years, by the way.
So that's, that's the perspective that I'm late is eight to 12 years, by the way. So
that's the perspective that I'm also coming from. It's an important data point.
I think we sort of went down a bad direction in this conversation. I think there's a much
more productive way that we could have this conversation. And I'd like to invite you to
It's a shame you have to go so soon. We easily could have gone for two to three hours here.
Yeah. So I mean, we were really just getting started honestly so so let me let me invite you and maybe moby would be willing to host a part
two and and let me write to you a few points in advance uh and and and you and i we can write to
moby so that we can maybe have a little bit more of a structured conversation and really get into
the crux of these things and try even to persuade one another. Yeah, in hindsight, I was a bit more hands-off with this
than I should have been.
I recognize now I have a point of departure in mind
that I would take, but we can talk about that offline.
Justin, go ahead.
And Iago, I sincerely appreciate you guys coming on.
It's been a really good one.
Thank you very much.
I really appreciate the opportunity
and I appreciate your time and thoughts, Justin.
Yeah, thank you so much. And Iago i i will say i've debated a lot of uh people on the bc side um and
and you know preparing for this i really was like okay this is a challenging one you're you're
of you're very capable uh debater so i really really enjoy that and i really admire you as
well you know wanting to keep that discussion alive I think a lot of Bitcoiners just want to not talk about it or silence the opposition, but I think you're in the camp of
the free mark of ideas, and I really, really do respect that. So thank you so much for that.
Thank you, everyone, and especially Justin and Moby.
Thank you, Ago. Yeah, guys, as I mentioned to Justin, I can always improve as a moderator and host. And I think I, especially in of the, I would say controversial,
these,
these,
these sissies that Justin has and having Yaga respond to them.
So we're going to do this again in the future.
And I think that I,
again,
I have in mind the structure that I,
that I believe will work much better.
So definitely stay tuned for that.
We can have a Q and a portion.
Justin's still here.
We got Michael and Craig on stage.
I'll bring up C, CK Cardano.ano and yeah i think at the end of the day the one
thing we can all agree on is we want we want bitcoin to succeed and we want crypto assets
and blockchain technology and this kind of shifting paradigm of uh of innovations to to
succeed and take over justin any any thoughts before I do a little Q&A?
Just on the debate point, I just think the time thing is important.
I'm going to feel really bad if I'm wrong about this because it's very easy to be biased in terms of perception.
But I'll listen back with a little stopwatch and see if it was balanced or not.
and I'll let you know.
And I'll let you know.
And then I'll apologize if I was wrong about it.
And then I'll apologize if I was wrong about it.
But otherwise, that's the only thing.
So what I noticed, Justin,
and correct me if I'm wrong when you listen back,
I noticed that you interrupted Yago
a lot more than he interrupted you.
But I could be wrong.
I could be wrong.
But I think that's because he was going on for longer
when I was trying to make it a back and forth.
And I felt maybe you as the moderator
could have helped out there
because it's not as good if I interrupt you might it would have been better if you interrupt
yeah yeah definitely definitely a handful of learning experiences for me on this one yeah
so but i know i could be completely wrong it's hard when you're in the debate no no you're right
you're right i could i could have certainly done more i thought it might be better if i was more
hands-off and just kind of let you guys do your thing but again in hindsight it would I need to control the direction of the conversation and you understand
if I don't have a host that takes control it's part of the repertoire of debate skills to be a
little bit rude and start to talk over people like really I'm serious I do that consciously
it's just part of sometimes what it means to you gotta mute the mics like the presidential debates yeah or i'm just thinking that pierce morgan i like the way he definitely cuts off uh people
when they talk too much and i think i've been watching a lot of different moderators over the
last few years and picking different components that are very fun of the strategies i've done a
lot of debates if you look at my name and debate oh i have i'm probably one of the bigger and i have a philosophy background as well so debating is totally my jam so like before this
i was and by the way the whole part we went on to a bitcoin os tangent that was okay actually
like because as as a debater i think in terms of trees of arguments so i'm like okay if we go down
this branch if i go down that branch and i was debating in my mind, whether I should just concede the Bitcoin OS stuff,
because it's so technical, and we'll just get stuck on that so that we can move the conversation on.
And I ended up he ended up making such grand claims that I couldn't, I couldn't.
Yeah, I thought I thought the Bitcoin was, it was important, but I felt that it was getting too granular and we were getting away from the, yeah.
Yeah, at a certain point we had to move on.
Also, I didn't know what the timeline was.
So if you let me know in advance, because I was expecting maybe two hours or something, I structure the way I'm debating and I'm structure my conclusions based on the time that I think I have as well, right?
So I would have sped certain arguments up if i knew i had
less time but i just didn't think to ask sure it was my first time hosting i'll go i think he was
impressed enough where he wants to do another one and and kind of have a good speaker have you guys
more structure or rather have you guys more involved in the structure so um anyway he's
passionate some hands ck cardano and then dave name uh mobby is it mobby or mobi do you have a movie's fine
mobi what's up mobi thank you so much for having me and shout out justin um i am uh not as familiar
as i should be with your work but i read a lot of your your like tweets and posts so i see that some
of that content um awesome to to just see that seeing the title that you and Eden Yago were discussing Bitcoin OS.
I see the title is Truth, Lies, Unknowns.
I know you're very familiar with Bitcoin.
We're looking at that seven transactions per second, right?
We're looking at the reality of whether Bitcoin Max is one who admitted or not.
Like if we want to buy cups of coffee, it's got to scale, right?
So enter Eden Yago, Bitcoin OS, and the unlocking of
smart contract and DeFi capability. My pony is in the race, of course, our UTXO based,
I like the mathematics, the no trust me bro qualities of UTXO versus EVM and accounts
models like Ethereum and Solana that also don't have supply limits. Whereas there's
21 million Bitcoin, 84 million Litecoin, 45 billion Cardano, etc. So all that having been said, I am so excited by
things like Bitcoin OS and the scalability and the expressiveness and the DeFi yield on these assets,
like for those of us in this community for the like, call it like 10 plus years, right? Like
we've had Bitcoin, some of us sitting in cold storage for quite a long time doing nothing. So the potentials for unlocking
that yield and looking at the trade-offs, you know, of these various blockchains, UTXO based
and non, how much trust me bro versus two plus two equals four, you know, the variability of
the math with the UTXO side. So I'm excited. I definitely will go back and
listen to what Eden Yago was sort of advocating. So if maybe you would be, so kind of was there,
was there a particular take? Was it like Bitcoin OS good or bad? Was it Bitcoin can't scale? Bitcoin
will die? I think there was a difference of opinions
in a few things, right? Whether a boss is a roll-up or not, I think there was a difference
in opinions and what it can achieve versus not. It got a little granular, and I think both of the
debaters kind of took a step back. The space is recorded, so you can certainly go and look back
on it. Guys, please, please retweet the space. I think this is a good one. You can certainly go and look back on it guys please please retweet the space i think this is a good one you can go back and listen to the recording and please follow the speakers up here
ck let justin respond to that point as well because i think he might be able to give you
more insight as to what what their what their difference of opinions were in terms of boss
there's there's a lot there's actually a lot to unpack on what you said there but i'll respond
to the last part um and our steel man, Yager,
it's a shame he isn't here
with him speak for himself.
So I'm trying to be as gracious as I can here
and not do any low blows.
No, I think basically my position is one of,
and I think actually you can frame this
as actually being one of the biggest debates
in all of crypto,
maybe next to governance.
I think governance and this whole scalability, specifically the modular versus monolithic
slash integrated or L1 versus L2 or on versus off chain, whatever terminology you want to
use.
I really think this has been one of the biggest debates in terms of engineering in blockchain
technology.
And I very much and emphatically side on the side of monolithic slash integrated scaling.
Because I think if I look at the technology objectively,
we can scale the layer one.
And if we can give all of that benefit to everyone,
I think we should.
I think that's a fantastic solution.
I think that's what Satoshi originally wanted
for Bitcoin as well.
And I think I'm very much continuing in that tradition
and I think that a lot of Bitcoiners today are very much of the modular school of thought
right and I'm going to steal man so I'm going to try to do my best here to be fair they don't think
that you can scale the blockchain without sacrificing decentralization.
And therefore, they want to scale the blockchain through additional layers.
And this is what's known as modular scaling.
This is what Ethereum is doing.
This is part of what Bitcoin is doing as well.
This is actually the reason why Bitcoin didn't scale.
This was the argument at the time that, hey, we're not going to scale Bitcoin because we can do lightning network, for example, whatever.
And I just think that's a dead end because I don't think you're actually
scaling the system by using a different system. I think there's a deep misunderstanding there,
unless you tie the systems together in such a way so that you have the same qualities. But I don't
believe that's the case. He thinks that's possible one day. But like I said, by the way, I just want
to be clear. I'm very inspired now to do a full critique of Bitcoin OS.
So I'll be studying it for the next week
and then releasing a long form thread about it.
But I'll keep that as a kind of side debate
to what we're doing here.
And so, yeah, you can see my full.
In terms of me giving a conclusion, yeah, I'm very skeptical.
I don't want to go into like much deeper detail
without having spent a lot more time on it myself. So yeah, you'll see my critique soon.
Thank you. Thank you so much for that clarification. And I think that that would be such a fruitful
conversation. I will definitely listen back. I think you're right. The scaling conversation,
how do we realistically do that is compelling. I think we also like realistically, I mean, it's very exciting looking
at these institutional flows into the space, right? So, I mean, it's coming into Bitcoin.
How is it going to express itself? You know, definitely, I think there's some of these
first layer solutions with that UTXO basis and then projects like Bitcoin OS. Although I have
heard that one of the big criticisms is the incorporation of a token, like a third token, solutions with that utxo basis and then uh projects like bitcoin os although i have heard
that one of the big criticisms is the incorporation of a token like a third token whereas other
projects like sundial protocol are strictly open source smart smart contracts that allows you to
take your bitcoin and express it on other chains and and i'm not saying anything and i'm not saying
anything i didn't already say with uh iago here but um you
know i i the whole l2 thing like if you want to control your own keys you need to do at least one
on-chain transaction everyone on the world doing their own on-chain transactions just off the table
with bitcoin so that's why i don't i don't believe in it but i see dave is here and dave is absolutely
hence the roll-ups optimistic thank you j Thank you, Justin. Jay wants to bring it into financial markets. So first of all, there is, of the 8 billion people, half of them aren't even banked right now.
You have to get down to first principles.
So if you look at things like what is the analog for Bitcoin as a reserve asset, store of value asset?
The analog for Bitcoin at best is gold.
How many gold transactions could be done on a global basis on the Internet?
And the answer is you can't do any.
You have to be person to person, and there just aren't that many times.
I don't know how many people we all meet
in our lifetime, but I guarantee you
it's not billions.
It's more than what you can do with Bitcoin, though.
No, it's absolutely...
I mean, if you build the infrastructure for it, you could
move... No, no, no. No, it's not.
Stop. Let me go through a very
important... You need forklifts, aircrafts, and
guards to move a billion dollars worth of gold.
And the mining equipment.
Guys, guys, guys, guys, let me make the – let me –
Justin, you may be a debater.
Trust me.
I was president of the Northwestern debate team,
and my biggest regret is losing 3-2 in the quarterfinals of nationals twice,
but the second time to a team that we had beat –
both the other teams were 7-1 against.
So, yeah, debating is something I understand.
If you want to do it right, you've got to do it timed,
but that's besides the point.
And that's, Noah, is an example of something,
just two minutes, three minutes, one minute,
you know, set up rebuttals, just do it that way.
But that's just a structured thing.
Settlement versus clearance is arguably the most important thing here.
So I'll give you two examples that are both very relevant to the financial community.
Example number one, Fedwire.
It is pathetically slow, and it takes forever to move things, right?
Bitcoin is more or less at the same speed as Fedwire from a slow percentage, but yet
from a slow percentage, but yet it backs the entire U.S. dollar system.
it backs the entire U.S. dollar system.
Number two, how settlement of dollars happens with regard to ACHs and wires
versus the clearance of ACHs and wires.
And generally, what you basically have there is layer one, layer two.
It's not blockchain, obviously, but it's more or less the same idea.
So the question really is what sort of adaptations in the financial system could work with an asset that has absolute security?
To get technical for a heartbeat, back in the old days when we looked at information transport,
there used to be in the old Technicron or TIBCO for those geeks out there who understand technology and how it's evolved over the last 40 years.
God, I can't believe I'm using that word, but it's actually true.
I've been in technology for over 40 years now.
Is that there's a difference between guaranteed delivery and best efforts, where best efforts
effectively at the even five sigma level is probably most, is going to probably get there.
But there's that little bit where every once in a while you have to ask for retransmissions and go through a whole process. The difference in speed is orders
of magnitude. Now, understand Bitcoin is architected and is continually architected for the fact that
it hasn't gone down once in 15 years, and it's done to be absolutely safe and secure. That's why
so many block confirmations are required. And so it is
architected for the settlement finality layer, as opposed to a clearance layer where there could be
dispute resolution mechanisms and other sorts of things on top of it. Now, one way or another,
as the technology improves, you can improve that second layer. But I basically thought the same
thing about Ethereum. I mean, I don't want to go dive into Ethereum, but I am massively critical of what they did.
I agree with, actually, both you and Yago agreed on that point of where they went.
I don't know if Ethereum is savable, to be honest with you.
You know, when you make a bad mistake like they made, such as going to proof of stake,
which was horrendously stupid the way they did it.
And I know Vitalik is worth multiples of what I'm worth, but it was unbelievably dumb because he was misled by people who believe.
You're a pro-debater. You're giving me way too much to respond to here.
Right. So, okay. So the point is, so let's get down to the salient point. Settlement versus clearance.
If your idea is Bitcoin for a cup of coffee, probably not going to work.
If your idea is Bitcoin without any intermediation, probably not going to work.
Let me respond to that.
Let me give you an alternative vision of a cryptocurrency, a unified vision.
I'm talking about a global system that can have both stock markets,
equities.
It can have,
it can have like,
like companies on it.
It can have a whole financial ecosystem.
It can,
it can,
you can have NASDAQ on chain combined with a settlement system combined with
money.
And all of this is kind of a feeding back in itself is like this amazing
virtuous cycle, right?
Like an all at like, you know, a system where it's one layer.
So your poor peasant is at the same level as a banker.
You're both equally empowered under that system.
You both have access to the same network.
It's a flat system.
Okay.
It's not a system just for the elites and it's fast.
It has massive capacity, right?
Like that's a vision that I think is far more compelling.
Now you don't need a New York market and a London market because of latency.
You can have a truly global market.
And I think that's what Bitcoin is bringing to the table.
And Bitcoin is not at all.
But if you've listened to me, you know I agree with you, right?
You know that I think that all the financial markets of the world are going to ultimately end up on chain.
There is a huge fight to be the underpinning of that.
That does not need to be the same chain that is your store of value.
But then I'll add to that, right?
So the chain that has all of that utility, the chain that has all of that revenue, that's also the most secure chain. And I value and it has better sound money properties right obviously that's the store of value and
it's all part of a single unified system why do we have a system over here that's just a settlement
network or just the store of value that's weak as hell that's not what crypto was originally
meant to be either and by the way that's what the xrp army thinks that it thinks that's meant to be either. And by the way, that's what the XRP army thinks that's going to be. And I know that that's going to make you laugh.
But that is literally what they think.
And there's a lot of wishful thinking in there.
Oh, the banks will just adopt this as a system
and we'll all be...
But they won't.
I mean, but they won't.
I mean, you know,
it's like you could barely get the banks
to all agree on TCPIP.
I mean, it's...
That's the point.
That's the point.
And so it's very, very hard.
That's why the only way to win by building more competitive
products and that's why i like what solana is doing for instance right now because they're
able to say i am very bullish on a lot fraction of a cent a global system like now i agree that's
vision of crypto that's what's going to take over the world and you know what that's simultaneously
the by the way money and for value so so let me throw something out for you, Justin.
Where does that leave Bitcoin?
Hold on a second. What happens if we're both right?
What happens if Bitcoin surpasses gold, becomes that kind of backstop for currency, its value, and Solana becomes the operating system for all the world's financial markets?
Which one will be more valuable?
Well, Michael Taylor would say Bitcoin.
I'm going to say I don't know that that's true. I don't know that that's true at all. And I think it's entirely possible they're both incredibly valuable, but they're
doing different things. And by the way, if the stock market goes down, every single stock market
goes down once or twice a year probably, or has something like that. I don't know what the numbers
are. They used to be bigger.
They're probably smaller recently.
I haven't checked.
But you don't need seven sigma of reliability
for doing what Solana needs to do.
You do need it for what Bitcoin does.
And so it is entirely possible
they could both exist, co-exist,
which if you look at my portfolio,
you would know that's exactly what I think.
So we don't necessarily disagree is i guess the point there's a decent probability that when i'm an old man and i'm 100 years old i'll be like oh bitcoin's stupid it
doesn't make sense because this could take this might be a multi-generational thing for it to
actually no i don't think that i think the thing's going to collapse in 10 years i almost forgot about that but but but like that's that's besides a lot closer than you dude
yeah yeah but but like but like for me it's like sure i mean it's it's the market can do stupid
things and and you can have this mass collective delusion but it it doesn't change the kind of the
economic theory it doesn't change the facts around the economic theory it doesn't change the facts around the security budget it
doesn't change the the limitations in capacity and also i would add to that i think this is an
important part of my thesis at least i think that the utility of blockchain like actually it's being
useful is both the thing that is like the most empowering for people and like both the thing
that is like most freedom inducing let's say most in line of cypherpunk values, like when you can actually use the thing, that's actually. Sorry. And I think that's why I see it this way.
And also, if you look at the legacy markets today,
there's a reason why derivatives and stocks are far more valuable
in market capitalization compared to gold.
Productive assets are more valuable, and they should be.
There's a type of, you know, there's a type of,
and I think this is important i think to point
out and i i view this in a similar lens sorry i'll give you a chance to respond go ahead yeah no look
the last point is interesting and that's probably worth the debate but no the point that i was
reacting to about utility what people forget and this is where ethereum went off the rails by the
way what people don't understand is there is massive utility in being able to,
in a predictable manner, convert energy into value. That is massively useful. So even the
BBC did an article recently, and the BBC hates Bitcoin. You know it probably killed their editors
to do it, that there are communities in Africa that literally would have no power and no water
if it wasn't for Bitcoin miners being able
to incentivize power production. Hold on, hold on, hold on. Mining only works if there's like
demand for mining, right? I understand. You have to look at the ecosystem. It's a service.
But you have to look at the ecosystem. And the world, look, in trading, we have an expression,
And the world, look, in trading, we have an expression, an asset is worth where the market is marked, right?
And so you can't ignore that.
And the reality is the hash rate and the size and the power of the Bitcoin network is 5x what it was when Bitcoin was at 60,000 a couple of years ago.
Actually, that's not true.
I'll challenge that. I actually, I would say that the security, the economic security, the value of the
hash rate protecting Bitcoin today is lower than it was four years ago, if you measure it based on
the value that the network is paying out. Oh, well, because computing power, that thesis
assumes computing power is cheaper, right? Well, I mean, I think hash power is a flawed metric
to measure security.
Well, whatever. It's irrelevant to the
argument, because it is undeniably
true that whether it's renewable energy
or stranded energy sources,
that A,
it is incredibly useful, it has
massive utility to be able to turn
energy into value.
I can only concede on that if you solve the demand side of that equation, and that's what's
missing.
Well, the demand side is obviously there, or it wouldn't be where it is.
No, no, no.
Hold on.
Mining is not demand.
No, no.
Mining is not demand.
Mining is responding to demand.
Exactly.
You're right.
Exactly.
Exactly.
I understand that.
In a way, I'm making a somewhat self-referential argument, but it's based upon the history and the buying in.
The fact is a method of turning energy into value, however that method works and however that method succeeds, has an enormous amount of utility.
That is a simple statement. I always get mad with Peter Schiff, not your argument.
I know. I think the utility argument matters to the audience, though.
You don't really disagree with me on this, I don't think, which is to say…
Do you think?
No, I do disagree.
What if I turn an idea into a million dollars?
Is there value there?
Do you turn an idea into a million dollars?
Depends what the idea was, doesn't it?
You say the man side comes from the speculation of the asset.
So for Bitcoin, basically, the input is energy.
The output is going to be used for fiat for monetary purposes.
I do agree with Justin.
I don't think a hash rate is going to be a good function
because the only side that it goes in terms of an output, in terms of demand, is going to be a good function because like there's the only the only side that it goes that in terms of an output in terms of demand is going to be basically the monetary side
well we're talking about value that's literally what we're talking about
yeah the value like if you have if you have look gold right now has about 85% of its market cap is based on acceptance as monetary value.
Now, how do I get that number?
I get that number from a blended average between gold's rarity in jewelry value versus its industrial value versus platinum and silver.
And platinum and silver are, well, silver is not rarer, but silver is whatever.
It's one-fifth the rareness of gold relative to value.
But platinum is 30 times rarer than gold. It used to-fifth the rareness of gold relative to value. But platinum is 30 times
rarer than gold. It used to be more valued in jewelry. I know because my wife demanded a platinum
engagement ring years ago, and it was more expensive than a gold one, even though it's
one-third the price now. And the reason gold is much higher is because of fiat monetary debasement
and the fact that people say, well, okay, gold has monetary value. Well, you know, that's called acceptance. And as that happens,
that sort of social network effect is exceedingly difficult to overcome. It feels like Bitcoin has
the escape velocity to do so, which is a generational thing. But we will see if that
is true. If it is not true, then this whole argument is irrelevant. But if it is true,
this argument is extremely relevant. And that's kind of the point, right? If you frame the argument that way, that's how I'm
framing it. And that was really just on the utility point. Because the funny part about it is,
I agree with Justin, and I'm actually going to two TradFi conferences next week, and I'm going
to make the point in both of them. And people kind of know I'm probably right now, that the reason we
talk about tokenizing everything, the reason we talk about it is because it's much, much more efficient in ways that you don't even think
about.
The fact that every single stock market trades in one currency and making a trade in a second
currency is really, really hard.
Whereas in crypto, the way that everything is structured, pairwise, et cetera, it's all
multi-currency.
Stable coins are dramatically more efficient than checking accounts or ACHs or anything
else.
And we could go on and on and on.
But the point about Bitcoin is, it's really a question of, is that settlement layer, is
that asset value something that is sustainable?
Justin's point, which I credit is clearly the risk, is that its security budget will
fall short and it will collapse.
Which, by the way, in my mind is why the four-year
cycle used to exist. As the Bitcoin halving happened, the fear was miners would all go into
a death spiral and it would all collapse. And generally, the reason why later in the four-year
cycle is the rally. It's when people realize the network hasn't collapsed post-halving. Now,
of course, these days we have the Trump effect, so there's all sorts of stuff going on. But there's
a lot there. I can describe how the collapse will happen. And the decline of mining, as I've
already pointed, started. So I think that the actual security, like the value of the security,
securing the network is going to continue to decline over the next, say, decade. And it depends exactly when the crisis happens, right,
between the 8 to 12 years from now.
That price plays a factor here as well.
Like that could accelerate the timeline or that could increase the timeline by a bit.
But we are talking about an exponential function.
So I do very much see this as an inevitability.
Bitcoin can't just keep doubling in price.
That's ridiculous, really, if you just think about it in economic terms and if you understand
exponentials, right? It doesn't work that way. So I think the way this happened is you'll see a
decline of mining happened gradually over time and then leading to more, say, a collapse of the
mining market, at which point it will become feasible and even actually profitable to attack
the network. I'm thinking specifically of miners in funny jurisdictions that are maybe at the end
of their life cycle, because miners are quite mercenary. They tend to operate on limited terms.
So they have electricity contracts. The hardware has a certain shelf life, etc right so a miner could feasibly at the
end of that term if the security of the network has dropped very low within that time period
they could feasibly carry out a 51 percent attack and on an exchange potentially and they could
they could profit from such a first blow or potentially a state actor or maybe even a
competing blockchain could convertly carry out a censorship attack.
If it's cheap to do so, it might actually be profitable to do so.
So once you have things like censorship attacks and double spend attacks, yeah, I think that would force the core developers and the gradual economy as a whole start to take action.
And that action at that point, the only thing left to do at that point, would be to actually increase the inflation rate. And there's a lot of people that's
going to disagree with that. So that's going to create a split. So you're going to have two Bitcoins.
One thing that I'm very concerned about is that actually this will create a type of
the death spiral situation and specifically a quote-unquote bank run situation
because as I mentioned earlier it takes two months for everyone now just to move their
Bitcoin once right so if there is a type of like panic and you have a lot of people running for
the doors the doors is only so big so like people are going to be stuck and like if the price is
going down miners and the network is under attack and price is going down and
miners are leaving, then because the difficulty adjustment is a two-week time period, that
time period will actually extend and the door would get even smaller, right?
The network then has even less capacity for a month or something.
Like you draw this scenario in mind and you're like, holy moly, this is like a legit death spiral scenario.
I think it's wild.
And I think it's completely unacceptable
for what's supposed to be our crypto champion right now.
That we're basically heading on a train
towards this brick wall from my perspective
is really shocking, honestly.
What do you think about the
centralization of assets from like black rock and all the guys because i think that the death spiral
is already happening in terms of it may not be from the minor side but it might be from the
institutional side yeah i'm not too concerned about that part of the equation as i mean it's it's it's
lopsided in a way because it's purely speculative so that means
blackrock and all that are going to have a larger role to play instead of say payment processes or
something say right but i think i think it's okay like the whole idea of bitcoin is to grow it or
crypto in general let's say is to grow it so big that you have people like blackrock and you have
the ccp and you have russia and you have big crypto players and they're
all kind of sitting there around a table with each other, steering each other down.
I'm sorry, I'm going to have to jump. Yeah, go ahead.
I just want to answer the BlackRock thing because it's such a, I don't like to use negative words.
So it's just, it's not a good argument, right The entire if you look at because I was involved from the beginning of equity markets and when when passive investing started at the time before BlackRock's precursor was was called Wells Fargo.
Believe it or not, with Wells Fargo Investment Advisors, there was State Street and there was Vanguard and they were the three.
And then Northern Trust entered and they were every single year. People would say, oh, my God, look at the percentage of the market.
And every single year, people would say, oh, my God, look at the percentage of the market.
5% of the market is held by these passive guys.
This is going to be terrible.
And it's going to crush values.
It's going to make asset management not work.
You're not going to do IPOs, yada, yada, yada.
Well, guess what?
Today, it's 20%.
And the markets are dramatically, if anything, they're overvalued at 200% of GDP in the United States.
It's crazy. What you're doing is you're looking at an actor
and not understanding that each of those actors represents literally millions of individual
investors. They are asset managers. They are pools. They are not decision makers on the asset
fundamentally. It's just wrong. So you just need to look at it that way. Now, if you want to talk
about micro strategy, now there, that's a different story.
Yes, he has investors, but he is a decision maker. But he has specifically invested in the asset and not in mining or any other stuff in order
to give the appearance that Bitcoin is still staying decentralized.
But still, I can credit that argument as being concerning.
State actors absolutely are concerning.
And there are a lot of people who think that the U.S. buying a lot would probably not be a great idea, et cetera, et cetera. There's game
theory going on. Yeah, that's what I was trying to get at. Because let's say, for example, if
it comes to the decision to where it's like how the U.S. compensated all the gold. Of course,
they can't compensate all the Bitcoin. But let's say the what if hypothetical in terms of having
it to where accumulation is happening in the background and you're able to potentially
have more than 50 of the market share right what could happen is basically instead of you know how
how we're talking about the demand side for electricity earlier it's basically you're able
to sell off an asset buy it in terms of buying electricity to be able to 51%.
Maybe they don't go that well.
But the thing is you're now having it to where you're able to set a market manipulation floor for Bitcoin while it's selling off to be able to switch back into energy because you're you're switching it from Bitcoin to fiat fiat over to energy energy
to back to mining it in order to be able to control the network because like we we started
as a decentralization type of ethos in terms of the community it's going to be owned by every
you know everyone but what happens if you know we're starting to allow the fiat basically the
fiat ecosystem to kind of come in and be able to overbid it
to where they could control it i mean you you look at like a lot of more nuanced take i'll
i'll take a more new oh sorry i'll let you finish your point i didn't want to disrupt you go ahead
yeah it's like if you look at like a lot of the exchange listings where you know stable coins are
kind of like really really predominant in terms of like the trading base asset. You can not even have to sell a token, right? Like let's say Trump launches the
token, Trump token. You can just flood it with a hundred million dollars of selling pressure from
the outside without the token actually having to interchange between one or the other. Same thing
for, you know, if they do have like an arbitrage way to sell Bitcoin, buy energy, use it as mining power so they can switch back and forth between the two pendulums.
Unfortunately, I have to leave. I'm not I think I'd like to understand the mechanism you're talking about since having I don't know if you know, but I was involved in index arbitrage and arbitrage trading for probably longer than
you've been alive since the 80s so it could there might be a mechanism i haven't thought about but
i don't i was born in 86 so were you doing arbitrage oh there you go so good well no this
is for me to learn this is for me to learn because this is how like my mind thinks right like if i
said we literally built the first arbitrage system at the end of 85.
Wow.
And I'm actually chronicling it in the book that I'm writing.
So maybe you'll find that amusing.
But anyway, I do need to jump because I have another meeting.
So thank you, Noah.
This is a great conversation.
I'd love to have more of them, but I do need to jump.
Appreciate you.
Yeah, we'll do another one with Justin and Iago in the near future, hopefully.
Yeah, I was eating and yeah i think it's interesting a bc debate with dave would be completely different to bc debate with well we should we should do one with dave then while we wait for iago um no i really enjoyed
that and i think this is a good stopping point it's been a great space if you want to go back
and listen to it you're welcome to if you want your friends to hear it feel free to retweet follow the speakers up here thank you
everyone for joining wait no remember that everything you hear oh yep justin was going
to answer and give me alpha oh yeah okay sure sure um no no i i think i think this i think
when looking at bitcoin and thinking about centralization vulnerabilities, I think there's way lower hanging fruit to be concerned about.
First of all, it's not proof of stake.
So actually, what I'm talking about is that Bitcoin will become vulnerable to attack through its proof of work mechanism in 8, 6, 10 years.
But you know how it's even easier to attack Bitcoin right
now? And what's fascinating a bit, the CIA at a certain point even commissioned a paper about
this back in 2017, which I thought was utterly fascinating. And in that paper, they talked about,
because I thought that was spot on, because I'd seen it happen firsthand. They talked about what's
the best way to subvert a blockchain? What's the easiest way?
Like, what's the most cost-effective way to come in and just derail a blockchain project
completely?
And in that analysis, the conclusion was very much, well, no, Bitcoin mining power?
No, that's expensive.
Stake?
That's expensive.
Taking over all the institutions?
Well, that's expensive and probably impossible.
But, you know, there's a really clear vulnerability in Bitcoin.
What if we just bribe and corrupt the core developers?
Because they can effectively gatekeep all change in the system.
And if they can gatekeep change in a system in such a way that it actually handicaps it so that it doesn't become a threat to the powers that be, right?
Then that is actually the most effective way to disrupt a blockchain.
And I think that's,
whether intentionally or not, is what's actually happened to Bitcoin. And it's one of the reasons I'm also an advocate for stakeholder governance as an alternative so that for the sake of
decentralization, so that these systems don't become captured and corrupted and perverted.
Because again, like Bitcoin was meant to scale on chain. It's again like bitcoin was meant to scale on chain it's not
ethereum was meant to scale on chain it's not every time it pivoted i pivoted too and uh i think i
think i'm still uh holding up that flag high thank you no like just i i really loved thanks uh
noah for having this because like it's been a while in crypto to where all you just hear is, like, shit coins and all these things.
And then finally, it's, like, educational, but also at the same time, very informing.
Like, it made me open up my mind again in terms of, like, the possibilities of crypto because it's been in the space since 2017.
So not as long as you, but for me, I'm always going to be open to learning, right?
And I'm always going to ask questions as well.
Yeah, that makes two of us.
And I will continue to try to get these debates going.
We'll do an ETH and Salada one.
I know that Justin has debated Ryan before,
but either way, I think there's always room
to have more conversations around these behaviors.
I love doing debates.
They're fun.
And I really believe in the marketplace of ideas.
Just let the best ideas win.
Debates are fun.
And it can be a very productive way to explore ideas.
Certainly.
I totally agree.
All right.
Thank you, everyone, for joining.
If you want to hear more of this stuff, please follow us at MobiMedia.
And remember to follow all the speakers. This wouldn't be possible without them.
Remember that everything you hear on these broadcasts is meant for educational purposes
only. Nothing is financial advice. So be safe out there, and we'll see you all in the next one soon.
Take care.
