Projects
![]()
No projects found
Investors
New
DAO Treasuries
DATs
Lend / Borrow APRs
Chains
Categories
Spaces
The Ordinal Show
Recorded: June 9, 2025 Duration: 2:10:22Space Recording
Full Transcription
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. you Oh music I'll get you
I will
it's
some
she's
yeah Yeah. I'm out. Don't need to cold black skin, naked in the rain.
Have a positive light in the early days.
Let me put you in the picture.
Let me show you what I mean.
The beside you is my sister. Ain't no king and she's my queen
Let me put you in the picture, let me show you what I need
The Messiah is my sister, ain't no king and she's my queen
I had to dream and see the light, don't put it out
She's alright, yeah, she's my sister.
She made a scream, she didn't make a sound.
I forgive you, boy
But don't make time The Ordinals Show is a live podcast hosted twice per week on X Spaces, starting 10.30
AM ET Monday mornings and 6.30 PM ET Wednesday nights, going for multiple hours covering
various topics, all about building new cool shit on Bitcoin.
Ordinals are not just a new kind of NFT in Bitcoin, but a massive movement of people
who care about growing Bitcoin's adoption and bringing BTC to the masses.
More important than the protocol itself, Ordinals is a cultural shift that's attracting new developers and users,
incredible artists, and accelerating innovation.
I'm Trevor.BTC, managing partner at the Bitcoin Frontier Fund
and co-founder of Pizza Ninjas.
And I'm here with my co-host, the king of BTC,
Sparta Leonidas, our in-house NFT history expert
and co-founder of Ord.I.
On today on the stage, we're joined by Post Capone,
the man, the myth, the legend, back again.
And of course, CB Spears.
Always great to see you guys here.
So I am super excited to be here,
and I'm glad you're all here with me.
I pinned a tweet to the top,
letting everyone know that we're live.
Please take a second, look at the tweet at the top.
I actually got to swipe one to the right.
Look at that tweet.
Give it a like, give it a retweet.
Show us some love for the algorithms
and welcome more people into the space.
Also, smash that purple button
in the bottom right-hand corner
with your comments and questions.
Throw some GM and Let's Fucking Go tweets in their posts, rather, now that they're called.
We'll read them throughout the show.
Don't forget to follow us on X at The Ordinal Show.
Subscribe to our Substack newsletter, link in bio.
We post weekly recaps in the newsletter and RCP links for future shows,
as well as the condensed version of this show on Apple and Spotify podcasts,
so you never miss what's happening on the leading edge of Bitcoin.
And with that, I'm going to turn to Leonidas to introduce today's show.
All right, GM everybody.
So yeah, let's just jump into things here.
We've got some exciting kind of updates from Bitcoin Core and some things happening on
that side of things.
And I think people who have followed the opportunity conversation have kind of just watched what's
basically been people getting upset about the kind of non-monetary use case of the Bitcoin
network.
The same kind of people who've always been upset, but now Bitcoin Core has taken this
sort of middle ground approach, which is like basically saying we don't really love this stuff either, but it's going to happen and you can't stop it, which is true.
And we're going to basically try to work within, you know, the current situation to make sure that, you know, these guys are, you know, inscribing data in a way that makes sense and isn't hurting the network.
And yeah, like that's basically the situation.
So I don't know.
People can read the full statement.
Trevor, I'm sure you probably read it.
It's not super long.
But it's basically just an acknowledgment that ordinals exist,
runes exist, this stuff exists, and it's going to happen.
And we've got to make sure we work with these people
so that the chain isn't kind of basically uh being harmed in any way really um or being harmed more than is necessary
in their view or however they would frame that um do you have any thoughts here trevor i mean dude
like uh thank god i guess you know like it pretty, pretty much like the biggest gaslighting of all time or, you know, it was like it was a ocean mining advertising scam.
I think I forget who called it that, but it was pretty good, pretty good summation of the situation.
Yeah, I'm just glad that the Bitcoin core devs like didn't back down just because of social pressure.
I mean, you know, like social
pressure that has merit behind it, I think is totally worth hearing out and, and, you know,
backing down. They did, they did delay the process just to make sure, you know, to like,
see, like, and that was probably the smart thing to do because, um, the whole, the whole filter
cabal filter, you know, people just ran out of gas. You know what I mean? Like if you're gas
lighting people, eventually you're going to run out of gas. So know what I mean? If you're gaslighting people,
eventually you're going to run out of gas.
So it definitely helps to just kind of extend the timeline.
And yeah, it's good to see.
I think, again, it's better for the network,
it's better for Bitcoin's future.
And yeah, it just signals that we're moving to a new phase of rationality in the Bitcoin culture, which is where we should have been before Ordinals came out.
But I think Ordinals was the catalyst to really confront these conversations.
And we can see that Ordinals has done the job to change the culture, right?
To change the culture to be more practical and sort of open people's minds as to the fact that Bitcoin can be whatever it is to whoever
wants it to be what it is to them. Like, you know, Bitcoin is a permissionless decentralized
network. And that means it can be whatever it is to whoever wants to use it and pay the fees.
And so I think it's a very positive outcome. And, you know, it was kind of inevitable,
I guess, or, you know, we knew that this whole Stairness thing was a relic of the past and that people were going to oppose it because I don't know, whatever the sort of purity tests, you know, people that believe that Bitcoin should only be used by by Bitcoiners, you know, like the sort of no true Scotsman fallacy where, you know,
the purity tests keep going further and further, you know, that that phase is, is, I think,
long behind us now. So I believe it's going to be October is the sort of target that people have for
the op return kind of going live the update. I think they've done the merge post. Correct me if I'm wrong.
If the merge has actually happened into Bitcoin Core
and they're just waiting to cut a release at this point.
Yep.
So that's basically what changed this morning
as they merged it.
It had been an open PR
and there were like a couple other competing PRs
in the same vein.
But as of this morning, it is merged. It will be included in
the next release version of Bitcoin Core. The cadence for those releases is pretty slow,
and I don't think we have a date on what the next release is really intended to be.
But a couple months at most, it'll be in the release version. The sort of pragmatic effect that that has on the relay layer
is basically in order for a relaxed policy
to become effectively standard,
like from the perspective of the network as a whole,
it takes around 5% of nodes to adopt it.
So basically what you're looking for is like for the next release to hit and 5% of nodes
to update to the next release and then it effectively just becomes the norm.
Okay, and how is this being received?
You're a little bit more in tuned on the kind of maxi side of things.
kind of maxi side of things what's the current reception is there are people up in arms like
What's the current reception?
Are people up in arms?
the the kind of conversation that i've seen felt like it peaked about two weeks ago and now
it's no longer like super cool to talk about this honestly like people are like i feel like the
conversation has kind of moved on it's not the rage isn't quite there as much maybe anymore
um are people downloading knots right now? What's going on?
Yeah, so knots adoption has definitely increased
over the course of the past month.
They went from being, you know,
kind of maybe floating around 1%
up to around something that looks like about 10 to 11%
just over the course of the past month.
There's been a lot of dialogue that's continued.
I would say the last two or three months have been kind of the highest volume period but as i'm sure most people
are probably aware over the last like two and a half years this has been like kind of a roller
coaster of volume in this conversation it it pops off every now and then um people are like the the
people that are on the pro filter side of this are definitely very disappointed and I would say in part enraged by the merge taking place.
We're still kind of early in the day on this happening, so I guess we'll kind of see how it unpacks.
But the situation is politically intertwined with a bunch of these other spam conversations, and it makes it, like, really difficult for Core's, like, sort of grounded rationale here to poke through. about why this is better than some other thing. And it's just being treated as like an all or nothing game
by the ProFilter side.
Like, you know, they don't want,
they have a view that this is giving an inch
that folds to a mile kind of thing.
Right.
And this is my understanding has kind of ultimately come,
I've come around to this idea that this is actually not about Oppurtern.
The Bitcoin core developers really want it to just be about the specific PR.
But to this group of like filter people, this is about taking a stand for something very tiny that is trying to show that, hey, if you guys try to do more stuff like this, there's going to be pushback.
You know, it's not going to go smoothly when you guys try to do your OpCat stuff.
Get ready for hell.
Like, that's basically the statement that I'm seeing, which is I think it's a smart strategy on their part,
like socially and politically.
I think it makes sense to show kind of your strength and show that there's a group of people that don't want Bitcoin to change at all, basically. I don't know if these people are opposed to CTV or not, but I know they probably
would be opposed to OpTap would be my guess. And they probably want to take a stand right now and
make it clear, like even the littlest change we're opposed to, are these guys pro CTV? Like,
how do these other upgrades that are coming down the pipeline get affected by this amount of just pressure on such a tiny kind of non like unimportant, like quite
frankly, I think Bitcoin is not going to change a whole lot from this.
So yeah, what's the kind of, what's the ultimate change in maybe Bitcoin core mentality around future updates based on this, or are they
undeterred? Yeah, so I actually think that's like a really important kind of thing to consider here.
And I'll say like, there's a part of me that very much wishes or hopes that like we could kind of
that like we could kind of kill the filter conversation and move on to things like CTV or covenant conversations.
kill the filter conversation and move on to things like CTV or Covenant conversations.
So the historical opinion from Luke and most of the people that sort of surround the like pollster child or spokesperson characters within the filters conversation has been pretty pro CTV. There's some detractors that are just, maybe
they're just like general ossificationists or they just like, you know, they're uncomfortable
with change or whatever. And so they're hesitant about it, but like Luke, you know, has explicitly
supported CTV historically. I would expect that to continue. I could see Luke maybe like making a
political package deal.
Like I won't come back around and offer support to CTV until something gets done with this or something like that.
I definitely think that the sort of general pleb response is going to be basically that, like trying to turn it into, you know, omnibus bartering kind of thing.
of thing. But James Saab, who does a lot of like really great commercial work with various vendors
for Bitcoin, economic nodes, merchants, things like that, and has also a lot of experience with
Bitcoin Core, he released a, or he announced a letter today signed by a pretty broad spectrum of various like bitcoin affiliated engineers
whether it's people working on the protocol layer or the application layer and it's basically
co-signing that like it's time for us to get back to the conversation about ctv and check
signal stack it has the activation client pr i believe included uh in the letter uh if you go i'll share it in the
space real quick i already shared it if okay cool yeah so basically you can read the letter it's
just a generalized like hey you know uh we put this aside for too long it's time to get back
to brass tacks we need to talk about ctv plus check signal stack. And it's got, you know, resounding support from a lot of very influential and well-informed engineers in the space.
So, yeah, I mean, I, and also I think it's like directly relevant in a way to this whole
conversation because one of the big things that like somebody might say on the filter side is like
the spam prices out financial activity, right? Like, oh no, this makes it like too expensive
to use Bitcoin or something like that.
Well, CTV and more generally just covenants
contribute to increasing the economic density
of bytes in Bitcoin.
And they do so most favorably
for sort of conventional uses of Bitcoin.
Like there's not a lot that you would get done
as like crazy weird
NFT related stuff with covenants. Obviously covenants is an upgrade to script. So anything
that uses Bitcoin script benefits from covenants. Like there's, you know, perhaps other things you
could do with like fungible. Ordinals people would love covenants though. Yeah. Yeah. I think so.
though yeah yeah i think so uh but in in general uh it it basically like you can do like we we a
lot of times we talk about covenants in the con in the context of various shared utxo schemes like
arc for example is one scaling proposal that would benefit tremendously from ctv uh bitvm also would
benefit pretty considerably from ctv um and those are all ways where like basically you can aggregate buying interest of block space from a bunch of users into a single transaction.
And that ability to sort of increase economic density, like we were saying, makes it a lot easier for whatever your preferred activity on the blockchain is to buy block space, even during very high fee regimes.
So I think these things are like really interconnected.
And really, like, if you if you shook down all the like weird, crazy political ideology, you would see like a pretty clear path from like the blockchain congestion or fee market acceleration towards this economic density covenants argument.
Okay, so I created this polymarket about maybe a month or so ago now,
and it's called, will Bitcoin activate OpCat in 2025?
And currently CTV is at 5% chance, OpCat is at 2%, and then neither is obviously the majority.
OPCTV's at 5% chance, OPCAT's at 2%, and then neither is obviously the majority.
I mean, is that, given that they just kind of said, hey, like, we're not going to bend
the knee on this opportunity stuff, it's getting merged in October, does that increase the
odds, in your opinion?
Like, I haven't seen the market move at all, but also it's not a super, you know, it's
only $73,000 in volume.
Could you see the OPCTV stuff moving up, or has this conversation actually set back like OpC TV?
I think that in the very near term, it would create the sort of illusion of a setback, right?
Like there'd be this political omnibus packaging kind of thing where people are like, oh, we won't do CTV if you don't do something about the spam.
But I think that actually as sobriety kicks in and rationale takes over, it actually accelerates it. So I guess the question is like, does sobriety
kick in before the end of 2025 or near enough do you get sobriety to run the activation client
before the end of 2025? I'd say that the odds are pretty good there. I actually, I was talking to
UD about this while we were in Vegas.
And I asked UD, I was like, you know, would you give OpCat better odds right now than
you would a year ago?
And his response was, no, I wouldn't give it better odds than I would a year ago, but
I would give it better odds than two months ago.
And I completely agree with him.
And I think it also sort of the exact same statement with the two months condition anyway,
relates to CTV or just covenants in general. Because again, like once,
once you actually sort of peel back the reality on this whole conversation,
what you realize is that the most viable,
tenable solution here is covenants, right? Like that's,
that's how you sort of restore cheap access to Bitcoin security for whatever use case.
So yeah, we just need to sober up a little bit and move forward.
And then I think things accelerate pretty quickly.
We really, like there was a lot of conversation about both CTV and CAT activation clients at the end of last year.
Like November, December, everybody was convinced that we were going to see competing activation clients in January end of last year like november december everybody was convinced that
we were going to see competing activation clients in january of this year and for a number of sort
of unrelated reasons those things kind of collapsed we didn't get those but now um i think i think the
momentum's there i think the opportunity is there i think we should run the damn activation client
um so yeah all right
some interesting takes there charlie what are your thoughts on all this uh about the most recent
question uh on like odds on ctv or cat yeah man tell us like should we go just full set it on
polymarket right now like what so the question is do either of those get activated this
year that is hard to say but what post was saying about uh near term it appearing as a setback that
might be true but what the man the the whole filters conversation and the like uh pushback
from a lot of the core contributors indicates a broader shift in public facing attitude.
So again, core is an association of a bunch of individuals with a rough meritocratic hierarchy.
And one of the criticisms, mine included, has been of core that they don't communicate very well,
that they should be more proactive in communicating, and uh they should be more proactive in communicating and that they
should be more they should say we like to do these things and in response to the community
so the statement from uh Gloria Zhao and the other core contributors this past over the weekend
indicates a major shift in that core is finally willing to like come out and say stuff and i think a lot of
this is because um of such exasperation from the filters that they're like this is really dumb we
have to at least like indicate that we have these positions and here's our rationale and so i think
a lot of the hesitation to do that was because um a lot of court they want to minimize drama and because
the most dramatic people are going to be this delusional like filters um that just happened
anyway again court kind of accidentally walked into this trap it was going to happen eventually
it's unfortunate happened this way and so for them to like come back and say okay you know maybe
we're not as worried about getting absolutely eviscerated or maybe it's just going to happen.
And for them to like indicate some kind of like collective agreement on certain things is a huge shift.
And what's funny is the filters are not in specific.
They're generally not specifically opposed to CTV specifically.
CTV specifically.
Although I think they are
totally full bore
delusional so that they will just
kind of reactionarily oppose
anything now at this point
for no reason at all, even though they
may have supported the past. Regardless,
the majority of the economic influence
in Bitcoin wants CTV.
The majority of developers
want CTV. And James
O'Byrne's latest letter,
having everybody sign it.
This is, again, not a core affiliate letter.
This is a bunch of independent developers
petitioning core to officially...
So hang on, explain that.
Are you talking about the CTV?
You're talking about the James Sob?
Yeah, so James O'Byrne accounts as James Sob.
I recommend everybody follow him.
I pinned the tweet.
He is a former core contributor.
I don't think he considers himself active Bitcoin core anymore.
He's been critical of Bitcoin core too.
I'll point this out.
Read his criticisms of Bitcoin core.
And he assembled a letter with people signing it of a wide range of Bitcoin developers saying,
we support CTV plus check sig from stack.
And we asked Core to give this their blessing and start working towards integrating this,
merging these PRs into the Core client.
So that's big.
It's like now we just have to wait
for the next thing to happen
as far as like software skill.
Like we don't know what happens next.
I would love for like these things
like tend to have a lot of things happen.
A lot of people get together
and agree on something
and then nothing happens.
And we have, we've done like five iterations
of that over the past two years.
Hopefully this latest iteration of everybody getting together and saying, we agree that we like these.
We want to officially formalize this.
Hopefully, that turns into an activation client and the blessing of the Bitcoin Core contributor group.
So I think it's more likely than ever.
I think the likelihood is over 4% or 5% where it's on Polymarket.
It is not 20% though.
Interesting.
Okay.
So maybe interesting.
Yeah.
So this, it feels to me like in a weird way,
kind of the Luke Dash Jr.
all out of thought by some of these podcasters and like Maxis against Bitcoin Core
has actually served as like a unifying mechanism to Bitcoin Core in a sort of odd way where
they've kind of come together.
I had a call with a Bitcoin Core developer a few days ago, and they basically shared
that Bitcoin Core has kind of not officially, but basically implemented some cultural changes over the past couple of weeks.
One is which they're on their IRC chats a lot more trying to get away from these like people that are not talking about technical stuff,
but just talking about basically whatever agenda that they have.
It's kind of unrelated.
And then they also have kind of come to the agreement that they're going to be more uh censoring and authoritarian on the github and basically just saying like look
if you're not talking about the pr you can't basically they feel like uh the the github's
been hijacked by social activists right it has no no longer a productive place to work so they're
finding other communication channels but they're also going to crack down on the GitHub more.
And I think when you get backed into a corner with stuff like this
and you have people, you know, saying like, quite frankly,
some pretty nasty stuff, right?
Like I would say there was like a lot of ad hominem stuff
related to the way these people kind of came after Bitcoin Core.
I think it does kind of unite you in a way that like otherwise
you're not necessarily going to be forced to have to come together and defend your friend for example
and you know act like you have your together so yeah this letter i mean how often does bitcoin
core issue a letter like this charlie they i'm post might know off the top of his head i don't
think there's been one of these in a long time the last time we saw certain like coordinated statements from core i think was in the block size war maybe
i'm wrong that's crazy is that true post that's wild if that's true alex b has the receipts
yeah um i think like there's a lot of stuff that occurred leading into taproot that could
certainly qualify as like kind of coordinated statements but even in that one like bitcoin
core took more of a backseat in that um than they did during the block size wars the block size
wars they had like explicit support for bit 148 and there was some sort of like broken support
for bit 149 which were like the two SegWit activation modes
that led to today's Bitcoin.
So yeah, I think like the best clear demarcation
you could put on that is like the 2016, 2017 era,
Black Size Wars.
But I think you could also say that they had
like a clear line of communication regarding Taproot.
It's just that the sort of way that that materialized was not really integrated with Core necessarily.
And one of the interesting dynamics here is that another thread in this conversation is that of client diversity and different clients.
this conversation is that of client diversity and different clients bitcoin core is the dominant
client but because bitcoin knots has been increasing um this is a really interesting
thing because i personally like that we have other clients being represented more on the network i
think that is good for forcing people's hands and better for demonstrating your opinions about what bitcoin should look like
and probably better of a landscape to introduce and promote softworks so the irony is that i like
to see that there's more clients i just wish it wasn't not you know what i mean so uh like i think
this is a good trend because it's bringing a lot of people's attention to different client implementations and probably getting people excited about it.
Even if I think the actual result of some of these people running for clients is misplaced, or I think a lot of their understanding about why it's happening is misplaced, I think the overall effect could be good.
So that's an interesting dynamic here
i know i shouldn't be laughing about stuff like this because like bitcoin is pretty serious we
need it to succeed but it doesn't like it never ceases to amaze me how like just slow the process
with bitcoin stuff is because the timeline here to me is like two and a half years ago, we start just mass inscribing JPEGs.
And then basically two and a half years later, Bitcoin Core issues a statement that basically
says there's a thing called ordinals.
And that's basically it.
It's like, it's just like the pace here is unbelievable.
It reminds me of the second Lord of the Rings movie where the trees are like talking at
like, you know, 0.1 miles per hour, very, very, very slowly when there's
like a war going on. And yeah, it just kind of cracks me up, which I think is how it's supposed
to work. But it's just funny. It's just funny. It's like everything you hear about the Bitcoin
development process, having actually like kind of come over here and watch this. Yeah, it's all
true. Like, it's all pretty accurate. Okay. Yeah, I know last time we were on the show with you, Post, we were talking about, I don't know, I'm trying to think, like, how would we brand this?
Like, would it be like Bitcoin not retard edition?
Or like, how do we make our like, you know, no filter version, like the opposite of nots, right?
Like, it's the same idea. It's not just like Bitcoin core.
But instead of intensifying the filters, we rip the filters out.
I mean, is there any possibility we could still do this?
Well, yeah.
I mean, the funniest outcome is to run NOTS, but then remove all the filters, right?
So like you show up as a NOTS user agent on the network, but you're not filtering anything.
filtering anything um which the the philosophical agenda of knots is to increase configurability
in local policy which by the way i completely support like i think is a great initiative
um the actual changes made to knots aren't they don't really expose a ton of configurability like
there's there's like the data carrier size configure option, but that's really about it. But like, I, I, I think that like the, the sort of material objective reality
is that policy is a local unilateral choice that nodes make. Like there's no, there is no global
policy, right? Like you, you set up your node with the policy you want. Of course, most people just
run whatever policy comes out of the box with their node. And in some ways that's good. Like
there's, there's certain things that people could create some vulnerabilities by like playing with
the policy too much, which is a separate thing that you can go check into great consensus cleanup
if you're curious about better resolutions to that.
But yeah, I think there's a definite humor and value in saying, okay, let's go contribute to the NOTS repo, make all this stuff super configurable, and then run NOTS, but configure all of it out to where there's effectively none of this relay blockade going on. The other option that I know you're familiar with is Libre Relay,
which again, Libre Relay offers several sort of like altered standardness modes,
but it doesn't necessarily give you everything you want out of like relaxed standardness.
It doesn't, for example, it doesn't like completely undermine slipstream, right?
mind slipstream right which i think is like that's kind of the heuristic for the benchmark is like
Which I think is like, that's kind of the heuristic for the benchmark is like,
how do we how do we give the peer-to-peer relay layer the ability to service this market for
themselves as opposed to paying very high premiums to use private rpcs which i consider to be not very
great for blocks and block producer incentives um but yeah i think like all those are options right
like let's make knots hyper configurable and runots in the funniest way, or let's run LibreRelay and maybe improve some of the liberal tolerances of LibreRelay.
Also, another alternative here is just make core more configurable too, right?
That's one of the few things in the filter thing that I like,
kind of agree with them on. There's several people in the filter thing that are, that will tell you
fairly flat out that like the problem with the operator and PR, you know, like screw what's
happening with the policy. It's, it's that one of the competing PRs was sort of proposing to
deprecate the configurability option of operaturn size and like remove that
as an easy config for node operators and like i completely agree with them there like it should
just be configurable we should try and expose as many configurability options for policy as we
possibly can without exposing like legitimate denial of service vectors and things like that
um which there's there's a lot of things to consider there the minimums
upper turn size is one there's a bunch of these
so i've kind of just done a little perusing of the bitcoin maxi Twitter, and I see, like, Bitcoin Mechanic doing some tweets.
There's some tweets out there about this, but, like, nothing's catching fire.
Like, Jimmy Song tweeted an hour ago, and it's, like, it's not getting any more engagement
than my dog posts do, you know?
It's, like, there's no way.
It doesn't seem like the energy on these guys' side is with them anymore.
You know what I'm saying?
Like, it's kind of like they're just complaining in an echo chamber at this point.
They don't have the mass attention anymore.
And this would have been the final moment to really do it.
I guess maybe they could do this.
They could stir up something when this actually goes live and it's activated or whatever.
But this would be the moment to be making your big stand.
And I don't see a massive stand happening here. They've accepted their fate, I think. Charlie? actually goes live and it's activated or whatever, but this would be the moment to be making your big stand.
And I don't see a massive stand happening here.
They've accepted their fate, I think.
Charlie?
I know you want-
Also the pattern-
I was gonna say that I know Leo wants like hot,
spicy stuff for the audience.
And if somebody's like, hasn't followed anything yet,
and they want some funny maxi thing to meme
on here i'll i'll spoon feed it to you um in uh the original like flare out of flare up of the
filter debate uh whenever the opportune pr was posted like a month and a half ago in the comments
of that pr and on twitter there are multiple hardcore bitcoin maxi purists who said if this
pr is merged bitcoin is doomed i will sell all my bitcoin um so it's time to if you want it's time to
find those receipts and see if those people do in fact think that um it's a hilarious way to meme on them uh i hope
they come back around but you know if you wanted to rub it in there are some low-hanging fruit
to do this with are these guys gonna fork if like shit goes more extreme than this like is that even a conversation they're
having because i just imagine that's where this goes this is another spicy and interesting
evolution in this whole thing so one i want to take a step back to like the previous thing
uh like if you want spicy things spoon fed a couple of other kind of notes here
the typical cadence in this conversation has been something material happens and then mechanic just like repeats ideological psychobabble for two weeks until he comes up with like some kind of actual angle.
But then the angle that he puts out is like not it has nothing to do with any argument that anyone's actually making.
It's like hallucinating arguments and arguing with imaginary enemies or something.
And then like the cycle just repeats.
So I think the the lull that you're noticing, Leonidas, is just a then like the cycle just repeats. So I think the,
the lull that you're noticing,
Leonidas is just a repetition of the exact same thing.
Like in two weeks,
they'll come up with some kind of response that doesn't have anything to do
with the actual argument being made.
They'll do that.
It'll get heated again.
And then we'll just,
you know,
repeat the cycle.
But the,
the comment that Charlie is referring to was made by uh wko57 hughes that's
the developer of data i think he's the cto of ocean pool or one of the lead developers
he is he is also that's that's correct he is well no i think luke is the cto but jason hughes
they're all cto from what i yeah yeah maybe he is CTO. But yeah, so he developed Datum
and does a bunch of other work with Ocean.
Datum, by the way, is like, it's great.
It's not some like renaissance in mining software,
but it's a great initiative.
Like I support it.
But he, back in April, it looks like yeah it was april um he was asked like what do you do if
uh this uh opportun pr gets merged and it was actually in response to peter todd's competing
one which wasn't this one blah blah blah whatever but basically the same thing like what do you do
if this whole opportun thing gets merged and his response was personally sell my btc try to salvage
the dumpster
fire by convincing rational people to reject these things and you know he's he's not going to do that
uh but so the fort the fort thing that you brought up back when this like originally kicked off two
and a half years ago at the very beginning of this whole drama um rindale made something called
bitcoin purifier which was basically like a sidecar thing that
you could run on your node that would pick up blocks that included inscription transactions
in them. If it had like the op zero op if pattern for the inscription envelope. And it would just
ditch that block. It would just say, I don't, I reject that block. I don't like that block. I'm
not going to take it. And Luke came at Rendell very, very aggressively over that and told
that he was trying to spread malware, that nobody wanted to fork off. That's not what this was
about. And Rendell was using it as a really provocative kind of bully opportunity to be
like, look, at the end of the day, like when you actually walk through this whole conversation,
what you're going to realize is that consensus changes are what is necessary. If you actually
want to do anything about this, the policy change conversation is completely useless. And not only
is it useless, it's dangerous because it promotes this high premium private order flow stuff like
slipstream. Um, but you know, you, you need to focus on consensus changes and you're going to
be compelled at some point to like make this decision. And so anyway, if you fast forward to like the last couple of months, it's actually
become like in vogue amongst some, at least some of the filter community to discuss, you know,
the idea of forking off. Like there was a conversation in the knots telegram the other day
explicitly about hard forking, which I don't even really understand because none of this required a hard fork um but yeah like it's it's just funny how it's evolved we're like you know
two years ago you were being told that you were psyoping them and uh hurting themselves and then
sure enough two years later they're having the exact same conversation you told them that they
were going to have to have which by the way i'll throw in here they don't really have to theoretically they could
propose consensus changes that don't involve a chain split right like so for the opera turn thing
they could come forward and be like hey we should make a 80 byte or whatever uh consensus limit on
opera turn right and that would obliviate this whole like the the problem isn't necessarily
like oh people have to have the op return the problem is if you use standard net then you
create all these other malincentives and that's a problem so we shouldn't use standardness relay
policy to dictate this and in theory if they, I'm not saying that we should,
or we would adopt an operator limit as a consensus policy, but at the very least,
that would be like a sensible way to have the conversation. Right. But they just like,
they refuse. They, they won't propose consensus changes to do anything about
what they want, which is, that's like fundamentally the problem.
Right. Right. do anything about what they want which is that's like fundamentally the problem right right okay well look if anybody has questions they want to come up and ask about this like
to me the whole thing is it's moved beyond just the actual opportunity to more like larger
implications on Bitcoin.
So the op return stuff is pretty straightforward.
The op return is going to be a little bigger for us.
And it seems like that's going to happen, which is dope.
I think that's kind of cool.
It's specifically like runes for runes, airdrops.
I think that's like a nice little thing.
Not that you couldn't already do it with Slipstream,
but you can do it a little more easily in october guys so congrats on this win um yeah we'll have
to we'll have to kind of watch and see how this develops there's clearly i guess like i don't
know bitcoin has a lot of different kind of little cliques of people we're obviously a click over
here with like ordinals and ruins and all this on-chain meta protocol stuff that's going on
and then now there's like the the bitcoin core click that's like definitely quite different than
the ossification click and i'm curious i'm sure this is not the final chapter of this uh situation
like if anything i've noticed like these kind of Bitcoin maxi people love, love, love, love, love attention.
So if their podcast can get some extra views or their tweet can get some more impressions, you know, that's like probably more important to them than stacking Bitcoin or anything.
And yeah, I do think probably Luke's going to Luke and Bitcoinic got a taste of their kind of influence,
and I think they love this influence.
And I think they're going to be waiting for the next opportunity to get a ton of attention
because, quite frankly, I don't hear about Luke Dash Jr. and Bitcoin Mechanic unless
these things happen.
They're kind of irrelevant otherwise.
It's cool what they're doing with the ocean, but people don't really honestly pay that
much attention to it until these things happen.
Yeah, sure. I want to bring up one of the things, maybe just wrap on it because I think we've covered it.
But you're kind of like leaning in towards the like, what does this change about the sort of like products, the viable product thing in the meta protocol or, or token protocol or whatever world. Right.
And the foremost justification that Bitcoin core made for relieving, removing the opportun limits
is actually like very relevant to that. Right. So basically the way that Bitcoin core interprets
this is like there's two justifications.
One is people are doing these like really weird things that are blow up the
UTXO set,
RC 20.
Post,
you just broke up with us,
man.
We can't hear you.
So, sorry. Can you hear broke up with us, man. We can't hear you. So, sorry.
Can you hear me now?
Yeah, go back to blowing up the UTXO set.
Okay, yeah.
So, so Core, Core says basically there's like two channels, right?
There's people are blowing up the UTXO set.
I'm using Slipstream.
Evil here, right?
The thing that they want to do something.
The Oppratern limit being removed does actually make,
so if you're doing less than about 150 or so bytes in Oppratern,
it's actually cheaper than using like the inscription envelope.
Because even though you're getting the witness discount in the inscription envelope because in the inscript
even though you're getting the witness discount in the inscription envelope you have to do two
transactions because you have to do the commit and then the reveal right so just the way the
math works it's actually cheaper to use oppratern so there is like a viable and maybe even sort of
important harm reduction mode here where you use opp returns for like runes uses op returns but
runes also packed everything very small like maybe there's something you want to do that's
kind of like brc20e but it uses 95 bytes or 112 bytes or something like that um it's like under
that 150 byte threshold and it's actually cheaper to use opertern and it would alleviate a lot of the like blown up utxo set bloat it also sort of like directly obliviate
stamps um which you know i i think people are probably going to continue to use brc20n stamps
or whatever but there's a there's an opportunity for replacement protocols to come in and do things
that are both cheaper and just like generally
healthier for the network so we might be getting a stamps upgrade maybe i mean i think i don't know
if they're actively developing it but if they are it would kind of make sense no yeah i mean i guess
the question there is does does mike enjoy the troll more or does he enjoy the victory of the troll more right
because like he mike really won here because part of the whole thing was stamps was like you guys
are dumb for limiting opera turn i'm going to do stamps to like show you that you're dumb and so he
can like take a big w here upgrade stamps not do the bear multi-sig thing anymore um or he could
just like stick to the troll and like i don't know
that's up to mike but well they did they did up they did upgrade stamps a bit i don't know if you
guys were tracking that but they did to make it much lighter um not only to make it cheaper but
to make it just lighter on the chain um just that was a while ago maybe six months ago
what what did they do this is this is news to me so what what changes
do they make oh i don't i'm not exactly sure the technical stuff um basically they created a new
way to make it just i don't know 80 lighter than the previous way they were putting stamps in
um yeah i don't know the technicals of it adam what do you think about this logic bitcoin mechanic
just tweeted filters work that's why they're removing them how do we feel about this
bro i think this is vic i mean this is like i mean congrats hat tip to everybody here man this is
like this is victory right um i think it feels good. I think it's, you know, it's incredible.
For, you know, the kind of normie like me, it's incredible.
The slowness of it all is pretty incredible.
I think that's the thing that's kind of stunning,
but it's just the way it is, I guess.
But I think this feels like victory, you know?
Yeah, this is like after the battle and you've like just
ransacked the city that's what this is the feeling of um i hope i hope luke jesse jr hears that um
okay so again i this should not be funny it shouldn't be funny but for some reason it is
um yeah it's hilarious the amount of opposition for you know just inscribing some silly jpegs and
like some fun art and stuff into bitcoin like the amount of opposition that it requires like
a very official statement by bitcoin core and like all of this yeah it's interesting watching
like dj and culture meet like bitcoin core culture like Like it's, yeah, it's like two,
it's the spectrum of people in crypto.
We're all very similar people, I would argue,
because we're all people who are like super like techie
into, you know, early adopter,
spending a lot of time doing on-chain stuff,
but just completely opposite sides of the spectrum
of what we're actually doing.
And watching those cultures clash
has definitely been some of my more entertaining moments in the last two and a half
years uh yeah so look uh y'all welcome to the ordinal show man uh happy to have you up here
was kind of hoping hoping you'd come up and we wouldn't miss you today we got the boys we got
the trio back together um how do you feel about this OpraTurn getting merged here?
We got OpraTurn looking like it's going to be activated in October
and the filter crowd just was dealt a blow.
I think it's great, man.
I mean, we kind of expected that this is going to happen, no? I think it wasn't like that people were thinking that Jack Luke, what is it?
Not Jack.
Luke Dash Jr. would be like, you know, in charge of everything on Bitcoin right now, right?
So, you know, it's great.
It's a great progress.
And I don't know, like, let's take it from there, I guess.
What's next, Post Capone?
Tell us, you know, what's going to be the next big thing
that we're going to be talking about?
CTV.
It's all about CTV now.
I guess there's probably going to be some competing conversation
towards Cat or something like that.
But, you know, I'm not a Cat fan, so.
Are we, like, you know, Post, did you go to the Upnext?
I don't think so, right?
No, I did not. I just met you in vegas by the way
yep yep uh it was which was a pleasure but that was uh to me that was the biggest flex you know
that i can say that i met post capone in person you know so that was uh yeah that was cool that
was cool but but no i i just wanted to ask you like obviously, OpC TV, we have been seeing a lot of traction.
I did attend that event that Charlie and the team hosted at MicroStrategy, which was amazing, by the way.
I think it's a couple months ago. The time flies so hard.
But it was a great event.
And it already felt during that event that a lot of people are just bullish on OpC TV.
And a lot of the conversation, they on OpC TV, you know, and like a lot of the conversation there kind of like revolved around it.
So have we made a lot of progress since then?
Now, like, you know, I see this tweet.
I didn't really like look into it in detail, but like maybe even for you, Charlie,
like if you compare it to the time when you guys were hosting the conference
and you already had kind of like some sort of you know
direction from people hinting on opsy tv may be the thing to do uh how much more progress we have
made so far i was gonna let charlie hop in there but i i think progress has been like kind of a
steady churn i i think actually there was like a really bonafide window that we could have taken advantage of last year.
And we just didn't.
I really hope that that does not happen again.
I think that sort of like going a little bit more nose to the grindstone and like getting things done and getting an activation client out and distributed is much more of a focus. I'm really excited to have seen this letter that James Saab and everybody else
co-signed today. I think that that's like, that's as good a signal as you can possibly get right
now, right? Like everybody realizes that like the whole filter nonsense has come to a climax.
It's time to actually address real problems.
It's time to unpack the fact that covenants actually help solve the problems that a lot of the filter people are so concerned about.
And yeah, I don't know.
I'm very bullish on covenants in general over the course of the next year.
I think CTV plus check-sick from stack is like a clear winner.
I've been telling people, you know, as Charlie, I rant about this in group chats all the time take the w you know like we we have like a clear win on this like we should just take it um but yeah it's so it's uh i agree with you post um on like the like
you were there at the conference the opnex Jan. Thank you. And so what's a funny
thing is, even though we debated
all the filters two years ago
whenever Ocean launched and Post Ordinals,
we just rehashed all the exact
same things the past two months.
Even though we did that,
I feel
that the Bitcoin core contributors largely have been disconnected from the Bitcoin user base.
And they've kind of lived pretty insular discussions.
They've had kind of a technocracy where they don't get out into the real world that much.
And part of the whole point of OpNext was to put core devs alongside other major ecosystem
players, alongside users and everybody to have a technical discussion where everybody
gets outside of their own little bubble.
And what's funny is the whole filter discussion
is kicked off by a specific
presentation that we had
at Up Next.
The mailing list discussion
was because Antoine
Shores and Greg Sanders
listened to the
Citreya presentation
at Up Next.
So I was happy to see that there was,
even if it seems very small,
like an actual kind of crossover,
like this is a different world
than the core devs exist in.
They like got to see,
oh, there's people working on these things.
Maybe they knew this,
but like it kind of like generated actual like discussion
on the
mailing list um what i hope is that it doesn't stop there and that they're around all of the
other developers who say yes we all want ctv a lot of them also want cat a lot of them want a lot of
things but like ctv checks it from sac is very easy and um even though like i kind of dragged jeremy rubin the
author of ctv up you know front of at the to kick off the conference he was like i've done this
presentation so many times over the past half decade like i don't really even want to like
talk about it anymore um just because it's so tiring there's nothing new i can say about this
and i'm like well yeah people just need to have it like
kind of beaten into their heads over and over people need to like it's kind of the thing it's
like how does rough consensus form well everybody's talking about something how do you know everybody's
talking about something well because they're talking about it and so you kind of do that
enough what is lacking is an activation client this is is, again, one of the big, and I say real good, like actual like pushbacks from people who say, are you CTV?
Are you cat people serious?
Is that there's not an activation client for either of those.
And it would now putting out an activation client can be seen as being too aggressive.
It can be seen as a hostile attempt.
It can be seen as being like aggressive and ramming be seen as a hostile attempt. It can be seen as being
aggressive and ramming
these things on people's throats.
But it's five years now
into CTV and
quite a long time for CTV
plus check save from Stack.
It's now a year and a half, two years
into Cat. We should be
seeing activation clients. I think that's
the next step.
So if we have one, if there's someone who's willing
to put it out there and build it,
then I'm certain they would have overwhelming support
from the Ordinals community.
And I think that that would actually materially move along
the discussions.
If an activation client appeared from a reputable developer
or team for CTP plus check-safe from stack or cat or any of the others, I would buy calls on that polymarket bid.
So, yeah, I see post 100.
I would I'll second like literally every word Charlie just said, like it's time to do an activation client.
like literally every word Charlie just said, like, it's time to do an activation client.
We need, you know, reputable participants and reviews to like get solid distribution
of an activation client.
But like, it's time.
It's time for us to focus and do activation clients.
And I actually think that like Charlie saying it can be seen as an attack, which it almost
certainly will be argued by some as some kind of like hostile venture to do like an independent activation client.
But nevertheless, if you actually get down to brass tacks, this is like sort of the preferred thing, even under the like the filter guys.
Right. They're like, oh, of course, try to take over a Bitcoin.
Well, what's a better way to demonstrate the court doesn't control Bitcoin other than to have people that aren't core start activation clients and engage in actual governance?
other than to have people that aren't core start activation clients and engage in actual governance.
Right? Like that's a good way to sort of like break whatever monopoly there is. And I think
it's just sort of like the sensible thing to do. Like core should support what community consensus
is. In order for core to do that, the community has to signal what exactly consensus is. And we
have to do that in like material ways that aren't like botted twitter polls and stuff like this so yeah i think run run activation client um also i just want to throw in
there i think i'll go confirm this in a little bit but i think that the prs for ctv that are
made to core that are attached to the letter that james sob did earlier today um i think that those
include activation modes so like basically there's a branch that you can pull earlier today um i think that those include activation modes so like basically
there's a branch that you can pull down right now i think that would be an activation client so we
could probably start running them i don't know like i said i'll go confirm that in a little bit
but yeah i think we're there it's time to just do it
i've got a concern that i want to raise to to post and to Charlie, which by the way, Charlie, like, yeah, going to the OP next and Boston crap.
I forget whether that was even before or after it before it was a good chance to see the dev community kind of like converse with, you know xverse app or or other things like that it was that was
definitely cool to see but i want to raise a concern here about the two camps that really
are kind of fighting here the the filter camp feels like when you actually dig down deep
is a we like bitcoin now camp uh don't don't mess with it and and what they wind up doing
is to fight their war of people messing with it they find a battleground that they can try and
win on which is this moral battleground of spam spam spam can instantly be a moral issue they're
able to say hey you guys are being immoral. Therefore, they can kind of win that, try to win that
argument. Whereas deep down inside, really what they are is we like money. You can go and you
can see the tweets, whether it's Luke or Mechanic or Chris Guida, the way that some of these arguments
go, they wind up peeling back to this base principle of we like Bitcoin is money. It's
working fine now. Don't mess with it it so the issue here to sum it up
is sure with the filter debate all that is is like a policy you know change like an implementation
what do we want to run it's not an actual soft fork it's just people kind of warring over the
way that they want to you know uh forward um uh the relay system.
When it comes to CTV,
we actually are talking about a change to the code,
which if they continue to keep their ground,
which is we like Bitcoin the way it is,
it's fine money right now, don't mess with it.
Do we really actually see a potential like force
of soft fork here?
And what are the results of that?
Yes.
So again, I think that if you bring sobriety to the table on this, the spam conversation,
the filter conversation, there are two big takeaways that you have.
One is that standardness is wholly ineffective. It's extremely
unlikely that more conservative relays will have a material effect on the network. And if in the
unlikely case, they do have a material effect on the network, the outcome would be very bad. It
would be incentives for rapid centralization of hash
rate. So like, well, a, it's probably not going to happen. And B, if it does happen, the outcome
will be like very obviously bad. Right. So, um, I, I, I, I think that it's time to just like,
sort of, again, bring sobriety to that and be like, you guys need to start proposing consensus
changes, which again, we've been telling them that for two and a half years.
You know, I look forward to seeing what consensus changes they propose. They can probably do stuff
about current modes of spam if they really want to. Maybe those get adopted. Maybe they do not.
I don't know. That's a debate that needs to happen, but that debate can't happen until they sober up
and come to the table and have that debate. But with or without the spam, right?
The other sober takeaway here is that increasing economic density makes Bitcoin more usable and
it's a better UX, it's better finality, it's cheaper access to block space per user. It has
the opportunity to induce kind of a Javon's Paradox style
increase in the value of block space, which is also very good.
If, like, for example, if you do this economic density thing and a bunch of, like, merchant
settlement stuff, like buying pupusas with lightning or whatever, really takes off and
does stuff, the Javon's Paradox insinuation there is that block space gets more expensive
for financial use cases, which then prices out spam.
So like everything in this conversation ultimately leads
to the sort of efficacy and importance of covenants.
So yes, I think that there is a forcing function there.
I think that in order to unpack that forcing function,
you need sobriety in the conversation,
which we do not currently have.
But I think that Coors letter that they released
and the CTV letter that James Saab released,
both are like very great indicators
that like sobriety is kicking in.
Post, what can you explain Javon's paradox
for those of us who don't spend all of our time on energy throughput theory Twitter?
Yeah.
So basically, like economics 101 would tell you that if you rapidly increase the supply of something, then the price goes down.
goes down, right? Supply demand curve. Javon's paradox is a counter to the conventional economics
Right.
Supply demand curve.
101, which is redundantly demonstrated in history that actually for sort of important and highly
useful resources, if you increase the efficiency of production in that resource, the price actually
goes up, which is like, it's a paradox because increasing the efficiency of production in that resource, the price actually goes up, which is like, it's a paradox because increasing the efficiency of production necessarily means you're making a
lot more of it. Like you're increasing the supply. Um, but the price is going up. So like, that's
the paradox, right? What's happening here. Um, you can think about this, like, think about it in the
terms of, uh, like solar panels, for example, right? If you make solar panels really, really,
really cheap, then they actually start to price out other modes of energy.
And so people start buying a bunch of solar panels.
So if you're a big Tesla fan,
you probably are aware of the solar panel,
solar energy conversation that's very meta right now.
That is an example of Jayvon's paradox.
The DeepSeek R1 AI thing that happened,
you know, last year or whatever,
maybe earlier this year, I guess.
Yeah, earlier this year.
That's an example of Jayvon's paradox.
Everybody was like, oh, no, DeepSeek R1
has reduced the cost of training AI models.
That's going to kill GPU sales.
You should shorten video.
That's not what happened at all.
Everybody said, oh, shit, there's cheaper modes of training AI.
More people now have access to
trainable AI sets, right? So that the demand actually goes up as a result of increasing this
efficiency. Right? Yeah. And this is basically it. So if you increase the economic density of
block space, what happens? Well, now, I don't like the, the bite of L1 block space, the price of that bite actually goes up, but my cost to participate in the purchase of that bite goes down.
And because my cost of the, the, the efficiency of the bite, the economic density of the bite has gone up, my cost goes down. Now, all of a sudden there's more of me buying it.
my cost goes down now all of a sudden there's more of me buying it if you know you could like
set this up as a simple math problem where like if the economic if the efficiency of the bite on
the l1 goes up by 10x but 11 people wind up buying it boom there you go the price of block
space just went up but the efficiency uh improved significantly yep it basically if we get covenants
that makes transactions uh better and cheaper which means more people want
transactions that's tldr yeah which i i think like it's it's kind of clear signal here too because
um like we've seen a we've seen a really decent increase in the use of lightning
right but all of the increase in use in quote unquote lightning that we see is like custodial lightning. So if you improve the non-custodial lightning UX
and cost substantially, then more of the products
that offer the custodial stuff will start to integrate
less custodial or non-custodial options.
More people will move to that,
more people will do channel management,
more people will buy block space.
But also like exchanges could use this too.
Like exchanges could do bad,
like when you withdraw from an exchange,
if you're withdrawing to Bitcoin, right?
You're waiting for the next Bitcoin block anyway.
So why wouldn't an exchange take 100 orders
to withdraw from the exchange and batch it
into these high economic density models
and give people like,
oh, they can just withdraw straight to ARK now
or straight to Lightning now or whatever.
I think you see a lot of that.
But guys, I thought that off return
was an existential crisis for Bitcoin.
And if it got merged, Bitcoin would fail.
What's going to happen tomorrow?
What's going to happen in October?
Bitcoin.ck next block
baby sobriety leo sobriety come on you got to get back to basics here i love that these
conversations like anytime i see this group like the luke dash jr kind of fanboys they always talk
about bitcoin failing is like you'll they are, they are so like every comment is so insanely
melodramatic and it'll be the dumbest, silliest little thing. And it's like, if this happens,
that means Bitcoin fails. And like, they seem more obsessed with Bitcoin failing than Bitcoin
succeeding. Like I've never, I've never, you don't hear them saying like, this is the bright future
with Bitcoin succeeding. No, it's always like, if you do this, it fails.
If you do that, it fails.
If you do that, it fails.
It's like, guys, chill out.
Okay.
Like it's not, you know, there's good and there's bad, but like if Bitcoin is so fragile
that if like, we don't follow every construction Luke Dash Jr. puts on Twitter that Bitcoin
fails, we're probably going to fail already.
So, um, okay.
Uh, this has been a good conversation guys. I appreciate y' Okay. This has been a good conversation, guys.
I appreciate y'all
coming up and having a good conversation.
I was kind of hoping Jeremy
was going to come up here and be like,
Opperturn is a terrible thing
and filtering, but Jeremy, it turned out you're cool, bro.
You're cool.
Opperturn sucks, bro!
I would have loved
to just watch Post
go down the rabbit hole
of explaining to someone
why this shit,
why if you do this,
then our counter move is this.
And then if you do this,
then we're going to counter move with this
and then checkmate.
I love when Post does that.
We can do that real quick if you want.
It's like super simple.
Here's the deal. All these mechanics and these Dash Juniors have blocked me. You can do that real quick if you want. It's like super simple. No. Find somebody.
Here's the deal.
All these mechanics and these Dash Juniors have blocked me.
Find somebody to come up and debate.
We'll happily host them on the Ordinal Show.
And we can let you debate someone.
Let me speak back to what Post was saying.
Because I resonate with Post's arguments.
I get everything that you just said.
But I feel like he kind of missed what I was trying to bring up.
So we can dig a little further here, bring a little quarrel to this.
So, you know, both Mechanic and Luke have kind of like, they haven't taken, I guess, huge stands against TV,
but they've definitely expressed skepticism.
They're not into it it goes back
to the thing of like filters is just this moral high ground it's it's an illusion and the reality
is they represent a portion of bitcoiners who say don't change like anything with bitcoin we think
it works great don't mess with it and and that's that's where i get concerned when we do talk about
like charlie brought up a good point.
Just coming up with an activation client can be seen as like, you know, it's an attack on Bitcoin.
Like, they've literally said that.
Not even, you know, I don't know how many months ago that was, six months ago or whatever.
So they have so much pull, so much social pull now because they have won a portion of that moral battleground that they fought on that to me they do represent a concerning like and i don't want to talk about percentages or anything like that
i just want to boil it to a general conversation or a general argument that they do represent a
notable community of people who now have bought into the core of their argument, which is Bitcoin is money.
It works great.
Don't change consensus.
And it's one thing to fight about filters, which is not an actual, you know, soft fork.
It's another thing to, to now bring up an activation client, which would actually, you know, soft fork Bitcoin.
Sure.
Yeah.
So just point of clarity here.
I don't think that the path from running activation client
to activation is like short or straight, right?
I think that there's a lot of other sort of conversations
you have to have in the middle.
One of the bigger and louder conversations
is like basically the thing
that you're pointing out right now.
I think that the counter arguments to this claim are like pretty clear and they're tied to this sort of larger policy conversation.
I don't it's not you're you're completely right. It's not the same conversation as policy.
I think that there's a direct line between the policy conversation and the covenant covenant conversation.
between the policy conversation and the covenants conversation.
And I think that if the same person is saying,
like, Core has this dangerous monopoly on Bitcoin
and we all need to do something other than Core,
that same person turning around and then telling you
that you're running an independent activation client
is sort of engaging in their own little logical fallacy, right? So the question is, is like, is the conversation sober enough for people
to realize the logical fallacy? And I think that the letter from Bitcoin Core regarding the
Oppurtern update and the letter from James Saab with all the co-signatures on it are both great
indicators of like a return of sobriety to this conversation. So I think they're great signals for optimism in the course of doing an activation client,
even if that course is neither short nor straight.
When you say sobriety, who are you speaking of that now reflects a newfound sobriety?
Because to me, James and the contingent that the letter represents
while I love to see it is to me, the same group that I would always call sober and all
of our un sober drunken friends, uh, morally drunken friends are, uh, are still the exact
same group. That's still fighting raw, raw ruckus over filters. Sure. Right. Yeah. I,
so I would agree with your mapping of like who the sober and non-sober people are.
The question is, which is the winning voice, right?
Like if core curtailed their opinions on policy
and like placated to the social pressure
of the non-sober people,
then we would say non-sobriety is winning, right?
The letter coming from the sober, the Bitcoin core people choosing
to actually like come forward and solve the communication problems that Charlie was mentioning
earlier is a sign that like they want to be more aligned and attracted towards the sober contingent
and recognize and act on sober decision-making, right? Now, again, I still kind of hold the opinion
like we should run an independent activation client.
What core is or isn't doing is like
just a weight in the system,
but that weight is a very good indicator to me, right?
Like to translate it over to this conversation, right?
Like do you, I think that if a year ago
you started running the CTV activation client, which again, I think we had a great opportunity to do and, right? Like, do you, I think that if a year ago you started running the
CTV activation client, which again, I think we had a great opportunity to do and we should have done,
it would have been a whole year before you got a peep out of core about a real opinion on the
activation course, right? Like they, you would have had to like self-engineer a lot of the
momentum on activation before you got a single word out of core about it. I think now there's
like a really good indication that if there was an
activation client that was even just like generally trending in a direction,
you would get input from core. I'm not,
I'm not beholdening core to positive or negative input there.
I just think you would get input from core and that is a very good sign,
right? They're, they're coming forward. They're being more communicative.
They're, they're coming forward.
They're being more communicative.
They're participating in the process.
So you're saying that next step seems to be clear to have, uh, more sobriety to
use that word behind it at this point to take that next step.
The sobriety is winning.
Yeah.
Right.
For that next step.
So I, just to speak to like the more general thing, like, you know, it, it, it can be easy to map
this out as like a, um, um, game theory thing, or even a game thing. Like here's the board game,
here's the rules of the game. And at this point, you know, we look at what we have in our hands
and we're like, okay, cool. We, we have sobriety now we can take that next step and have it like
kind of make an effect. I just wonder
It's one thing to sit to do the math and say oh two years from now
We'll have CTV on Bitcoin and everything will be you know working fine and all new things happening in the space
It's another thing for the human drama to actually play out
During during that we are going to see a huge raise of people saying, this is an attack on Bitcoin.
We are going to see power players look for position to angle for their own benefit.
It's just that to me is the, I've dropped the mathematical side of like, can we do this? Can
we pull it off? And I just have a great concern now like, it never seems to work the way that math says it should, even if you end up in the same place.
Um, I just, I guess I want more of the human concern side of what you, how you see it.
there's no, there's no activation path that you can take that the ossificationists aren't
going to create some sort of counter narrative against. Like there is no wholly approved mechanism for governance.
There is no wholly approved activation path.
Every single software that has occurred in Bitcoin
has been activated a different way, right?
Like we've never standardized a path for this.
There's no agreeable ground
on like what the right way to do it is.
Taproot for example, right?
So Luke wrote and ran an activation client for
Taproot and yet still considers Taproot activation an attack on Bitcoin because basically they ran
a client that used a different activation mode than the one he and his 10 friends wanted to use,
right? So his argument is like, from the perspective of me and my 10 friends,
you attacked us and you activated
Taproot without our consent, even though we were operating a Taproot activation client, right? So
like you're, you're going to get these kinds of like rough patches in the conversation, no matter
what. And again, the same way that the, the filters are going to, the filter bros are going
to create an argument about how you're a bad actor, no matter what, right?
Like they're not going to listen to reason.
They're not like we've, we've demonstrated very clearly for two and a half years, the same exact arguments have been made criticizing their agenda for two and a half years.
It's been unrelenting.
The argument against has not changed and not once in that two and a half
year period have they actually responded to the argument. They just create these other weird
kind of straw man arguments that nobody's really making. And then they do a lot of PR work to
counter these easily defeatable arguments that no one is making. So the ossificationists are
going to do the exact same thing and are are gonna be a lot of the same people.
They're not going to have the conversation
that's actually taking place.
They're going to attack you on straw man grounds
and they're gonna come up with a lot of dumb bullshit
about how you're an attack on Bitcoin or whatever.
And like really ultimately what it boils down to is like,
if it takes place in the actual network layer to some degree,
like if it's signaling clients
and there's hash rate and economic nodes behind it,
then it comes down to UASF versus URSF
at the end of the day, right?
Like knock it off with the Twitter bullshit
and let's actually get down to brass tacks
and let's figure out where the actual demand for coins is.
So, and another thing I'll point out here,
and I want to note,
I agree with you that these things
don't tend to work out the way
that like math says they should,
but there is like a sort of a powerful nuance
to the math about soft fork activation
that actually really favors a minority.
So in theory, right?
Like I'm just using a far right-hand side of the chart
as like an explanation or a point to make.
I'm not saying that I think this is what should happen or will happen or anything like that.
But in theory, a single hash contributing node, like a single miner, could activate a software on their own without talking to anyone.
They don't they don't need any coordination from anyone.
They can just like impose the rules and in the blocks that they make, they'll support the soft fork rules. They run the risk of increasing reorg incentives because
somebody might be able to steal the coins by reorg your block out and not obeying the soft
fork rules. But in practice, they can do it, right? It just like shifts the game theory around.
So I think that if you have even something like 20 or 30% of the hash rate and a decent chunk of like the social layer and the relay layer, like signaling support for a software, you're basically already 80% of the way there.
Right now, you're just sort of like tying up loose ends on a lot of these, like I said, un-sober criticisms.
Yeah, I'm glad to hear that. That is kind of what I was looking for.
My concern is Bitcoin has never been more top heavy, where what happens in real life
carries so much more weight to what can actually happen on the software level between micro strategy was not there during the
block size war um and now they're just the tip of the iceberg with all the other uh companies
fomoing into that strategy you have the u.s government now getting involved and uh the
potential for their regulation over the miners which is now centralized in the U S it, it, you know, I could just picture a picture of a news article of Jack Dorsey,
you know, backer of ocean shaking hands with sailor and with Trump.
And, you know, let's throw in tether in there with Paolo. And, you know,
these are all players who have almost nothing to do with what happens on the software level.
But now, because Bitcoin is so top heavy with where the economic action is at, you know, that is the kind of thing where it's like, you know, we did our math, we did our game theory, and we thought that we had a path to make this happen.
And then all of a sudden things get messy on that human power level.
messy on that human power level but i'm glad to hear as you pointed out what i liked hearing was
that there's there's room to make these things really happen um on like the militia level like
the smaller stage that really does carry some some power and so i'm just hopeful for that
and uh sorry that to leonitis that we're all in agreement on stage here that we want to see these
things happen i just i really do want to see this happen.
I got rid of the title.
It's no longer Hot and Spicy.
So don't worry about it.
Jeremy.
Yeah, but yeah.
I was going to say,
yeah, you make a really good point.
And I will interject a little narrative
I've been trying to create,
which I think is underrepresented this filter cycle,
which is that Jack Dorsey,
who I love and I think is a fantastic person,
Bitcoin. Jack Dorsey is the largest funder of Ocean Pool, and he is the largest single contributor to Bitcoin core funding of any other entity. In aggregate, Jack Dorsey, if we look at all the known funding for all known
Bitcoin core contributors, he is through various entities, close to half of all dollars deployed
into sponsoring Bitcoin core contributors. And he is the primary, I believe, limited partner
And he is the primary, I believe, limited partner funder of Ocean Pool.
So the irony here is, oh, he also on Noster a few days ago posted that he does not see an issue with Bitcoin Core's specific attitude and treatment of this filter debate.
In fact, he leans more on supporting what Bitcoin Core issued the statement of this weekend.
leans more on supporting what Bitcoin Core issued the statement of this weekend.
So the irony here is there's a lot of accusations of follow the money.
And yet Jack Dorsey is here funding both sides because he likes to fund the Bitcoin ecosystem.
And one of the sides, the filters, are trying to draw crazy connections between the wizards and Mossad and evil venture.
And yeah, it's like, Jack Dorsey's riding your fucking check, bro.
This is impure. It's not that hard to follow the money.
And the reality is, it's not some grand conspiracy.
This is just what
healthy technical discourse looks like. That's actually the conspiracy, that this is just
the right minor relay policy change. So that's the conspiracy. So I just feel that this whole
narrative has been sidelined too much, and I wish it were more part of it but also oh well i totally agree that this is this is
what it looks like like we should not be acting like this is something crazy something new something
that shouldn't be happening i totally totally agree with that i would just offer that there's
an interesting point that you bring up i'd offer that the flip side of that coin is that jack i don't want to say has power as a result of that funding you know on the positive
side on the optimistic side it's like oh he's funding both sides therefore he's not actually
like this this crazy filter guy and the negative side pessimistic side would be well that just means that he has the power now
to shift the the the side that i guess we're all on if we want to put it blatantly now i'm not like
i'm not going to say it's a one-to-one ratio i'm not a conspiracist who says like oh if you fund
a dev that means you get them to do whatever you want i don't believe in that but that's not to
say that there's still not some potential impact that he can have by making some sort of change to this funding structure that he's he's set up.
I agree with you.
I believe has good intentions and is probably a net good to the ecosystem.
We should be very aware that a single billionaire can use a trivial amount of their net worth
to have financial influence over a
$2 trillion network. Very important to emphasize that this is a
sensitive risk factor. And it's been the subject of a lot of criticism over the years.
Yeah. I guess my whole takeaway
for starters, I was happy to hear post kind of mentioned the
the the technicals of the power that the uh small might be able to to bring to this and then the
other side is like everybody this is a chat you know the ordinal show these are these are people
that are into building and and i think that's the other optimistic view is make this version of Bitcoin the best.
If we get CTV across, take advantage of it, make it incredible so that if there is this other contingent that's trying to hold on to something different, whether that's a split or just causing problems or trying to slow things down, just make them look stupid by building the best stuff.
And so while this isn't a normal chat that I'm in,
I'm happy to see it.
I'm happy to see this conversion or confluence
of different types of builders,
whether it's Bitcoin or people from the wider cryptoverse
to just make Bitcoin better.
So yeah,
I'm optimistic and thanks everybody.
Awesome.
Well,
Jeremy,
Charlie guys,
appreciate y'all.
And yeah,
I think we could probably rock,
wrap that segment up there.
To be honest,
guys,
we've been going for an hour and a half.
We can always save
things for the wednesday show um i didn't have a whole lot else planned here jan or trevor did
either of you guys have a topic he really wanted us to cover this morning i think i think jan does
i'll let jan go first yeah if you want to talk about your event that you just announced
yeah i mean we we still have a lot of work to do on that.
I would probably want to announce it maybe on Wednesday or next week, Monday.
A lot more stuff is going to be shared then.
But, yeah, I wanted to talk about something, but I forgot about what it was.
So I don't have any specific other topic right now.
But yeah, man, what else is cooking?
What else is cooking in the Bitcoin?
It's been a while since I've been back.
We had Vegas.
We had Lisbon.
We had Moonbirds get acquired.
Lisbon.
We should talk about Lisbon.
We had Moonbirds get acquired, Jan.
You know, congratulations.
I know you round-tripped that Moonbird of yours
from, you know, insanity to zero. And now you've got a small, unfortunately I have more than one.
Oh, damn. Well, you got a, you got a nice little three X there from that. So, um, you know,
we can talk about that cure. So people think about that kind of being spun out of, uh, of Yuga.
Don't worry, Trevor. Jan already made us talk about this for like two hours the other day.
When it happened, Jan was like, I was like, all right, guys,
we've been going for three hours.
It's time to wrap the show up.
That was Jan's cue to trigger a massive Moonbird conversation for his bags,
which the audience was very interesting.
Man, but it wasn't me, okay?
I just mentioned it as a topic, and you guys started talking about it for two hours.
And you guys started talking about it for two hours.
It wasn't me talking about it for two hours.
It wasn't me talking about it for two hours.
It was interesting.
People, for some reason, like that collection in particular just gets people,
people have passionate feelings about that collection.
Like there's like a weird ratio of like the amount of people who know about that collection
and the amount of attention and emotions around that collection.
You would think it would have a higher floor price
given the, like, mindshare of that collection.
But, yeah, congrats.
Congrats on your acquisition, Jan.
Guys, I don't know why you're saying congrats
because I'm still down fucking bad.
I don't think that the back is ever going to recover.
Well, hang on, hang on.
What do we have to get?
What was your, like, average buy-in?
Man, I don't even want to say it, man. Come on. Nobody cares. Let's just hang on. What do we have to get? What was your average buy-in? Man, I don't even want to say it, man.
Come on.
Nobody cares.
Nobody cares.
What do we have to hit to average?
I will tell you this.
It's much worse than all my ordinals.
It's worse than Node Monkey.
If I look at the of of the moonbird bag
relatively you know what it was when i bought it and what it is now even after that run-up
i think it's still down bad much worse than most of my ordinal's bags that i bought in
whenever you know just throughout the whole time riff riff even with the 3x damn
you know just throughout the whole time rip rip even with the 3x damn
yeah even with the 3x because when you go when you like zero three on three when you do 3x on
zero you know it doesn't help much man yeah man it's weird like dude when ftx that i really like
with all the ft like i didn't you know like everyone i, you know, like everyone, I was, you know, at least indirectly affected by FTX and all of, like, that stuff that happened.
But it's, like, when you denominate, like, we denominated our NFTs in ETH, right?
And ETH went from $4,800 to $800, right?
And then the ETH value of the NFTs had nuked.
And when you, like, multiply those two together, it's brutal.
So yeah, like Moonbirds.
I forget the peak of Moonbirds, but I think it was like,
I want to say like 40 ETH or something crazy like that.
Like 35, 40 ETH.
Yeah, I don't know what they are now.
I think they're a little under one ETH.
No, Jan?
I know you check
every morning man i don't know because i don't know i used to use some app um you know just for
eth stuff you know and and i i just didn't want to do i i just i just didn't want to look at it
anymore i was just like you know i'm so i'm so tired of the Ethereum stuff. You know, like I only have a few things there.
I don't have that many.
And it was just down bad, man.
0.77.
I don't even want to open it.
That's a moonbird right now.
It's actually not bad because it's 20,000, right?
I mean, it's kind of bad, man.
It's a 20K PFP, right?
Am I right?
It's 20K or is it 10K?
I think it's 10K.
I don't know.
I'm looking.
Hang on. Or it's less than 10K. I don't know. I'm looking. Hang on.
Or it's less than 10K, no?
Oh, maybe it's...
No, no, no.
It's 9999.
Okay.
So it is 10K.
Okay.
All right.
Yeah, I mean, look, that's not horrible for an East 10K right now.
That's not terrible at all.
Man.
Okay.
If you say so, I don't know. I i'm being honest that's not that terrible i just uh i just
hope that you know as you said like you know we talked you said that the alt season is coming soon
you know it's gonna return and we're gonna see pumping ordinals and ruins you know i hope the
time is gonna come soon you know i don't really care about eth nfts to be honest
yeah i mean look we'll have to see we'll have to see how the rest of the year shapes out um
all right i mean i've seen charlie like tweeting a lot about like the mempool activity you know so uh
i don't know if charlie has any tldr for us like i actually well anything anything any activity at all i'm like excited i'm like oh fuck here we go even if it's just like a thousand
transactions over like two hours but yeah bro like mempool uh heats up i'm uh i i'm just desperate
i'm like a crack addict waiting for transactions to come through so I can fucking talk about them. But I feel it's empty again, no, Charlie?
So, or is it, like, what is it now?
Well, I mean, let me pull it up.
We are back down to one sat for V-Bite.
Charlie, why do we not get the decimals, man?
I really want the decimals.
Why can't we have half a sat for V-Bite?
Like, there is technically no reason why there should not always be transactions and usage of this network. Why do we not get the decimals, man? I really want the decimals. Why can't we have half a SAT per Vbyte?
There is technically no reason why there should not always be transactions and usage of this network.
And it's because there's this arbitrary one SAT per Vbyte 4.
Why can we not reduce this thing?
This is also a relay policy issue.
So you know how your node can't send off returns bigger than a certain size, while your node won't relay transactions with lower than a certain fee rate if you're running a standard
Bitcoin Core config.
Similar deal.
You can include transactions in blocks, which are consensus valid, of pretty much any fee
rate, I think, including zero, I believe.
This gets into really esoteric stuff that I'm not prepped to talk about. But yeah, there has been some memeing, maybe serious conversation
about recognizing, say, half a sat for a V-byte transaction.
But also, I think that would indicate a failure
of the network to
attract people using it.
So I don't ever want to have the conversation.
But like last night, we saw
Bunzy, shout out Bunzy,
cause
an absolute
stampede for his
fun Alkanes thing, which was fun to watch.
You love to see it. I love
when that happens.
I'm literally just watching the mempool right now
and in front of my eyes
in one minute, I got two blocks
confirmed in front of me and one of them is
totally empty, man.
That block is
nothing, man. Look at it.
Yeah, it's nothing. There's literally
nothing. Is that a 69 transaction
block from Spiderpool?
Hell yeah, 69 transactions in a block.
They made
$67 on the fees,
you know, so
that must be a good block.
That is an empty-ass block.
That is a sad, sad block right there.
69 transactions. I mean, how does this happen?
I mean, what is bitcoin doing 69 transactions
for 10 minutes at that point it's because everybody everybody is is out there buying
microstrategy yield stocks like that's true the few that you know we always everybody's like at
this point i'll just take whatever defy shenanigans you want to put on bitcoin out everybody's out
here like fucking looping microstrategy like three threeing it like in some trad fi sense and like that's where the new
degens have gone they wear suits and they have no idea what the fuck they're doing and they're
just out here doing like this weird hybrid defy of like corporate bitcoin stuff uh they never
don't touch the chain they just have no idea what they're doing and they
they call their broker and ask them they beg their broker to uh please can i have a little misty stock
can i please like uh leverage my house to buy some more michael saylor's like weird ass yield farming
thing and that's what they do um i would invite those people to try out the more based um like fucking
abracadabra mim like quadruple looping uh thing on chains way more cool uh and uh and uh yeah you
can pay way less taxes if you want to probably wait hang on hang on now tarly are you telling
me are you telling me that the podcasters who've been promoting obscure mining stocks for the past five years are now on the board of a candy store that now buys Bitcoin?
Are you telling me that the people who think that trading meme coins is evil are now on?
Yes, it's a socially acceptable meme coin
and you know what I love it
I love meme coins I love micro strategy as a meme coin
just maybe
maybe consider
you know making a bitcoin
transaction once per month
just to like remember what it feels
like because otherwise
I'm going to use all this block space
to put all my shit coins and my alkanes
and my four meg i'm gonna get a four meg here if if we keep going uh zero sat so it'll be a glorious
one but like what come on guys like make a transaction feel something okay okay okay we're
we're talking about four megars so trevor when can i mint pizza Ninja as a formagger, man?
This is the best fucking time to do it, man.
Can we do it?
Can you launch it tomorrow?
Yeah, dude, Wednesday.
So Wednesday is going to start.
If you want a formagger ninja, you can go to pizzaninjas.com.
I'll pin to the top after, you know, at the end here.
But yeah, man, this is a great time to do formggers.
And yeah.
This is the best fucking time.
Best time, yeah.
We need to take advantage of it.
Yeah,
definitely.
I'm,
I guarantee you our listeners right now are just thinking back in their
heads.
So like Leonidas telling them a year ago that we might never go under a
hundred sap review by ever again.
I've never had a prediction so wrong in that prediction,
bro.
Like Charlie,
we need to be able to bet on the mid pool prices.
Like it would be so entertaining.
I can probably,
I can probably find that recording.
No, do not.
Stop, stop.
If you find that, I'm finding your recordings about your Bitcoin and dog predictions if
you do that.
No, but man, you never find recordings, actually.
You just spread fuck.
I have an army of people who I will tell to go find the recording.
I promise you they'll go find it.
God, but yeah, that was a good show. We did the show on the halving i remember it um on the halving block trevor was busy in the
in the discord with ninjas minting what was that like the huddle diamond dick shit or hell yeah
dude huddle diamond dick bro i'm the biggest whale yeah and i remember like leo was making
these predictions about the sats per v by during that show bro i went the biggest whale yeah and i remember like leo was making these predictions
about the sats per v by during that show that like i was likely never gonna that was a crazy
period like i don't know if i was like going off the rails or what the deal was we all were you're
absolved we all we've all i was agreeing with you i was absolutely drinking the kool-Aid and like, I think just went a little overboard,
but yeah, like, look, obviously here's the thing.
The mempool is lower and this is just an opportunity.
Like this is an opportunity, you know, consolidate.
Like I promise you it won't last forever.
I can't say that.
And it's a great time to consolidate UTXOs.
It's a great time to rip some formaggers.
It's a great time.
Like all these artists who were complaining two years ago,
oh my God, I can't afford to put my art on Bitcoin.
Guys, yes, you can now currently afford
to put your art on Bitcoin.
So go put your art on Bitcoin.
I will call out though,
and this is what I kind of don't like
and charlie like this gets back to the thing around the relay policies one sat per v byte
with bitcoin at 107k is really the same as like 5.1 sat per v byte when we started this ordinal
stuff so i want to that's true yeah i want to call out that like it actually there's
this floor i don't think is good i just yeah i think the floor needs to go away on some of this
stuff or it needs to be lowered or something um but yeah like it's a great time to inscribe right
now guys and uh yeah trevor you got any alpha from Lisbon? I know there was a bunch of Ornals people.
Yeah, Lisbon was cool. Lisbon was fun.
I think, yeah, I wanted to actually ask Charlie,
how did that like .01 or .0, or sorry, .5 sat per Vby transaction get confirmed?
Like if I were to just like go into Xverse and type, you know, I mean, probably, I don't know, Jan,
does the UI let us do less than one SAP per V-byte right now?
And then, yeah, Charlie, how do we get like transactions in there for less than one SAP per V-byte?
So with regards to like whether you can, a wallet will let you send any SAP per V-byte is a representation of sats per block weight.
So if you go to memple.space and you see that section which says sat per vbyte, interpreting that's like
kind of a bit hand wavy
for you actually
pay a certain unit of Bitcoin per
block weight
and the block weight is determined by what type of
transaction you're sending.
As for
the transaction which got confirmed, I don't
know which specific transaction, but it's probably
submitted directly to a miner
or through um because now
you have two major sources of direct miner
transaction submission which is slipstream and
the rebar shield. Rebar
has direct partnerships with antpool
I think spider but definitely
ant and so
I don't know what their rule set is
but miners can include transactions of like um one sap per ant. And so I don't know what their rule set is, but mine is going to include
transactions of
one sat per
four weight units, which would basically
equate
to 0.25
sats for V-byte.
It's just not represented, I don't think,
on the simple UI of
memplot space. Maybe if you open up
a block and look at it.
Got it. So it's people just set like specifying the exact number of sats that they want to
add to their transaction. Yeah, it's like sats per block weight. Again, I am not going to explain it
very coherently on this space, but it's because per virtual byte or vbyte is actually really talking about
the weighting of data
which is the actual
more close technical term.
It's just easier for people to think
about stuff in terms of sats or vbyte
instead of
five sats per
x weight unit.
So do you imagine
that the miners could also just say we won't accept
anything less than one sap per vbyte and that they're going to mine or just like i mean it's
extra money so they're you know they're probably just going to take it right yeah i mean probably
like if a miner's uh got very few transactions and they're looking at the next block that they've only got say 69
transactions like spider pool had and you were like well i'll send you another thousand transactions
for half a sap for vby and you can include those in your block um yeah a rational miner would do
that i don't i think you know some miners would do it but like that's not really you know again
that's not a ton of money because that's that would be like another couple hundred bucks maybe so i you know i don't know if miners the thing is like we're
talking about such small numbers that um the like marginal benefit of miners to like include these
is kind of diminished so also like we all hope in the back of our heads, nobody wants to plan
for Bitcoin just having
no transaction activity whatsoever
because theoretically
people would be
yeeting all sorts of types of transactions
if you have a robust, more dynamic fee market.
But until we see that
or until
I think maybe people give up hope
or just optimize for that little teeny bit
of extra marginal income,
such as taking your half a set for VBite transactions,
then I don't know if we'll see that.
So yeah, miners can include, I think,
zero fee transactions in their blocks.
So those are consensus valid too.
But miners, those are typically ones that they,
like those are for themselves.
Yeah, like out-of-bound payments too.
Like if you're doing a formagger,
I mean, I think recently that like the practice
is to put the fee in the transaction
for the formagger that you're doing,
but we've also seen it done where there is no fee
and they just pay them directly, right?
Outside of that block.
Yeah.
Yeah, I don't know if this is for sure,
but I think maybe if you are
making a separate
out-of-band payment to Slipstream,
that might be
a zero-fee payment
just for efficiency.
I think you could submit that
alongside your slipstream transaction.
Don't quote me on that.
But yeah, this gets some like really weird stuff.
I didn't know until maybe a year or two ago
that you could do a lower than one sat
for Vbyte transactions.
I just thought once that was like,
I thought they were like in units of Satoshi's
but I had not like understood the esoteric nature
of weight units actually being the precise definition
in the way we calculate these.
Again, I don't know if this is super important
to try to understand,
because we're talking about negligible amounts of money
at this point now.
I don't know, Charlie.
It's going to be a lot of money soon.
One sat is already one-tenth of a cent.
It's true.
If Bitcoin hits a million dollars, one sat is one cent.
It's true.
You get 100 sats, you can order from the dollar menu.
It's true.
You can go to the dollar menu in el salvador and buy so what's i think mcdonald's
in el salvador takes bitcoin what's the deal with el salvador backing out of some bitcoin deal
but like oh it's because the okay i'm gonna put my laser eyes on i put my maxi hat on here
that's because the world economic forum demanded that in order to participate in the global economy, you, Bukele, El Salvador, you can't be as pro-Bitcoin as you used to be.
And so they actually were, they signed some agreement, which is like, okay, we're not going to keep buying Bitcoin.
we're gonna, you know, for healthier integration via stablecoins with the world, you know,
with the rest of the world, we'll like quietly dial down our public pro-Bitcoin stance.
In reality, Bukele still publicly announces they bought more Bitcoin, I guess.
I'm trying to understand what he's doing there.
It's kind of based, but also I think it's based, but also I think it might be chaos maxing.
But yeah, I mean, there's other countries which are, I would say, sleeper Bitcoin countries.
In particular, Brunei, which is a very small kingdom, which is mining a bunch of Bitcoin, which technically has
like their entire GDP's worth of Bitcoin held on their balance sheet.
And they're, I think the largest industry in their country is a bit dear mining facility.
So like you have these other micro, these other small nations also leaning forward on
Bitcoin, but they're just not as like
public about it why does the world economic forum not like bitcoin is it the mining the like climate change aspect um maybe i meant world bank regardless it's all still world stuff any if
if an entity or or a cryptocurrency has the word world
preceding it, that's a red flag.
Shout out Sam Altman.
Well, you know,
fiat is very strong
and it's not like they think to themselves,
oh, we're the evil fiat people, but rather
it's more just
institutional
confidence
that
we want to maintain
the euro dollar and petrodollar system
and things like Bitcoin challenge that.
If you want,
you might notice that the last few people
the United States has assassinated or killed
have all been people who challenged
our global euro dollar regime,
specifically Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein killed have all been people who challenged our global Eurodollar regime, specifically
Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, and other people who decided to break from the petrodollar
system.
So not a surprise that it's not desirable for people to use things that aren't the
dollar.
Interesting. Interesting.
Interesting.
Yeah, it's just kind of weird that people are like,
there are literal entities in the world
that are like pressuring countries to like not adopt Bitcoin.
There's like still, you know,
Elizabeth Warren was kind of like the face
of like anti-crypto in the US.
But like, there's definitely these like real entities
and people out there that are like very anti-crypto in the US, but like there's definitely these like real entities and people out there that are like very anti-crypto
and stand to lose.
And they're exerting their influence and pressure
kind of more behind the scenes, but they're very real.
I don't think it's like a made up thing.
I think those people are still there.
And quite frankly, like Bitcoin
is not just totally disrupted the world yet.
It's like, just, yeah, I think we're still like
super, super early days of like the implications
of having Bitcoin. And I think we're still like super, super early days of like the implications of having Bitcoin.
And I think these people have not shown their cards yet and still view Bitcoin as a little cute toy.
Even at $2 trillion, they're just kind of looking at it as a speculation thing, which quite frankly, that's what it is still for most people.
It's a like number go up thing.
When it starts to turn into something else, think they're gonna get a little more freaked
out and we're gonna see more stuff like this um okay trevor what's the honey in your hand for
um i don't know dude you don't like you don't like honey i mean it's uh you know
attract attract bears basically man i i love i love honey every morning in my matcha man that's what i do it's
best yeah i ordered your uh protein powder last night i got some protein powder coming this week
let's go man finally man finally after so many years of hosting the show together with you leo
you're actually following my advice. So let's go.
Oh, I still have to try it and I'm going to, you know, I'll have to report back.
But it did look good.
I looked into the ingredients and looked at the reviews and stuff.
It looked pretty good.
So we will see.
Yeah, let me know.
I do like it.
Let me know what you think about it.
I'm very curious what you're going to say.
We will see.
Did anybody participate in that mint last night on Alkanes?
No, I missed it.
I missed it, I guess.
Or is it still going?
I did.
I minted some.
Yeah, Charlie tells about it.
I mean, Leifo has been building on Alkanes with the Pandas Project and other stuff. It's pretty cool to see.
There's definitely a small community forum around it.
So love to hear your take on it.
So I was playing Rust on my Rust Bitcoin server
with some friends and in my top secret degen chat,
shout out the frogs, debauchery.
I see that Bunzies put something out,
which is a wizard and magic-themed spell-brewing game
on alkanes.
And the idea is
that you can chain together randomly generated spells
and try to chain more powerful ones together.
And underneath the hood,
you basically mint an Alkane's token
called Alchemist.
You basically mint Alchemist.
And it was a really fun,
very pretty UI thing. Very
thematic in that
if you were able to chain better ones
together, you could
you gained higher titles
and so you
love to see Bunzine and Hath
building something. They built LaserEyes
which powers most of the
ordinals and now a lot of the Bitcoin
ecosystem.
I won't go into Outworks
Under the Hood, but it's just a really fun
user experience.
Also, I don't use OilWallet
that much, but it worked
really well with OilWallet because Oil is
the safest wallet
to use for alkanes but um
like uh even so due to the urgency of the mint uh lifo of course put out through his tool
a way you could just be wallet agnostic and just uh mint stuff through Wizards art or through whatever his tool is.
So that was pretty fun to see.
You love to see Lifo.
I'm convinced he is over half the ecosystem by now.
That's cool.
And so where are people trading these like second like how once people mint
like what are they doing with them um most of alkanes i believe uh trade on a secondary market
from uh a mainly a chinese marketplace called id club um you could probably i mean if you're not
familiar you can probably look around poke poke around, see where it is.
But ID Club's been pretty responsive
getting these tokens listed and tracking them.
I haven't done any activity on secondary.
You know me.
I'm less of a speculator and more I just like to try things out
because it's fun.
But yeah, you can... And I think this token is actually up
tremendously from mint I think it costs like two or three dollars to mint a range of you know maybe
a hundred to a few thousand and now like if it costs like a couple bucks I think maybe it's now
like 20 bucks yeah 20 to 100 bucks per man it's it was like a it's been like a very good um
it's been a pretty incredible uh return i don't much like volumes on the marketplace let me take
a look alchemist it started a you minted and effective rate of like i think 10 sats for bbyte
and or 10 sats per unit and i think it's now at 70 sats per unit so we're
looking at a seven what's the market cap on it charlie can you see that oh um 1.38 million
holy shit 427 000 in uh total trading volume on id club 9 000 sales 3 300 holders
um according to this website.
I don't look at these things super...
This is the first time I'm looking at that.
But look, you love to see
speculative
meme coin mints rip
because that's good for the ecosystem.
That money flows into other stuff.
They buy our JPEGs. They buy our other tokens.
So I feel like we're all sitting in our hands waiting for an Orty moment
or a dog moment
1.3 million is respectable
for like 12 hours
or whatever it was
out of really nothing
maybe it runs, maybe it doesn't
but yeah I agree
dude we need some excitement.
We got to get people excited about stuff, you know?
Like, yeah, pick a token and pump it
and make everyone quadruple billionaires again.
And that's how we solve the mempool issue.
That's how we solve ordinals.
Pick a token, make a dog.
I don't care.
Just pick something and if it goes up
then everybody wins that's that's the solution charlie you better launch something then i know
yeah what happened what feds would show up to my house overnight i was gonna say what happened to
the roonies guy the hooked on roonies guy i thought we had a winner there with uh with that guy i liked him i really wanted tiger woods
my mom to be the winner but it never happened just for some reason it didn't happen never
planned i never held any um but it never take it was too long i think so yeah i think maybe
that was the issue it was casey and his long stickers.
Okay, guys, I think that's a wrap here.
We've been going for two hours, and quite frankly,
I got like two and a half hours of sleep last night.
I want to take a little nap before a call.
And Leo, when's the Kraken thing happening?
The dog.
Yeah, so look, obviously the update is that I can't share updates, but, you know, it's exciting.
It's exciting.
Okay, so we don't have a date for the...
No, yeah.
You know, basically at a high level,
they're basically working on, you know,
doing integration and then they'll, you know,
start listing runes and, you know,
obviously they put dog on their roadmap and, you know, I'm hoping they'll list listing runes. And obviously they put dog on their roadmap.
And I'm hoping they'll list four runes after that.
And that's at a very high level what's going on.
Guys, I see Bunzies in the audience.
Can we get him up here?
He is up here.
Bunzies!
What's up, dude?
Oh, I can't hear him.
You're out.
Oh, I can hear him now.
What's up, Bunzies?
Dude, so tell us about this mint that you did last night.
What mint?
Tell us about this mint that...
Okay, DK Shark.
Okay, DK Shark.
Dude.
What mint, though?
I don't know, dude.
I forgot what it was called, but it was cool.
It looked cool.
Yeah, me.
No. No, dude, it was crazy. I was cool it looked cool i mean no no dude it
was crazy i'm just i'm still just waking up um dude alchemist on alkanes was uh an experiment
gone mad um it's like so is it a rune or is it a different type of token like is it an out is it
proto yeah yeah so it's a token standard on alkanes that effectively
is um uh a token that uses like wasm to execute logic uh in the indexer so it's a it's a really
interesting concept basically bringing like evm capabilities to bitcoin through the off-chain indexing that
already occurs so um when we were adding alkane support into laser eyes half like came up with
this crazy cool idea of you because you could use the transaction id um and basically you know made this fun gamified mint um expressing and showcasing
you know executable logic within the smart contract um to basically prove proof of concept
and yeah just kind of i don't know we just put it up to kind of be like hey this is how you use laser eyes this is how you can do it and um yeah dude it's really it was really fun like uh it was just a good like fun time and it
seemed like people really enjoyed the process and um yeah to be honest it was cool seeing the feedback
that's dope and so how did you come up with the idea for it just kind of you can you can utilize seeing the feedback.
That's dope. And so how did you come up with the idea for it? Just kind of you can you can utilize the transaction data in the smart contracts? Yeah, Hath actually was reading the free, like the token mint smart contract template. And he was just like, dude, it takes the transaction ID.
And what that means is, you know, we then used like a loop in the browser. That's why people, so indirectly, it just kind of, we backed up into a really cool idea
that where like it gamified the mint process.
Because typically how it works is there's a max mint everyone max
like puts the max amount throws it in the mempool and then it's rbf like or everyone just battles
for highest fee what this does is it shuffles um transaction ids in the browser um which kind of
indirectly like damaged people that were trying to farm it and had multiple tabs open.
Like they were just like freezing out, which is, I think, a cool way to kind of distribute a mint.
And the mechanic proved to be true.
The thesis was true.
Like our distribution was really high, like over 3,300 holders.
our distribution was really high, like over 3,300 holders. And then just to put that into
perspective, like Plasma did an ICO today for 500 million, and they only have 1,100 wallets.
And that's like kind of the issue that we see. And that's like what we were trying to kind of
showcase. And for those that see that, they'll get what happened. But for those that don't, like, basically, whales just win.
Like, and that's just the game.
They will get the token supply, sweep the floor, and then dump.
And that's just how it's always happened.
And, you know, with this mechanic, you kind of introduce gamification and fun game loops along the way.
And that's, like like what this whole thing
should be you know um and that's what people say but i don't know either way without getting too
deep in that stuff like it was just a cool um experiment experiment that kind of ended up
kind of taking a life of its own which was which was really cool to see. And honestly, just the beginning of what can happen with logic through the indexer.
And it really was a cool thing to see unfold and to see people participate in.
Awesome.
Cool. Well, dude, keep us in the loop on future experiments and stuff that you guys do because um yeah it's cool to watch
hell yeah love it bunsey appreciate you bro anything exciting to share for like the future
of this token or anything or is it just totally non-utility dude uh i can't disclose come on the dj give through the dj into bone they've been listening
for a few hours bro right after he's like dude i can't talk about kraken i can't talk about kraken
but like dude tell me everything okay hang on nope guys first of all we can't do any updates
on kraken but bungee is gonna spill the details on this dude dude uh alchemist is getting uh listed on kraken before
dog uh i don't know what happened but dude he hit me up got a phone call that was kraken damn um
no but no i mean dude it was it was a free mint basically though the the inspiration from it has
sparked a lot of fun ideas um and you know there's a lot there's a lot that can be done like there's
so much room for activities now it's like the scene dude like the scene from fucking
stepbrothers is just dude it's on like if there's a lot of creativity a lot of
different things um you know this is what's been limiting uh like this is what's been limiting
fungible tokens on on bitcoin is is logic um that's trustless. And so, I mean, open to ideas too, but yeah, after last night, a lot,
a lot have been, a lot have been cooking and a lot of really cool people have been reaching out
and yeah, shout out to everyone that's been just saying nice things and, you know, participating
with it. It's like, it's been a really cool cool experience and I know half not here right now
but massive shout out to half like dude yeah but bunsey I kind of want to get to the core of like
is this a meme coin or do you guys plan to do something with it I guess is what I'm asking
dude is dog a meme coin yes I can easily answer the dogs yes dog is a meme coin dude dude alchemist
alchemist is a stable coin.
I mean, you're already failing at your first utility then
because it's not very stable.
Well, dude, what is it?
It's as stable as the U.S. dollar.
All right, well, if you want to come and spill us to my office some other time,
let us know.
Guys, I think that's a wrap.
It's been a great show guys.
Um, Jan Trevor guys, any final words here before we wrap up?
Nothing.
Have a great week, everybody.
Awesome guys.
Have a great one.
We'll see you all on Wednesday.
Peace. Thank you. Music
