The Canadian Bitcoiners Podcast - Bitcoin News With a Canadian Spin - BIP-444, OP_RETURN, Knots, Core Debate & Spam w/ Praveen Perera & HodlDee | The CBP

Episode Date: November 6, 2025

FRIENDS AND ENEMIESThis week I will sit down with Praveen Perera & HodlDee, to discuss the latest in Bitcoin, including the saga involving Bitcoin Core V30, Knots, increasing the size of OP_RETURN, spam on Bitcoin, and so much more. It seems like there may be a potential fork coming up, and it is a good time to discuss all the angles to see how we should approach this subject.HodlDee: https://x.com/HodlDeePraveen Perera: https://x.com/PraveenPerera____Join us for some QUALITY Bitcoin and economics talk, with a Canadian focus, every Monday at 7 PM EST. From a couple of Canucks who like to talk about how Bitcoin will impact Canada. As always, none of the info is financial advice. Website: ⁠www.CanadianBitcoiners.com⁠Discord:   / discord   A part of the CBP Media Network: ⁠www.twitter.com/CBPMediaNetworkThis show is sponsored by: easyDNS - https://easydns.com EasyDNS is the best spot for Anycast DNS, domain name registrations, web and email services. They are fast, reliable and privacy focused. With DomainSure and EasyMail, you'll sleep soundly knowing your domain, email and information are private and protected. You can even pay for your services with Bitcoin! Apply coupon code 'CBPMEDIA' for 50% off initial purchase Bull Bitcoin - ⁠⁠https://mission.bullbitcoin.com/cbp⁠⁠ The CBP recommends Bull Bitcoin for all your BTC needs. There's never been a quicker, simpler, way to acquire Bitcoin. Use the link above for 25% off fees FOR LIFE, and start stacking today.256Heat -⁠ https://256heat.com/ ⁠ GET PAID TO HEAT YOUR HOUSE with 256 Heat. Whether you're heating your home, garage, office or rental, use a 256Heat unit and get paid MORE BITCOIN than it costs to run the unit. Book a call with a hashrate heating consultant today.

And one of the things that can't be attacked is your self-custody Bitcoin. And one of the things that can be attacked is the ETF. Can't be exposed to that. That's my view. It's not a good idea. And by the way, that'll hit MSTR too. It'll probably hit other stuff as well. Friends and enemies.

Welcome back. Canadian Bitcoiners podcast. Friends and enemies, welcome to the CBP. Want to be better informed. Listen to Levinjoie. Spots is taking care off right off the top. Oh, Bitcoin and Easy DNS, the media is feeding a slop. It doesn't matter.

what topics discussed quality entertainment and information you can trust that's being planned or at least discussed you know we're not going to allow the information you can trust send the guys some value boost them with some stats bitcoin is the scarcity asset i mean it's just a fact geopolitical national down to the local cloud friends and enemies welcome to yet another edition of the canadian bitcoiners podcast i'm linda legend and i'm going to be joined by a couple of gentlemen in just a few minutes We'll be talking about a bunch of things, like Bip 444, like the upper turn increase, like Bitcoin Core version 30, knots, a whole bunch more. And we'll dive deep and get some interesting discussion by a couple of folks that might

have different opinions, but I'm not here to have them argue because arguing is going to pump up the price of Bitcoin. That is not my goal today. I still have to reach my stacking goal for 2025. So I'm trying to suppress the price as much as possible. possible. But with that being said, I do want to talk about the sponsors of today's show. So we have sponsor number one. Easy DNS. They have been with us for the longest period of time. Mark and team, they are fantastic. I would suggest if you're looking to do any sort of web hosting,

email hosting, domain name, registrations. These are the guys you want to talk to. They have been in business since 1998. They understand the business. They understand what it is to provide good customer service we have our own website with them and so they helped us usher into becoming a good web citizen by having our own web it's what is it canadian bitcoins.com we don't use it all that much but still nonetheless do love mark and his team mark has been in a show a number of times if you listen to him once you'll understand why we like easy dns and we like him check them out if you use our promo code CVP media the first purchase you do 50% will be taken off the initial purchase 50% What does this mean?

Load up the cart. You get a bunch of domain names, start migrating your email server over or set up a new email server over there, set up a new web hosting, a lot of different things, is when you do that, you're going to save 50% off your initial buy. So do that. CBP Media is the code. Second sponsor for today's show is Bull Bitcoin. What can I say about Bull?

That's the place where I buy my Bitcoin, and Joy does as well. It's a place I would sell my Bitcoin if I were to sell it. I'm not going to. I'm going to trade my Bitcoin eventually. But either way, I'm not going to get into that right now. Bull Bitcoin, what could you do with them? You could buy on-chain. You could buy lightning when fees are getting a little higher.

Still, the fees are rather low. So I would suggest to do your on-chain buys with them. You could pay your bills. You could send money over to them or to, sorry, to a friend using them. So say, for example, you owe somebody some cash and you want to do a pseudo-e transfer. You can use that. So you can have bold Bitcoin facilitate the payment to your friend. You have the Bitcoin send in them and they do the e-transfer to your friend's account.

You could pay bills, as I mentioned. A lot of different things you could do with them. They're expanding. They're taking over the world. United States, when is this going to happen? We want them to enter the United States. They're in Western Europe. They're in Argentina.

They're in Costa Rica, Mexico, Canada, of course. If you haven't yet open an account, what are you waiting for? Our code is below if you sign up with our account. For perpetuity, like the rest of time, your feet. are going to be a little bit less when you buys and sells with them. So check them out. We love them and you should too.

Last but not least, we have 256 heat. Check them out, 256 heat.com. You're going to be heating up an area of your home. It's going to be like garden shed. Could be a garage. Could be a cool part of your house. Do this in such a way that you're going to be heating your home and earning stats at the same time.

He sells these little devices, or actually they're not that small, but still they're small enough that you could just plug into your wall into your outlet and you're going to be mining away earning Bitcoin K-Y-C-free if you do it properly. So check them out and remember if you're going to be going to buy some of the units over there, make sure you let them know that we sent you.

Joey and I each have one of his S-19s that he prepped for us. They're quiet, they're slick, and they earn sats. Maybe mine's doing a solo pool. I don't want to say too much. But either way, you could earn sats every day and we could be done through lightning.

It's a fews like oceans pool. So lots of different options. Check them out. 256heat.com. And we're just waiting for the two gentlemen to come on board, hop on in. But until then, I just want to make note that we have the Canadian budget

came out yesterday. And the budget was an interesting, interesting. We'll be talking about that more in-depth on Monday. Some interesting notes on there as one particular thing. I just want to make notice as a freebie. Did you know that until yesterday, Well, until this budget passes, that they were charging a premium, a tax if you're buying a vessel, a vessel for the water that's over $250,000 or an airplane for over $250,000.

So they were essentially charging rich people to buy these yachts or private jets. And I think it was a 10% tax. It's gone as of the budget. They took that off. The tax is now gone. Imagine that. Does your tax go down with respect to your paying for filling up your car or paying? for your house or whatever probably not so what does this mean the rich get richer and we just pay more

as a result of it either way that's a preview for what's happening next week let's get the gentleman in we got d and previn coming in here is here is previn gentlemen how are you hey i'm good how are you can you guys hear me just yeah yeah how do i sound absolutely perfect brother absolutely perfect yeah so good to have you guys on thanks for taking the time to come in and discuss with me. This is going to be an interesting discussion. We're not arguing, right? Because we're just,

we're not trying to pump the price of Bitcoin, like I mentioned. I still have to reach my stacking goal of 2025. So let's keep this simple. But just for it to prep the audience. Praveen, I'll just give you a little bit of kudos here. You're behind a co-wallet that is just recently been released for Android. And previously was, it was on iOS. And not yet.

is coming soon but not yet so we'll be coming soon you've been on a show a few times and you discussed i can't really say much more about you besides for that and d association with a coin kite you've been in a show a number of times you actually filled in for joy one time so yeah hey well that's true yeah i fucking forgot sorry actually i'm gonna leave let you guys do this for the show but no the reason why i wanted to bring you guys in here today is because there's been a lot of discussion behind the scenes between you guys and a few others. And I think it's probably best if we discuss it here out into the open and try to come up with some points that maybe the other person can see. And maybe even the audience

we can help educate them or maybe they can help educate us at the same time. But there's a lot going on. I think the first thing I want to touch on. And I'm going to throw it over to you from because I think this is, you're, you like this topic to talk about, is the spam, specifically the operturn increase. Now, Core 30 decided to increase the upper turn to 100,000 kilobytes. Previous to that was 83 bytes. I know that you believe that, well, I don't want to say, I don't want to put words in your mind.

What are your thoughts on this increase and maybe D could punch in afterwards? But I want to hear what you think about this increase, good or bad for Bitcoin. Yeah, so I think this is terrible. And I don't want to talk about this, to be honest. Ah, what? You're the one to invite me on the show. Not right now. I just mean, in general, it's not something I want to be talking about.

I have other things to do. I'm not an influencer. It's just like mostly because I see a lot of misconceptions on Twitter, and it annoys me to reply the same damn thing over and over again. So I was hoping if we come in here and, fix some of those misconceptions the next time someone makes a dumbass comment i can just um link the video yeah link the video and then uh you know i've seen most of the misconceptions but i'm sure uh d will come up with his own dumb ass ones so it'll be no i promise to be nice um

it's fine do whatever you want okay so my argument is okay first of all you know i don't like spam uh spam includes inscriptions and blah blah blah all that shit right um but uh i hated it and i thought the right place to deal with it was the filters um i was i would not be in favor of doing a soft work just to stop the spam but i think the operan increase is a existential threat i think it's i don't think it's a nothing burger i think it's a real threat um i think it was terrible and yeah we now and i am for soft work that gets uh that basically returns the state to its original uh original state before uh core 30 was released which is operands that are capped um so i mean i have a whole list of

misconceptions that i'd like to talk about i can start there and then you can go or we can just have a conversation up to you guys yeah helen i got to crack open my little thing here first oh he's prepping okay this is good this Praveen, do you have something, you got some beer or something? No, I would add. Maybe I should get some wine. Yeah, like get liquored up, buddy. Dee, do you want to, you have any rebuttal to that?

Do you have anything you want to? Yeah, I mean, I don't know, this is a huge, like, I don't know what specifically we're talking about. There's the Bit 444 or the operant stuff or spam in general or, you know, legal, moral stuff that we can get into as well. Let's talk about the spam. Let's talk about the abuse of syntax. Potentially, that's the way somebody described it to me. When somebody is using the opertern as a way to circumvent and add more crap to the coin block.

So that's one of the misconceptions, right? So before Op return was increased, people were spamming using inscriptions, which was a hack around Bitcoin, right? They were missed using the Bitcoin script to get stuff into Bitcoin, which is terrible, like, which is annoying, spam is annoying. But the problem with Opertern is that it's not a hack around anything, right? Bitcoin Core, it basically says, okay, now here's this 100 kilobyte field. You can use this for data, right? So that has a lot of implications, including moral and legal and technical. So because it's an intended field, because it's not hacked around, right?

It's easier to get stuff in there. It's easier to get stuff out with just like regular tools, just using Bitcoin CLI. It's on your disc contiguously. It's not split up in any encoding way, right? So there's a lot of, there's a lot of implications to it. This is a misconception I see a lot of people making because me and other people that like the software was against spam for so long, right? People like, even people in our chat like AA, he was just talking about this. He basically, you know, that could be anyone.

Yeah. Anyway, they think, oh, Pervin has always been against spam and now he's gone crazy. He hates spam so much. He wants a fucking soft fork, right? Which is not the case at all. I'm, I want, I usually, I obviously, I'm very conservative. I don't want softwarks. Like, even the ones I like, I'm like, I'm like, oh, I don't know. We'll see. We'll get, wait, right? But this is enough of a threat that it's that I want it. And I think it's still conservative because, yes, it is a soft fork, but it's returning the chain. to what it was before core 30 could you talk about the um concern like what the big issue is what you see yeah okay so basically the issue is like i said but with inscriptions uh it was a hack around bitcoin you can you could spam but like um it was not it was not the intended mechanism right like uh casey whatever his name uh invented a way to hack bitcoin let's say right um to get arbitrary data onto the chain, right? And 520 byte packages. Packages, yeah. But with operturn,

this, operturn is just there for data. That is its purpose, right? But before Core 30, that could be only 83 bytes. So what you can put in 83 bytes is very limited. Yes, it's data, but you can't put an image, right? So it's not

arbitrary data, it's arbitrary text data. It's usually designed for hashes. That's what that size is for, right? So you can do some text, but the most useful thing you can do is hashes. You can't put a real, like, image, maybe a tiny audio fault, but nothing, right? But the size of the data determines what kind of data you can put in there. 100 kilobytes, interestingly 100 kilobytes, you now made it a field to put images, to put videos, to put music, whatever, right? So the main threat that I've been concerned about is the CSAMS threat.

because, and like, I get people don't like talking about it. It's not a comfortable topic, but like, if it's uncomfortable to talk about, imagine how much worse it would be if CSAM got on the chain in an off return, right? So I keep harping back to this is how it was designed, because that has legal implications, right? Now you're using software the way it was designed to be used. It's designed to be used for data. Standardized. Standardized, exactly.

So it's hard for. to say what the law thinks right now because there's not obviously a law written right so you got to see how would a how will a jury see this right um and and prosecutors that's how they think too how will a jury see this if they think that you know because it standardized they can make a better argument they're much more likely to take someone to court right or there's the other aspect of what about if there's someone that's already a target of uh government of the state right whatever state um now they have now they have trumps up charges they can hit you with all they have to do is come and take your note and if there's CSAM in there now not only is it you know define the government whatever but now you're

also a pedophile you know so there's there's lots of room for this and then and the other one is like just morally speaking this one I guess you could say is the the least strong argument because there is an object the an element of subjectivity to this but to me right using opt return is very different than like an inscription right for inscriptions you uh you need to know where to look you need to know because you can put data in the chain different ways right hack around it in different ways you need to know how is encoded was it an inscription was it something else you need to know what block and then you need like some software to put it together right um and it's not it just like it's not just contiguously in in your hard drive right so to me that's different than having an

operator that's just that's just an image on unchanged on your hard drive right you just have to look for it like it no hold on one second to me that's different enough that it would make me strongly consider turning off my node right and the reason that bitcoin is bitcoin is because i can verify my own transactions so if i can't verify my own transactions because to do so would me would mean to have CSAM at my home in my node then I'm thinking what's the point of Bitcoin like I can't verify my own

transactions why am I going to own something I can't verify right that's the whole reason I got into Bitcoin yeah I guess the CSAM thing we can talk about the contiguous part of it or not I think that stuff is already on your node you know you made the argument if it's not split up so therefore

it is different I don't I don't see difference in that whether it's contiguous or split up into 520 bytes. What do you mean? I mean, okay, I don't think you can say there isn't a difference because there's clearly a difference. You can say the difference is not big enough for me, right? Correct, yes.

But one way to think about it, right now, to get, with the new operatives, to get an image out of the blockchain, you only need to know two things, right? Which block is it in? Right? And like, that's basically it. Which block is it in? Because you can do a one RPC call. And basically you say, you know, in this block, skip this many mites.

So you can say maybe you need to know where in the block, but you could also just go bite by bite, right? So if you think about it as pieces of data, you need to know to get this image out, right? This also has legal implications, by the way, because I can get into that because the easier it is to get, the more likely you're basically, there's case precedent for that, right? if it's easy to get with standard tools that means you were like you could uh reasonably have had access to it versus if it was if you need to specialize tools right but anyway but with inscriptions you need to know which block you need to know which encoding it was right uh was it inscriptions what it was it something else and where in the block like which transaction whatever like it you need at least three pieces of data and you need some kind of software to put

it together right it might be uh you basically need to write a small script to do so and same would be for opertern correct no that's not true because with op return you do one rest call right one call right to the standard bitcoin cly right to the standard bitcoin did nothing else you don't need or scanner you don't need anything you just want one call to the if you're running a node you have bitcoin on there bitcoin cly right um one call and you say how many bytes to skip that's it right right There's the difference. There's a difference. I'll let the viewers.

There's a, yes, I appreciate you explaining the differences. I don't think that difference really matters in the grand scheme of moral or legality. Even Luke believes that continguousness does not matter. If Corby 30 was standardized the inscription vulnerability, making that a standard way to store data, it would just be as harmful.

The only reason why contiguous ever came up was because there was an automated system on cloud hosting that would detect CSAM, or malware in a contiguous form and immediately kill your server. You could teach the system that Bitcoin nodes aren't scam or malware. It's not a legal or moral problem. It is a technical one. The actual problem here is that the fact that now is standard for data storage,

it's the correct way to interpret the blockchain as CSAM or malware. You could interpret anything as CSAM or malware depending on what you're using. But the fact that it's standard is what he's making the argument for. Do you agree with that? Do you disagree with that? Just hearing the thoughts. This was yesterday. This was a few days ago on a podcast.

Yeah. So for, yeah. So for Luke, the biggest argument is not the contiguousness, right? For him, it is the intent. And I agree that the intent is probably the bigger argument, but I would not discount the contiguousness of it. Because, not because it's continuous, because you need less specialized software to get it, right? So there's been cases where someone wasn't charged because it was like on a cleared hard drive. So the only way for him to get it would have been to run the specialized like software that can get basically disc recovery tools, right?

This is an actual legal case. This was went through to courts and the courts decided that there is. So there's a precedent here that's been said? Yeah, yeah, there's precedence for access, right? Access level. So, I mean, I can find these cases later, but, yes, there's precedence, right? So the contiguousness means easier access, which could very well have legal implications because it has in the past. Again, I don't know if the difference is big enough, but again, it's there, which means, you know, okay, you're more likely to, like, take you to court if you're already being targeted.

And then also you've got to think, what does the jury think? the jury will look at the precedence that's been set, right? Yeah, and I guess it depends on which country you live in, too, right? It's all the matter of your jurisdiction. Sure, but I live in the United States, and I want to run a note. And a lot of Bitcorners are in Western countries. I'm sure if you live in fucking Tunisia, you don't have to worry about it. But, yeah, you know, everybody I'm talking to right now is probably in the United States, Canada, or UK or somewhere.

So all of this applies to. Yeah, obviously in 2014, they did the 83 byte standardness, and I think a lot of these arguments were also being made, whether it was 83 bytes cut into 100, 100 transactions or, sorry, outputs, or one big, condidious one. I just don't think that precedent is valid because it's been going on for 10 years. What do you mean the precedent is not valid? Explain that. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'm saying there is precedent for this type. There has been cases where they haven't been charged

because you need a specialized software to get it out. Yeah. There's been cases where it's been in the cash and they didn't get charged because they didn't know it was there. Right? So I think people like to think that the law is like completely illogical or whatever. But at the end of the day, if it goes to the court, you're going to be judged by a jury of your peers, right?

And, yeah, sure, that some of them will be completely irrational. But a lot of this stuff does have rationality to it, in my opinion. Yeah, I think if the state was after you and wanted to put illegal content on a computer, they wouldn't need Bitcoin to do that. They could also just rent a bunch of hash and mine it in there themselves. And then now everyone has now become illegal to run a node. There's multiple ways to put that information in, whether that's standard or not. Okay, that's not, that's not a good, well, this software can completely get rid of that, right?

But that's not a good argument because what we're talking about is, did this opertern make it riskier to run a node? Not, not, is there a hundred, is, was there some way else to get you if you were? Yeah, and I'd be, I'd say no, because opertern was available since 2014 and you could throw one megabyte in, whether that's standard or not, a minor could mine that. And everyone would still have it on their node. Okay, so this is another misconception that I was going to talk about. so thanks for bringing it up yes yes before this it was not standard so uh you you could get a minor to mine it right but mining super centralized um and the only way for a minor to mine it is basically you'd have to go directly to the minor now where's the where's the incentives of that

minor right they have no plausible deniability because everybody knows the only way you mind a block that has more than 83 kilobytes is if you out of band somehow got that particular transaction and decided to put it in. So, SlipStream, for example, they don't just put in anything, they don't put anything in, right? That's not true. Oh, they don't have any content moderation? They have terms and services, but I've heard from the horse's mouth that if you submit something for a high enough fee rate, they would mine it. Aren't they, or are they not?

I don't know. Okay, there's, there's no fucking way that if somebody sent a child porn to fucking Mara, a U.S. company that they would put it in their fucking block, okay? Don't come at me with this bullshit. Yeah, I mean, I would just disagree with it. They would have no fucking deniability before Core 30 because it was sent directly to them.

It was then they decided to put it in, right? They would be retarded to do that. And I could see them definitely being legally liable that way. So they're definitely incentive for them to do some content moderation and because because they're fucking liable, right? They have fucking shareholders.

Like, no. Yeah, I mean, it's tricky because it's, yes, sorry, go ahead. It's just really quick. Just want to say one thing

that Marathon Digital is fully AML and OFAC compliant as of 2021. So take that information moving forward. Yeah. Okay, yeah. So they're AFAT, OFat compliant, but they're going to put fucking child porn in.

No, no. It's D's turn, man. I think that's a little different. Because you have it for the horses, because you have it for the horse's mouth. come out of me with that bullshit. Yeah, that's fine if we disagree.

Totally fine. I think they would if the transaction fee was high enough or another minor would, for sure. Okay, okay. You know what? I'm not trying to convince you, but I think anybody watching can see that the fucking retarded argument. And again, like we were talking about, if a government wants to rent a bunch of hash rate, buy a bunch

of A6, throw a bunch of pet a hash towards some miners. Okay, do you know how many fucking... How much money would that? How much money would that fucking attack cost how much fucking money i don't think it matters about the money at that point for them their their goal is to put something illegal on bitcoin that you don't like okay yeah i'm gonna now every note is illegal i'm gonna need better arguments because this is fucking retarded so your thing is um core 30 raising this is okay because the government could have bought a bunch of

fucking hash miners and put this uh shit on on everybody's node like that's that's your best argument right now no because i think you can do direct minor submission uh librae will exist as well as yes a minor could mine it themselves yeah we already went over a direct minor okay yeah those three options exist today uh libra relay uh how many how many how many how many miners are running libra relay uh probably a couple dozen for sure yeah okay thank you yeah and and that is and that is enough to create uh to have a path to a minor to mine any non standard transaction that you want okay and okay and do you think if core or 30 the standard didn't have opt returns higher than 83, that those miners running

Lieber Relay would have more of a legal battle with their legal department to run lever relay, which would allow them to put any shit on there? Or yes? I don't think so personally, no. Okay, well. So we can disagree, it's fine. It's all good. I know Len Flavin over here. No, I like it. Len, Len, what do you think? Because you can make these legal arguments, but no lawyer, hold on, no lawyer. has ever has come out and said this is illegal and that there's precedent for uh nodes being

illegal for for putting illicit content on yeah exactly there's no fucking precedent there's a lawyer is not a fucking future a fortune teller okay they can look at past cases and they can make up an opinion but they they don't they they don't know what's illegal or illegal because this is uncharted territory okay so the question is you have to look at it logically and see, hey, does this seem riskier than before or less risky, right? Is this more likely to get to take into court and made the precedent of or not? And I would argue not because you can already stuff four megabytes worth of shit in the witness. And it doesn't matter if it's broken up into 520 bytes or not.

It is still the same precedent to a court. No, no, it's not. That's a lie. I already went through the other cases. I told you it's not the same precedent because to get that out, you need special. software, right? Because you can't just click and look on your node. It's not how it works for opertern either. You don't need to click, but you can do one, one freaking rest API, one call. Yes, you need to do that. If you're not looking for it, it's not your problem. I'm not saying don't

look for it if you want to do that. Yeah, but that's not what that's not what the, that's not what the legal president said, right? There are cases, see, I don't want to go in circles with you because I've already made the point about this. Yeah. But basically, but basically, we have. We have We have no lawyers with us, so we can't, we can't decide either way who's, who's right here. Sure, you can say that it is a greater risk. I'm not talking about lawyers. I'm telling you about previous cases. That is totally fine.

That has nothing to do with Bitcoin notes. Okay. Now, I just want to throw something at Praveen. And let's go with the assumption. And feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, that there isn't already stuff like this, these pictures on our nodes. Apparently not. The discussion is, and I haven't checked it because I, you know, morally, ethically, I don't want to check it, but they say that it's already there.

Would you agree, Praveen, or at least say that it's plausible it's already there on our notes? I've heard that that is possible. That's possible. But again, we would need to have like at least three pieces of information to know about this stuff, right? We would have to know which file or block it's in, how it was encoded, right? Was this before inscriptions or after inscriptions? And where in the block to look, right? So I think because of that, we can safely, legally and morally say we don't know if there's stuff in our notes, right?

But that completely changes after operative. Let me take us a different direction. Say, for example, you have state secrets on your computer, something that would be truly detrimental to the government that you have it. And you could potentially sell it or give it to one of the. of the government we're talking about. The files in question are broken up into a few different files and they're all encoded. Do you think that there's a legal obligation

that could the state still come after you in this case for holding onto this data? Even though it's broken up and you have to somehow merge it together and it's encoded, having this, would you think that there's maybe a case the government could have against you? Do you think that it could sort of book at you?

It depends, right? Who put those state secrets there? If you were the one who put it there, right? That means you already had the tools to encode it, which means you already have the tools to decode it, right? And you already have the knowledge to do so, which is completely different than what we're talking about Bitcoin, right? But if the state secrets were inoper turn, maybe, yeah, maybe you're more liable, right? I don't know how that argument makes any sense.

Dee, I don't know, maybe you weren't paying attention, but we've already been through the two reasons why, right? Because knowledge plus tools, which is the two things you don't need. know the block to pull the operturn out and you need to look in your nose it's not there it's all encoded everything on bitcoin's encoded no it's not okay on that's the other thing i don't even know if this is a hard i don't know if this is a great argument but the the the images that are stored in your hard drive in opertern right it is just the image the only difference is there's other data in the same file surrounding it right um so my shitty analogy is like if you it's like if you put a piece of shit into a sandbox, it's still a piece of shit. It's just surrounded by sand, right? But it's still the same piece of shit. It hasn't been changed at all. That is what operative is.

Whereas inscriptions, you have to, you have to put it together to make that piece of shit. You still have to put the opertern together. You don't have, there's nothing to put together, D. It's together. It's one continuous thing. What are you putting together, motherfucker? So we have this in place. What happens moving forward?

what are the options for bitcoiners to either support this or not support this yeah you're not forced you're not forced to upgrade your node um you know someone can can update to v31 and if no one runs it then then nothing changes um you're not forced to do anything um so if you don't want this then you can run knots you can run different uh client you can run a previous client of core uh v29 or or older i heard V29 has some bugs, so maybe don't run that one. But yeah, you know, you have options. You don't have to go along with it. So the only option.

These things are, hold on, these things are consensus valid. So again, you can, these can be mine, whether you like it or not. This is kind of similar to RBF, when RBF happened back in the day when there's a lot of businesses that were building on zero conf and they didn't like RBF. And then there was 10 plus percent of the nodes that were relaying RBF, and it became standard because it doesn't matter what 85% of people care about as long as it's consensus valid. Those 10 to 15% can relay that transaction. Same with these greater operands. Yeah.

So as D said, it is now consensus valid. And just because of the way Bitcoin is set up, like the defaults set the soft consensus. There's a hard consensus, right? But policy was basically soft consensus, and because, and that's because Core has such a monopoly on it, right? So basically, whatever core sets this policy goes. So if you look at, if you look at all the previous transactions, that's the reason there's basically, basically zero transactions with operands bigger than 83, right?

because everyone ran a filter that filtered anything greater than 83 exactly yes so now that core has gone off the deep end and and raised that limit change so this the other misconception that like a lot of people on like d side say oh uh raising the raising the changing policy is not changed because it's consensus right they use the no it's not a consensus change wait no i didn't i didn't interrupt you let me so they try to be technically speaking the actually guy right it's not a consensus change but

there doesn't fucking matter okay it doesn't matter in real shut up in real terms it is a change to bitcoin right the soft the soft policy even though it was soft might as well have been consensus because that's what the chain said

that's what the chain did right there was no fucking transactions above 83 right librae mara slipstream and direct minor submission we've already been we've already been we're back in that circle i'm trying to exist there's one megabyte up return i'm trying to talk to the adults here please d um right so so because of that now basically core has effectively changed bitcoin by raising by changing policy because because core has such a monopoly policy their policy is how the chain is used so that's why we need um a

a soft work to basically just undo the changes they did, right? So it's not like a regular soft work where we're adding new features because with new features comes, always comes unknown unknowns and other risks, right? With this, we're just returning things to the way they were. Yeah, it's a soft work and everybody's like, oh, soft work has changed. Again, technically true, but in real terms, it's the more conservative approach because you're undoing a bad change that core unilaterally decided to make because they have the power yeah no i don't i don't see how a consensus change is less radical than a policy change uh you as a node runner can can can can change your data carrier to whatever you want libra relay have

been uh relaying greater than 83 byte overturns for a while now pre how many how many libra relays are there how many re labor relays i don't know the answer i don't yeah so and how and how many oper turns over 83 did they get in without going directly to a minor and we've already and yeah we've already been through this, the minor also has to run lever really, which is not the standard software which is not the standard client. You can't stop them from not running. Which I'm not saying, I'm just, okay, I'm not trying to stop anybody.

And this is the other thing. They're like, oh, talking about legal risks is threatening people. It's not. I'm looking at this from a logical point of view. The miners running non-standard software that allows this would be putting themselves at greater risk. Now the standard software is

upgraded. Now they have plausible deniability to say, whatever, you know, we're just running the standard software. Most Myers have custom client software anyway when they run. Okay. Are they running? Okay. Anyway,

I think I've made my point. Yeah, I just don't see the argument. It's totally fine. And if you want to make those arguments, it's totally fine. Those operterns can be made before V-30. And if there is a motivated party,

that will get in, whether we like it or not. because it is consensus valid. So we can, you can run, you can run, no, you're, you're just, you're, I interrupt you, blah, blah, blah, right? Thank you. Yeah, so you can run knots. You can, you can decide your own policy. If, if there are spammers that come out with a different client that is consensus valid and

they have, you know, 10% of the nodes, they can relay all those transactions whether you like it or not. And if you want to change consensus, that's going to be very tricky. And it is very, it's not just, oh, yeah, well, everyone's just going to go along with it because clearly there's people that want these things and they want more than 83. And that's totally fine. They are still Bitcoiners. At the end of the day, they still run no. They're sick coiners.

That's totally fine. If you want to believe that, they are still no runners, whether they are Bitcoiners or not, I guess. Well, I'm banking on their being actual bit pointers more than shit corners. But anyway, yes, keep going. Sure. Yeah, go for it. And you can bet on that all you want. I just don't think consensus works that way, and it's going to be very tricky to change consensus.

I'm for keeping Bitcoin the same, and you are ultimately wanting to change Bitcoin. Whether it is to change it back or not, it is still a consensus change versus a policy change. The reason for increasing it in the first place was because there were companies and L2s that needed more than 83 bytes. And if they didn't get more than 83 bytes, then they needed to put it in worse places, like fake pub keys and whatnot, which we can obviously get into if you want. But I would prefer people to put that data in the trash can, right, in the opertern, not bloating the UTIXO set, rather than putting it in fake pub keys, fair, multi-sig, whatever, and bloating the UTIXO set every, every block, right?

Okay, so Dee actually hit another misconception that I was going to cover, so thank you, D. So remind me to get back to that That's a fucking trash can allows you over here But first of all We can disregard the trash can, it's fine But D D likes to make Say words like you know

It was consensus valid So it was always possible That's correct But if you think about it Up to one megabyte operet Yeah Okay okay Since 2014

Okay D we got it But if you're going Just clarifying If you're going to think about this logically In real terms Not just like Oh I know the technical definitions but like we live in the real world

if somebody wanted to in the real world get something objectionable into the Bitcoin blockchain they can absolutely do it do you shut the fuck up for a second into the Bitcoin blockchain before Core V30 right

how would they have done it how what would it would have looked like going directly to one of these big miners who would not take that Lyft stream Libra Relay Europe I'm surprised you didn't go this way

directly exactly exactly do yeah can i finish like i said going you asked me a question i just answered i gave you three examples of how they could get it in regardless of what you run on those are all going directly to a minor right and they have no incentive to allow this kind of shit onto the chain because they would be legally liable they would not have done it that is hearsay and you have no proof so really see you're going to let me fucking finish so realistically speaking before core v30 there was no way to uh get this shit on chain now there i don't agree Okay, I get it.

Now, shut up. And in terms of changing, yeah, I guess you could call it a change, but I want to keep Bitcoin the same as it was, when was this release, like a month ago? Like, let's say two months ago, to the beginning of Bitcoin. So, yeah, I want to, no consensus change. I want to, okay, again, it's the same argument, D. You're talking about technicals. I'm talking about the real world, okay?

Yes, there was no consensus change. Because I don't care about the legal ramifications. It's not the legal ramifications. It's the real world. In the real world, I don't care what the consensus said. The blockchain says there was no fucking transactions with over 83 bytes. Okay, there's one or two, but it was not something that was... Plenty of examples.

Okay, a handful, okay. D, probably more than 10. I need you to understand this, okay? I know you have issues with understanding of freaking hypotheticals. and generalizations, but generally fucking speaking, there was none, okay? No.

There was actually some. Okay, do you know what the word generally means, you absolute fucking idiot? This is a debate, or are you just gonna yell at me? Dee, just let him go in once in your time and make sure you got it, the floor is fine, whatever.

Let them run with it. Generally, Dee, I'm using the word generally on purpose, okay? It has a meaning. Okay, anyway. as for the trash can i don't think that's a great and that's a i don't think that's a great excuse at all like so these spammers and scammers if you give them a new trash can uh there's no incentive for them to use this trash can because above a hundred whatever uh bites it's actually cheaper

for them to use uh inscriptions so these guys love talking about incentives a lot so they'll probably just use incentives i was sorry probably just use inscriptions what it does do is give a brand new bucket to stuff shit into for a brand new shit coiners to come in and be like, oh, we're the opertern inscriptions. They won't care about spending the extra money because it'll be a marketing opportunity, right?

I'd encourage them to do that. You're not reducing the amount of total spam. You're just increasing it because people are using inscriptions will still use it. And then you're just creating a whole new set of shit coiners that'll come to use the opertern specifically. So that you these, a little argument just holds no water. Yeah, there's, there's no limit aside from the block size before B30.

Anything above 160 bytes or something around there, it is cheaper to put it in the witness, and they will probably keep doing that. But if we can encourage people, at least like these L2s and things that are going to be using those transactions a lot, if we can, you know, if there are 100 bytes and we can convince them to put it in the operator instead, they aren't increasing the UTXO bloat. and it is a more safe area or a better area to put it in than witness or fake pub keys. So would you prefer them to put it in worse places or would you prefer to put it in a place where they can prune it? Like, what's your thoughts there? That's a fake hypothetical. I'm not going to answer that because there's no- So what's wrong without it?

Just talk to me. Because there's no evidence showing that these people will pay more to be good citizens of Bitcoin. If they were a good citizen-Bit-up to 160, it's more efficient to put it in the option. it they would use it as money and not be shit corners there's just going to be a new set of shit corners that come in specifically you use this operatern increase that's all that's going to happen yeah that's fine oh sorry no it's all good i just don't agree uh with that sentiment um i think i think putting it in the option is better than putting it in uh other places for sure um and if if you don't want to do that that's fine you can you can just bloat the ux0 set and and let them do that uh

but i don't want them to do that and i'd also don't want to change consensus So I'm going to, you know, change my policy to data carrier up to 100 kilobytes. And if you don't like that, you can run different policies. I think we can all run different policies, different clients, and be in, not in unison, but in consensus. Like, you can, you don't have to run the same as me, and I don't have to run the same as you. But once you start talking about consensus forks, then, yeah, there's definitely some concerns and risks there. sure okay so let's get to that because so d also um leave your car door open at night because you know then they won't break your windows if somebody comes and breaks in no i don't believe a

car door is the same as a bitcoin note oh yeah yeah yeah you know you only you can use the analogies like trash cans i i don't know what i'm doing no i said let's disregard the trash can one because you're right analogies are really bad and they don't they don't usually work with bitcoin nodes yeah well i mean already made my point you have no evidence showing that these fucking shit-cointers are going to come in and do the right thing and use the not bloat the UTXO side because you gave them a new trash can but i don't think we gave a new trash can it's the exact same trash can that exists since 2014 i'm not i'm not i'm not okay i'm not yes yes yes i guy i like your line i'm not a new yes yes guy either we just disagree on

you've said your line like 10 times now with the exact same line but you know we've already been to it i'm not same thing it's to be said about um it's going to bring this to a different direction. And I hear the term soft fork being thrown out quite a bit. And perhaps I'm going to throw it over to you, D. Because this thought of it or this discussion of a soft work seems to be the answer potentially to solving some of the problems. I'm wondering, what are your thoughts on a potential sock fork? Why would there be one in place? And what is your stance on a soft work? Yeah, a soft work in general, or Bit44, like, which one are we kind of talking about here? That's the one in particularly that seems to be that's contentious.

I'm definitely not a fan of that one, just because there is, thankfully, they have removed the reactive activation as of like yesterday, meaning that if something illegal gets into Bitcoin tomorrow, I guess they would not do a reactive softwork. I don't know what their thought processes behind that. It may have just been kind of lowering the fear-mongering type of deal and they want to have a more standard process of upgrading rather than just reactive. Whether that means that now that illegal contents between now and then is fine, but after that is not fine is kind of weird. But yeah, I don't agree with it because it does limit a lot of things that are. our rules in Bitcoin that are valid today. And I don't think restricting those is a good thing.

It could potentially lock coins. Potentially, I don't know if that's true or not. That's been tossed around. I know genome has been on your space talking about potential lock coins, which I obviously would not be in favor of, depending on whoever's coins. It could be scammers coins. I don't give a shit. I don't think you should lock anyone's coins because they are consensus valid and they should be able to spend those. You know, we've had ornals and runes and blah, blah, blah, since for two and a half years. Sorry, not runes. We've had ornals for two and a half years.

And this, this bit is kind of being pushed along with the operative restriction, which is interesting. Because two and a half years ago, we, I mean, we can kind of talk about it even in our chats. I was like, you know, like, if you want this stuff not to be on chain, you're going to have to fork. And people are finally coming to that realization that they actually do. do have to enforce things at the consensus level and not through policy because if there's a economically motivated actor, they will put anything into Bitcoin if they have an incentive to do it. So I don't really agree with that Bit444. I don't think it's effective. I think people just find other ways to store arbitrary data into Bitcoin. They'll just obfuscate it more.

Sure, it won't be standard. It won't be, oh, yeah, put your, put your arbitrary data here. But it will potentially hurt Bitcoin more by blowing the UTXO set and throwing it in places that we, that's just more harmful. I don't, I don't think that's good. And, yeah, the tradeoffs just don't make sense to me. But I'm willing to hear what Praveen has to say first. And yeah, go ahead.

Yeah, okay. I think these conflating things again, he wants to pretend that, you know, we, the people figured out that filters weren't enough. So now we're wanting to fork because of spam, right? If that's the case, why didn't we people? Yeah, for sure. And why isn't it just about opertern? D, I'm going to need to let, I'm going to need to talk, okay?

I didn't say a single word. So he wants to pretend that basically. Well, when you say things like, I want to pretend stuff. He wait till the fucking end. Yeah, yeah. Well, don't accuse me of shit then. Just say what you want to say and keep your fucking, keep my name out of your mouth. And don't say, oh, I pretend this.

No, I'm just saying what I think, man. I just say, everybody has a smile in her face. Just listening to this and thinking, what, these guys are going in his head of throats. Dees being irrational. It's like, well, just say your point and we will debate it, man. Like, don't, like, be, like, assuming what I'm, you know what I mean? Like, does that make sense?

Motherfugger, I'm not assuming. I'm just re-saying what the fuck you just think. You're a fucking idiot. All right. Let's come back to this. I mean, you just said, it was false. Back to the stuff. What the fuck do you think of debate is?

If I didn't think what you said with fault, we would agree. It's a discussion for me. Just, anyway, what you have to say. Okay. What I have to say is I disagree with these freaking painting of the picture. He wants to say that we want a soft fork because spam is really bad and we waited this long because we were stupid and just realized that soft fork is the only way to do it. That's not true. Yes, most of the people that are for this fork and are against the opertern are also against spam, right?

That's true, but that doesn't mean that's the, you're conflating two different things, right? So the spam and the operative, by the way. Yes, I know. The spam and the operterns are two different, two different things in my eyes. And I can't speak for everybody because it's not like a one united group versus another united group, but Bitcoin is made up of all individual actors, right? So in my eyes, this BIP was proposed right after the opertern limit was raised. There's a reason for that, right?

It's not because of spam. It's because of the legal, moral, and ethical risks we just talked about of having an intended place to put data on, right? That was not in all intents of purposes there before core 30. That's why it's there. So BIP 444, yes, I agree, does more things than just reducing the operative. I guess they're thinking is if we're going to do a fork, we might as well fix some of the other stuff that's broken in Bitcoin, right? Um, and when it comes to the locking up of coins, it's mostly bullshit and all these are in like crazy, ridiculous, like, uh, tap, tap leafs that basically devs put money into after this BIP was released to say, hey, look guys, there's money locked up. There's, uh, I could, I bet that there's no actual, um, people you doing that this is just, it doesn't matter. I, I agree. Even if it's just devs fucking around, uh, cool, you know, we don't, we don't need to. We don't need to.

lock their coins but that's already been addressed right that's already been addressed um when with with the latest changes in in in the bib but again um my main concern so would would you agree to a soft fork that did nothing but limit the op returns back to 83 bytes so you're just you're not doing anything else you're just going back to what it was before um yeah sorry but i think bitcoin all caps are saying yeah the new draft that's great yeah so it's and that's the other thing bib 444 is it's it's it's it's there for discussion people are giving feedback they're changing it right exactly exactly so like let's not pretend like this is set in stone and like the only soft fork is like this or nothing right so d i am curious what you think about this would you agree

to a uh soft fork that did nothing but reduce the upper turn limit yeah i i would not no because there are L2s that want to prove states and they want to put more than 83 bytes and I would prefer them to put it in the opertern for 100 bytes or whatever it is that they need rather than bear multi-sig. So is your sense that you see no possible legal moral ethical risk of an increased opportunity or even if you do that is lower than your hypothetical idea that these shit corners will decide to use op return instead yeah i i think that same argument was made in 2014 and i don't think it's valid today to bring up the same legal immoral um what what was the op return limit in 2014 yeah they let they set it to 83 but before that it was there was no limit

actually um so okay so so how could the same argument have been brought up in 2014 when the limit was 83 bytes. How is it the same one? Or are you conflating two different things again? No, because there are multiple ways to put things into blocks. And if there's a motivated actor, they can put it in whether you like it or not. We've already been through this. There's multiple ways that include encoding and it's not the same way as opertern, right? The opertern is designed for data. We've talked about this. So don't lie. Okay, this has not been covered. Don't assume. Don't make, don't say the line. You're trying to make it sound like, oh, this has already been argued for operturn. It has not since 2014.

Now, guys, let's look at it through a different lens. And I'm wondering if there could be a middle ground here. What if there is a proposal or maybe court adopts their next client version to reduce it from 100,000 kilobytes to something like 160 bytes? Is that something, is that a middle ground that achieves what D wants, but also achieves what Praveen wants? I'm curious, Dee, would this be something that you'd be in favor of, something that core would be reducing that number from... Yeah, I... D, hold on, hold on.

Can you... I think you also were talking about a softwork that Portland Hoddle was talking about, right? Yeah, it was a transaction output can't be more than 520 bytes. So similar to what witness is right now, because they chop it up in 520 bytes. So it really wouldn't matter. I think for the Cordes... side. I don't, I'm not one. This is just my opinion. I'm not trying to lie. I'm not trying to mislead people of any of that. I just think that they prefer to just, you know, get this over with

almost. They don't want to increase it to 160 and then say, oh, well, another L2 needs 320 at some point. And so now we have to increase it again. But no, but this is the argument shedding argument again. So the argument for the policy, not, not the software, right? This is, this is what, uh, Len was talking about. Why don't, why doesn't their, uh, consensus be 160? No, but yeah, something like, no, no, to be clear, to be clear, Len, are you talking about why not do a soft work that makes it 160?

Or are you talking about why not, why did Corr not put the, I'm thinking, core trying to find a middle ground. Yeah, their man pool policy to, to, to something that is, would be, rather than 100 kilobytes just something like 100 bytes or 150 just something that's closer to what it was to before

83 bytes but then it would potentially allow for L2s to take advantage of this increased operant but at the same time it doesn't allow for too much stuffing of garbage within that yeah also just to be clear

like we we say L2L2 like as if it's like another lightning right The only people that want this is fucking shitria. They're a shit coin, right? Their stated goal is to turn Bitcoin into Ethereum. It's to bring the EVM to Bitcoin, right? So these are not legitimate L2. This is not Lightning, but better.

This is not Arc. These are shit coiners that want a shit coin on Bitcoin. It does not make Bitcoin turn complete like Ethereum, just FYI. Okay. So it's not Ethereum. It's sure. They want to bring the EVs. They would like to bring smart contracts with better contracts to Bitcoin.

Len, Len, to answer. your question it i i i think i'm not trying to force my like my perfect solution through right i just want a solution to this problem so i would i don't i have no fucking power but if i did i would definitely be open to uh soft work discussions that okay fine maybe it's not 83 maybe it's 160 right but but it's limited in at the consensus level somehow um yeah and then and then other the other way i can see this software getting in is like a lot of people want um covenants right so maybe there's a maybe there's an opportunity to make an alliance with the covenant people like hey let's do covenants plus a limit on op return either way like i just want to be able to run my own node i don't want this

shit on bitcoin that's my goal right and and then if we can reduce some of the spam like that that's a bonus for me yeah i think i think uh you know devs are you know want bitcoin to be programmable money Bitcoin is money. And these things to put data in like the operturn continues to push forward that functionality of programmable money. So while fees are low and people are not using the L1, yeah, there'll be a bunch of spam. But if these L2s catch on or people actually start using Bitcoin as money, then they get they get priced out. I think fees are the ultimate filter here. I'm not for a consensus to change the operturn down to 160. I think it's it's kind of already been done. The deed is done here. And I don't think one megabyte operturns harm Bitcoin more than a

four megabyte witness data blob. So it doesn't make any sense to me. So I don't think, I don't think that's illogical or irrational or lying. I just personally don't think that one megabyte worth of operturn data is a big deal at all. I think we can already shove four megabytes in. So there is no additional risk. Aside from this legal thing that you want to talk about, I don't agree with that either. And at the end of day, you're right, none of us, none of us really matter. We're not lawyers. And we run our own policies and our own nodes. So if you want to not relay more than 83 bytes, you just change your data carrier size. And I will increase mine if I want. I haven't yet. I'm running V-29 as,

As all caps has pointed out, I should probably upgrade because there are exploits or vulnerabilities. Okay, yeah, that's kind of a whole argument. Yeah, relay policy is great. Yeah. But, you know, if this shit isn't in blocks, it doesn't help. But I think we've been over this because to D, there is zero risk in this opportunity increase, which I obviously do not agree with. And I don't think I can convince D of it.

I don't know why. Which is not the goal of this conversation. Yeah. But I'm curious, Len, what do you think about all this? I think that Bitcoin Core just unlocked or opened a can of worms that shouldn't probably have been opened up to begin with. I don't know why they went. I'm sorry. I think I know why they went to this extent to open up the upper turn to 100 kilobytes.

There seems to be some money or there's some incentive here that patted their pocketbooks and they're doing this. That's my opinion. I could be wrong, but that's what I believe right now. But then also this knee-jerk reaction, but his BIP-444-4 seems to be probably a little bit too much of a knee-jerk reaction. And I'm wondering, up until today, I'm not sure if this latest BIP-44-4-4-change puts to rest this potential hard fork slash chain split to rest. But if that hasn't been put to rest, if there is going to be a hard fork or chain split as a result of this, I think the community as a whole is going to be worse off, but like Nome said last week, I'm going to have to just almost paraphrase him, but it's a good learning opportunity for

everybody. Yeah. I'm also, I'm not looking for an air drop, by the way. I'm not motivated by an air drop. I do agree that, yeah, of course, any change to Bitcoin, prevene, there is a risk. I'm not saying there's zero risk. Why worry? Shut the fuck up.

It's fine. You know, like that's why we're having this conversation. I obviously see it as a less of a risk than you. I'm also not like promoting spam or like saying that everything that core does is correct. I'm just sharing my opinions and what I believe is true. I'm not trying to be like I know obviously this is a debate and like it's like Core v. knots and like and whatnot. But at the end of the day, like we all run nodes. We all buy Bitcoin.

I'm not saying, oh yeah, kumbaya. We're all on the same team either. We may just differ on a few things. Of course, there's risk with everything. The contiguous thing is a little bit, I think, of a stretch for me. But it's not for you. And if you want to keep fighting that battle, that's totally fine. I just don't agree with changing consensus right now.

Do the question to the bottom, D, just before you hand it off to Praveen, do you want to just quickly? Yeah, that's actually kind of why I was addressing. Like, I'm not saying core is right and everything that they do. Again, it's not core V-nauts. Everyone runs their node a little different. You can set your data carrier to whatever you want. Even in V-30, you can lower it down to 83 bytes if you really want, you know?

So, yeah, everything comes with risks. I think we do agree on some things, even though you call me an idiot and call me a liar all the time. Hey, no, not you. No, not you, not you. Praveen, Praveen. You know. Well, don't lie if you don't want me to call you a liar. I don't think I'm lying.

I don't think I'm promoting spam by saying one megabyte opertern is okay to me. I just don't see the risks as you do. But yes, of course, everything comes with tradeoffs, risks. Sure, it could be a legal thing. I just don't see it as like I think this thing has been really blown up. And I don't think it is as big of a problem as people are making it out to be. and you know that that's just my opinion you know you both can totally disagree it's totally fine and i'm not looking for chain split or uh or airdrop or anything like i'm not motivated by that

i just okay so so the way i see it is most of the arguments i've heard against a softwork is the risk of a soft work not against this particular soft work um other than like 444 in its current state but let's let's debate a hypothetical soft fork that limits it to let's say you know let's go crazy let's say 400 right um or 300 whatever limits up returns to 400 or 160 uh and there's nothing else right so i haven't heard a lot of arguments against why that would be technically bad the arguments have been it could cause a change but the the the the forking itself could be bad right but if there's consensus then then that it wouldn't be it won't be bad right um basically look can you expand on hold it yeah if basically

this all comes down to what how big of a risk do you think this operative that's the first time bitcoin has been designed for arbitrary data that can hold enough for an image videos whatever um that's stored contiguously uh it's easy to get how big of a risk do you think that is like our If you think that's not any different than inscriptions, right, like D, then you're not going to, then you're not going to care. But if you think it is a risk, and depending on how big of a risk you think it is, it is, then if you think it's a huge risk like I do, then I would be willing to risk a chain split, right? And we can get into some reasons why, like, this, this software has a better chance, why it has some kind of, some structural advantages over the like previous chain like when it comes like a chain split situation like you wouldn't need 51% of the hash per se um but len i guess i'm more curious

about what len thinks because like i have a very good idea what d thinks and like we're not going to come to the middle anywhere um len what do you think do you i guess you've heard from us like what do you think do you see this as a risk certainly there could potentially be the way I'm looking at, there could potentially be a legal risk here, especially if you're dealing with OFAC minors, that they would obviously not want to include certain things into a block. But then what happens if you have a group of people that want to have it in there and they go to any minor that's not OFAC compliant and get it put in there. And then what happens, I'm wondering if this would potentially lead to a chain split because

you just have two different ideas, one that wants to have shipped rubbed out of it. But then from what I gather, they don't want, they're not trying to do. do any sort of reorg. So it's hard for me to say because this BIP-4-4-4 thing is evolving pretty fast. No, let's not talk about the, let's not talk about the fork for a second, right? Okay. Let's talk about the, what do you think, like, the risk of having these large operators? Do you believe there's a risk? Would you consider turning off your node if something like this was mined, right? Do you think there's a legal risk to you or to minors or to people in Generally. I could say that people are going to question if they're going to want to run a node. And that in itself is a risk. Somebody should not come to any, shouldn't have any self-doubt. Should I run it either for a moral, ethical, or legal rights to run it? They should just run it just because, fuck, this is the only way to verify a transaction that you have. So if there's a seat of doubt that's been placed, I think this is problematic. And I'm not sure what's the best course of action to resolve it.

so hold on so and i agree with that and we haven't even got to like the reputational risk right okay people already call big corners like terrorists money for terrorists and all that shit now imagine if this shit gets on there like like it's already on there like it's already on a huge lend you know what i mean by get on there right in the in this in this in this put it an op return instead of segue yeah our state's in a witness yeah we don't need to keep going back to that because we've already discussed it okay i'm trying i'm trying i'm trying it off like it's truth and I don't agree with it and I'm just like sitting here like yeah sure man yeah we've we've just hypothetically agree it's there we've established that op return is different than

inscriptions right so we have not my I mean that's my question to Len my question is not just is this bad do you think the opertern is an increased risk over inscriptions that's already in the question that certainly look what is bitcoin how I believe the majority of people that have bitcoin they leave it is a token, a coin, whatever, that could be exchanged peer-to-peer permissionless. That's really what Bitcoin is. It's the exchanging of money, the exchanging of value for something. And it's with this, you're using Bitcoin in a way that it's almost like storing something. Like you mentioned, either a file or a video or a song or where to fuck.

And it's kind of steering away from it being money into being a file coin type. system. Yeah. That's the way I'm looking. I don't want it to be an inefficient database. I'd rather be it more efficient money. Yeah. And then OpperTurn is, it's core saying, okay, we are now a file database, basically.

I don't think that is a valid fact. It can be objective. Okay. Dee, what else is OpperTurned used for other than a data storage on Bitcoin? Is it used as input? It's scaled to 8 billion people. yes it can so these these sorry no it doesn't

just have to be for files it can be on bitcoin for zK roll-ups and other things like it is the the stated the stated goal of hold on arbitrary data

arbitrary data can include your tick-corner's but it's for arbitrary data it's the only place that's correct lightning uses arbitrate the arena for arbitrary data yes correct again you don't need to have a image or videos worth of fucking data for lightning to work lightning

already works before course v30 does it not yes they put stuff in the witness too i'm still i'm still talking to len here okay i just i just i just want to well i'm on this call too hi yeah but you haven't you haven't really added anything of a significant oh he has yeah come on man like don't be an asshole like i'm joking i'm joking come on you're not no you're totally not you're gonna you're gonna fucking ream on me in the chat later and be like this is a fucking waste of time like what the no no no it's not a waste of time but you just are not open to your mind being changed anyway it doesn't matter um len so the reason i bring this up is like it's it's it's all about how big you think this risk is right because for the people that think like basically it could either

have the ability to kill bitcoin if not changed or at least for them kill bitcoin in that like if I'm not going to run a node, what's the point of Bitcoin, right? To them, that is going to be a higher risk than a possible chain split, right? And a chain split could be bad, but you're probably not going to have two coins. We can get into that as well if we have time. But basically, I think what I'm trying to say is, like, if you think this is a risk, right? I don't think this BIP is rushing anything. Because if you do believe it's the risk, like, this could get into a block at any time.

time, right? So I think it's good to be prepared for this to happen. Because right now, it's just all hypotheticals. Nobody cares, right? All the OGs, like, MBK and Odell, their, their way of dealing with this is basically blah, blah, blah, nothing has heard Bitcoin before. It's not going to hurt anything. I don't think that's true. Right. Anyway, but if this does happen, it gets real, real fast. And then people are going to have to, like, decide where they go from here. So, so at that point yeah like i think i think that was the point of why like the reactive thing was there because like like someone's going to react if that happens right somebody posed a really good question earlier on i want to bring it up what could do core dev say to you

to make you agree to run core 30 and not not so i guess this is more directed towards you pervin but maybe d could also answer this too um i don't i don't understand that question like what could they say to make um like what sort of action could they do to make you say yeah you know what i'm going to be more of a core supporter i'm going to be more inclined to run core rather than to run nots oh okay that's easy they can say oh yeah sorry we fucked up let's go back to the way things work and i guess do you you i think i think all caps had a good point uh you know it says in core's mind it reduces harm to the you take so set which i was saying earlier which apparently is not a logical argument where you will shove data in worse places if you do not give

them this option. And I don't think increasing it by 80 bytes is going to be sufficient long term. Maybe they need more storage. We have no idea what other L2s will need in the future, and I don't think restricting it is smart. And I think it's a good ground to dump your data and it does not blow the UTXO set. So they are being proactive in this sense where companies like Citria need more than 83 bytes and instead of putting it in fake pub keys they are now by standard they can put it in the operative and they can put their 100 bites in so I'm sorry if you need more than I don't think that's an illogical argument I think that is a fair statement and that is an argument for the core side I don't I don't think like how like

let's talk about that why why is that a bad thing I'm sorry if you're if you're if you're If your shitty fucking side chain and needs 100, 100 kilobytes to connect it to the main chain, your shitty fucking side chain is shitty, and you should go re-design it and not fuck everything up. Okay. That's a whole on. Let's pause there for a second. Let's pause there for a second. Okay. And even then, they'll need 160. Hold on. Let's pause. If they're going to do it anyway, okay, because this is Bitcoin. We can't tell people what to do. They can't, you can't tell them go shit coin somewhere else. They're going to come here. Okay. Would you prefer it to be in a place that can be printable? Or would you prefer it to be in a place like fake pub keys? That is the question, really. No. I'm not going to play this gotcha game, okay? It's not a gotcha game. It's a valid question.

Because you can't guarantee me that that's all that's going to happen. There's not going to be any other unintended consequences. We're not talking about that. And you can't tell me what's going to happen if we kept things the same. You can't tell me that they're not just going to fuck off. Anyway. So hold on. I'm asking a question.

Let's answer the question, okay? So a company wants to put more than 83 bytes in an operan, okay? Do you put it in fake pub keys, or do you allow them with policy, no consensus change, and increase that op return box so that they can put it in there? I can tell them to go fuck off. They can't have a valid conversation. They won't answer the actual question because it's happening. And whether you like it or not, they're coming.

But anyway, let's get back to the risk, right? so whatever it all depends do you think that risk that the the gulog guy that says it was a workaround yeah they had a work around it was called bloat the utX O set so you know what I mean like they did not need this change but because core does not want to bloat the UTXO set they increased it by default and there and there's nothing saying that well they will use this going forward and and and And nothing happens in a vacuum, right? If you encourage these people by saying, we will change Bitcoin. All you need, like, what's the saying?

Like, you don't negotiate with their terrorists. You know why? Because if you do, that encourages more terrorism, right? Rich people have a thing of, like, we will never pay a ransom. Because if terrorists know you can, you pay the ransom, they will come after you and your family more because they know you're willing to pay. Yeah, I don't agree with that analogy. No, Citre are terrorists and they are, we're creating more terrorists because we're because we accommodated then.

I don't think we're accommodating them by giving them a better place to put the data rather than fake pup keys. Anyway, we're tacitly, we're tacitly approving updates. I also don't want to try and be a gaslighter or say it's not a big deal. Of course is a big deal.

Obviously, we're talking about this for reason. I'm just reading these comments real quick. Obviously, it is a big deal because there's been a bagelian podcast about this stupid, or about this subject. So for sure, it's a big deal to some people, and I don't want to discredit them 100%. Also, someone was commenting on my sweater. I wanted to make a sweater.

I actually got it for the conference, and I wanted to wear it on stage with all those other Bitcoin treasury guys, but I didn't get to. So this is why I'm wearing it. It is a meme. It is a joke. I do not own any treasury companies, nor do I endorse any treasury. treasury companies it is it is it is a get up okay this is why i have dr pepper as well right it's it's more of for fun okay you could have your turtleneck again yeah exactly i'm i'm trying to have fun here i'm not i'm not trying to endorse a specific company just so we're all clear uh on that

one i like the dives jobs oh yeah deep job exactly yeah um eric eric seems like an interesting guy in the comments i happily answer any of his questions um i i there's things that i don't agree with because they are subjective. I don't think everything Praveen is saying is is a facts based in you know reality. Just like he can also say that I'm not not saying. I haven't said anything that was false. And I don't think I have also said anything that is false. So I mean like we can we can argue about that all day. No you you have you just dismiss stuff as not being different. No it's not true because I asked you a valid question about where you prefer people to put their proofs and you said I'm not going to answer that. Let's just move.

on. So, no, I, you know, you don't want to have a conversation either. I told you, you don't negotiate with terrorists. Okay, that's my answer. Gentlemen. Len, lend, hold on. The reason this all came with, because I was talking about the risk, right? Yeah.

So it depends how big you think the risk is. Because if you think the risk of, like, something getting into the Bitcoin blockchain, uh, like this, what we're talking about in this opportunity is, it's big enough that then the, the fork starts, starts to, uh, start making more sense. Maybe not this. And I'm not saying I'm for exactly everything that's in this. I'm just saying just a general,

because I'm usually against force, right? But the general idea of a fork to limit this shit to me makes sense because I believe that the risk is high. Yeah. If there's people out there and I've already read some comments that people shut off their nose and people are thinking about shooting off their nose, there's obviously people are concerned about what may have. happen and what the authorities may believe what they have on their computer and the cause

a mission is moving forward so yeah that's definitely a cause for concern for some people for me not yet it may change my i may change my mind moving forward but i'm i'm going to continually run my note at least for now but i have i have every right to change my mind moving forward i think i think we all do len and obviously these are just our opinions uh none of us really matter in the grand scheme of things of course yes So we all have a little, have a little, we matter a little. But like these conversations are more for us and to hash things out because obviously text wasn't working.

So hopefully we got somewhere. I don't think that. Oh, Bitcoin Al Cap says he's no longer running Bitcoin. So that's one that was kind of referencing. You know, that's, without getting too specific here, that's an example of somebody that is very hardcore into Bitcoin. He loves it. He's fucking handle his Bitcoin on YouTube

and he's not running it. So people should take that and process that data. Why isn't he running it? Yeah. He thinks he's for the legal stuff like he thinks he's and he's not an idiot. Unless I'm missing. He's not an idiot like all the core supporters

like to paint. They like to paint all the not people is technically retarded. They don't know what they're technically retarded. No, okay. I'm not saying you. I'm just saying Twitter in general, right? That's what they're, like, technically stupid. They don't know what they're talking about. They've just got, uh, got up into a tizzy because they listened to

mechanic too much. Like, these are all the things I'm hearing, right? But we know, we know, uh, Bitcoin all cops. He's a smart guy. He's been in Bitcoin, probably longer than all of us. Uh, if he's not, if he's thinking of not running a node and I know other people are making purchasing decisions, maybe not directly selling Bitcoin right now, but, you know, uh, before I was thinking of hoddling for a lot longer before I buy a house.

Maybe I buy a house a little earlier now, right? Maybe I diversify, whatever. Like, these are conversations that are happening. And it's not being happening. It's not just, it's not stupid people, right? This is one that thing that pisses me off with the devs on the other side. They get all high up mighty on their freaking horse because they know how to code a little bit. And they look down at all the pledges because they're like, oh, you know,

I didn't even know understand how Bitcoin works, right? That's bullshit, right? They're smart people on both sides. And, and it's bullshit to try and. pretend like oh like only people thinking of leaving bitcoin or or not running their nose are either idiots or have no bitcoin or don't matter at all here's one risk and i talked about it last week with gnome and if you look at the prospectus of the bitcoin ETFs the united states it mentions that they have the right to choose which version of bitcoin is bitcoin and that's what's

going to be that's included in their ETF so if there ever is a chain split a hard fork something along those lines where you have now a secondary coin, they're going to have to decide which coin is going to be included in their ETF. That could be an interesting scenario that plays out. I'm not saying this is a likely scenario, but it is in the realm of possibility

of something that could happen. And man, this could wreck a lot of people in the end. I'd like to hear, are you familiar at all whatsoever what this discussion is all about? I mean, it makes sense. Like, everybody's going to have to decide like if there is a fork that like survive if there's two forks that survive um yeah they're they're gonna have to decide um i mean we can get into the technicals a bit but like a a soft fork

that's a super a strict subset of the current rules means it has a little bit of a structural advantage um during a fork right because if len let me know if this makes sense but basically um let let's say we have bitcoin Bitcoin A, this is like current Bitcoin and Bitcoin B, which is like the fork, right? Everything Bitcoin B makes, every block will be valid to both Bitcoin A and B. But the converse is not true, right? Bitcoin B, all the blocks it makes will be valid to itself, obviously. But if Bitcoin A starts making blocks that are more than 83 bytes, those won't be valid.

Right. So even if Bitcoin B manages to survive even a little. bit, right? And it's not the longest chain. There is a possibility. At some point, it can overtake the chain. And then everybody running Bitcoin A without doing anything, even if they're running Bitcoin 0.12, right, will recognize the Bitcoin B chain as the longest chain, right? So because of that, I think if there's a fork and there's even a little bit of support, there is an incentive for the other minus to capitulate because they don't want to get stuck on a a chain that can get orphaned.

Wouldn't it be the opposite way around because they would be a, the, the mining hash that fork would have is smaller than the other. And if there was any, any, uh, uh, operan that was greater than 83 bytes, that, that chain over there would, would, uh, not recognize it. And then they'd have to throw away that block, orphan it, build on something else. But they don't have enough hash to continue that chain longer than the 90% of the hash or whatever. Yeah.

So I'm saying if the two chains both proceed, right? If they proceed, I guess the risk for the Bitcoin A people mining on it is that if things change in the future, right? If more miners come on, there is an opportunity for Bitcoin B to overtake it, right? And because if it overtakes it, all of Bitcoin A's nodes will just think Bitcoin B is the chain. They will call that Bitcoin, but the converse is not true, right? So basically that's what Luke is saying about, like, Bitcoin A would need to counter fork just to reject the Bitcoin B's stuff. The existing nodes would still validate those because they are stricter. Yeah, I see what you mean.

Yeah, I can't get into the weeds on that too much. It's probably outside my scope. So I wouldn't want to say something that was incorrect. Yeah, we don't know how they're going to deal with the replay. but and so yeah I'm not looking forward to it I really hope they don't do that I would it would be nice

if everyone just runs their own policy and stays within consensus yeah also there's not going to be any replay protections because that's that's more of a hard fork thing right there's uh the concept doesn't really exist because the for a protection that you would need to basically for they would need to fork in the other side right then there would be a USRF and a US whatever

rejected and accepted USAF uh chains there be two forks not just like one old one in one even yeah i just struggle to see how they would get enough hash rate to make that even viable um just because 20% of nodes run knots does not mean that 20% of miners will go with that fork right um you'd have to convince a lot of miners to get on board i just don't see that happening all the other incentives yeah yeah i mean it depends right like if the bump i mean the miners are people too right of course and if there's one up there that is trying to push for no CSAM on their nodes and minors, especially ones that are publicly traded,

may want to opt to deal with that one, follow that one, because let's be honest, the optics of dealing with the United States government, dealing with shareholders, it makes sense. I'm not saying this is a likelihood. It's just, you know, something they need to consider. Even just labeling it as like CSAM versus non-C sam chain, I don't think that's valid. And they would have to explain to the regulars and everybody, the shareholders, why they decided to keep mining on the CSAM chain when this fork existed. So Eric makes a good point.

This is the miners don't have to store the data. But, you know, them being complicit to a particular. But they are the ones putting it in. I think that's worse, right? So there's a lot that just, it's really unknown at this point, but it's a lot of fun to disguise. Yeah. I, I think there's a lot of, sorry, no, I just think there's a lot of advantages just of the fork that people are not thinking about like because it is assuming it's a simple one

low risk like everybody can agree it's low risk because this is how bitcoin has been uh you know it lowers the risk of miners to um to legal threats and lowers risk for uh node runners so i think it's even if you don't think it's a big risk you can agree that it's lowering the risk right i think there the fork has a lot of advantages that people are just uh forgetting about right um the lot of reasons that why even miners might want end up considering it for sure uh just a few comments at the end here i know where i go nuts uh i do believe nodes matter obviously there is a push towards um knots and if there was people like like like running a node and running knots is kind of saying hey i don't agree with what's

going on in core I'm going to run a different client. So clearly there is some pull there. Like you're not voting, but you're saying, hey, I disagree with what's happening in core right now. I'm going to run a different client.

So I think nodes do matter. I'm not saying that they do not. I would never say that. I don't know if core is disenfranchising node runners. Yes, there's maybe something you don't agree with, so then you go over to knots. Yeah.

I mean, it was a good discussion. Obviously, these are my own thoughts. This has nothing to do with the company I work for. I was convinced by Praveen to even hop on here. I declined it first. I said, you know what, I don't really want this drama. I'm not a fan. I'd prefer to stay out of it and just talk in our chat.

But I think it was productive. So that's always good. And I hope I didn't gaslight too much or lie too much or whatever. I'm just trying to share the things that I have heard and researched. I think at the end of the day, this bit 4-4-4 isn't a good idea, in my opinion. I think the contiguous stuff, I don't think it's a big enough legal or moral issue. I think you can still stuff four megabytes worth of data already. So stuffing one megabyte isn't really a huge difference, in my opinion, might be different in your opinion.

I think the legal political stuff, it's really tough. I don't think we should be forking based on what is and is illegal. I also think that these places to put data are intentional and they serve a function and they reduce harm to Bitcoin and they can also be used as money. Bitcoin is money. If you want to price the spammers out, use Bitcoin as money and we will have no problems. The block size and fees are the ultimate filter. But there are other filters, and you can run those. And it's your node.

So you do what you want. And thanks for having me on. I appreciate having both of you guys on. Before we sign off, I just want to make sure, in case people want to reach out to you, they listen to you. This was supposed to be an hour. We went an hour and a half and change. I thank you for doing this, guys. I just want to make sure if they agree or disagree with you and want to reach out and talk to you individually.

So I'll start with you, Praveen. Where could they reach you? and also pump your project before you head about. Oh, wait, wait. Do you got a final thing? Oh, no, that's right. No, you're not allowed. Fuck you, yeah, no.

Go right ahead. I want mine to. Okay, first of all, yeah. To the developers and core lovers out there, you guys need to be stop being so goddamn arrogant, right? The people on the not side aren't idiots. They're Bitcoiners. They're smart.

They got there. Sure, there's idiots on both sides. But like, get off your high horse. Stop sniffing your own farts. Just like fucking listen, okay? Like, not everyone. one's an idiot, so because they're super fucking annoying. Super fucking annoying with that shit.

Sure. Just have an honest debate, right? I don't want to win. I want everyone to come to a consensus. Like, a nice consensus soft fork that has good consensus going forward will be, I think I think Bitcoin will be stronger with, with a soft fork than without it, because I think right now a lot of people recognize that devs are one of the last, um, undecentralized, the centralized risks we have left.

And if we can do a fork to undo some of the stuff that the devs have done, I think that that's a bullish signal that shows that the Bitcoin community is strong, that we can make changes to Bitcoin when needed to protect Bitcoin. And people say Bitcoin is anti-fragile. It's, you can't hurt it, but that's not a magical concept. It doesn't just happen, right? It happens because when someone tries to fuck with it like Core did, we as Bitcoiners are able to react and we it it's it's anti-fragile because bitcoin has an immune system this soft

fork represents that immune system so if you think bitcoin is resilient this is how it is resilient because we can do things like this um yeah other than that you you know take a look for yourself without it is it is a moral it is there's some subjectivity to it look at the arguments how how how different do you think operters are into inscriptions do you think that there's a moral risk why are people turning off their business off their bitcoin nodes right um are they idiots um what is the downside of working these are these are the questions you need to ask yourself um and don't just don't don't do the covid thing don't give your authority to other people just because they're devs or they've been in bitcoin a lot long time

these are not super hard concepts to understand right you're smart i believe in you go look it up make up your own mind, make up your own mind. Don't listen to these people that talk down to you. You don't need to learn, know how to read C++ code to understand what the hell is going on, right? This is your money, this is your life saving. You owe it to yourself to understand what the fuck is going on, okay? Yeah, I'm not going to reiterate all the stuff I said about why I think

Opper Turn is different, but it's true. To me, it is different. And I mean, maybe we can put together a document. I can show you the legal precedent stuff. I've talked about it, but it's not just legal president. It is a moral question. It's a practical question. And don't listen to people that say, you know, this is always possible.

Like we've established why it's different, you know. And then even like the arguments about like, oh, they need this to scale. Like there's nothing showing that like Citria or anybody else is actually helping Bitcoin scale, right? There's nobody show that. That's not a foregone conclusion. It's not like, oh, if we limit this. scaling becomes harder. That's not true, right? If anything, uh, CTV maybe makes scaling a little bit better, but again, we don't even know how much that is. So, uh, these are, a lot of these are

hypotheticals on hypotheticals to, to say, let's not work. I don't understand that. I think the risk of, uh, uh, soft work to return Bitcoin to what it has been, like since the beginning is a much lower risk than not doing it. And the earlier we can do it, the better because if this stuff gets on, it gets real. We're going to, we're going to, to find out if the people screaming chicken were right or if this like we're going to find out real quick right so and any of us condone any of that stuff on

I'm not I'm not saying we do I'm saying it gets real right now Praveen just because I just want to make sure I don't want to keep you guys here forever I would I got time to go on Len two hour special You want to make it to that? No. I'm going to hand a baton to you. If people want it to reach out to you for whatever reason, they like what you heard, didn't like what you hear, where could they reach you? And also pump your project before we pass it off to D. Yeah. So I'm on Twitter, Praveen Pereira. I'm on Noster.

It plays a bit of an echo chamber, but I like it. I like that. It's there in case Twitter goes to shit, but I'm mostly on Twitter. Yeah, Cove. Cove is great. It's been the wallet. I've been a wallet. I've been a little. working on for a year and a bit now. iOS app came out a few months ago. Now I've been focusing on Android. That's almost done and ready for testing. So I'll have a private test group. Len, I think you have an Android, right? So I'm hoping you'll help me test it up. And once that's done, I'm going to get back to some of the features that I've been wanting to add. And then those will be added to iOS and Android going forward together. Spel Perera, because they're asking, how do you spell pre-r-e-r-a beauty d now people want to reach out to you they like what they listen

they don't like what they listen they want please don't uh give me any death threats that'd be great i really hope i do not get too many um i i change yeah there's no point in killing d he doesn't control anything thank you don't threaten him hoddle d right there if i'm pointing at it right uh that's me on twitter um i work for coin kite we're a hardware wall company and uh Again, everything on here is just my own thoughts. It's not a reflection of the company or anything like that. Heck yeah, we got MK4 right there. And, yeah, we sell things like the MK4, Q, Block, Tapsigner, Sats, Cards, a lot of things, Bitcoin-related.

We are a Bitcoin-only company. I hope I didn't come off as too much of a scammer, spamer, ornals, enthusiasts. You know, I'm not here to talk about that stuff. I'm just here to share my perspective. Yeah, everyone's got a little bit of a different viewpoint. So I'm sure we can maybe get back on here when consensus softwork has been activated for, who knows? Yeah, I have a publicly, obviously we're not making, we're not doing any stats, but I believe that no, no software will happen. I don't know, Perrine hasn't decided yet because it obviously hasn't been, you know, the,

everything hasn't been put into place but once the BIP is live and the code is there and we agree we can make a gentleman's bet on whether it is successful or not. I personally do not believe it it will be successful and we don't have to put any stats in the line

but if you believe it's successful and it is then you can beat the shit out of me or something. I don't know. So there you go. Yeah, I appreciate the conversation. Yeah, Dee, I'm just going to double what you said like if I think anybody that's on my side disagrees with deed like let's not pull that cancel culture shit and like try to like that's his opinion he's obviously wrong and we agree but like he has the right to be wrong you know he's not the one pushing this shit on core he and and I can say do you haven't been I haven't seen you on trying to talk down to people on my side and you know pretend that they're idiots or anything like that so at least I appreciate that everyone should run whatever client implementations

that they want go-nots your policy data carrier size can be whatever you want it to be so uh you know fight for what you believe what bitcoin is and uh i'm not going to shit on someone for disagreeing with me i love it in the end i think there's one consensus that we could all agree on there's only one retard and this show and that's me so with that gentlemen thank you for coming on i appreciate you taking a time thanks thank thanks for having us then all right cheers