What Bitcoin Did - Why BIP110 Won’t Change Bitcoin | Mr Hodl & Wicked

Episode Date: June 4, 2026

“In the end, it’s the economic majority of users who decide what Bitcoin is.” Wicked and MrHodl join the show to break down why BIP110 won’t change Bitcoin. We get into the fight over arbitrary data on Bitcoin, why they believe BIP110 fails to solve the problem it claims to address, and why miner signalling alone does not define consensus. The conversation covers Bitcoin Core, Knots, the blocksize war, SegWit, BIP148, spam, soft forks, hard forks, nodes, miners, exchanges, and the role of the economic majority in defending Bitcoin’s rules. Is BIP110 a serious proposal, a virtue signal, or an attempted replay of old battles? And if Bitcoin can be changed without broad consensus, what does that mean for decentralisation? THANKS TO OUR SPONSORS: ANCHORWATCH BLOCKWARE LEDN BITKEY SWAN CAPE FOLLOW: Danny Knowles: https://x.com/\_DannyKnowles or https://primal.net/danny MrHodl: https://x.com/MrHodl Wicked: https://x.com/w_s_bitcoin

If you don't agree with the curtain rule set of Bitcoin, you should for it. Bitcoin is rejecting certain type of consensus valid transactions. That's an attack on the network. That will show that Bitcoin isn't really decentralized. It can be co-opted. That would be very, very bad for Bitcoin. The whole thing is a lie. The support is a lie.

They want to force a group of people into submitting and doing what they want them to do. them to do if you could change bitcoin with 55% hash rate we got we got big problems in the future in the end it's the economic majority of users who decide what bitcoin is so if they fork off and they don't bring along with them everyone else then that's not bitcoin even if in their minds it still is he's trying to bend history and he's trying to fully bluff it into existence because they have no other option at this point wicked mr hoddorf this i've been asking mr huddle for probably checking three years to come on a show and you finally cracked and this

Before you, Peter's been asking me for like three, four years before that. I'm actually, Peter's here in Oslo, and he was pretty mad. He told me to say, fuck you. If Mechanic was doing this shit when Peter was doing the show, then I probably would have went on at that point. I didn't think any podcast really, like, I want to say needed me, but I didn't really have much to offer, I think until now, because mechanic is just distorting history. And I'm not, I'm not really happy with that.

Yeah, I mean, we should probably introduce the two of you, because if anyone's not on Bitcoin Twitter, they probably don't know who you to are. So let's start there. Hold on. You start, because you've been around for a long time. I mean, just someone I got into Bitcoin, um, relatively early. Um, but, uh, I got hooked. and I've been hooked ever since, I would say.

I was definitely, I wouldn't say I was part of the block size wars. I didn't have any meaningful impact, but what I did try to do was get as much information out to Bitcoin Twitter because I was following the conversations on Slack, on IRC, different platforms. And at the time, I thought Bitcoin is being attacked through a certain group of people that are trying to break compatibility, with older nodes. So my mission at that point was just to spread as much information as it possibly could

to get as many people on board with the Bitcoin mission, man. That's pretty much it. Awesome. And Wicked, you're the man with the data. Do you want to tell everyone who you are? Sure. So I did not get into Bitcoin very early. I was a degenerate trader for a while.

So the first time I traded Bitcoin was in 2013. but I was poor and didn't hottle my Bitcoin, fortunately. So I became a real Bitcoiner, I'd say, like in 2020, kind of that era. And ever since, I've been obsessed with Bitcoin data and building visualizations and dashboards to try to present that data in easily digestible ways. Well, I think the two of my favorite accounts on Twitter, But like when, so Wicke had dropped me a DM, Hoddle, and he basically was like, Mr. Hoddle's finally up for a podcast. We should do it. But like, why does mechanic annoy you so much? Maybe we should start with why the two of you are not sort of for Bitcoin 10. Because like this is a lot of the pushback that I got on the podcast that I did with mechanic is that I didn't necessarily explain myself enough. But you two start and then I'll say where I'm at. I believe that Bitcoin is best to use as money.

I think that the use of Bitcoin for arbitrary data is really dumb and inefficient, right? I don't think that it has a future. So I don't think we need to do anything to try to prevent it. I think it will just die on its own. And I think the proposal going forward with BIP 110 doesn't really stop it anyways. It's more of just a virtue signal. So I don't, you know, I don't support anything that doesn't actually stop what we're, you know, what we're upset about. And then the fact that it will kind of peter out on its own, which it already kind of is, is just proof that we don't need to change Bitcoin for that.

All right. Yeah, I'll take a little bit of a different approach. I'm the believer that I think that if you don't agree with the curtain rule set of Bitcoin, you should fork. You should try and either do a soft fork or try and do a hard fork and reach enough support or consensus to do the change you want. The problem here is that when you build consensus,

you see it through the network. You see the nodes dropping off and coming on. You see exchanges talking about it. You see miners talking about it. you see all different platforms talking about the new consensus rules that are trying to get Bitcoin because it's supposed to improve Bitcoin in whatever way. BIP 110 doesn't have any of that. Bip 110 started off with BIP 4444, and that didn't go anywhere,

so they had to go back to the drawing board and start redo things. And in my opinion, when you set the threshold of 55%, to try to activate something, that is an attack on the network. I think if you are championing Bitcoin, you want to see every upgrade go as smooth as possible. When Segment was introduced, the threshold of activating Segment was, I think, 90%.

95%. 95%. The devs, the core developers, they're not just the core developers, everyone was in agreement more less, that unless you have wide majority of support, you're going to get a split. There will be a split. At 55%, let's say they get 55% on the network to start signaling.

And say there is a soft fork, and now Bitcoin is rejecting certain type of valid, consensus valid transactions for a year that, you know, that's an attack on the network. That shows, that proves that Bitcoin could be co-opted by a few individuals and some lawyers threatening a couple of pool operators on U.S. oil. And that will show that Bitcoin isn't really decentralized. It can be co-opted. And in my opinion, that would be very, very bad for Bitcoin. The framing that he's trying to paint is, it. It's a lie. The whole thing is a lie.

The support is a lie. Compared to it to BIP 148 is a lie. All, everything is a lie. And now I just have to ask myself why. Like, why is you lying? I have an idea why. So, you know, my response was basically to do with technically why I disagree with PIP 110, right?

But I think now that it's actually trying to be activated, it's, you know, the truth is that, it has very little support, right? And now they've gone into full bluff mode. And so he's trying to bend history and talk about things as if, you know, Bip 1-10 is still going to succeed, and he's trying to fully bluff it into existence

because they have no other option at this point. So his theory with Bip 1-48, he was said, I'm pretty sure he said it on your podcast was that, you know, we played a game of chicken. But the game of chicken would only be played because we thought that we, the Bitcoin core side, the Seguid side would win because of the support that it had.

Like, it had unanimous support. The only people that wasn't supporting it was Bitmain, Coinbase, and Roger Verr. Like, that's, that's more or less it. Here, you don't see anybody coming out. You don't see any exchanges. You don't see anyone with any hash power you see none of it.

You see a few people on Twitter. It looks like the accounts were made in 2023, and people that I've never heard of before are all of a sudden, they call themselves Bitcoin Maximilist, and they have a monopoly on nodes somehow. They have, even if you say every nods note is real, that's still 20% of the network.

That's not the majority of the network. That's a minority of the network. If you consider that all real notes, which I don't. I don't consider all 20% of them being real notes. But he's making it seem like he's got this monopoly. It's a user activated soft fork. These miners are going to do what the users want. But guess what?

I'm a user also. I have a validating note as well. And I am not a part of your user base. I'm not part of your group. You're trying to centralize Bitcoin. It's like you're painting this group that has all the same. in the world and they are the plebs and miners just work for plebs. That is crazy. That is just a crazy talk. Do you want to pay less in taxes and stack more Bitcoin? Of course you do. Well,

by mining Bitcoin with Blockware you can. Under Section 168K of the US tax code, Bitcoin mining servers qualify for 100% bonus depreciation. This means every dollar you spend on miners can directly offset your income in a single year. And that's true for both business owners and W-2 earners. If you have $100,000 in ordinary income, you can purchase $100,000 of miners and potentially offset your tax liability entirely. Blockware's mining as a service does all the heavy lifting, they secure the rigs, they source the low-cost power and they handle all the day-to-day maintenance. So you get to stack Bitcoin every single day while drastically shrinking your tax bill. Get started today at blockwheresolutions.com forward slash WBD and use code WBD for $100 off your first

minor. That's blockwheresolutions.com forward slash WBD. Bitcoiners, as you know, with Fiat money constantly debasing, wealth preservation isn't optional. That's why I recommend Swan Bitcoin, a team of dedicated Bitcoiners who work with families and businesses to build and secure generational wealth with Bitcoin. Strong relationships with clients are at the center of everything Swan does. A dedicated Swan private wealth representative, which is a real person that you can text and call, will help you build a Bitcoin wealth strategy using Swan's comprehensive platform of Bitcoin services, including tax-advantage retirement accounts, advanced Bitcoin cold storage using collaborative self-custody,

inheritance planning with both trust and entity accounts, tax loss harvesting, asset-backed loans, and more. Swan have helped over 100,000 clients since 2020, and if you're serious about acquiring and securing Bitcoin, I recommend Swan. Meet the team at swan.com forward slash WBD, which is swan.com forward slash WBD. If you hold Bitcoin, your phone number is one of your biggest vulnerabilities. SimSwap attacks are one of the most common attack vectors targeting Bitcoins. Somebody socially engineers and employee at your carrier, moves your number to a new

device and they're into your accounts. It happens because traditional carriers but are human in control of your phone number, someone who can be bribed or tricked. But CAPE is a US mobile carrier built from the ground up with privacy and security at the core. They don't ask for your name or social security number when you sign up, they collect the minimum data required, delete it as fast as possible and never sell it. When you sign up, you receive a 24-word passphrase, just like a Bitcoin wallet. That's the only way to move your number. Not a customer service rep, not even Cape's own staff can do it.

You're the only person who controls your number. If you hold your own keys, you should hold your own phone number two. So head over to cape.co forward slash WBD and use code WBD at checkout for 33% off your first six months. That's cape.co forward slash WBD and use code WBD. Yeah, I want to get into a bit of history of Bitcoin 148 because there'll be loads of people listening that weren't around for the whole thing. I got into Bitcoin in 2016 and the block size war to start before I was there. And even like for the first year, I wasn't paying as much attention as I do now. So I think it'd be worth going through the history.

But in terms of like the reasons that you're not supposed to Bitcoin 10, like I agree with everything you both said. And like for me, like I don't like JPEGs on Bitcoin. Like that's not that's not the argument. It's like, Bitcoin is money, but it's permissionless, censorship-resistant money. And I feel like changing because there's some use case that you maybe don't like is a really dangerous precedent to set because, like, in the future, if we have some, I don't know, like a novel privacy something built on top of Bitcoin and there's precedent that we can change Bitcoin if there's something that's not liked, then how do you then defend against a group

or a government coming in trying to change Bitcoin again? Because you proved you can do it if there's something that's not nice in the chain that you don't agree with. And like, I also agree with wicked that I think FEMA. pockets will fix this. Like, this is a relatively new phenomenon. And I think giving up on the idea that monetary transactions will out pay, outbid the spam transactions. I think that's silly. I think it's way too early to make that call. Maybe we should like jump into some of the history between, but like what happened with Bit 148? Because, I mean, people won't know even what Bit 1.48 was.

Should I, should I share, I mean, I can share my screen and show you some of the signaling periods from Segwit, which will help kind of frame the history, I think. Okay, yeah, get your reading glasses on, because I know the font's super tiny. Okay, so this is a BIP 110 signaling dashboard that I built. Its primary purpose is to track the BIP 110 signaling, but then I also added the Segwit signaling periods as well, if you wanted to compare the two.

So you can basically see them side by side or top and bottom, right? So here's BIP 110 on bottom and here's Segwit on top. Let's focus on Segwit though. Each of these bars represents a signaling period, which is a 2016 block period. And for BIP, sorry, for Segwit with BIP 9, the signaling threshold was 95%, right? Which means that in any given 2016 block period,

they needed 1,916 blocks to signal support in order for in order for Segwit to activate. Okay? So what you're seeing here is like, these are the signaling periods. It started late 2016 in November. And right away when it started, it already had over 20% of the block signaling support.

You can hover over any of these little lines to see which block heights were signaling support. Okay. But basically, you know, that's the idea. And then you progress through each period and you see that support for Segwit kind of grew over time. And then at the very end, it gradually, then suddenly went to 100% and Segwit activated. So that's, you know, maybe this is a good reference for the history when we want to get into the history. If you have your reading glasses on, you might be able to see these little markers here, which are the client releases.

So, you know, core version.13.2 was released at the beginning of 2017. And then there's also some of these UASF clients as well if you hover over these blue markers. Okay. So that sets the stage at least. Yeah. So the signaling says one story, but there's obviously a lot more too within the signaling. We quickly realized that we weren't going to get past 20% because, because Ji Han and the rest of the Chinese pools and miners, they felt betrayed by, I guess, Bitcoin Core, but Bitcoin Core wasn't at the Hong Kong meeting.

There was, you know, in 20, this was 2016, I'm pretty sure. There was a few Bitcoin Core developers. Adam Back was part of the group of people that went. And they tried to reach consensus with, some of the miners, I think BTC China might have been there. And at that meeting, they came to terms that

the miners would start signaling for Segwit, but Bitcoin Core is going to have to release a hard fork to 2 megabyte block size limit. Now, remember, Segwit is a block size limit. increase. So this would effectively be 6 megabyte block size limit instead of it being for what it is today if everything is used. Luke Dash Jr., the agreement was that, so he released this

hard for a client, but Jehan wasn't happy. He wanted this hard for client to be part of the Bitcoin repo. And that was... wasn't what was discussed. Like, the agreement was that they will release the software to Hard Fork Bitcoin, and so you guys start signaling for Segwit, and then we'll go from there. Well, Ji Han and some other tool operators, they felt betrayed that the agreement fell through.

Now, mind you, this wasn't the entire Bitcoin core group of people that flew to Hong Kong. This was about maybe like three or four people that flew to Hong Kong. Many of them didn't fly to Hong Kong, and many of them didn't care what agreement they had in Hong Kong. Like, I personally didn't care what agreement they had to Hong Kong. Are you kidding me? Like, you're telling me you're going to go to Hong Kong and try to dictate the direction

of Bitcoin at a meeting? I don't think so. I don't think that's how it's going to work. But that happened. So you had all different types of ideas. you had like before they came to terms to a two megabyte of R4, you had Gavin and Driesen pre-2015 that wanted 30 megabyte block size limit. Add and back suggested a gradual increase to two, then four,

I think that's six megabyte block size limit. Like everyone had their own ideas. But what these pool operators wanted was Bitcoin Core to do something for them. and they wanted Bitcoin Core to release the client under their repo. Kind of the same thing's happening today. You have a group of people that want Bitcoin Core to do something with their software. And that's not how this works. You don't tell a team that's been working on this project for 15 years

how to work on their software. and it is their software. Bitcoin Consensus Rules is something that all implementations share, but different implementations will have different policy set. And not only different implementations, but different versions of the implementations will have different policy set. And there is no way that you can tell somebody what they can or can't release. You have a say on what you download and what you don't download.

You have a say on what gets adopted and what doesn't get adopted. But you have absolutely no say enforcing people to write code for you and then telling them they have to release it here. This isn't a company. This isn't a business. You're not their boss. If you don't like it, you could just move on and compete against the implementation. But this is not what they've been doing.

This is not what the big block hard fork has been doing. This is not what the BIP 110 guys are doing. They want to force a group of people into submitting and doing what they want them to do. But that's just not how this works. Now, when it comes to consensus rules, yes, they obviously can't change anything without the majority of people agreeing on that change.

In that sense, you do need consensus from the community or a quote-unquote ecosystem, not the community. So that's another thing I want to mention. Mechanic always talks about this community, the singular community. Bitcoin hasn't had a singular community probably since like 2012. I would make an argument that in 2009, 2010, sure, you probably had a community. There was a handful of developers.

You could contact every single person on the network most likely. There was a community. But as time went on, as Bitcoin got larger, there became many communities. By the time I got into Bitcoin, there were already many communities. There is not a singular community that gets to decide, what happens with Bitcoin. But Mechanic wants you to think there is. Mechanic wants you to think that there is,

it's an ethos that these node runners have to run. That's another thing I want to talk about as nodes. But he thinks that there's this group of people that we call node runners, and these node runners get to say of what happens to Bitcoin. And the pool, the miners and the pool operators are going to, they're going to bend the knee because that's exactly what happened in 2017. And again, he's trying to conflate the two scenarios. And it's just it's, they're not the same.

They're not remotely the same. To be fair to Mechanic, I sometimes say Bitcoin community. And it's not because like I think there's a singular community. It's because it's like, how else do you describe it? It's just a word that incomes is. That causes confusion. Every time. The Bitcoin ecosystem.

Yeah. That's what I just said. Yeah. I mean, if you go to my search history, I've been fighting this fight for a decade now. because there's so many different aspects in Bitcoin. You have the trader community. You have the mining community. You have the Twitter, Bitcoin Twitter community.

You have the Reddit community. There's an IRC community. There was a Slack community. There's a lot of different outlets where people like got together and talked Bitcoin. And it's not just the spammer. The spammer community. There's a spammer community. Yeah, there's a whole JPEger community.

There's just a lot. You know, there's not one single community that are just running nodes. Every person that's accepting Bitcoin transactions that's using a node is part of the Bitcoin ecosystem. And he might not be on the Bitcoin Twitter community. He might not be on the Discord community. So I have a really, this isn't just now. This has been happening for a very long time.

The community is, it's got. It has to stop. Their gold does not have a community. Cars, people that drive cars don't have a community. Dollars don't have a community. There are many communities of people that hold dollars. If Bitcoin is to be successful, it has to be the same way.

Like there should be no singular community of people that have a say in what happens to Bitcoin. That defeats the purpose of this whole thing. Well, it already is that way, right? Which is what we're saying. And if there's any singular community that wants to try to hijack Bitcoin, then they can go ahead and fork off. And then they can be in control of their fork,

which they may deem to be the real Bitcoin, but it doesn't really matter because in the end, it's the economic majority of users who decide what Bitcoin is. So if they fork off and they don't bring along with them or everyone else, then that's not Bitcoin, even if in their minds it still is. I mean, that's what's happening with the B-CATs guys. They think that it's Bitcoin. Even though it's not the most work chain,

the whole point of Bitcoin is to solve the dollar. double spend problem, like you want the chain that has the most amount of work that secures your transaction from double spends, doesn't matter to them. Like, they think that because their white paper is broken, it's not Bitcoin anymore. You know, their fee cash is Bitcoin, but whatever. The other thing I wanted to mention is these nodes. He has a thing within these nodes, like run a node. And this isn't just a matter.

Like, to be fair, this is a lot of people. A lot of people out there are just telling people to go and run nodes. and that's not good. So for a couple of reasons. It's one thing if you're downloading a node to accept Bitcoin transactions, or if you're running a lightning network, you have channels open, you need a note for that. You're an economic actor.

That's fine. That's good. That's what we want. There's another reason you want to run a node is to support the network. Now, in order to support the network, you can't just download knots and just let it run thinking that you're supporting knots. You're not supporting Nott, so you're just as a symbol in the network.

In order, if you want to serve the network, you have to at least, at the minimum, go into your router settings and port forward to A333, so you could at least serve blocks. So you're able to help bootstrap newer nodes. If you're not doing those things, if you're not receiving Bitcoin with your node, or you're not helping the network grow with new nodes,

you are a resource hog. you are a net negative to the network. You're not helping the network. You're not helping in consensus. You're not doing anything. You're just taking bandwidth away for no reason. So please, if you wanna help the Bitcoin network, at least at the minimum,

just forward to A333. So at least you're helping bootstrap new nodes. And the better solution is to have a wallet that you accept Bitcoin to have to connect it to your note. It's connected to your node. Now you are an economic. You're actually, you have a way to reject blocks that you don't like. Now you actually have a say.

You like if you don't like the way Bitcoin Core is doing things, you know, and you want a fork in the future, you know, and you have, you know, your family is connected to your node. You have a couple friends that are connected to your node. Your wallet is connected to your note. And if enough people do what you do and they reject those blocks, well, then you get us a fork. You get a successful pork and you move on.

But that's really the people are doing in terms of downloading knots and just leaving it running. Like surely these people are downloading knots and then connecting to a Sparrow wallet or whatever, like they're not just downloading it to Virtue Signal, surely. I think that it's probably a mix. And I'd hope that most people who are downloading any node or connecting it to their wallet, but the truth is there's probably a good amount of people just downloading a node to Virtue Signal as well. Right. And then on top of that, you have things like very clear cybal attacks with, you know, pumping node count numbers.

And this happened, by the way, with Segwit as well. Like, there was like pumps in the node counts at times that were clear cybal attacks with various clients, both in support and then against Segwit. But, you know, speaking of nodes, there's another dashboard I have, which is the Bitcoin node count. And this is using Luke dashier's data. So this is directly from his website. I just presented it on my own dashboard. But here, you can see basically the node counts of Core V-30 plus nodes in orange, knots nodes in green,

and those are non-BIP 110 knots nodes, and then BIP-110 nodes in blue. And anytime you see any of these spikes, right, like this spike here or this spike here, right? or these earlier spikes, these are cyber attacks. The very clear cybal attacks is basically someone spinning up, you know, thousands of nodes all at once, probably on a virtual instance like AWS or something.

And then, you know, they do it for a little while and then it collapses. What you want to see happen for real note counts, and this also we saw it like with Segwit adoption, we saw this, right? You see older nodes go down at roughly the same rate as newer nodes coming online and staying online and that tells you that, you know, these, you know, these nodes running the new client that is in favor of this update are real people, right? And so, for example, I mean, to give them credit, you see how these non-signaling,

or these non-BIP 110 knots nodes, it's trending down, but then the BIP 110 nodes are trending up. Like, this is probably real, right? Real people turning off their older knots and then updating to BIP 110. This is not real. This stuff is not real. So when you see on Twitter like, oh, Bip 110 reached 25% of the nodes, that's because someone spun up 10,000 nodes overnight, right?

And that's why you can't really trust those numbers whenever they spike. It also doesn't really do anything. So Bitcoin is cyber or civil resistant. Like it's not like, it doesn't do anything. It just like, okay, so people, so you spun up 10,000 nodes. Okay, now what?

Like, congratulations. It does nothing to the network. Well, and so again, to go back to the earlier point, in the game of bluffing, right, because I think, especially in the end game here, where they're starting to realize this thing's not going to work, now they have to start to paint a narrative. Like, for example, oh, so many people on the network are running this,

are miners really going to risk, you know, those people rejecting their blocks and forking them off the network. And so when you have a higher node count, It's something that you can kind of bluff with and say, oh, there's so many people who are running it. Now, obviously, it's not going to work because I don't think miners are dumb enough to fall for that. But what it does do is it probably convinces other people

who are dumb and don't really understand this to maybe switch over or they get worried and they start fudding things, right? All right. So I think it's just bluffing. Ultimately, right? But if you understood. And the other thing, so, wait, one more thing. Like, it could also be a false flag on the other side.

So, right, it's not necessarily that the Bip 110 guys are sibling their nodes to try to bluff. It could also be that the anti-Bip-110 guys are sibling their nodes to make them look like clowns. But again, it doesn't, like, I mean, okay, I guess. But, like, if you understand Bitcoin, it really doesn't matter. Like, congratulations, you spun up 500 nodes. Like, it doesn't do anything, man. Right. You know, you just spend money for no reason.

You wasted money that you could have bought Bitcoin with. It makes no fast. It's very cheap to do this because you can use one singular blockchain and then point, you know, tons of nodes that same blockchain. So it's not like you need to have a terabyte hard drive per node. You're literally just spitting up tens of thousands pointing to the same underlying chain. So it's extremely cheap to stabilize it. Well, a mechanic is also counting on is that there's a fork that eventually,

that that side of the chain will wipe out the legacy side of the chain, and that's why it's important for everybody to run BIP 110. So again, these are like fast truths that he's saying. It's true that the minority chain in a soft fork can override the legacy chain, 100%. And that was what we, well, that was what a lot of people that are running BIP 148 nodes were counting on if there was a fork, Eventually, because of what was happening on the legacy chain at that point, there's empty blocks, fees were going through the roof.

Binmain was holding the chain hostage from adopting Segwit. The idea was that, and we also knew that there was a few Bitcoin core. The mine share of the devs? Yeah, you're about to say that. Yeah, yeah. And we also knew that there was a bunch of, not a bunch, but there was a few Bitcoin core members, developers that were running BIP 148 nodes as well. So the idea was that the economic activity would quickly flow to the minority side

once we actually had a split, like a real split. Also, can I jump in real quick? You've had enough hash rate, even before Flag Day, right, which was August 1st, you had enough hash rate to at least get you crawling through the chain. So like even with, you know, a fifth or a third of the hash rate, that gets you block times of, you know, whatever, like 40 minutes. 30 minutes or 40 minutes, which is reasonable.

But if you have no hash rate and you fork off, now you're talking about block times on the order of like, you know, days, or weeks even, which is like crazy. Your chain comes to the fault. And then you have absolutely no chance of overtaking the legacy chain. You're so far behind that it's just not realistic for miners to switch over at that point. So like his thing of, trying to scare the ecosystem into thinking that, oh, no, if BIP 110 forks, it will, it has a chance

to wipe out the legacy chain. It's honestly, like, it's so far-fetched that it's not even, like, worth debunking. Do you wish you could access cash without selling your Bitcoin? Well, Leder makes that possible. They're the global leader in Bitcoin-backed lending, and since 2018, they've issued over $9 billion in loans with a perfect record of protecting client assets. With Leden, you get full custody loans with no credit checks or monthly repayments, just easy access to dollars without selling a single sap. Linden exclusively offer Bitcoin back loans with all collateral held by Linden directly or their funding partners.

Your Bitcoin's never lent out to generate interest. I recently took out a loan with Leden. The whole process was super easy. The application took me less than 15 minutes, and in a few hours I had the dollars in my account. It was super smooth. So if you need cash but you don't want to sell Bitcoin, head over to Ledererden. head over to leaden.io forward slash WBD and you'll get 0.25% off your first loan. That's L-E-DN.io forward slash WBD.

If you already self-custody Bitcoin, you know the deal with hardware wallets. Complex setups, clumsy interfaces and a seed phrase that can be lost, stolen or forgotten. Well, BitKee fixes that. BitKee is a multi-sig hardware wallet built by the team behind Square and Cash App. It packs a cryptographic recovery system and built-in inheritance feature into an intuitive, easy-to-use wallet with no seed phrase to sweat over. It's simple, secure self-custody without the stress. And time named Bitkey one of the best inventions of 2024.

Get 20% off at Bitkey.world when you use the code WBD. That's B-I-T-K-E-Y. And use the code WBD. The thing that keeps me up at night is the idea of a critical error with my Bitcoin cold storage. And this is where Anchor Watch comes in. With Anchor Watch, your Bitcoin is insured with your own A-plus Lloyds of London insurance policy, and all Bitcoin is held in their time-lots multi-sig

volts. So you have the peace of mind knowing your Bitcoin is insured while not giving up custody. So whether you're worried about inheritance planning, wrench attacks, natural disasters, or just your own silly mistakes, you're protected by Anchor Watch. Rates for fully insured custody start as low as 0.55% and are available for individual and commercial customers located in the US. Speak to Anchor Watch for a quote and for more details about your security options and coverage, Visit anchorwatch.com today. That's anchorwatch.com.

There's one thing that I want to get into because I do want to talk about what happens when they do the Asseudor, I say it's off-for. But we talked about Bitpoint 48, and you didn't really mention the comparables that mechanics drawing and why you think he's wrong.

All right. Well, for one, we were talking about Segwin knows before. We had for about almost a year, when Segwit was released, we had 90% of the network, 90, 95% of the network was running a Segwit ready node. So we knew there was more than enough support to one Segwit. At the time, we learned, so Bitcoin was in really bad shape

in those years. The fork wars were well on its way, and, And during that time, fees started to go through the roof. And at the same time, while fees are going through the roof, a bit main, well, with their pool and pull and via BTC, every block that they mined was empty. So that was just building more fee pressure on top of the spam attack that was happening. The chain was wrecked, man.

Like the chain was not, it was not good. Like, we weren't getting lightning anytime soon because we needed a malibular fix. Bitmain was preventing that from happening. Hard times. Hard times. So there was a Bitcoin core Slack channel. There was a group of people that got together and they're like, all right, well, we need to do something about this. Like, this isn't good. Like, what's happening right now is in good. Then we learned that Bitmain wasn't even selling machines.

They refused to sell machines to people that were like pro segoid or I don't remember the details exactly for that, but it was bad. So Shalin Fry, who was at that point, he was a pretty well-known light coin developer, decided that he obviously also held Bitcoin, and he was a developer. He knew how this works. He knew how these things were. He pitched the idea of a user-activated software with BIP-148. And he convinced a lot of people in the Bitcoin for Slack on Bitcoin Twitter

that this was the right move to make because what was happening on the network. We didn't have time anymore. So the way we upgrade Bitcoin is the safe way is BIP 9. It basically allows a pool to signal readiness for an upgrade. And instead of them just signaling readiness for an upgrade, they took that and they weaponized it. They basically used BIP 9 to prevent Segwit from happening. Now, again, there was really no one against Segwit.

Like everybody, like the network was, you know, the note count, real nodes that were running 013.1. They were, you know, it was super, super majority of the network. It was a very, very small minority that was preventing an actual upgrade to make the network actually better. So, you know, the justification was there for UASF. They, you know, if miners, if pool operators want to pay out their miners with UTXOs that are valuable, they're going to mine the chain that the users, the ecosystem, the economic nodes, want them to mine. They work for the network.

It's a thing that they do. So it made, there was more than enough justification at that point to do a UASF. Jehan did not want the UASF. He did not want users activating Segw. He was really against that. He did not want to set that precedent. So, you know, there's a lot of, in between, there's, you know, a lot of things happen in between

And that ends the activation of actual Segwit. But to make a long story short, he ended up bending the knee and he ran BIP-91, which other pools ran BIP-91. And then we instantly got 100% of signaling way before August 1st. Like, we never even reached that flag date. So just to give you some context, you see that in the data right here. So the non-signaling blocks are these little gray lines,

if you can even see them, right? Maybe I'll change the marker. So it's this gray, these gray boxes here. And basically right after that meeting, you see, you know, virtually everyone stopped signaling or sorry, everyone, everyone start signaling and all of the non-signaling blocks disappear. And that happened well before August 1st, which was in the next period. Yeah.

So just some context there. Yeah, so yeah, and that was James Hiller doing. James Hillard went to Bin Main and basically he gave him an out. And they took it. They took it out and then that's basically how we got Segwood enforced. BIP 110 is nothing like that. Bip 110, they're really, besides a few loud mouths on Twitter and the sible of nodes, there really isn't any support.

We don't have exchanges making comments about BIP 110. There's no one talking about it. The threshold that they set was 55%. And by the way, a 51% attack is exactly what they want. Like, if this gets, if this gets, if somehow for some magic unicorns are flying and they start giving fairy dust and this succeeds somehow, this would literally be a 51% attack if this gets activated with 55%. You understand? Like, do you see? Like, it's not the same.

It's completely different. The mechanism of activating is different. The reason of even doing it is completely different. It's the whole thing is different. And I view it as a literal attack, not as like, you know, this is only, let's do this temporary and see what happens in another year. No, like, I think if you could, if you could upgrade Bitcoin, if you could change Bitcoin with 55% hash rate,

we got bigger problems. Like, we got big problems in the future. That's not a good thing. But again, I think it's so unrealistic. If it was realistic, I will bet you anything that people would be talking about user rejected softworks. Like, you know, you would have people talking about it

from the mountaintops. But this is so unrealistic. To the point where I'm kind of mad at myself that I have to come on here and do this because I really don't want to give any oxygen to it. But Mechanic has tried to distort history so bad that he may be come out into this. It's, I mean, do you think it's the same?

Do you think it's similar? No, and the 55% is one of the biggest issues I have with it. Because, like, I think, so Segway was 95%. Tapru, I think was 90%. It's like an overwhelming majority. 55% is just not even close to that. But realistically, Wicked, what do you think will happen? Do you think they will get anywhere closed?

Because as of right now, is there's six or seven blocks to something that have actually signaled for this? Yeah, so I've changed this dashboard to be looking at the BIP 110 signaling now. And so in stark contrast to Segwit, you see how sparse the blocks are coming in for BIP 110. Their highest signaling period had had seven blocks, which was the last period. And they got a little lucky and got two blocks early on in this period. But it's still nowhere near the threshold they're aiming for, which is 55% or 1,109 blocks. I don't think they're going to reach that threshold.

Even if they got all of Oceans' hash rate, for example, they'd be in like the low dozens of blocks, right? Because it's a couple percent at most. So even if Ocean fully signaled, which, by the way, most Ocean miners are not, which is interesting and telling, but even if ocean fully signaled, that wouldn't be anywhere close. I mean, what you really need is you need to coerce larger mining pools to come join you in order to get it over the threshold, right? Which is definitely a possibility because this all started with if you're running a pre-30 Bitcoin core note,

you're accomplished to like criminals. Like, it's, I don't put it past them to have their lawyers write, you know, an email to some of these. pools in the US. But even that, though, even if they go and they could somehow force Foundry into mining BIP 110, signaling BIP 110, like in the next, like, you know, not maybe now, but like say in August or July, um, foundry doesn't own those machines, right? Like the only, at least from what I'm my understanding, the only, the only entity that actually owns the hash rate, the machines, is marled. And so they're about 5%.

Well, they're the only ones who are solo mining, but you have large entities like Riot and other publicly traded companies that control their hash rate. They're just pointing at pools. Right. But now if you think, if you're riot, you own, you own Bitcoin, right? Like, your whole business resolved around Bitcoin. And if you think this pool is going, because I'm pointing, like I'm pointing, like I'm

pointing hash rate to this pool, the chances of Bitcoin being devalued and it becomes higher, I would rather stop mining than being forced to point hash rate at a pool where I know the value mine... Yeah, you think it's an attack, right? You don't want to support an attack. Yeah, of course. So if you're holding Bitcoin,

and if you view this as an attack, and because you're an institutional miner and you have to point hash rate to a certain pool, and that pool is now being coer into doing something that you think is an attack, you simply, you'd stop mining, you liquidate the machines and you call it a deck. Like, you don't continue on with it.

I mean, you don't even have to do that. You just point out a different pool. Well, but if you're a large miner, you might have some regulatory constraints. And so a lot of the reasons why they point at Foundry is because it ticks all the boxes, right? And so it's hard as one of these large miners just to switch pools. I think it's what Mr. Hall is saying is,

you don't switch pools. Just turn your miners off. You turn your rigs off. Yeah, you sell your machines. Yeah. If you're stacking Bitcoin, you sell the machines for more Bitcoin, and you call it a day with the operation, like, when you just do it on a smaller scale or you stop mining in general, like,

you just, you stop. You know, like, that's kind of what I'm hoping happens. I mean, if you are, like, if you do hold Bitcoin and you are one of these institutional guys that is pointing cash rate to one of these tools, and you think it's an attack, you stop mining. Like, you don't switch, you don't switch, you just stop. You're saying if they're legally pressured and, option is mine on this fork that they believe to be an attack or shut off their rigs.

Now, if they're not being legally pressured in a way that is going to coerce them, then the optimal result is just to ignore it, right? Which I think is the most likely outcome is that most mining pools, even the American ones, will probably just ignore this and then continue to mine. But again, the pool themselves, the pool operators themselves could be all for it, but you have to convince the people that are pointing hash rate to your pool to continue pointing cash rate to your pool. That's what I mean by like the only ones on America's soil that has the machines

themselves that are like you could coerce into doing something is Mara. But the other ones are pools. They're not minors. I know that mechanic is trying to change the definition of a minor. Oh man, this so like he did so many things. So since that and came out, they're trying to change the definition of a minor. They're trying to tell you that it's not. not the person that owns the hash rate. It's not the person that owns the machine, who's the

miner. It's the person that's constructing blocks. Okay, fine. But that has never been true in the history of Bitcoin since the launch of Bitcoin never has a person where they solo mine with their CPU constructing their own blocks templates. But they were doing this, whatever got into their memful, that's what got mined. Like, that was, we trusted Satoshi software to do that. Like, That's what we did. They want to make you think if you're not selecting your own templates, if you're not creating your own templates, you're not a minor. Crazy, absolutely crazy.

We're in a world now where they could rent hash rate, and because of Dayton, because of you have like SV2, you're able to use somebody else's hash rate, someone else's minor, and you can signal. Want it through your node. Yeah, run it through. your own node and that's what makes you a miner. Listen, this is a great technology. Mining is improved. I'm not saying the mining pool software hasn't gotten better. It's gotten better

and that's fantastic. But in the end of the day, the person with the machine, if he's renting that machine to you or not, he is the miner. The guy with the hash power that has to say on where his hash power is going, he is the miner. You are just a person that's renting hash rate. from that entity. That's all you're doing. And the fact, like, so if we had, now, I wouldn't be honest with you, if we had these options in 2017,

if datum existed in 2017, there was probably a good chance that we've got, would and gotten way, way, way over 20% of the hash rate right from the get-out, right? Like, there's it, but that wasn't, we didn't have that custom software that allowed you to, like, create your box template.

Rent hash and signal with it. Yeah, yeah. By the way, these most recent miners who have been signaling, right? So peer-to-peer money, roughnecks, and then store of value up here. I think, I'm guessing these are rent-a-hash miners because I haven't heard of them before,

whereas you have barefoot mining, who, you know, that's Bob's company. So he's like, obviously not a renter, a rent-a-hash miner. But you are seeing some blocks come in from these rented, as you should. from this rented hash rate, which is interesting. You should see it.

Like, right? I mean, if you're going to spend dollars that you could have gotten Bitcoin with, but instead you would rather go and buy some hash rate because you think it's more important for the health and the networks to buy a hash rate because if one 10 doesn't succeed, Bitcoin's going to die, then you know, you should see, you should start seeing more blocks that are being signaled by that, by those, that group of people. But it's still not enough.

Like, you know, if all of a sudden we saw 80% of the network doing it, then okay, I get it. But we're not seeing that. Like, you know, we're not, it's very long. Unfortunately, 80% of the hash rate isn't up for rent. Yeah, there you go. But help me understand what happens for it. Because like it doesn't look like they're going to get 55%,

but they're still going to do the user activates soft fork anyway. Danny, that's the thing. That's the thing. I don't think, I don't think they want to activate it through miners. I think the point of this is they wanted to activate with the UASF. They don't care about that. I mean, like, can I talk through this real quick just technically? Yeah.

Because I think there's a lot of confusion around how soft forks activate, right? And especially in regards to user-activated soft forks. So when you're first trying to activate a soft fork, typically you give the miners a chance to reach some threshold to do a minor activated soft fork. In the case of Segwit, they use BIP 9 and it was a 95% threshold. In the case of, you know, RDTS, they're using 55%, right? or BIP 110, they're using 55% threshold.

So if the miners reach that threshold in any given period, if they mine that many blocks, then it gets locked in and it activates. When the user activated, Sault Fork kicks in, is basically when you reach some sort of flag day. In the case of Segwit, you had a flag day on August 1st. And in the case of BIP 110, they're not doing a particular day,

but they're doing a particular block height. So it's called this mandatory signaling period. It starts at block height, 9,061, 632. And basically, at this block height, all of the Bip 110 nodes begin rejecting any blocks that come in that are not signaling. So if you look at the version here, you see that little one that's orange, right? If a block comes in and it doesn't have that one in the version,

then it gets rejected. So that's the idea. And the problem is, if you don't have enough blocks coming in that have the ones, even when you start rejecting the ones that don't, then you won't actually even get through this mandatory signaling period, and you're not going to actually even reach the activation, because the activation doesn't happen until, first of all,

you get through this entire period, then you get through the lock-in period, and then activation starts roughly 4,000 blocks, right? 4,032 blocks after this mandatory signaling period. So if you have blocks just trickling in, right, you know, a few a day or, you know, whatever, like maybe even, maybe a few more, maybe a dozen a day at most, right? You're not going to get through these two periods to actually even reach

activation before the chain is abandoned completely. Because it will have fallen so far behind the legacy chain that it won't even be worth championing anymore. You know what I'm saying? So you think that they won't even reach the activation? You don't think they'll ever actually do this? No, because so, you know, again, like, As soon as you reach this block height, a 961, 632,

okay? This is when mandatory signaling starts. So even if they're lucky, and let's say they get lucky, they get the first block signaling support. There's no chain split. The legacy miners and the legacy nodes are still following this new block that has the new rules. To them, it just looks like, oh, this is just an ocean block that has more restrictive rules, whatever, we're going to accept it.

We accept all these ocean blocks anyways. These blocks are most likely already running BIP 110, so they're not accepting larger opertons and that type of thing. It's not like we can't accept these. We accept them. And then all the legacy nodes and miners just, well, the legacy miners just start building off of that. And so as soon as a legacy miner finds a block on top of the BIP 110 block,

that's when you get the split. And one of the interesting things about this dynamic is that, the legacy side always starts with a one block lead, right? Because the BIP 110 side, their blocks are accepted by the legacy side. So at best, they're even, but at worst, they're behind by a bunch, and they always start behind by one block, which is a huge advantage when you're talking about a hash rate split, which is blown out, right?

If you have less than 10% signaling support for BIP 110 or even fewer, because it's probably going to be less than 1%, When you get a one block lead on the legacy side, it basically blows out very quickly. And you might crunch through 100 blocks on the legacy side and only like a few blocks have trickled in on the BIP 110 side. And I think by then, maybe within even a day or two, you'll see the BIP 110 people fold and say, well, it's not worth.

Well, that's the question. Going forward. That's the big question. I remember NVK a couple years ago, I had a thing with him where she basically felt that they were even going to attempt a soft work. And I had a pretty good idea that they were going to attempt it. Like, why wouldn't they?

The only question I had was, what are they going to do after the soft fork doesn't succeed? Yeah, like that's the main question. That's the big question. And when you ask the mechanic or when you ask any one of these BIP 1 10 supporters, they don't have an answer for you. They don't, there's no answer. There's no, well, so we thought the people that ran Bip 148 nodes honestly thought that the network was in danger, like really in danger.

Like it was, you know, it might have been different story if the subsidy was a lot lower, but we had a pretty high subsidy at that point. And there is no reason why Antpull or YBTC needed to stop mining empty blocks, especially when they had overracing boosts. Like, you know, there's no reason for them to stop doing what they were doing. This is different. Like, once this fails, they're going to have to make a different. a decision so we continue on and compete against bitcoin are we going to be a minority fork which

means they're going to have to add replay protection which means they're going to have to either lower the difficulty or change the hashing algorithm this is something that luke wanted to do for a very long time or maybe even merge mine with bitcoin like there can be there's could be a lot of different ways to keeping a minority chain alive um but they're going to have to flat out say okay like this is what we're going to do but to date And every time I ask them, what happened? What's the plan? If this doesn't succeed, you should have a plan.

They don't. No one has an answer. Like, they don't, they don't tell you what's going to happen because they don't know. They have no idea. I have a feeling that nothing's going to happen. And this is literally going to be a non-event. It's going to come and go. But it would be interesting.

The right thing to do, it would be like, you know, just call it a day. But it's compete. But I don't think that's what they're going to. They're just going to continue. After it fails, we're going to continue hearing how we have to start a new soft fork with different rules. We have to continue doing something until something sticks. Or you'll get something like BIP 149 where you just extend the activation. Yeah, maybe something like that.

And then we just have to hear more bickering for longer. For the next year. Yeah. I mean, you saw a hint there's something there, Ms. Tuddle, which like, that was kind of my guess is that maybe if this doesn't get through the activation period and they do decide to fork that they will, like Luke said, he wants to fire the miners. Do you think that that has any chance? You think they will just completely fork off and have their own new algorithm?

If Ocean didn't exist, if there was no ocean, yeah, he would have fired the miners a long time ago. But unfortunately for him, he gets paid. His salary relies on shot to 56 minors. So firing the very miners that actually give you a salary. It's going to be a tough thing to do. So I don't know. I have no idea what they're going to do.

I don't think they can. I don't think they're in the position to fire the miners because of what mechanic's job, like Luke's a mechanic's job. They work for Ocean. Ocean is a shot 256 mining pool. So you're going to have a hard time firing the guys that are paying your salary. I mean, you could, you could resign from Ocean if you thought. I mean, if you think ultimately that Bitcoin with shot 256 is compromised or hijacked,

right, and put yourself in Luke's head, maybe it's not worth working for Ocean and being on that chain anymore. So he might just resign from that and then start his own chain. I don't know. Maybe. I'm not speculating on that. Do you think we make a mistake by even talking about this? If you think it's as like inconsequential is going to be like a nothing about this, should we just not even be talking about this? Danny, that was my main thing of why I didn't want to talk about, like, even like you having a mechanic on, the more we give this, like, the more oxygen we give it, the more like they have

a chance of making it, it still wouldn't succeed. I don't think it will ever succeed, but they could make it more. I don't think it matters. Yeah, I don't think it really matters, honestly, none of the day, but it's, it's, it's just an unnecessary drama. But the reason I wanted to come out was because this fucking guy was just flat out, just making up things from UASF in 2017 and it's trying to correlate that these two things are the same. That this is going to succeed because BIP 148 succeeded. Like, are you kidding me?

It's completely different scenarios, completely different thresholds, completely different, like everything. That was my main purpose of coming on, but I'm with you, I don't know, like I maybe release it after. I think it's important. I mean, I think that the failure, of this user-activated soft fork is historically relevant

and actually, you know, hardens Bitcoin's consensus, at least the way that we think about it, right? Because if we prove, I mean, what we've seen in the past is, okay, you know, you had this movement, BIP-148, that may have contributed to pushing Segwit over the edge and getting it activated. Great. So, you know, the network users and the economic

knows are in control and they can push through updates. That's a great thing for Bitcoin and its consensus. But now on the other side of the coin, you have a minority, like an economic minority, a loud minority who are trying to push through a change. And when they fail, that's also good for Bitcoin. It shows that it can't be hijacked by a small group of people. So I think it's actually like, it's relevant to talk about it. It's relevant to track it, which is why I built this dashboard.

And I think, you know, when it fails, it's actually bullish for Bitcoin. I keep saying that this is a, like, I don't want them to stop doing it. Like I'm, for a long time, I had a 5-110 on my Twitter handle thing. I think this is, it will be a great learning lesson for a lot of people. I think people are going to learn how Bitcoin works from this. I don't think it's a bad thing. I only think it's a bad thing with how they're framing it. Um, like I think if you don't agree with Bitcoin core, you should compete against them, right?

Like, I don't think that's such a bad thing. That's fine. Go ahead and compete. Where it gets dicey is when you start making shit up and then you start comparing the two things that they're because you label this UASF and BIP 148 was UASF, they're not the same. They're not remotely the same. But just bamboozling people thinking that they have some certain power where like just false framing of what a note is, like why you run one, what's the point of running one. Just a bunch of things that he's been saying is just,

they're just lies, wrong, flat out wrong. So, I mean, that's definitely important to correct. But I think the more option we get, I mean, it'll be good to talk about after it fails, I think. You know, like go back to it. But I don't know, man. I really don't have an opinion. I think it's going to fail regardless.

I just think that the shit that he was saying is just, it's crazy, crazy talk. I would maybe just say real quick if you don't mind. So, you know, I have this expected fork time on this dashboard, this KPI at the top right here. So if you want to stay up that night, assuming where you are in the world, this is UTC, so it's probably going to be pretty early for most people. you can watch as they fork off. But, you know, that's when everything kind of comes to ahead is early August. That's when you get a popcorn out.

All right, well, yeah, I'm going to, this conversation is going to be put to bed now. Maybe Hoddle will do one after it. But I wanted to ask you, Wiki, because I saw you tweet about this morning. What did you think about sale or selling Bitcoin? Yeah, yeah, I mean, it's, what was it, like 0.004%? of strategy stack. So I compared it to if someone was holding one Bitcoin and they said, I'm never going to sell any Bitcoin,

but then they sold like 3,000 sats. I mean, that's basically the equivalent here. So it's pretty much a nothing burger. I think even in the last call, he said he was going to inoculate the market by selling a little Bitcoin. And I think that's basically what he's doing right now. He's giving the market a little vaccine

just to make sure that they know that it's, possible for him to sell it. But at the moment, it's really a nothing burger. He's going to. Didn't he sell Bitcoin like in 2017? Like in 2018? In 2020. In 2022.

Yeah, he sold like 900 Bitcoin or something like that. So yeah, it's not like he hasn't sold Bitcoin before. He's just testing liquidity. But the interesting thing that, yeah. Why is he trying to like signal this to the market? Do you think it means that he's going to start selling Bitcoin in real size in the future? I heard something about like S&P inclusion and, you know, I don't know, there might be some reasons around that.

Like, you have to show willingness to move around your Bitcoin and sell some and buy some. I don't know if that's true or not. I think he's just trying to, you know, be a better buyer and seller of Bitcoin and time markets and do all sorts of crazy shit. I mean, I don't know. You've said before Danny on your show, that you don't really think this strategy works long term because eventually Fiat dies. And so you can't really play these Fiat games in the far of our future. But in the meantime, you can play the Fiat games and you can try to arbitrage

via while stacking more Bitcoin. And so he's just finding more and more creative ways to do that. So you're thinking this is really just a never nothing burger? Yeah. I mean, it's such a little amount. It doesn't really matter. of nothing burgers. Everything is nothing burger.

Let me know when he sells more Bitcoin than he buys in any given quarter. You know, that's maybe it would be a better signal. Yeah. That's if he's buying all that thing. Mr. Hoddle said if he's buying Bitcoin at all. Yeah. Yeah. Show me the Bitcoin on chain. You don't actually believe that right, Aldo.

You don't believe he's not actually buying Bitcoin. No, no, no. I definitely think he's buying Bitcoin, but I think that there's a lot of exaggeration at play. I refuse to believe the amount of Bitcoin. Bitcoin that he's saying he's buying is the real amount. Wait, so you don't think he has like $850,000 or whatever he says he has? No, I don't think he has $850,000. He definitely has, you know, hundreds of thousands.

I'm not saying that, but I don't think it's $850,000. I would take the other side of that bet. I mean, there's no way that he's buying, you know, that much Bitcoin and then not requiring Coinbase and his other custodians to segregate it and then show him the addresses where it's held and then checking it himself. I mean, I think strategy is probably running their own nodes. They're probably checking all of the addresses where the Bitcoin's held. Coinbase,

Coinbase could show you an address with Bitcoin unit, but how do you know? Yeah, but I mean, but the other thing is if you're, if your strategy and you're the largest, I've seen a lot of big entity holding Bitcoin, I've seen a lot of big regulator entities in the space go down for these exact things. They were saying they were doing what they really weren't doing. So I just don't believe anyone anymore. I'd imagine that he's checking notes with other entities, other institutions,

making sure that there's no overlap, you know? It's Coinbase man. Remember, Coinbase was stuck with dust UTXOs, millions of dollars in dust UTXO so they couldn't move for like six months. So I don't put anything past them. Yeah, but again, as a relative percentage, I mean, millions of dollars sounds like a lot to us, but as a relative percentage, you're talking about 0.001% of,

what they're in control of. So I mean, I think even numbers like that don't really matter. No, dude, that's at the price of Bitcoin back then. If they kept having those dust transactions and they never consolidated, it would have been way more than a few million dollars in the future. Like you have to know how to treat Bitcoin's UTXO model and Coinbase, at least at that point, had no idea how to treat Bitcoin's UTXO model. I think that's the key point though, at that point,

like I'm sure that I'm sure that got better processes now. Yeah, yeah, me too. I can't see Taylor not owning that Bitcoin. Like, he, that would be a very large scale fraud if that was not the case. There's no way he's not checking it. I mean, I don't know. I'm not really buying. Also, you have on-chain sliths like Sannie, you know, giving what they believe to be the addresses

where the Bitcoin's being held and it kind of, you know, matches up pretty well. I don't know. I mean, I'm not convinced. You can't, you can't fully trust it because, you know, it's like, if it's not being put out there as proof of reserves, and it's difficult to 100% trust, but it's also, I don't think there's any reason to believe that they don't have it.

I mean, now that Cash app did a proof of reserve, River did a proof of reserve, Cracken's done a proof of reserve. Like, at this point, it's kind of cheating if you're not doing a proof of reserve. Yeah, I did an interview with Jeff Walton, who was from Strive the other day, and I asked him about proof reserves.

Like, I have no idea why you wouldn't do it. It's such an easy lift. Like, it's not that, like, these are huge companies, they could very easily afford to put a team on that and they get a spun up in like a week. I don't understand why you wouldn't do it, but he just said the market doesn't demand it. No one has. One reason could be if you're kind of buying Bitcoin through shady entities because you're buying so much that you need to go OTC and kind of get it from shady places. That might be a reason.

But I don't know, that's speculation. Interesting. Right, I've got to go. I have a dinner, but I'm very glad to finally did the podcast. Hoddle and a wicked awesome to meet you and Vubb yes thank you tell Peter I said hello

and I will be after it fails let's let's have another chat let's go we can do one in person maybe all right yeah if you're in New York let me know cool all right thanks guys