Bitcoin Consensus with Steve Lee and Lyn Alden | SLP616
01:15:07 Share

Everyone, to welcome back to step on the our podcast approach, you by bald listeners in the U. S, can find IT over get bolt dot iro. Now i'm rejoined today by Steve ly of spiral and lyn oldin, we're going to be talking about their newspaper analyzing bitcoin consensus risks in particle update。 So festival, welcome back to the show. Steve and lin.

thanks.

great. So yeah, I had a great. I had looked through this and I thought I was really cool.

Let's start with them. What was what was you go with this? Why like why write this?

Thanks for happiness. And I think our motivation for this project um by the way, i'm i'm calling in a project not a paper ool, because we want this to be a long lasting ongoing project that lots of people contribute to as opposed to like a one of paper um but obviously is that a paper is produced uh, I was produced. Our motivation for IT is just observing how bitcoin consensus works is extremely complicated.

There is no magic formula um and what we produced isn't like a final answer either, but I think it's really important to understand uh bakin consensus because um there are lot of different views in bitcoin. Some people are very conservative and all the way to the extreme of not wanting to change big coin at all. Other people are more progressive and want to improve your add features and improve the functionality of a bitcoin.

The base layer and the other people are somewhere in between. So a lot of different philosophes. Um there's not one clear right or wrong philosophy within that spectrum um but wherever you fall in that spectrum, I think this project, which should matter to you or be meaningful because if you don't want to see bitcoin change, it's really important understand how to ensure that it's not like magic, that IT just doesn't change. There's a lot of dynamics and variables involves good to understand what those if you do want to change bitcoin, it's good to understand what are all the forces of nature at work here um that that would need to fall in line to support the change .

and expecting I you know from an from an investment perspective, obviously, analyzing risks around the network are an important part of an investment perspective. Uh and this paper touches on both technical and economic assets. This kind of a multiple cities in um project or or this overall um anything about big code is kind of always combination of uh technical uh and um economic elements.

And I think one of the my interesting IT was kind of changing my complacency because I think we we lock in our mind how bitcoin works. And that model probably has to gradually day over time as the the the network broadened and the some of the the constituent change somewhat. So for example, the way that bitcoin updated when they told he was still around in two thousand and nine is different from how IT updated, say, in two thousand and seventeen. And we kind of wanted to go back to first principles or displaying you to paper and say, what is between look like now compared to how I might look like in twenty seventeen? How might IT look in the future and how might change is be a little bit different or have risks that we have been considered based on private experience?

Yeah, that's such an important point because I think I um even for me like when I was a total nub coming in in two thousand and thirteen and you know I was running bitcoin qt, but I had no idea like you know what the node was doing. I just saw IT. Oh okay, this is what you run this big qt thing, right? This is before is called call. Um and then I think there was in earlier days, there was a lot of confusion about, like are you running a bitcoin node or are you running a minor and you know maybe in early days, they wouldn't necessarily seen as separate things. Where's now they are very much seeing a separate things.

something they are then said bitcoin is changing over time. I am obviously some I mean, some aspects of bitcoin don't change at all. But in terms of the growth of bitcoin is undeniable, just the number of people that own bitcoin that are involved in bitcoin between businesses, the Price the Harry you pick any metric it's ten next uh IT text is about every four years.

Um so with all the growth IT IT just changes the the dynamics of how do we prevent the coin from changing or if we the broader community want to see a feature or or change or like a bug fixes like to have been on the show that I grew until the screen up before as of others. You know whatever IT changed we d want like is just a different environment today to either keep big coin front changing or the change because in verses um twenty twenty thirteen or or other areas. So just updating everyone's knowledge on that is important.

Another another motivation for me as a earlier this year, I started seeing rumbling about you know cover inet changes and the and not only like from developers but certain like media influencers like really starting to to you want to activate certain changes. And that just got me thinking back. This is the first time since like twenty seventeen that I was sensing like drama on the horizon uh around know of a former contentious change.

So I just started thinking back to like twenty seventeen and and the the the different folks then and game theories and different stakeholders involved and how they acted. And I realized that I was really rusty in my knowledge I hadn't thought about for seven years. And i'm like, oh, there is probably a lot of people who are vacant then who how are rusty and their knowledge? Um that's one thing.

In two then I realized probably ninety five percent of people in the bittorrent were not even around them. So they not only they are rusty, they never even had that experience that we had then. Um so they're probably really ignorant about such things because they just don't come across IT in their daily business or life or bitcoin life. Um and so I so I really felt like I was an important conversation to have within the space and that that was a motivation and genocide for this project as well.

great. So let's try to nail down a little bit when we're talking about what exactly is changing. Maybe guys want to spell out what exactly we're talking about in terms of technical aspects of consensus. Like what does that mean? Because I guess some people might be thinking you had in a very loose kind of social consensus, but that's not necessary ant, in a technical sense, could you guys explain that?

sure. I i'll start. Um the yeah I mean, in some ways consensus is very simple and straight forward and objective.

That and that's when he comes to the software code in the les like there are just a set of rules around what is a valid transaction like A I want to send bitcoin is define like how do I do that? What is the structure that transaction look like? And there's just a one of rules that you need to meet, like a basic rule is we can make a bitcoin out of thin air um like I can't have one bitcoin and then send to justify and just specify that.

I mean, I can write a transaction states that but I would be considered invalid and rejected by the rules that are codified in software um also in a the rules of a block a set of transactions has to meet certain rules so those rules you can study I mean, there is actually quite detailed in new answer and tRicky and stuff, but but they're all objective. You can study them, understand all of them and it's just written in software. So that's literally what the consensus rules are.

So anyone running bitcoin sofa on a computer follows those rules. And then when they are broadcasting in transaction, relying a transaction or a block and then they that often receives those, they just check every transaction of block to make sure they meet those rules. Now in that simple explanation, now there's a assumption there that everyone's running the same rules on their computers.

So one coming question I get from people need to bitcoin is, like you say, that is a fixed supply, twenty one million or certain characteristics. You can't like counter fit bitcoin, but how do you prevent that from changing like the the, the big coin? One of one question is like, what can you just change the software? And yes, you can change software so I can change this offer.

And in my computer to a different set rules and and that's when is there is getting much more complex um because because no yes, I can change the rules in my computer um and but if they're compatible with anyone else that i'm connected to, well, that i'm going to be split off into my own my own network. So yes, I have the power in the self to do that but if no one else follows along, I might find myself on on an island. And and and that's with this paper and adding little help us go through the different stakeholder categories we describe in the paper. But that's where is really complex into yeah what prevents certain like powers and entities and stakeholders from going there on what you're changing the rules. Um and then if if there is like broad support for changing the rules, how do you actually get that done in a safe fashion that doesn't rist the network?

yes. I guess let me just sort of summarize a you the key points there um because if you're a new a listener you know of going to both co, maybe there's a lot of new people listening. So you may not have actually run a bitcoin node.

You may just be using a bitcoin wallet. And in that case, somebody else is actually kind of doing this running the node for you. And so that that might mean the person who's running the infrastructure for your hardware wallet, like if you have a leger and is calling out to legal server, in a sense, you've delegated your node running to ledger.

As in that example, if you are you using an electrum server, a based wallet like into you, the wallet just looks like IT just works, but actually in the background is calling out to somebody else or not. Other users may be on an exchange or you may have you bought bitcoin in an etf, this kind of thing. So again, you've kind of delegated you, let's say, your node running to that person.

But the kind of bottom line what we're trying to get to here is in bitcoin, their transactions, they go into blocks and they form a block chain. And the point is we want to be on the same chain. So that kind of the ultimate of deciding thing.

And so we talk about the idea of the heaviest est chain or the valid chain with the most accumulated proof work. So those are some of those aspects maybe you guys would like to comment on. What are some of the kinds of changes that we're talking about here?

Some of the changes in the past or debates round change in the past were around things like block size, either literal black size, which can be a heart for or um um things like pulling the signing proportion out of the block and therefore indirectly expanding a block sized via software k that's been one of the contentious ones in the past and to sell some extent in the present because of the existence of different um hard for coins and ongoing discussion around that.

The latest one is mainly around the expression tivy or flexibility of bitcoin scripting. So how complex for transaction can you make one of the trade off the big coin, us historical made verse other currencies is that IT keeps the rule set relatively simple, which reduces the attack surface, reduces um uh a number of other uh child uh things that can happen uh and is is similar consensus to maintain. But in exchange you have less flexible um options compared to what what some more program will a critic currencies have.

And they are they are currently different views on what is the output point there is their low hanging fruit that you can add to make IT the scripting more flexible? But still just as safe for roughly is safe. Um or would any changes at all um be be damaging in ways that we can't fully predict that? That's how would occur, one that that people should be visionary with this, how how much flexibility we want. And you put that intangible terms, there are certain changes that can make uh newer types of of layer tools um or other scaling methods um that become more robust if those changes are made compared if those changes are not made again in in exchange for any sort of trade off that might come from that.

no. But I wanted to point out one thing about this project to um it's really important to us for this project that it's not like picking sides. And again, there's like different philosophies change, like there's osf ers who don't want to that people want to change a lot.

There's teams and the different this project doesn't take a position on that IT. IT tries to be neutral, but where's back of that? And then secondly, this project is not trying to become a blueprint for how to change bitcoin.

Or you know the definition of how consensus should work is not intending to do that. I personally think that unhealthy almost creates an attacked or if becomes way to manage your govern rules. That's not the intent of this project is just trying to observe um the different powers and dynamics within the space. And um whenever lyn says like you know knowledge is powers, so I we're trying to increase the knowledge of people within bitcoin. And I really believe that I I feel like if um every person every stage of every person in bitcoin, whenever your role is um if you're empower with knowledge about this, you're going to make the best decision for yourself, for your business and that's going to lead to a strong network. I believe whether if ninety nine person of people in bitcoin are ignorant with respect, a lot of this stuff that's more a more dangerous environment in which they could be trick or folder or just like misled or or unaware of what happening underneath them with respective either not fixing critical bugs that needs to be fixed or changes being slipped in that really aren't healthy for for bit, right? yeah.

And I was going to ask that actually as well about whether this document should be seen as descriptive or prescribed tive. But as events, it's descriptive. It's not it's not intended as a go through this guy. If you want to change bitcoin, it's it's not like that.

And there would be many biton community members react to that in a negative way because they might say that like what you try to to attack, you help people push through a change that they don't want. And I think this perhaps say, let's say there's a healthy skepticism applied to people who are trying to change paco in. And I think that's that's for a good reason people should be skeptical.

Um so you know there is pops A A bar or a threshold ld that has to be beaten in order for a change to actually a curse, especially nowadays. Where's I think probably all this would agree that in earlier years of bitcoin, changes happened much more rapidly and with a lot less, let's say, oversight and supervision and let's say, agreement from the different stakeholders in the, let's say, bitcoin user base, let's say. But that's probably good spot here to, you know, Steve. You mentioned lan focused on the stakeholders, so maybe let's talk a little bit about that. Who are the players involved?

great. So the way that bitcoin, uh, consensus changes happen or don't happen is, is kind of a mix of these different stakeholder groups and to basic the different sources of power or incentive, different different types of users of the network. And we wanted category our view of what they are.

Again, as Steve mention, this is a starting point of a document. So any anything is changeable. But our initial set includes six stakeholder groups and that number could have been different. We IT could have been four, could have been seven because you are different. Um you could potentially combine stay colder groups or you can separate out stay colder groups to be more um detailed. And the way that we decide on this is to based on to two main metrics, which is that each day counter group has a certain type of power that they can use a and a certain incentive for which they might use that power.

And there's there's moto powers, this moto incense first state holder group um and so whether whether or not two groups were effectively the same stake hoder group we came down to do they have A H either different power set or a different um incentive set to use that power because if they're typically different group of but they're effective with the same in terms of powers and incentive than the biotech purposes, theyd be a very similar and stay colder groups. So we have we defined IT as six um one of them is economic nodes. So that's any note that has a significant volume or through put um so not all nodes are equally impacted on the network.

Someone is running their own node but barely ever using IT for transactions is on one side of the spectrum verses economic notes of major exchanges, major broke ages, major um. Um those are all uh impacted for defining at least the high volumes, the network, what's software they running um and how they how do they define consensus, what what transaction do they consider valid? That's obviously very important.

Um another one is investors. So anyone who holds bitcoin obviously has uh considerable of power ah that they can they can sell coin, especially there's a hard fork, they can sell coins um and then there is minors uh which as you put out used to be quite sillier uh to to running a no there wasn't really this distinction that we have today. But over time, those those functions thrown out into minors, they have have the power to uh, you define what what they want to put into a block as long as IT meets the existing rule set and they actually have the power to do a software on their own because that that we're limited transaction type um is still compatible with the existing node rule set.

But then I think one of the attack factors will get too later can talk about what happens if minors adopt to change that economic nodes are slow to adopt. And then there is media influencers which which which would include yourself and others um myself to basic anyone who has a significant audience um and that therefore they they can um influence people one where another uh to the some some you know measurable degree or some some significant degree because that can be part of you know either educating other groups or rAiling other groups or or in in some ways kind of pushing back on a change or educating for change in many cases um and many people in the network. Uh fill multiple stay holder groups.

So it's not just like everybody just has one like someone might be an investor that holds bitcoin and that also minds or they can hold bitcoin in scale and they have a significant audience where they hold big coin and they developed IT there. There's generally speaking, people often going to fall fall into you know one or more camps. Um for the last two, we we split two different types of developer.

So for the fifth day counter group, we have protocol developers. So those are maintainers and core contributors that are that are working on underlying bitcoin itself. What is consents um how do you know to talk to each other? A lot of what they do is not even changes is just update its bug, fixes its optimizations things that don't really touch core consensus, but they keep the software functioning as Operating system change over time and as different different books and issues are identified.

And then the last group is like application developers. So that could be someone making a new wallet or making um you know some sort of new feature on on a new layer two or something like that. And the reason we separated those two types of developers that there are powers in a centive, despite both at the end of the day writing code if they have somewhat different powers in um incentive.

So for example, court maintainers, you know their power is uh, you merging changes or or not merging changes and the note can decide to run that software or not. Their incentives tend to be more toward maintenance conservatism. Keeping like like safety.

Keeping the system running is kind of the top priority for a lot of them. Where as me look at application developers, the uh the powers different, uh, you're making a product or service that in some way builds on top of or contributes to bitcoin. And your incentive is tends to be a limit more toward probably wanting more features possible.

The more the more features you have to work with the larger kind of product space or design space that you have. And of course, people in different stay coder groups are all individuals and they can have different preferences. And sometimes you can even either even have incentive that goes against maybe some of your own stakeholder um uh outcomes.

But that's generally how we define these groups and and as one terrible example, there is very different levels of power between, say, hard forks and soft works when IT comes to these stay calder groups. So for example, the event of a hard for work, the investors are overwhelmingly powerful. They can they can sell the coin that they don't like in an existing hard fork, and then they can use that by more of the work they do.

Like where is a south fork scenario? There is not a lot of immediate options that investors have if you know south fork search to gain consensus or failed to gain consensus. And and they're on the opposite side of that view. They can only act indirectly at first though, maybe funding developers or uh funding you know audience input, things like that um and and instead you have your economic nodes and developers and minors that they tend to have more of that up front power. If there's any sort of soft k or or katana soft k back .

to the show in a moment. This show brought you by coin card dot com, the creative ors of the best bitcoin hardware security devices, such as the cold card mark and the new cold card q. Now we use the coin hardware security devices to keep our keys offline and private keys offline.

Now the way these work is, you can do that set up right down your twelve or twenty four words on the the seed word cards and keep that secure. Now you can use this device to interact with the bitcoin network using software such as spiral, let electrum or beat the top or non shock as a few examples. Now you have a range of security features that you can use with these devices, such as pass races you can use.

See axel, or my favorite is multi signature. Now, if you're starting in a basic way, just start with the device and the U, S, B, C, cable plug directly to the computer and use IT that way, and then later improve, you will set up. But I believe these devices are great at helping secure your coins, especially as you start to migrate into multi signature security.

But don't be this hard or don't be scared away. They are accessible, and I think you actually do learn about bitcoin in the process. So to get yours, go to coin kite dot com, use code lavera to get a count on your cold card. The lead sponsor, this show is bold, the best place to buy, sell and save bitcoin for listeners in the U. S.

Bold lets you secure your financial future with complete piece of mind by integrating a low fee bitcoin, only broken age, the next ten multi segue volts with bold, you can smash by bitcoin or set A D, C, A plan for renty zero point nine nine percent fees and seamlessly deposited bitcoin direct to your bolt fault. The bolt volt is a two or three collaboration of multi sig, where you hold two case, and bolt holds one as a redundant back up, protecting us, loss or theft. You can use treasure ledger or cold, cold hardway walls to spin up a bold vote in just a few minutes.

And the bold vote is the only collaborate custody vote available with zero monthly fees. They're also offering zero fees on your first ten thousand dollars a bitcoin buys and twenty five dollars a free bitcoin when you buy one hundred dollars a bitcoin or more. Drive today and upgrade your stacking experience of a kit bold, don't IO. And now back to the show. Yes, I really interesting. Um I guess one of the classic memes is my friend bitti has this the mexican stand off sort of me and so this kind of a sense that people are checking each other and looking at each other and saying, is this are we doing this or no, we're not doing that um and you also in the document spell at this conceptive state of mind so maybe you guys could walk through what other different states of .

mind yeah i'll take that. Um I think the observation there is that A A presumption that most people in the coin are in what we call state of mind. I think it's for which is unaware or lack of awareness.

I I suspect we surveyed you know all the vast majority could not name like the eight covenant proposals that are being developed right now。 Ah you know if if we take to find the very audience that would be higher because you cover this stuff. But if you look at the broad bitcoin space, most art on twitter and don't listen to post that, they're completely unaware.

Even if you look at businesses, I think if if you look like business owners of miners exchanges different types of bitchin businesses, they probably heard that there are some rumblings about cover on proposals um and even smaller percentage would be aware of the great consensus cleanup despite you. Thanks for having various spoke on on the like spread the word there. But it's still limited knowledge. So state of mind IT you know ranges from being a aware of a change in being very, very supportive of IT like the to there's like both supportive and so supportive that you're champion you're willing to spend time, money, energy to make that happen.

Um uh the opposite of that is that you you will knew you're so again something that you'll spend time, energy, money to prevent IT and spread the word why we should not do IT um both those also you can have supporters and detractors who have that position but they is is not as important to them to spend energy money and then the other positions are unaware of charity mentioned and then there is like aware but IT are the apathetic like don't don't really care yes i'm aware of that you could go either way I don't really care like you know um so those difference states of mind, we we define those. And then it's sort of reflected throughout the analysis of of change because as well, in put out earlier, in the case of a software, investors have far less power than the case of a heart. Like if there's if there's a hard fork and that literally is a chance blood to two coins that the obvious on that becomes top priority for investors to figure out what to do, right? Because the developed position is to hold both coins.

And if you take no action, you hold both coins IT. Arguably the conservative choice, if you are sort of not really aware of the situation and don't really feel comfortable betting on one of the other. But it's a huge opportunity for investors if you really feel like fork a is the future and the one you want to get behind and one the one you think others are going to get, get mind is an amazing opportunity to double your dw, your stack uh for free taking that risk.

So in that situation, investors naturally become very aware. But in the case of a soft fork um like for example, with tap room, how many investors were really need deep and tap route and the specifics and like really had a strong feeling one way or the other? I suspect very little knowledge of top pro.

They might just start to check in to see is there controversy or there any developers I respect you are like. You ths down on IT? And if so, why? But if they don't see that if IT gets merging, the bitcoin core and the biton core project is a long history of being very sea security conscious like conservative of changes of that.

If they approve and IT gets in the core, I think most of messages like all right like like as I going to ruin my investment, as I can ruin the network. Um but yeah, we define these things to mind though uh, because we think there is value for everyone involved to level up their awareness sooner in the process and later like a situation I think is unhealthy. Um if there's a precedent set for making changes a bit going too rapidly um and through south forks and investors are sort of like unaware, you know IT just in IT happens then like a few years later.

I I doubt if one change like a tape change goes in, investors are going dump their that doesn't really change thesis. But what if a dozen of those types of changes get in the bitcoin in in a few years there might be some threshold over investors like this is not the conservative, stable gypt currency that I that was part of my thesis. And then all the students, like i'm going to reduce my allocation or I am going to get out because that feels too recklessly, think we don't want to get to that, that spot.

And obviously, given the piece of consensus change since twenty seventeen, we had one. We're not seen observing that today, but in in a few minutes will walk through a scenario of potential way a change could occur, which if IT happened. And then I became a precedent. I could see a future where there's a lot more rapid changes.

interesting. okay. Um so yes, so I mean, let's talk a little bit about that. I think one other thing that I guess i'm thinking back to two thousand seventeen, right as an example, you those kind of this obviously was the big fight about the block size and will be the biggest, most contentious one. But there was a lot of contention about who would get which chain right. Who would get the ticker right was like who would get B, T, C, and who would be the secondary ticker, right? And I was sort of a big bone of contention.

There was also this kind of aspect of people arguing about to what extent does a service provider, an exchange or custodian or an APP speak for their users? Because that was also another thing as well, because people were, you know, as he said, not everybody he knew about IT and then know people trying to find out, okay, what exactly do I need to know about this thing? And how do I choose which side i'm on? And all these elements they sort of blended in together. And while I you know appreciate this this project you guys are doing, I think you will maybe the future will have other elements that kind of break up and know they want of well known um things in the market or kind of broadly known and might be sort of a further subdivision or some aspect of that. Um yeah so and that's .

why that's why make the project living document a living ongoing thing that can change because this is this is like our initial snapp shot and time having put energy and resources into this, it's like, okay, here's our initial draft. Here's our snapshot and then you accepting uh contributions and and maintainers uh to overtime update the document in ways that know could be Better than than how we started IT or even if we have an accurate snapp ed shot of what IT looks like now, IT could look very different in five or ten years. And so it's a change able document.

And you know if in the in the in the paper itself, when we go over the powers in the centers for the different day, quoter groups, like one of the ones you mention, is is going to to define what what is basically what is BTC versus what is the fork uh, and that's one of the powers that that economic nodes are have is that when you go go to major change, they can choose to say, okay, this is the software running, and this is the one we're going to label bitt coin. And this is the one that we're not going to. Of course, media influences who can do something similar, a little bless, powerful, but they, and must can affect that perception. But that's the exact type of power that that we look at um because there's moto powers in a sense for each stakeholder. Roup.

yeah that's great. And see if you you mentioned them, you had a scenario you want to run through or if you have .

a comment you running to that the current state of the B K, A project we do go through a history of of second. But we like for example, there is currently no description of of tapert activation in tapert itself wasn't a controversial change, but the activation a little bit of controversy and then speedy trial was used to activate IT IT. And even to this day, that still controversial.

Like there is definitely segment of like respect to developers and people in bitcoin who feel that, that was in mistake. So I think you know, uh, a great addition to the backup project will be the at that history and as well as I mean, you know a complete data will be analyzing every single change and how would occur red and what lessons might be drawn from that. That's how we can to learn from history.

But I totally agree, the future I mean, one thing we've learned about activation is that every time is different. So I think we should absolutely expect so we can learn from all those, but we should absolutely expect the next change if there is one to be different. Um and so the beat project right now does cover one particular scene i'll describe in a minute um but it's just IT.

It's an extreme risky scenario. I mean, no kaya at that way, but I was important to us to describe as a lesson for how a sf can be and and just so that we all are become aware of that, I suspect most people be going haven't thought through this. Um so i'll that but there's many other future scenario that would be great for other people to contribute to the project, add as well.

Um yes, so let's walk through that. The scarier that we did describe this is the scenario set up with the following observations um history, ally, all consensus changes. The bitcoin in that have occurred have been emerged into the bitcoin core project, one hundred percent of them and for I suspect most other audience also knows this.

But biton core project, IT doesn't define bitcoin is one implementation of bitcoin. There's many implement of the coin, but IT is like ninety nine nine percent of marketers on the network. So IT has tremendous power because basically everyone um runs bitcoin core software.

So if there's a consensus change emerged in the big coin core and it's causing lots of controversy, you know the default action is just to upgrade the bitcoin or software as people do every year, every couple years, every three years. Every every actor, economic actor, no runner has some kind of you know Operational plan when, how and when they upgrade their software. But the devolved action is to run bitcoin core and upgrade whatever you update planet.

And if you're not against the chicken as a change that was emerged, such as tap route, the natural action is just update that you forcing and supporting that um however, in the past few years so sorry, another local observation is that most consensus changes were created and developed by bitcoin core maintainers, a bitcoin active bitcoin core project numbers and that has shifted the past few years to wear at new asbyte s gotten bigger. There's a lot of talented developers outside that they don't contribute to the bitcoin project, but they really want to see a change in the coin that they think is improves the coin and crucitti and they've gonna head and done the work to speak IT out, write the code, right the test and in these different proposals are in different state. Summer, like a very mature and advanced ate others, are more of ideas stage.

But those those concepts are coming outside of vick in core developers. It's unclear this point in time um whether and how and when biton court contributors will prioritize looking at one or any of these change proposals. And until they do, it's not gonna merged in the in the book core.

I mean, obviously, that needs to be prioritized by some subset of biton core contributors and a reviewed and there needs to be consensus there and then it'll emerged in the court. That's just one a one little part of getting a change in the bitcoin historically. Um IT should be noted that there is no obligation by any bacon court contributor to do that.

Their volunteers, they get to choose how they spend their time. There's no obligation that any individual in the project has to prioritize this. Secondly, anyone can be a bitcoin core contributor. There is no application process is not like a group of elite e people. Um I mean the people that do IT are awesome, but you don't have to be in in the leads to do IT. Um any of us could contribute, obviously need a coding skill set, but anyone can contribute um so I didn't get to really important um aspect as well but because we don't know if anyone contributed to the core project will prioritize this. I've heard from some developers who are champions of uh some of these change proposals that they um build, build or support an alternative client that has that consensus changed and we seen this in the best like back in twenty sixteen era, there was like big coin, you X Y and but unlimited and different .

clients that were built .

and supporting of course twenty seventeen there. Like I got two x you know patch to bitcoin core and then even in twenty twenty one with tap route, someone built a tappit um the different activation client and then like the C T V jerrem. And I think I forget a jeremy authority, other developers that were really want to C C T V built an activation client for that.

Um so there's a history of building activation clients. They've never been successful um never really got ten much traction at all. But anyway, that that that still is potential today. I think it's we noted that is really important to have that option like even if you hate the of alternative client and think is dangerous and i'll get to wipe IT IT can be dangerous.

It's really born out that option because otherwise we would literally be beholden to like the five maintainers on beacon court, five people um not we wouldn't be hold to them um adding changes that we don't like but the opposite like if this to say hypothetically ally everyone in bitcoin wanted change x whatever that is. But those five people who have the power to press a button and emerging the core, you refuse to like prioritized they don't agree or for what a reason they don't merging if we literally couldn't run. Or you to support the concept of an alternative client will be stuck.

That's not a healthy position. So I think it's really important that the bitcoin network has that option, and we do have that option. Having said that, gaining adoption of an an alternative client is a very, very stupid decline.

And now let's get with the scenario which can be dangerous because because it's so difficult to get that adoption. If you get limited adoption of that, you can create a fragile network. Let's imagine a scenario where an alternative client with the consensus change is created.

Um it's it's adopted by a handful of champions and supporters but but meaningful ly, it's adopted by a few services that that have been built that depend on that consensus change to offer their product that they want to sell to customers. Um and let's say like a few exchanges adopted that as well because they see you know a ability to make more money through whatever these new features are. Um and then importantly, let's say that minors the majority had is convinced to upgrade to this alternative client with the consensus change and start mining blocks with that of for um and that's that's the big hurdle here.

But having said that, as we've discuss any show before of on mining as very central alizad right now and like talk to three C E O from three pools in your ninety five around ninety five percent hash rate. So it's a taller order. But you can imagine coming up with the business proposition that appeals to three people running businesses and they might do IT, especially if they're under the impression that, that change is not controversial and there is consensus, which is another thing we we can maybe talk about this project we try to identify, like how do we even know what? Well, how to measure consensus and how do we even know if there is consensus is very am definitely there are people live in their own bubbles.

And so the people they talked to make me think that, yes, of course, everyone wants to change or another bubble is like, of course, no one, no one like only this fringe group once that change. And I know I have friends in both camps right now, in certain changes made they strongly believe you. They are like it's fringe or it's obviously so if uh three CEO think it's obvious that those consensus um only see a good business proposition, let's say that minors adopt that change um and again, the software k so they can do so.

And in on day one, that doesn't break the network because the whole network will happily accept those blocks. Now the in the scene, a small portion of the network a adopt IT starts enforcing these new rules and they create products based on IT. Um and let's say it's like a new decentralize exchange, you know because let's say the change um does make between more expressive so you can do smt smart contracts, you can do cool fancy of things and like a ga link kai o is created.

Um my worry is that customers of that are gonna flock to that because we have seen IT before another other chains and they're not gonna care about the risk that the fact the rest of the network isn't enforcing these rules, they probably won't be aware of that. They won't care. They're in IT to make money quickly.

They're not in this set of customers in this aren't like trying to hoddle forever. They're going to make a quick buck. So let's say they start using the service even though the rest of the network isn't enforcing the rules. Um there can be a lot of money locked up in the bitcoin scripts that utilizes as new functionality the the new rules what that doesn't create a bounty and it's a bounty because if minors unwind that change.

I say, yeah.

those transactions look like anyone can spend to the rest of the network. So any of us could just broadcast a transaction that spends, let's say, like a billion dollars has locked up in of the coin in these transactions. Any of us could brought out the transaction that takes us input all the transactions that are using this, the inflections ality and is pay ourselves and then and get this IT like two billion, i'll keep a billion for myself and give a billion of the miners.

That creates a huge incident for the miners to roll back that change because is that bounding grows and you over broadcast and of course the miners themselves as pay um in fact, that's play what would actually and so that's a very fragile, brittle network and get what happens if they do that. Um well, let's say in this in the scarrow ninety five per economic nodes are are not enforcing those new rules. They they would happily accept the new blocks that are they would accept this bounty claim, but IT would create a chain split because the the nodes that are uh important .

than they to reject.

And then I would fork. And then we'd have two coins. We do have a chase late.

We have have two coins are obviously in sane drama. One campaign store, billion dollars, other can using rules. The didn't. There is no theft. Yeah.

yeah.

you broke that. You know, this transaction was valid.

Yeah, you know.

and I would obviously be total total c total nightmare. Investors would like flock in and decide like which fork is valuable.

which is the true chain.

And then yes, and i've spoken to people at the scenario and i've heard from credible people in both sides, one group thinks for sure that the legacy rules would be respected by like by investors and they wouldn't go with this. The new set rules that were partially activated, another reveal, feel just as equally strongly .

and is actually less .

risky to upgrade. And but what's crazy and is like, what is bitcoin core doing this? Does the in core project then merge? These rules changes because of this chaos. Some people want IT. And anyway, what we definitely know, I think at that point is this Price discovery on the two forks and that is a huge determining factor. And what is bitcoin um and so another part of our analysis in this project that is one of them most exciting take away in my mind is that not only investors have like tremendous power at that point, but we broke down segments of investors and self custody individuals are disproportionate, powerful at that point. And I I find that super liberating and and positive for the future of bitcoin.

And the reason why we think they have this proportion of power is that because they control their own keys, so they they have direct access, self foreign access, to both coins, and they are able to, because they are, they are independent, they can unatoned act on the ownership of those kind, and they can choose to sell one fork and double down the other fork. Any investor, in theory, can do that. However, uh, there's concerned by some focus in bitcoin about the power of institutions and this black rocker, they're na take over bitcoin but think about black rock and fidelities of the world in this situation.

They are far more likely to be very conservative and they're not like I really can't imagine them dumping one fork and doubling down on the other. When is still unclear which fork is going to win that they are going to have massive legal remotivation. They're many people involved because they're not the owner or the key controller, coin base controllers, the keys.

the underlying eighty of customers are the actual holders .

of their owners and then they're just heavily regulated guardi. And so so I really don't think they're going to get into the game of Price discovery. There's a whole .

both let the discuss that yeah interesting scenario.

And that's one thing for the project. We had a reviewed by a number different of these day coto groups. So economic nodes, major e tf in investors, corporate treasures, a lot of them where we were able to list and acknowledge them are the ones we were able to to list.

But we reach out, as you know, pretty broadly and pretty, pretty high level. And you know, we had legal experts, look at IT, we had all, all sorts of different input. And that is what the complicating factors is that there there are some entities that we judged to be able to move practically instantly, and there are other entities that they have A A variety of extra people have to make the decision or extra. The stakes are very high for them if they get the decision wrong legally um and and through all sorts of means like that. And I think that's that's actually one of the really relevant um findings this show brought .

you by mental or space, the world's leading bitcoin visualizer. And now theyve got an accelerated program. So if you have a transaction that you sent out of fee that was too low to get confirmed, now you can fix this at with the mental accelerator the way that works.

You can go to search your transaction, scrolls down, click accelerator and you don't need an account. You can pay with lightning and then it'll show you it's now in the process of being accelerated and then after a few minutes, it's confirmed. And so this is a great way to help you out if you are stuck.

And this can happen where maybe your wall let t doesn't have rbf lcp fp, or might help you in situations where it's in practical to go in residence. So for example, muli seek with keys in different locations. And thirdly, even in some lightnings scenario, perhaps a false closed, you might not be able to use rbf.

And so in this case, the mental accelerator can help you out. So keep IT in mind and you can find out more over a mental dot space slash accelerator. And now back to the show. yeah. And I mean, this all scenario IT reminds as well, like I know even develop us now when they're talking about on proposing cell folks.

One concern they talk about, which I mention this is concept of is a confiscated or right? Are there by making this change? Are you screwing over people who might have locked their coins in a certain way that now you're effectively shutting them out of accessing those coins again, right? And this kind like this of that, but kind of in reverse, is that I would have happened that you could argue IT is a confiscated ory effect even if IT was not intended to be that way.

Um and so I guess yeah I mean, bottom line, I guess in this you know both in that entire and just in general, it's hopefully it's a good thing that more people hopefully are clear about how this works and sort of know how to defend their and right right now the first class citizen is you running your ambit one know your whole and bitcoin and then you at least choose which chain you're on and you know which rules you're on. But at the same time, I mean, to the point you guys were making as well about uh, the stakeholders and what power they have, it's one thing to be running your own bitou and hold join keys. But what if your chain that you chose. Is not the majority chain, right? Like what if you chose poorly put so as big and you chose be cash and ever else and you chose b to x and ever else to as b one x well you still not I mean, yeah your sovereign coins, but you're on the wrong side.

I think the notion that the average user is just running the node and isn't actually sending and receiving payments like the rules they choose, that they have some kind of power with that. I think that not really the case, but right.

But I think as an individual who maybe isn't like extremely wealthy and bitcoin or powerful, like the the way they can affect them, they can express their opinion and voice, say they they can have a uh a voice and I the A A large collection of people with a strong view and and reason, the voice can be in backed ful. I think we didn't see that in twenty seventeen like that. My own take away on U A, S F is like, sure if a bunch clubs run a certain center rules at the software. I I actually that alone I don't think is very impacted but then saying they're willing to do IT articulating why um can be evacuated and um and then can be amplified with media influencers and really change the narrative for bitcoin.

Yeah but the .

most powerful thing that I learnt is the self custody investors where they do like either collectively or even whales, their ability to swift take action and choose aside on a fork, whether the futures market or there actually has been a chain split and you're betting on one or the other fork, that is incredibly powerful one. I guess I I I yeah I tend to think that self custody holders, sorted by definition, probably get the ethos of bit coin Better than someone who bought black rocks etf or black rock themselves because if you just you've gone through a lot of you have gone through a journey, if you're going to start self and so I feel hardened that those are the kind of people who are ultimately going to decide the fade, a big coin in in the case of drama over blackrock.

So I think and in many cases, people there maybe people who hold both, right there, maybe people who have self cost coins, but there are time in account that using these etf or something or microstrip gy or something else, you so it's kind, as you say, you be you can wear many hats, right? You might be a hoda and also a minor and also a developer who is also kind of influential as a voice. You could be wearing multiple hats in that scenario.

And so um it's kind of interesting to see how that um will play out. Um I think one other area that would be interesting to discuss, and I know again this is a very rapidly changing area, is around activation itself, right? Because there there have been different methods employed um there and there's also an element, I guess this is debatable.

But even thinking back to twenty seventeen, this kind of an argument of like it's kind of like, know the classic game of chicken, right? People are sort of saying i'm driving this way and you Better, you Better, you Better do you Better, you know, divert because i'm not stopping kind of thing. This kind of an element of this game of chicken to an extent and there are different methods of signaling activation.

And as we mentioned um as he as he said on speedy trial, which was used for the twenty twenty one activation of tap od is let's say controversial among the some users and among some developers had seen as no that was actually uh the right approach. Um so maybe you guys could explain some of your thoughts on the different methods of activation. Uh and yeah .

we can take from that. sure. I yeah I mean, another controversial one is b eight. I know a lot of developers think that there really no advantages of debate over um of a bit nine and there are some dangers with IT. But you know other other like the proposal of bib and some developers are are big advocates for IT as well.

And I think as a tweet yesterday, someone to come up with activation parameters for Allen answer, one of the cup, one of the change proposals with activation parameters, which I didn't look at all the details, but I I think they were aggressive um there there they're almost certain ly going to be controversial because uh I I I think that includes like a flag day, um you know forcing the issue even if minor hash rate doesn't follow suit. Um so I mean I personally don't have a strong position over like h this this activation method is like clearly the best thing we should always follow IT. I don't think in such an activation method exist yet and the probably in the past literally every change I think is follow different activation method were so serve learning and we in is so infrequent to do this that we don't have a lot of experience to learn from. Um but yeah yeah I don't know if I much more say about accusation other than like yeah and the .

complicated aspect that people disagree with, what changes should be made and then also how to make those changes and like A C point out, the change happens so frequently that what worked in one era might not be the right answer for the next era or or even if that is right, this might be a different a solution just because the sample size is so small and a ten gentle observation we've made is that one of the powers of influences is not only can they um potentially change uh consent accented itself.

But they could advocate for change or against change and there for change people's minds but another thing they can do is shape how people perceive consensus to be um because Steve mention earlier that people can be in their own bubbles and they could think that a consensus change is is very popular or they can be camp. The thing is not very popular. And it's actually hard to know for sure how objective you're being when you're assessing the field and seeing what percentage of major day quarters seem to be on board with this change or not.

And one of the things that some, some deceptive influences could do, I wouldn't consider this a very honest tactic, but one of the things that is doable is busy purpose, sly, make a change sea more um supported than IT really is um or um in theory the opposite, where something is actually popular. You you're trying to downplay how popular that really is because a lot of connect like with with tap route, for example, a lot of people didn't really know much about tab route, but they they saw that there wasn't really drama, that there were seem to be consensus. So this okay IT seems like there's on board then um and any sort of change like that you can can you can get people on the majority side that might otherwise not know IT very well as by making them think that they are on the majority side and then they start that becomes kind of self propositioning and I can imagine especially world with the A I box for something that you could have.

you know you can throw of campaigns to kind of make a little more popular or not less popular.

They look, everybody isn't favor this change and you a lot of people genuine on IT, but then you also have a lot of bots and um that there's kind of an initial me through around if you imagine what would a snarer look like where a controversial alternative of client was launched with some degree of grasp support, then how do you measure how how actually supported is IT compared to the status quote?

Yeah fascinating. And I think you're right. I mean, this is existed for sometime this concept of whether something is being asteroid fed, right, like historical, just bought to now in the A I era. Maybe that's easier to maybe for people to kind of spin up like nim account, whether that's on eggs or on r and fake support for or hate or dislike of a particular proposal.

Um I guess to an extent we ve seen people try to use this kind of web of trust, kind of ID to sort of say all OK um this this is that well in person they like this change. They like C T V or some other whatever change. And so I guess there's an ill of that.

So reputation does you know play into IT a bit. Um so there's that. Um I think one area that is a common area of confusion that I would love if you guys could maybe give us your take on this. Why is bitcoin not a minor democracy?

Well the first um understand what you mean by minor democracy meaning he a hash a hash is a vote that right because .

this .

is the common .

confusion right people have this idea I will see the mind is could just push for any .

change as vote for um so is actually the the the hypothetical scenario we discussed previously is one answer. So you can let's say a hundred percent hundred votes or decides to enforce some new rule set. If if if none of the economic nodes upgrade and enforce those rules, then yes, I mean in little simple as a software. K so to your backward comatter change. So yes, the miners unattacked do that and produce blocks and there could be transactions within those blocks that support the new rules.

But IT gets into this very dangerous situation, the bounties situation um that we described before, but even more extreme than as to be invoked zero percent economic notes support the new rules or or or like one like just one does and like to say a bunch of money locked up and in the big the scripts using the new rules the miners would almost would understand like clean the bounty because there is like almost no downside risk and they just take that money. So you have to have enforcement of changes by economic nodes to actually have a longevity around a change, a secure change its a must have. And then as we pointed out as well, ultimately investors have the most power out of all all these take holder groups.

I think there's no no denying that um whether IT be we went to the fork scenario where you know the Price action and in determining mine the Price of fork avers fork b is the almost the full deciding factor and what is bitcoin but even um without forks, if investors become feel disagree gies or just a bit point to no longer what they invested in their thesis and they sell if if our ninety thousand and bitcoin whatever today goes to nine thousand or nine hundred dollars. Sure there might be some people around still like talking about people to peer money, but I would at minimum be a devastating impact on the industry for like a decade or more set setting this way back, if not like the death male. So investors are are are ultimately, I think, all powerful. I think there is no question minors have power playing important role, but are definitely not all.

Yeah don't .

have votes like no one should think of. This is a democracy or a voting system in fact read the paper, read the big cat project to understand how complex IT is um and the powers and instance from all six these stay collar groups and see how um each of them have unique powers that are meaningful but none no one has like unattended power. The only one you could argue I think that has overwhelmed power is investors but I think it's too um simply list c to just defines that everything .

investors everything .

because of the time scale like where in the life cycle of a change or where in the life cycle of bitcoin due investors in a third power. It's not like each and every day and because of that it's more complex as described .

in beat yeah they could be all powerful too late. And so even their own interests are impaired now because they they wanted be going to be a certain way. Soft k changes that they had little direct influence over. They ultimately can then decide to sell or reduce their position as the project, but even they might not end. Being happy is near because, like, I want a old decoy and that's impaired now and it's really hard to rebuild network affects and uh you know regain uh of a prior consensus state so that that's what I think that even investors as powerful as they are um is not as though whatever they want could potentially happen. There's a number of other stay holder groups that could do things before they have a chance to act that even themselves are not happy with the outcome that that comes from IT.

Yeah, it's interesting because I recall this is like a big argument in the twenty, sixteen, seventeen days where they people trying to argue that the miners could decide what was going on or maybe is also a confusion, right? People sort of taking what what should to be an understood as minors signaling readiness for minors are concrete voting for that change. And they can decide naterally, which is obviously not the case.

And I think the other element people were saying in those days was also that the hot list of the investors, they can just sit and wait, where's miners have? They have ongoing costs, right? They paying electricity.

They're paying the trying to maintain their Operations. And so in that sense, the investors who really wanted a particular they wanted to go us in way they they were want to ultimately were able to decide. Um though as you say, Steve, they're of they can just decide everything on their own, but they can have arguably the most power.

And so yeah, it's really interesting that you sort of see all these different dynamics. Some of this is I guess you are trying to codify the kind of unwritten rules or kind of codify the understanding a little bit more interns of how these different dynamics um play out. Um so uh I guess when IT comes to um how things are going you know in the future, do you do you guys have any thoughts on what that might look like or what elements of this may change?

Um well perfect I hope I A goal of this project is to create more awareness of this and just leveling of people's understanding. So hopefully were successful in that um and and and again, I think new knowledge power, the more people in the coin that understand these things, we're gonna get Better collective decision making. Um just this isn't directly ensure question, but I should let let the audience know a little.

And I work the only two people involved in this, a general name rn. He goes by when he was crucial to the project. He did most of the writing of the project. So um he has been really wonderful to work with.

He he um he told us that like a lesson that he had, he has a lot of experiencing other preprepared cy ecosystems and he has a much deeper appreciation for proof of work over proof stake after working on this a project and a deep appreciation for how changes are made and not made on bitcoin. Compared other because other ecosystems is the way more centralized, it's wait easier to make changes. And I think of the ecosystems view that is a positive thing.

Like we're IT like it's were staying of the day with the latest technology and like bitcoin, slow, dead boring is behind. But I think people in bakin appreciate that conservatism and he is not because of it's so complicated, uh, how the coin quote governance works, how do we keep things consensus that I I I think anyone who reads this hopefully have to take away they have as well. Um yes, far as what to expect to change, I think we need to monitor each other, grow over time and do their powers grow this proportionally. I'm not to read about that, but if you know that would be something to monitor again. We don't know how future changes if and when, millie, how they be activated observing that would be important as well.

A lot of ways for positive um the observation because one of the one of the big concerns I get in in interviews or or from readers is is IT a problem if more more bitcoin end up in exchanges or corporate treasuries, does that does that centralize and never get some way? So and one of our assessments is because they in the event of a hard for they are more likely to sell slow. They diminish their power even if they have a fairly potential limb.

Coins, obviously, there are certain threshold. You didn't want coins IT out uh in two few hands um but that not all hands have the same speed and impact uh which I think is hearting and then too I just kind of shows how difficult IT is and how much kind of incentives you really need um to successful launch and alternative consensus client um and that the status quote gently geared towards the existing situation. I would I would take a pretty overwhelming ah maybe even more overwhelming than I initially expected uh level of change because of the risks involved and because of the details involved in in a change of that sort.

So I think that I came reviewing the network as maybe even more robust than already thought. IT wasn't narrow, had a high opinion network as a, as you know, long term steps of my long term holder, investor and and analyzer for IT. But it's actually many way stronger than I expected in a lot of these game theory components, I think fall on, thankfully, the right side of stability.

Um but for those education, as unlikely as some of them may be, that's why you want to explore them because if anything, that they could reduce the possibility that these kind of messy content changes happen due to ends that weren't even aware what some of the risks are. So you can eliminate the fact that there are contents opinions that are different and and again, the paper isn't the project doesn't take aside for against any given changed. But the the biggest tragedy would be some sort of negative impact through ignorance that that that certainly code groups weren't even aware of things that they could have done to reduce that from happening. So hopefully the project does some small way of mitigating those those tail risks.

Yeah and I am aware I mean, I think, Steve, you're probably closer to this and I am. But as I understand, even in in the world of bitcoin, call is an there's an effort to try to have the consensus engine that they separated. And so IT, maybe that one example may be in the future if that would happen, then maybe that might open the path way for more alternative clients in the future.

What do you think? Yes, I know um spiral funds sebastian, who who's working on that the last year, he is making really good progress. It's a very positive change if bitcoin core can actually become bitcoin core, meaning the core software that is the most essential to the health of network and functioning of network is is separated from like the like becoming Q T in the gooey while the l severing.

That is just good soft engineering. And as you said, IT does um IT. IT allows for more alternative clients without taking the risk of not using co. She's original code in the in I think it's good and healthy for the network, but with respective what we talked about with consensus change, even if even with that kernel from core and an alternative claim built on that, if that project add the consensus change, still most of the barriers exist.

I I think I I guess I would reduce the barrier to adoption a little bit because if i'm running a more timely no lar business and i've had really good luck or not luck, but good a good experience with bitcoin core, it's been secure, hasn't lost me any money. Um and then i'm look but but I do want this consensus change i'm the support of for but it's only in this alternative client if that alternative line is uh uh you know if it's based on this kernel, I guess that would make me feel comfortable. Having said though, most alternative clients where the goal is simply to add a consensus change, they're gonna fork bitcoin core.

So it's gonna be all the same software. The risk there that you need to contemplate ate in our project does go through like a set of questions any business owner or no runner should walk through just to make sure that they have a compress sive decision um is like who's gonna a maintain that project going forward? Are the incredible developers, what their track record?

Are they onna be round in three years? Are they security? Can just are they conservative changes or do they match what I want out of the developer project, you'd have all the same questions for the alternative based on becoming court kernel as well.

Yeah, one quick observation I would make is that so i'm supportive of that that project to uh separate the kernel and modular ze aspects of that. But I have heard from some people in the more conservative side of of the change spectrum that are very influential, some entities there, that they actually do have that concern that if it's that if it's modular ze that the'd be more concerned around the rise of alternative clients and either intended or unintended change, plus that happened from that. So I don't you know not a not a view that I particular hole but IT is something that i've heard articulated from from some people we might .

know yeah okay well really interesting stuff. I will obviously put the links um in the and as you guys I said, this is a this is living document but I thought this is a really great read know maybe IT would be good to have IT like as like a little mini booklet d or novel or a little thing like that to kind of give you to people maybe you'd have to update IT maybe you'd be like this is the twenty twenty four version and feature updated versions that could be yeah any final thoughts before we close up.

It's an open source project. It's the the beginning of the end. So we very much welcome not only people to to read IT but those who are inspired you sea spot ways to improve IT please engage you can file a get to issue um if you really want to engage, you can make the change yourself, make you open up apple request and theyll be a community waiting there to review IT. We intend to be active in that community and we we're very um you know motivated to keep improving this this project fantastic.

Well, that's IT. I think I make sure all the links are in the showers. But the project, just for anyone who is driving account, get the thing out. It's analyzing bitcoin consensus risks in protocol upgrades. So yes, Steve and lin, thanks to joining me today.