Debating Bitcoin Security and Ultra Sound Money

Shouldn't stay this interesting. There's going to be different numbers for those who co-host the people. Yeah, he's saying that there's a, uh, that with scale, you can do it better, right? And that you can create a six that are on a lower fab, you know, a better chipsize, right? There's still the, the five and seven nanometer chips that you can move down to. And most A6

are still in the seven nanometer chip, right? So there's a lot of stuff here. But, you know, just taking the price per terahash on two bit main orders, multiplying that based on the price, how much terahash we have right now. And then saying, okay, well, if you're willing to invest that much, then the price, you know, then the electricity is already marginal there for, let's just

say, you know, you can get everything plugged up and you're, uh, you know, double spending the Bitcoin network and robbing exchanges. Um, you know, that's going to destroy the network and, uh, with one shot kill. And, uh, you know, hey, you can just do it with, uh, you know, a couple days worth of electricity and you're good to go. Like I'm sorry that that calculation just

literally does not play out into practice whatsoever. And he already backtracked it. I was like pushing him on it. And he's already recording this. I'm already I'm recording it. Yeah. We already backtracked here. We've already backtracked it. He's already backtracked it saying that, uh, now it's 10 billion according to Twitter. So, um, you know, I just don't find him credible whatsoever. Okay. So we're talking of,

okay, but hold on. Let's, let's gate this gate that we're talking about the, the economic cost of securing Bitcoin. And specifically the dollar, the dollar values and like sure, the calculations could be wrong. But like if we want to get sure, by a lot, not sure it could, could, could, could be, but like honestly, the, and one of the points that he's trying to make is

like, it doesn't even matter if it's off by like an order of magnitude, because some of these fundamental constructions just it doesn't even matter. Maybe, maybe his calculations are actually one 100th of the financial cost, but some of these, some of these, these the way that Bitcoin is secured fundamentally. Doesn't carry over to long term security regardless. Like you were getting into all we've already jumped

into a very niche component of like the ultrasound money thesis or podcast. Not and not we're not talking about the overarching concept. No, no, no, that's that you can't say that, okay, we're focusing on a niche thing. Look, he is making design decisions for Ethereum and making recommendations for the sound like how Ethereum should operate based on these assumptions. Of how Bitcoin is operating in its

flaws, right? If he doesn't even understand that, if he doesn't even understand the engine behind Bitcoin, then how is he making Ethereum, you know, practically better? Like he's saying that Ethereum is better in every single measure. But like, okay, here's, here's a great example. Okay, he says, okay, Coinbase adds, you know, X amount of the ETH to the proof of stake ecosystem. And that is just

a direct exponential increase in ETH security, right? As a proof of stake. He's to not taking into account that, no, Coinbase is one entity that controls all of those keys. Like there, there's, it's more nuance than they just added this kind of money to the pool. And now the pool is that more secure. It, who, it matters, who is actually holding those keys, right? Who's securing

that? If you have three massive entities with all of the stake in there, you know, you're, you're not in a good economic situation, even though based on his like frickin, you know, fifth grade economics math strategy, you know, you are. So like I, I question every single one of his economic assertions to their core. Like I, I think that literally it was just bad information on

the podcast. Like I was actually offended listening to it because it was like, because this is this, this is, you know, what you can assume here. And like I'm not an economist, but I just noticed way too many issues with the Bitcoin side of things. So if he's making these many faulty issues, you know, kind of assumptions on Bitcoin, then how could I even, you know,

remotely trust his assertions around proof of stake and how Ethereum is going to work? I do remember talking to him, mentioning like the, the staking and Coinbase and that just providing more security to Ethereum and, but it's like, well, wait a second. That one, I did remember getting tripped up. That was we goes like, Oh, okay, dude, come on, man. It's not one to one function.

But again, we're getting, we're not existing above all. We've done, we've driven into like some nuances about, and some core concepts about a specific part of like Bitcoin security that again, I would say it was not actually a part of the ultrasound money thesis. The ultrasound money thesis is like the difference between ASICs and chip manufacturing versus staking, right? Not about like the actual dollar costs

of reducing a terror hash for the Bitcoin network. And let's see. And, and I think there's just a general fundamental like this position difference between you and Justin, where like he is more. Trin, like rather than trying to get to the, to the real world, like if I go to the bit main site and I look at how much it costs to produce an ASIC and

how long that's going to get me get, get to me so I can start mining Bitcoin, that's that seems to be where, like where, where your heads at where he's more at, like, he's more okay with just being inaccurate about the numbers, but so long as the model, it's about the model, not about the actual raw numbers, because the model is the fundamental truth at the

end of the day. And especially when we talk about like the value of the reality is truth, models are models, models are to help you understand real. Big one is based on models. No, Bitcoin is a is in practice. This is this is the whole, maybe this is like the crux of the issue I have with each two. And you showing it to as if it

is reality, because it too is a model. And guess what Bitcoin as it is is in practice. And I'm sorry that it's ugly on paper, but Bitcoin really fucking works on in practice. And this is why I'm sorry his I have to call it fifth grade napkin math and poor research equals it costs $5 billion to attack Bitcoin. You don't even have to worry about electricity.

That's garbage, dude. I'm sorry. It's just garbage. Like at some point, like the math to attack Bitcoin isn't even accurate, because if we really wanted to talk about attacking Bitcoin, like, there's already like things that exist in the real world that would just tilt the axis of Bitcoin power, like like with a whole like real world manifestation of proof of work mines. Like the United States

with his current level of technology could mix like, I don't know, 50% of Bitcoin hash power like tomorrow, if it really fucking wanted to. And so like, and that would be the thing with that. That have for them. And how would that stop Bitcoin? Well, because then then the then the actual dollar cost of producing a six and chips get also gets cut in half. Right.

And so like the actual dollar cost because Bitcoin is both physical and digital, like the actual like economic cost of attacking the system. Like we're never going to be able to come to an actual dollar amount. And so that's that's why it's actually important to model this thing these things out. I mean, at least try to come up with an accurate model like I'm sorry, taking

two. Bit main invoices, which he linked to me in the tweet back and forth I had with him and then saying, look, it costs them less than $20 per tarahosh to shit this, you know, and then extrapolating that by the, you know, taking all the tarahashes and the current network and then multiplying it by $20. Like, I'm sorry, that is not valid. That has no like

that isn't even close to realistic whatsoever. And then on top of that again, the these invoices that he's citing, they were they were issued in like, you know, in signed in December. And they're not even going to ship until January of 2021. I'm sorry, sorry, the end of December of 2021, they started in January of 2021. So it's going to take 12 months for the entire

order on both of those shipments to come to fruition. Meanwhile, apparently governments are supposed to be able to come up with 51% of the hash rate and attack Bitcoin for an extended period of time while they can't even manufacture masks in America. Like, are you kidding me? You're telling you're going to found 50% of the hash rate overnight. Plug all of that in with magical electricity

that we have access to abundantly, you know, apparently there's no constraints on electricity. And you're going to 50% attack the network to the point where it's unusable. And there's no market competition that can do anything with it. It's like, I'm sorry, dude. Your model is stupid. Your model is completely off. It has nothing to do with reality. I have nothing more to say. It's just bad.

It's bad information. It's not realistic whatsoever. Yeah. Like I understand your point and like, yes, reality, numbers and reality are important. But again, like we were like you and him are also and no, like, no, it's not it's not about how like we're also talking about something that's not reality. And that's that's valid. The whole point, I mean, I'm not sure how to do it. But

what's interesting about this industry is that it extrapolates into the future. And like, so he is talking about like theory and projections and modeling into the future. And you're talking about real world practice. And these are different. Thearium has more real security than Bitcoin today. And it's infancy of proof of stake. That is a pure shell based on bad numbers that have no connection to reality.

I'm sorry. He's saying Bitcoin is broken by my coin. I'm sorry. That is all I heard. And I'm saying you need to keep reality to justify that. Okay. But like what he's also talking about with Bitcoin and reality is that when we extrapolate Bitcoin into the future, it also breaks down, which is like, and this is why Bitcoin. Where is the evidence of that? Where is

the evidence of that? Minors have never made more money. Explicitly from the block reward than they are today. Oh my God. We're just rehashing the same thing we talked about on the last P.O.P.P.O.P.O.P.O.P.O.P.O.P.O.P.O.P.O.P.O.P.O.P.O.P.O.P.O.P.O.P.O.P.O.P.O.P.O.P.O.P.O.P.O.P.O.P.O.P.O.P.O.P.O.P.O.P.O.P.O. It's also about quantum computing. Bitcoin comes to a dead end no matter what in all scenarios. If you model it out, which for some reason, Bitcoiners don't want models. No practice. No models.

Again, which models are you talking about that have actually shown any sort of reality? Because the only reality is hashray exploding. Yeah. That's not what secures Bitcoin. Hashray is also the thing that attacks Bitcoin. They're being more total hashray. It doesn't mean that Bitcoin is more secure in one-to-one fashion. That's not what that means. It kind of does. No. You can also use hash power to

also attack the network. Just because there's more hash power doesn't mean it's only. By the time you have 51% attack, you own the golden goose. So why would you kill it? Right. Yes. The game theory works out pretty well. Yes. Is that what we're using now? We're using models. No. In practice, the game theory works. It's been working. It's still working. And you know, you can

point to all these economic studies that miss that, you know, kind of make these weird assumptions. Like that. Oh, guess what? All of Bitcoin's energy usage is equals, you know, city level CO2 emissions and then say that, Oh, okay. Now that equals the amount of electricity. Or the CO2 impact of Bitcoin. I'm just saying that there's tons of these silly little models that take, you know,

really rudimentary kind of stabs at what Bitcoin is doing to the world. And they're all completely off. And I'm sorry. When Justin got onto your podcast and said proof of stake is better for these reasons based on these reasons. And Bitcoin is going to fundamentally fail because of these reasons. And then he spewed a bunch of BS about how Bitcoin works that does not relate to

the real world. I have to discount 100% of the things that he said about Bitcoin. I have to discount his understanding of crypto economics whatsoever. And you know, if he's saying Bitcoin's going to die in the future. And then I'm seeing a world where Bitcoin is fundamental to all energy production. And then I see that he doesn't understand how Bitcoin fits into hardware production, energy production

supply chains. I'm just like, okay, dude, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You didn't do any fucking research besides look at two frickin bit main industries. In voices and extrapolate that into what you think is the actual security budget of Bitcoin. Like it is just bad. I'm sure that it's really really convenient that you can take what you don't like about his arguments

and then extended to everything else that he said so you can deny the rest of that. I'm just saying I have to seriously question. Look it's just like. Hey, look, when I see what the media, how the media portrays Bitcoin and I understand how off they are, then it makes me question literally all of their other reporting. So I really do have that. because like he

is asserting so much about Bitcoin and he did not speak very much on the podcast without saying Bitcoin. Like almost all of the arguments were tied into what Bitcoin is doing and then how eth is like a 2.0 on that. Right? So if he didn't understand what Bitcoin is improving on in the first place, how can he improve on it? I just don't understand. Okay. I

mean, in your opinion, does Justin understand the real security budget of Bitcoin or how to evaluate it in practice? I think what he values with a security mechanism for a blockchain and how he values it is different than how Bitcoiners value it. Okay. But what does that have to do with forecasting what's going to have a more security? What's going to be the future? Because these

systems, crypto economic systems, are internet economies. They have, and this is an article that's coming out on the bank list newsletter tomorrow. Maybe this form will resonate with you as a model because that's what it is. These are crypto economic systems, which have a governing body like a government, which is the code. And then they have a protective force, which is the miners and Ethereum is

proof of stake the stakers. And then they have the economy. Which is the economy that uses BTC, the asset that pays fees into the coordinating body, which coordinates the resources to the protective forces, the army. We have this trifecta. All economies throughout history have always been constructed by this, which is why we know we can model these things like that. And so what Justin Drake is

doing is he's taking that model and he's looking at the resource allocations of the Bitcoin economy and he's saying these things are inefficient and they can be improved. He's not getting the minute details of what is or is not efficient and how efficient it is. But when you view things from a holistic model perspective, you can start to see where these things are inefficient and where

they can be made more efficient. And so sure, we can go and parse the parts like, well, he actually got all this wrong and that wrong and that wrong. Therefore, all of what he says is bullshit because I don't want to believe it. Or we could look at the model and look at where things can be made more efficient. And maybe Bitcoins don't like things that

are models and things that aren't in practice. And that's fine. And they can just buy Bitcoin and believe in Bitcoin. That's fine. And then I think they will. I'm interested in the optimizations. I can find out the specific parts where I'm like, well, that was wrong. But then if you just code it with fun, that's fun. You're fun. Okay. I mean, again, he did not represent

the reality of Bitcoin security in any way that was reasonable. He used that in order to promote his altcoin in which he is heavily invested in designing the reality of where he's socially pushing the entire community to go. And you're not going to be able to do that. And I think he's like, he's like, shilling his bags, which was what again, what you're doing right now.

We're all just shilling our bags here. I mean, I did not fund a theorem. And I did not fund a theorem. And I did not try to make. Every time we talk. I did not try to make some sort of theory theory about putting a dollar value on a theory of security that is inaccurate and then use that as a mechanism to, to, you know, say

you should buy Bitcoin instead. But rather what I'm doing is saying that one of the key people who is designing Ethereum security based on, you know, these kind of assumptions about how Bitcoin security works is like very, very obviously not aware of how Bitcoin security actually works. And like you guys were talking about things like the engine of the blockchain, right, referring to like proof of

stake mechanism, right. But when I think of like the engine of the block, chain, huh, a consensus mechanism. Not necessarily. Yeah. So by in the podcast, you're referring to it as the engine, right. So you have the asset and then you have the engine behind it that keeps it alive, right. It's like this network, right. And gold's engine is, you know, the thing that makes it

gold is enforced by the universe, right. Yeah. So I mean, I wouldn't, I would not consider proof of work as like the engine, right. You know, if anything, the engine of the Bitcoin network is the p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2 How about how about cell repropagation, right. So how does the system actually grow and reproduce? Well, I mean, if you look at Ethereum, huh? My model for engines are different.

The engine is the economy that is hosted. So like the thing that make the trend of the engine is the economy that is hosted. So the demand for Bitcoin block space is the Bitcoin engine. That's how I fit into my model. Okay. Well, I mean, maybe we can break it down differently. But if you want to talk about like a technical engine, like the physical network,

how it works, that's the p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p2p Bitcoin is like sharpening a spear. It's like, oh, wait, you know, these nodes aren't propagating transactions fast. Oh, wait, the mempool is getting too full. And nodes are forgetting the, you know, the transactions. How do we optimize that? Like the actual mechanism of how Bitcoin's network operates is constantly being updated and fixed and optimized. Right. So it's just like what

aspect is dying. So okay, now you say, okay, the proof of work aspect is unrealistic because eventually there's going to be so much value stored in per BTC that the amount of value that is being, you know, used in order to pay for that value to be secured is going to be out of balance. Right. But then you like, oh, look at, okay, well, what is

a Bitcoin success scenario? What percentage of the World Market cap is Bitcoin currently spending in terms of its, in terms of its security budget or in terms of its block reward. And then, okay, so let's just say, hey, Bitcoin's addressable market is this Bitcoin potentially could hit this percentage of that addressable market and then calculate what the block reward will be in dollar terms in the

future. At that point in, I mean, you'll see that if Bitcoin is even remotely successful, that it's block reward will be exponentially higher than it is today. And today it's exponentially higher than it was in the past. So I mean, in terms of the actual, like real world resources used to spend for Bitcoin and protect the network, there's a stark disconnection between what the BTC value

of the block reward and what that actually is in practice. Okay, most of that in my mind was the coordinating body. So like this is the model that I was talking about earlier, where like the protective force, that's proof of work. And then we have economic power. That's the economy. That's the engine. And then we have the coordinating body, which is the code. And so a

lot of what you were saying with like Bitcoin, it's digs or it's sharpening its beer or whatever, to me, that is improving the coordinating body. That's improving the Bitcoin code and making that that work. Economic power, that's block space demand and protective force, that's proof of work. Right. And so this whole trifecta thing, and this is the economic model I was talking about earlier, this is

found throughout history. It's a model that we know works because it worked 10,000 years ago, and it was worked a hundred years ago. And so the coordinating body is what you are saying is getting super strong. But that doesn't actually just because the coordinating body is getting stronger. It doesn't mean the actual proof of work mechanism is getting stronger. Those are different things. Except as well.

Victism is getting stronger. Right. For separate reasons. Exploding. For separate reasons. Another is increasing more and more manufacturers are jumping into async manufacturing. Asics are becoming commoditized. S9s have been legitimate for over five years, which is the longest life cycle of any Bitcoin hardware. There's massive improvement on OS for optimizing asics so they don't die. Like you could possibly even try to evaluate Bitcoin security by

saying, what's the stock to flow of hash free? Right. Like how much hash rate can come online based on how much it already exists. That would make way more economic sense and way more realistic sense than what Justin did, which is like, okay, 20% of the time. 20% per tarot hash from Bitmain. Bitmain's invoice from earlier this year. That's not even going to be added to

the supply for another year. Right. So you need to have some sort of stock to flow analysis in there before you can come up with that number. Let alone make the claim that Ethereum's 1.0 proof of stake chain that has no features. And all of this is some eat steak on it has more security. That's just a wildly unrealistic and inaccurate. Okay. I'm happy to say.

I mean, I could just keep dunking on it. Another thing that you guys like had this like, I just completely wrong is the fact that monetary premium is this magical thing that's construed upon an asset based on the crowd. That is so far. So far from reality. It's not that you're magical. Is it is an a social layer thing? Monetary premium is something that's a, a

asset. Actual item with very specific property gained when it becomes the most liquid asset. Okay. Yes. And as this thing is the most liquid asset in an economy, it builds monetary premium. It has, it's not magical. It's not so showing. Yes. It is truly. It is. We're saying the showing thing. We're saying the same thing because you're saying that the shelling point leads to monetary premium.

And I'm saying the actual attributes of the thing leads to people all coming together. And acknowledging reality, which it's all the same thing. It's not because you're saying that people get to make up their mind. And I'm saying that reality is reality. And people acknowledge reality. Yes. Yeah. And then they make up their mind. Right. It's, it's all the same thing. No, no. But you're saying

that it's a social feedback loop. And I disagree. I, I think that I mean, there is a compounding effect. We're thing snowball. But it is because something that's not going to be a real thing. I think Ethereum is obviously showing that has attributes to work in some sort of monetary capacity right now, especially within its internal ecosystem. Bitcoin, obviously, does that, the dollar obviously does that,

you know, the euro in its little geography, does that. But in terms of like saying it's this magical thing that people agree upon. It's like no, they have no choice but to agree on it. And so, it's like, what a problem. It's like they have no choice but to agree upon gravity. It is a lot of nature. It is reality. This is the most liquid good.

This is how you get the job done. It has not magical. It's not mysterious thing. You're yelling about semantics. I mean, I'm just listening to the podcast and I'm like, this is completely wrong. This is where this is so much of what Bitcoiners and Ethereum is like fight about is like sometimes it's about core deep concepts. And then most of the things that I'm going to

do is just like, I'm going to do a lot of things that I'm going to do. Most of the time it's just semantics and wording. And that's what's going on here. It's not because you can say like a lot of times people say money is is a matter of faith. Money is a matter of people believing in a thing. And yes, obviously over time people have

gained confidence in a new thing. But that it's not a matter of faith. They gained confidence is because it has proven that it can do so. It's proven over time that it has features. People have to be convinced that those features are real. Not that people have to imbue those features into it per se. Yeah, I just think that the differences between what you think that

Ethereum's the dress and Drake was saying and what you and Bitcoiners and what you are saying right now, like the differences are just so so minute. So explain where I'm like mistaken in what Ethereum is saying. It's just a matter of like where where we decided to start the conversation. Like we just decided on the fact that like well, when when the collective human like collectively

when Venezuela when Venezuelan people all decide that their currency is shit. And so they start to store their value elsewhere. That's like the same kind of energy that we're talking about. We're talking about well collectively humans discover that one money will suit them better than other monies. And so they collectively use that money instead. Like this is just Gresham's law just just played out. This is

Bitcoin is the apex predator of money. This is that same thing. When people when when the when the meat space hive mind social layer of people's brains identify a money that's going to work for them, they will use it. And that's the magic meme power that we were talking about. It's not meme power. It's okay. It's a semantics to be it's just semantics. Then we use

the wrong word. So the meme is the way to communicate reality is to say Bitcoin is this super complicated thing. Ethereum is a super complicated thing. And the meme is the way that we communicate and help people understand it. It's not the thing that makes the network. So network is a physical real thing. And I think the fact that etharians don't quite grasp that. Again, it

makes me question their full understanding of the complete space. And the fact that they're leading a network that is driven by social consensus and not by the physical network. Again, it's it's bearish to me. Like I look at that and I'm like that is long term bearish. Maybe the meme was the wrong word. But like first we talked about a deflating supply as a function of

the size of the economy. Then we talked about reduction of issue and because of the efficiencies of proof of stake. And then we talked about a few other things. And then we talked about well. Then this can work its way into the social consciousness. And then an additional amount of scarcity premium arises as a result of that. Which is what you were saying with like with

the fundamentals of the actual asset. Sailability of the asset. And so like it's a it's a the magic meme power as a result of the actual real real world design characteristics of the asset in question. I mean, I don't really understand how those things make Ethereum more saleable or more liquid. Because if it's programmed for the asset to go up in value, people are going to

buy it and make it extremely liquid. Maybe so it's not programmed to go up in values program to deflate. Okay. Yes. It's programmed to it's program to under ideal scenarios in the future when it's finally actually implemented to deflate. And Bitcoin isn't programmed to pump forever. It's programmed to be disinflationary. I mean, Bitcoin's program to have a fixed supply and the nature of private keys means

that people will probably lose them. Okay. No, I mean, like I'm just I'm just trying to I'm just trying to like hone in on like what do you like do you understand what is money and then what properties make money good and then how do these changes to Ethereum make it actually do that thing? Like how does it make it into ultrasound money? Because that, you

know, sorry, just because it's going to go up in value because it's lowering in its because it's lowering its on, you know, the amount of supply. Like how does that make it more liquid? How does that make it more saleable? How does that help with the distribution of the funds in terms of making it organically distributed across the world in order for people to want to,

you know, how again, how do you want to do that? So that was a lot. But we're just going to go over the same thing so that we've gone over. Cladural and DeFi makes it scarce. Staking and staking rewards makes it scarce. A function of scarcity as a result of the actual growth of the Ethereum economy of which only you can use ether to transact in

the Ethereum economy makes it scarce. Also, all of these truths about what Ethereum ether is gives it favorable collateralization parameters in DeFi. And so so long as like the DeFi and Ethereum just becomes the economy of the Earth because it's on the internet for all the things that we like Crypto-economic networks to become, all of these things are tailwinds for specifically ethiaset and they're all driving

scarcity in their own individual ways. In a, which is the same exact feature that Bitcoin's hard cap offers is scarcity. And but all of these feature of smaller instances of scarcity are coming from many different angles. And then apart from that, you also need to transact on Ethereum to do anything. So you need ether to do that. And so it just makes its way in like

NFTs like a billion, $1 billion in NFT sales, denominated in ether. That's a distribution mechanism. Ether is also plenty distributed. It proof of stake is not a distribution mechanism. It's a security mechanism that allows for the reduction of issuance. And which makes number go up. And so like the whole point of, just like, okay, well, deflationary isn't making it money. Like sure. But nothing is actually

money. Money isn't an actual thing. It's just a term that we used to describe the currency that we transact in, whether and it comes in all shapes, forms and sizes throughout history. And so if we just transact in ether all the time, and you're saying that that's not money, but I'm seeing everyone touch ether every single day and use it to execute their financial operations in

the world. I don't care what we call it. Like whatever. It's ether at that point. I mean, yeah, in that dream scenario, sure. But we'll see if ether gets there. And we'll see with the likes of Justin Drake leading its economic security. And he can't even do a proper calculation of the Bitcoin economic security. How he's going to do that. I mean, it blows my mind

because it's like, not only is our individuals messing with the the code, the coordination mechanism, but these individuals, we can hear what they're saying. And when I hear what they're saying, it is bad to me. They're saying all the bad things. They're like, they are like, I believe it or bad for your back. No, like I'm literally saying like, they are saying incorrect things. So if

they're saying incorrect things about wanting to point, the point he was trying to make is not the point that is landing in your ears. I just can't get over the fact that all of his statements were in contrast to Bitcoin. And then all of his statements about Bitcoin. Of course, there's no other thing to compare it to. What are they? We're at least compare it in

an accurate way. If he can't even compare it out of the way. How is he? It's about being directionally correct. He's not how he's not even directly correct because he's forecasting that Bitcoin is going to blow up. And that he's forecasting that Bitcoin has no security. And those things are not, there's like literally no facts that show that that is happening. Is that your forefathers? Where

are the facts that show that that's happening? Please show me a stat that show me that Bitcoin is unhealthy. Show me a stat that it's not sustainable. The pleading of my face. It's, huh? The Dutch is on up and buying power. That's not where it goes. Those are the transaction fees. You can't secure a blockchain on transaction fees. The transaction fees right now are 10% of

the amount paid to miners per block. And that's in Bitcoin's infancy at that's that Bitcoin's infancy. It's either. He has higher transaction fees than I know. Well, ETHER does a lot more on the blockchain. Bitcoin's a lot more scalable. Weird. So again, how did that? How did that get fit in? How did scalability get fit in? What do you mean? It's more scalable. You can actually.

Bitcoin can support a ecosystem of store of value usage on its blockchain. Whereas Ethereum, like I know a lot of people, you this, this like really Ike feeling on when you're trying to transaction, ETHER, where you're like, I really need to do this, but I'm unwilling to pay the transaction fee and you have to like make that decision. And not to say that, and not to

say that like, you know, at, you know, at some price levels, Bitcoin does get like that as well. But like, if there's Ethereum is getting like that right now and there's no, there's very, very, very, very little adoption at all. Like, how is it going to sustain any like an order of magnitude more people on it? Bitcoin. What do you mean how? What do we even

tell all the scaling things that we've been doing? Have you been paying attention to? I can't. That's why we're doing all the scaling stuff. Can you say that one more time? That's why we're doing all this scaling stuff. Do you want me to do it? Should I walk through all the scaling stuff that we're doing? One more time. Shall I walk through all the scaling stuff

that we're doing? I mean, I'm just saying like, in terms of the actual constraints of the physical system, like Bitcoin is very well prepared to scale at what we're doing. What it aim is aiming to do. Whereas Ethereum is not very well prepared to scale what it's aiming to do. You don't get to call centralized database exchanges Bitcoin scaling. I mean, in terms of Bitcoin's actual

blockchain, today, it's fee pressure and the ability for people to transact on the blockchain today, given a, what is it? Two and a half X increase from 2017 levels is actually cheap. That means Bitcoin has scaled on the blockchain. That means because it's using the blockchain more efficiently, that means individual users are using the blockchain more efficiently. That means that Bitcoin is actually performing better at

its job. Because it's scaling versus intermediation, that's not cool. No, there's more transactions on the actual blockchain for cheaper. Right. Yeah, because they're being packed out, like bundled up by all the centralized exchanges or whatever, like, all the more. All the more. It's a better fee estimation. Like all of that, you're only going to get so far with that. You're not going to get the whole.

So do you doubt human ingenuity to optimize? That's what I'm saying to you about Ethereum for the past like three years. Here's the difference is I'm saying that humans can optimize around Bitcoin and using Bitcoin. And with Ethereum, their solutions are you get Justin Drake, who clearly can't do research on how Bitcoin works. Coming up with these like dream scenarios for Ethereum, and you're preaching that

that is the reality. That is what is going to happen. The reality of Bitcoin, hash rate is going up. Legitimization is going up. The actual on chain blockchain is scaling in real terms. Like, I'm not saying, like in none of these, I haven't levied anything saying that Ethereum is bad here. I'm saying that. These assumptions about Bitcoin are wrong. They're not right. And then how does

that affect your assumption about Ethereum? I think that the assumptions about Bitcoin are meaning maybe they are not technically in a numbers perspective right today, yet they are meaning that they are actually right in the long term. And that's why I'm interested in what Justin Drake has to say about Ethereum. And glad that he's leading the Ethereum ship. All right. Should we wrap it? I think

we should fucking wrap it. These last year I've been kind of going at you, men. Yeah. Jesus. So like, this is this is completely a conversation about a we're interpreting intentions differently. This is just a Bitcoiner versus Ethereum. Just miscommunication. Whereas Justin Drake is trying to get a point across about a specific version of what he's trying to say. And Bitcoin and you and Bitcoiners are

being like, well, all that's wrong because like I can back that up with data. And it's like, well, no, then you're also missing the point. And like, sure, you can we can point at Justin Drake and go, hi, you've got that wrong. But if you are, if you're still missing what he's saying, then you're missing what he's saying. I'm not missing what he's saying. I think

you are. He's making a lot of assertions about how Bitcoin works. He's making a lot of assertions about how Ethereum works. And just like I said with the coin base example, he's not taking, he's not thinking about the right things like he's saying, look, he, here's another statement. He's saying Ethereum is more efficient than Bitcoin because you get so much more security per energy used. But

what if, what if you're using a value? What if, no, he said energy use. He's saying it's more bang for your buck. I listened to the podcast very recently. Okay. He said that. Okay. First and foremost, how does he, like I'm pretty sure at this point in terms of Bitcoin as a network as the biggest green energy and renewable energy adoption. Rate of an entire infrastructure

situation of any, like I doubt that there's actually any network of computers that are more renewable source in terms of their energy than the Bitcoin network. Okay. So in terms of like, how is he talking like in what way is he entering measuring, like, energy efficiency. And then the second thing is like, why are we optimizing towards using less energy? Because in reality, we know that

there's infinite energy. So, like, there, I mean, there's practically, infinite energy. Yeah, absolutely. In the universe. So we can tap into it. That's, well, that's exactly the point. This is a matter of tapping and utilizing energy more efficiently. And that doesn't necessarily mean using less energy. That means using energy more efficiently. So, like, is reducing the actual energy consumption of the network, even something that's beneficial.

Even something that is solving problems. And I question that. And again, I think the coin-based example is a great example of like, how I just don't understand how he's calculating security on the proof of stake side. Because he seems to take it at face value, dollars of value in proof of stake equal percent. And then, you know, multiplied by whatever percentage of the network that is,

you know, that is the security budget. When in reality, it's definitely more nuanced than that. Coinbase just putting in a million dollars of value in the security mechanism because it is one party holding the keys. Maybe if they graphically change that, it could change it. But, you know, again, I'm just questioning a lot of the face value things he said. The reason why he was counting

one dollar of coin-based stake versus one dollar of home computer validation stake is because if coin-based does anything wrong with that, the social layer of Ethereum can just nicks their coins. This is the steam example when Justin Stun tried to co-op the steam blockchain. And they were like, well, no, we are going to delete your funds. And so, like, there's always that backstop where like, it

doesn't matter if some centralized exchange tries to just claim ownership over a theory. Because they'll just get deleted from the social. How about the users of those exchanges? Like, that's not very good for the social con. Then they should maybe they shouldn't have use of centralized exchange. They can extremely contentious situation that emerges right there. And it's very subjective to some degree too. If you can

say that like Bitcoin miners that are trying to attack the Bitcoin blockchain and they're trying to accrue enough ASICs, but then all of a sudden they do accrue enough ASICs so that they choose to not attack the Bitcoin mine. Bitcoin blockchain because they why would they kill the golden egg or whatever kill the golden goose? That's that's the same thing. That's the exact same thing. Why

would coin-based attack the network if they had all the stake? It's the same game theory. And I mean, the here's the reality is I just really don't like the general use attack. Because like, what does attack mean? Like, Justin was like, oh, you get two shots and Bitcoin said, that's not true. Okay, look, if you can perpetually double spend the network and in in sensor all

transactions, that is killing. Okay, so that's a full on takeover that takes a long period of time. And then it still takes a long time to go backwards and reverse transactions. So you also have like what are you disrupting? Is it active Bitcoin transactions? Is it the history? If you can disrupt the history, that's fucking bad. Like, that's really fucking bad, right? That doesn't take hours

of mining. That would take years years of hashing, especially old coins. Like, those are deep. There's there's a lot of blocks on top of that. So you have to go very, very far deep into to fuck that up on nodes that are running the proper blockchain. So he was talking about sovereignty, attacking Bitcoin's sovereignty, which is like, like these attacks need to be defined well, right?

So okay. So no, so you can say no, they don't. What attack are we talking about here? Are we talking about? No, but you needed to find the attack. Well, because, well, okay. So yeah, well, I would say that exchanges having lots of coins are able to leverage the proof of stake and the governance and the social contract in order to apply social engineering attacks, especially

with a social contract that allows for the underlying technology to be changed. Like, that's a realistic attack. You know, when he says, hey, attacking Bitcoin, what is he actually referring to? Like, there are many of documented attacks that you can break down. Like I said, double, you know, double spending exchanges, going backwards, throwing the history, censoring all transactions, these specific, please, I want all the above.

Okay. Well, I mean, but at the same time, all of the above isn't a one shot death. Okay. I'm sorry, censoring some transactions is not a one shot death. That's not Doomsday for Bitcoin. This is a good example of like the miscommunication, but the speaking past each other between you and Justin Drake going on right now because like, it's not. He doesn't compare to each other.

He really said, these are one shot kills. Bitcoin gets two shots. It gets one, it gets one hatchery switch and then they switch to GPUs and then they and then they get another switch, maybe to proof of stake. That's what he said. That's what you and Ryan talked about and chuckled about and like, aha, Bitcoin zoomed. Like, those are not realistic scenarios. And we're going through

those. You can't answer against them. Yeah, this is because they're very. Talking past each other. Do you are, do you said these things are not talking about the model? Yeah, sorry, your model is. It's not accurate. You don't know that you have no one knows, no one knows these. Well, you can look at look at fucking. And again, Bitcoin is different than Ethereum Classic, but Ethereum

Classic is surviving many double spends on exchanges. Those are live. I was never alive in the first place. Whenever I get to the first place, but I mean, you can look at you can look at exchanges and you can look at coins across the spectrum. I mean, again, I'm not saying that those are equivalent to Bitcoin, but I mean, a single double spend is not a

death blow by any means. I mean, if a single double spend was a death blow, then what happened to Ethereum with, with, uh, frickin, what's it called in Fira in last November should have been a death blow, right? But it wasn't a death blow. We could organize around it. It was clear enough what should have been the correct chain. Right. So I mean, it's just like

his framing. I just can't agree with it at all. It's just not accurate. Do you want, do you want me to see if I can get Justin Drake to come on the podcast sometime? No, I'd rather just shit talk him on Twitter until he blocks me or comes up with something better because he hasn't shown me anything better. He hasn't shown me anything better. He showed

we gave him fantastic information. And I mean, so don't think you like to success. I told you in a pretty objective ways how there was incorrect information there. And I tried not to make too many claims about how Ethereum actually works. I don't disagree with that. Okay. So you disagree with that. No. Don't disagree with that. Okay. Okay. So you agree. Okay. Well, let's just wrap

it up. Not say that. Let's wrap it up. I need to go to the side table and say that. I need a side table. All right. Thanks everyone for listening. You can follow the podcast at POV crypto pod. You can follow me at Trustless State, both on Twitter and on bankless Christian. You guys can find me at CK underscore Snarks. Follow me. If you want to

continuously see me, how unjust and drink on here until he gives me some good analysis, because I mean, as far as I'm concerned, he is going on podcast and he's spreading FUD. And this ultrasound money meme. He's just a bad meme. Kenny wrote was calling it out to you. It's just not a good meme. Dude, he was being sarcastic. He loves me. All right, whatever. It's

stupid. I hope that's true. I'm pretty sure he was because I asked him. I mean, I don't know. I can never tell on Twitter and Kenny. Kenny is doing that on purpose. Very big. Okay. Well, hey, I love you Kenny. And the ultrasound money thing just doesn't make sense to me. All right. Peace. Bye. Yeah.