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

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 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 nicks, 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, it 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.

Bitcoin 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 are, 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. 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 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? Miners 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. V. P.O. But I'm just kind of curious about Bitcoin-denominated rewards in relation to itself. And then it's also about quantum computing. Like 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 like, oh, models,

no practice, no models. Again, like which models are you talking about that have actually shown any sort of reality? Because the only reality is hash rate exploding. Yeah. That's not what secures Bitcoin. Hash rate is also the thing that attacks Bitcoin. They're being more total hash rate. Doesn't mean that Bitcoin is more secure and than one to one fashion. That's not what that means. I mean,

it kind of does. No, because you can also you can also use you have to use hash power to also attack the network. Just because there's more hash power doesn't mean it's all. So 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. Oh, is that I mean, in practice,

I guess that we're doing. 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, 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 freaking bit main invoices and extrapolate that into what you think is

the actual security budget of Bitcoin. Like it is just bad. I'm sure that's really, really convenient that you can take what you don't like about his arguments and then extend it 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, I don't know what I'm saying. Okay, 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 to question Justin 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, what is improving on in the future. So in the first place, how can he improve on it? I just don't understand. Okay. 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 in 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 would, 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 does that mean? Justin Drake is doing his, 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. And maybe 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 pass 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 Bitcoiners 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 mean, it's fair. You're allowed to optimize. But it's just silly to get onto a podcast and spew FUD in terms of like, okay, it's model. It's objective FUD. It's FUD to Bitcoiners. And then you can find out the specific parts where like, well, that was wrong. But then if you just code it

with FUD, that's FUD. You're FUDding. 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. And which he is heavily invested in, you know, designing the reality of where he's socially pushing the entire community to go. And I just think. You're just saying that 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 FUD Ethereum. And I did not FUD Ethereum. And I did not try to make. Every time we talk. I did not try to make some sort of theory. I'm not going to use that theory about putting a dollar value on Ethereum 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 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 blockchain. 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. And then you know, I mean, I'm not going to say that I'm not going to use that. 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 p to p layer. It's

the propagation layer of information across the network, right. So I'm curious. What, what does Ethereum's p to p layer and Bitcoin's p to p layer look like? What, how does node propagation look across that, right. How about, how about sell repropigation, right. So how, how does this is 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 transaction fees, the demand for demand for Bitcoin block space is the Bitcoin engine. That's, 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 p to p layer. And I mean, he was like, hey, the Bitcoin engine is just getting old and decrepit. But if you think about the, if you actually know anything about the p to p layer, there is enormous dev resource is being put into optimizing the Bitcoin p to p layer. That's why I say, Bitcoin's like sharpening a spear, right. It's like, oh, wait, you

know, these nodes aren't propagating transactions fast. Oh, wait, the mempool is getting too full. Nodes are forgetting the, the, you know, the transactions. How do we optimize that? Like the, 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? 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

its 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 that 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 sharpening its sticks or 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 what 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 we worked 10,000 years ago.

And it was worked 100 years ago. And it's working today. 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 for the co-op mechanism is getting stronger. Right. For separate reasons. For separate reasons. For

separate reasons. It is increasing. More and more manufacturers are jumping into ASIC 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. You could possibly even try to evaluate Bitcoin security by saying, what's the stock to flow of hash rate? 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 per tarash from 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. So 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 statement. Okay. I'm happy to say. I mean, I could just keep dunking on it. Another thing that you guys had this

like, it's 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 from reality. It's not that you're a monetary premium. Is it a social layer thing? Monetary premium is something that's a, a 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. 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 is always to be

a shelling point. 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 has specific attributes. And I'm not saying Ethereum does not have specific attributes. Right. I mean, 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 upon it. Just 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, it's not magical. It's not, I mean, this mysterious thing.

You're, 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, like so much of what Bitcoin is an Ethereum is like, fight about is like, sometimes it's about core deep concepts. And then 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, not that people have to imbue those features into it, per se. That's the conversation. Like we just decided on the fact that like, well, when, when the collective human, like collectively, when Venezuela, when 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 the this is that same thing. When the 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 that we use the wrong word. So the the meme is the way to communicate reality is to say Bitcoin is this super common. 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 the fact that I'm not going to be able to do that. I look at that and I'm like, that is long term bearish. So like we we at least with this article that I have coming out on big little tomorrow and the podcast as well. Like we talked about the meme the the meme length layer like last. And again,

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 assets, salability of the asset blah blah blah. And so like it's a is 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 extremely liquid. Maybe. So it's not programmed to go up in values program to deflate. Okay. Yes. It's programmed to it's programmed to under ideal scenarios. Because 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 to do. Do you understand what is money and then what properties make money good and then

how how do these changes to Ethereum make it actually do that thing? Like how does it make it into ultrasound money? Because you know, sorry, just because it's going to go up in value because it's lowering in it's because it's lowering it's. You know, the amount of supply. Like how does that make it more liquid? How does that help with the distribution of the funds in

terms of making it or again, it's again, it just distributed across the world in order for people to want to you know, how again, have some natural access to it. So that was a lot. Um. We're just going to go over the same thing. So that we've gone over. Clatter on D five 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. So that's why it 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 the 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. And then I'll part from that. You also need to transact on Ethereum to do anything. So you need ether to do that. And so it just makes it's way in like NFTs like a billion, but you need dollars and 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. 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 use 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 the 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 opportunities. And then the other thing is that we have a lot of corporations 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 that, but I'm not sure if it's going to be a good idea. But ultimately is our individuals messing with 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'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. 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. It'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

for the 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 effect. It's, huh? The budget is on up and buying power. That's not where is it? Those are the transaction fees. You can't secure a blockchain on transaction fees. There are 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 transact and ETH 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 Ethereum is like, I don't know. It's 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 talk? What are 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. 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 it 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. So, what is the basic change is 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 what is it? Two and a half x increased from 2017 levels is actually cheaper. That means Bitcoin has scaled on the blockchain. Okay. That means because it's using the blockchain more efficient, it's not going to be a good thing. That means that that means individual users

are using the blockchain is more efficiently. And that means that Bitcoin is actually performing better at its job. So, because it's, I'm not throwing. It's scaling versus intermediation. That's not cool. No, there's more, there's more transactions on the actual blockchain for cheaper. Right. Yeah, because because they're being packed out, like bundled up by all the centralized exchanges or whatever. All the more to have 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. 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 just in 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, Hashtray 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 meaningfully 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 few I've been kind of going at you, men. Yeah. Jesus. So like, this is completely a conversation about, A, we're interpreting intentions differently. This is just a Bitcoin or 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 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 point at Justin Drake and go, how, how you 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. I think you are. Wait. I'm not missing what he's saying. I think you are. So, 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 is what if using a value? What if no, he said energy use. He's saying it's more bang for your book. 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. In the Bitcoin network. Okay. So in terms of like, how

is he talking like in what way is he 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, 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. I just

don't understand how he's calculating security on the proof of stake side because he seems to take it that 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 nuance than that coin base just putting in a million. ETH is not

like a dollar for dollar value put in the security mechanism because it is one party holding the keys maybe if they cryptographically changed 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 base stake first one dollar of home computer validation stake is because if coin

base does anything wrong with that the social layer of Ethereum can just nicks their coins. This is the steam example when like 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 Ethereum 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 exchanges. 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 Bitcoin blockchain because they why would they kill the gold and gold and gold and gold and gold. That's the same thing. That's the exact same thing. Why would coin base attack the network if they had all the stake? Is the same game theory?

I mean, 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 censor all transactions, that is killing the network. 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

a lot of blocks on top of them. 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 these attacks need to be defined well. Right? So okay. So what the so you can say no like what attack are we talking about here? Are

we talking about? No, because 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, destroying 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 misconduct, not 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 keep past 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 switched to GPUs. And then they, and then they get another switch. Maybe to poop of sea. That's what he said. That's what you and Ryan talked about in 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. Because they're not. Talking past each other. Do you are,

do you said these things are not talking about the model? Yeah. Sorry. Your model is 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 I get Bitcoin is different than Ethereum classic, but Ethereum classic is surviving. Many double spends on exchanges. So we're all probably never alive in the first place. Whatever.

Why do you want to play? 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, doubles 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 fear 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, 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 you invoices that that showed that the the equipment was going to be delivered in a

year from that from now. I don't have anything for this. Okay. Well, you know, I would implore you and Ryan, you know, I know you, you have an agenda to pump eth, but I would implore you to give your users good information because if you give them that information, I think we gave fantastic information. And I'm sure don't think you like this. 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, I said I don't disagree with that. Okay. Okay. So you agree. Okay. Well, let's just wrap it up. I did 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 ingestioned, Drake on here until he gives me some good

analysis because I mean, as far as I'm concerned, he is going on podcasts and he's spreading fud in this ultrasound money meme. He's just a bad meme. Can he wrote was calling it out to you? Just not a good meme. Dude, he was being sarcastic. He loves the meme. All right. Whatever. I'm just stupid. I hope that's true. But I'm pretty sure he was because I

cast him. I mean, I don't know. I can never tell on Twitter and Kenny. Kenny is doing that on purpose. Making it very, 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. Mm mm. Um, eh. Hm. If nothing's true, then your mind is well-sared of the life. If none's of you, then

it's off of you to decide. Will you deceive? Will you deceive? Will you deceive? Will you deceive? Will you deceive? We never cry when no time. We never cry when no time. Strike the blue cow's face. Strike the blue cow's face. Strike the blue cow's face. Strike the blue cow's face.