There will be multiple entities with cryptographically relevant quantum computers.
Great, great, great times 10 grandchildren won't really care about revising you.
Probably better ought to be dead than to become a digital slave.
I basically pay private investigators to try to find me.
Many, many, many bad things that could happen if an adversarial entity gains control of millions of Bitcoin.
My guest today is Jamison Lobb, a professional cypherpunk, co-founder and chief security officer of Kasa and one of the most influential Bitcoin OGs.
We spoke about Satoshi, privacy, the potential quantum threat and other Bitcoin topics.
But before we jump into the interview, I want to remind you that this June I'll be speaking at BTC Prague, the largest Bitcoin conference in Europe.
The event takes place June 11th through 13th.
Use me discount code CryptoSnake for 10% off your ticket.
I'll see you in Prague.
You're one of the well-known Bitcoin OGs in the space.
What is Bitcoin to you?
It's a complicated question, but basically it's a humanity's attempt to try to create the best version of money.
A couple of days ago, I watched the documentary Finding Satoshi, and I saw you in that movie.
What do you think about Tyler Moroni, the investigator?
Did he convince you that Satoshi Nakamoto could be both Hal Finney and Lance Essman?
You know, I think the part of the reason of why they went down that route was because it's impossible to find the smoking gun of pinning it on one person.
I still subscribe to the belief that Hal Finney was the first non-Satoshi contributor, but I don't think that there's any evidence that he knew who Satoshi was.
If you look back at Hal Finney's contributions to various projects over the years and his work in the cypherpunk movement, he was just an interested nerd who wanted to work on this type of technology.
It happened to come along at the right time, and he had contributed to some predecessors of it, so it made a lot of sense that he would have been this first contributor to it and that he was one of the first people who read the white paper and the mailing list and actually said, you know what?
This is interesting, everybody else on the mailing list responded to Satoshi negatively and said, this is all the reasons it won't work.
And he was the first person who was optimistic and said, you know what?
I think it might actually work.
I don't think that he was, you know, necessarily the creator of it because he still had his own doubts and his own issues.
And, um, you know, I talked about some of these things in my, my lengthy research of why I believe that he's not Satoshi, you know, like there's technical evidence to believe why he's not.
But I think there's also sort of anecdotal character evidence of like the things that he said and, and the, the ways that he was thinking about Bitcoin that led me to believe that, you know, CE could not has been as Satoshi had said.
Satoshi had said that he had worked on Bitcoin for several years before actually publishing things and Hal ended up like thinking about Bitcoin and saying things that lead me to believe he had not been working on it for several years.
Yeah, I have said several times that I believe Satoshi is dead, whoever Satoshi is.
I think that it would be highly unlikely that, that they're still alive and paying attention to the things like there's just.
Besides just the financial incentive, like the fact that like, this is your baby and it's turned into a multi-trillion dollar project and, you know, not weighing in on anything, not trying to, uh, correct things that you think are going wrong.
Um, it's, I, I, I think the, that along with the fact that no one has been able to conclusively prove the identity of Satoshi.
I think the simplest explanation for any of this is that like the, the only way that you can really keep a secret of that magnitude is, is if anybody who knew the secret is dead.
Would you recommend this film to all Bitcoiners?
I do think that it's one of the best produced Bitcoin documentaries.
Um, and yeah, regardless of what they concluded, I learned a number of things from it and, you know, I'm really deep into the space and I've done a lot of research about Satoshi and I learned a few things.
So I think that pretty much everybody will at the very least find it to be interesting, even if you disagree with the conclusions.
What about the books?
What was the last book you read and, uh, what books would you recommend?
Ooh, well, uh, it's funny because a lot of the stuff that I read is just, uh, sci-fi, you know, fiction for entertainment purposes.
Uh, not so much for educational purposes, but, um, I've been reading a lot of, uh, like space exploration sci-fi and so people who want to go down that route, especially if you're into, um, transhumanism.
Uh, I really recommend the Bob reverse series.
It's like a world building type of sci-fi, except the primary character is this guy who he's a tech guy.
Uh, and he gets hit by a truck and he happens to have a subscription to a cryogenic freezing, uh, program.
And so they put him on ice for like a few thousand years and he wakes up, uh, only to find that he's not in a reconstituting human body, but rather he's been loaded into the, uh, computer on a spaceship and the task, uh, essentially with like exploring the galaxy on behalf of the United States.
Uh, and you know, a lot of interesting things happen as a result of that.
But I think in general, I, I like, you know, any sort of far future sci-fi because I'm a tech guy.
And it's interesting to think about where technology may go, uh, hundreds or thousands of years from now.
But what are your thoughts on cryogenic freezing?
Do you think at some point the next generations will wake people up?
Yeah, I mean, I, I don't have a subscription to it at the moment, but I do find it very interesting.
Um, so there's the philosophical aspects, right?
Of like, you know, what, what is your soul or what is your consciousness?
Um, and, and so since we really have no idea about that, if, if you assume that your consciousness and yourself is just this, uh, biological machine, you know, your, your brain and all of the rest of your body.
And then it seems like, um, if we can essentially freeze the substrate, which is a fancy way of saying your biological body, then with a sufficient level of technology, we should be able to reverse whatever it is that has like stopped the actual function of your biological machine.
Uh, I mean, I think that that's fairly straightforward, at least in the sense that like biomedical technology is going to keep going forward and we're going to understand the human body better and better over the centuries and millennia.
But, um, I'm more fascinated because I'm a security guy with all of the game theory itself around reviving your, your phrase and self, because this is a really hard problem.
Um, not, not, not just the technology side, but like you're, you're essentially putting yourself into the custody of a trusted third party for an indeterminate period of time, you know, potentially centuries or millennia.
And like the game theory around that gets really nasty because there's just so many unknown variables.
But I think that it does, it, it gets interesting when you think about it from a few different ways.
Uh, one is a like financial incentives way to try to incentivize that custodian to, to keep you well, preserved and to not screw it up.
Uh, and, and also to just, uh, try to ensure that they don't go out of business, uh, and have terrible things happen.
That was actually one of the things that happened in the Boba verse book is that the, the company went out of business and it got bought up by some other conglomerate.
And essentially he eventually became tantamount to a slave.
Like he, he, he essentially became the intellectual property of some other company in the distant future.
Like you don't want to go down that road.
It's probably better to be dead than to become a like digital slave in some sort of future dystopia.
But there's also some interesting game theory just along the family route.
One of the best game theory setups that I've heard of is actually called the waterfall.
The high level idea is that one way that you would try to ensure that you eventually get woken up is by, uh, instilling these values in your children.
That, that, that they should want to someday wake you up and then they instill most same values in their children.
So someday wake them up.
And so eventually, you know, maybe a dozen generations from now, uh, the, the other interesting thing that we expect to happen.
If we figure out how to revive frozen bodies is that the, the bodies that were frozen the latest will actually be in the best condition and require the least amount of technology to revive.
So the revival will actually go in the reverse order of the people getting frozen.
And so that also makes sense from this familial route, because you're, you know, great, great, great times 10 grandchildren won't really care about reviving you, but they will probably care about reviving their parents.
And then when their parents wake up, they'll care about reviving their parents.
And hopefully that waterfall, you know, that chain continues unbreaking until eventually it gets back to you.
But yeah, interesting things to think about.
Let's slowly transition to AI.
What AI tools do you use?
Oh boy.
I recently wrote a article about some of the stuff that we've seen happening at Costa and our own internal AI usage.
I do try to limit which AI tools I want to use.
Like, I don't want to use any tools that I'm actually like installing desktop applications on and giving control of my laptop to some sort of agent.
I just consider that to be far too dangerous.
The current state of security around these AI tools is abysmal.
And that's why we're seeing so many catastrophes happen.
That was a day or two ago.
We saw another viral tweet of some guy who wiped out his entire production infrastructure and all of the backups, like the AI did it.
And then the AI admitted to doing it.
We've had some similar type of stuff happen.
Nothing in production because we don't let it touch any of our production infrastructure.
But like we have had an incident, for example, where a non-engineer had set up Claude on their desktop and told it, hey, I want you to look at this internal metrics tool and create a nice looking dashboard for the metrics.
No further instruction other than pointing it to that internal IP address tool.
And what did the AI do?
Well, since it hadn't been given any sort of credentials or any documentation, it was like, well, I can see that, you know, we're looking at this in the browser because when you give these desktop tools control of your computer, they're literally like looking at your screen and trying to figure stuff out.
It's like, okay, I see that you're using your Firefox browser and I don't have credentials to actually access this tool, but I'm sure that you're logged into it.
And so I bet there's a session cookie somewhere on your hard drive.
And so it literally starts looking like in the browser profile on the hard drive until it finds a session cookie.
And thankfully, like we have other monitoring software that start, you know, red alerts start going off and then the human employee sees what it's doing and he kills it.
And so thankfully, you know, that ended before it went any further, but that's the type of stocks that can happen where these tools are what I call it like dangerously helpful.
You know, the monkey's paw is like the curse of the monkey's paw where like you can make a wish, but there's going to be terrible unintended consequences often because the monkey's paw chooses to interpret your wish or your command in the worst possible way.
The main takeaway here is these are very powerful tools, but they're also incredibly dangerous and like all of the safety and security best practices have not been developed yet.
Make sure that you're staying on top of the best practices for security.
Otherwise, you pretty much guarantee that you're going to shoot yourself in the suit.
Let's talk about the potential quantum threat.
Before we get into the beeps, I want to ask one general question.
Do you think your day is imminent?
I don't think it's imminent in the next few years.
Generally, a wait and see type of thing.
And I think a lot of people rightfully point out that a lot of people in the quantum computing space have been claiming like we're always 10 to 20 years away.
There's that issue, but also on the flip side, you can't really deny the fact that a lot more resources are going into advancing quantum computing.
Whether or not those investments pay off, that's the we shall see to be determined aspect of it.
But it's definitely advancing faster than it was before, but still we're so early on the curve.
Like we're nowhere near like a hockey stick type of advancement where I think we need to be worried about an imminent Q-Day apocalypse.
So what is Beep 361?
361 is my far future projection of, okay, let's assume that quantum computing has advanced to the point that we're actually worried about it, breaking the cryptography, the elliptic curves that are used to secure Bitcoin.
And let's assume that the state of post-quantum cryptography has gotten to a point where we come to a consensus to say, okay, we are going to adopt this specific post-quantum cryptographic steam.
If we get to that point, there are other questions that will need to be answered.
Those questions are basically, how do we get everybody to migrate?
Can we get everybody to migrate?
I think that answer is no for a number of reasons, but can we do things to try to hasten the migration?
Because humans tend to be procrastinators.
And the reason for all of this is that if we get to the point where Q-Day happens and someone can actually start sweeping up a bunch of Bitcoin with a quantum computer, if we haven't gotten the vast majority of people to migrate, then it doesn't really matter very much for the people who have migrated.
And that's for a number of different reasons.
Yes, there is potential financial ramifications, but also there's many, many, many bad things that could happen if an adversarial entity gains control of millions of Bitcoin.
I think that a lot of people are naively assuming that if Q-Day happened, then the attacker would just instantly sell as much of the Bitcoin as possible and that the price would drop.
But then the coins would get redistributed and then eventually the price would go back up and it would just be a sort of temporary pain thing.
One of the things that I'm going to be working on Q-A-ing in the coming months and possibly years is that this is actually a much bigger concern than that.
And as a result, I think that we should be seriously starting to discuss the potential ways that we can try to mitigate that.
How does it technically work, BIP361?
And also another question, is BIP360 a step before BIP361?
Yeah, so originally BIP360 was in our minds going to be the predecessor, but BIP360 changed several times over the past few years to the point that it's actually no longer implementing any sort of post-quantum cryptographic scheme.
So BIP361 specifically says it's not even up for consideration until some other BIP that does not exist yet implements a post-quantum cryptographic scheme.
Who knows what that will be probably many years in the future.
But next, from a technical perspective, it's a very rough outline.
It's not a specification.
It's just an informational BIP at the moment.
We'll be continuing to work on it over the coming months and years to make it more of a refined technical specification that could actually be implemented.
But the rough idea is that it's a multi-phase process.
And so first, you have your normal signaling like you would for any sort of soft fork.
Once that signaling gets locked in at some threshold, that's usually in the 90% to 95% minor activation threshold.
Then for the next several years after that, you basically have a three-year window after activation where you can no longer send Bitcoin into any quantum vulnerable addresses.
And the reason for that is like, this is supposed to be the real signal because there's no way for us to reach out and like send an email or a chat message to everyone using Bitcoin.
There's just no way to do it.
It's a decentralized protocol.
We don't even know everyone who is using Bitcoin.
And so the only way you can really signal to people that they need to do something is essentially by breaking something that they're doing.
So if someone is still using non-quantum resistant addresses, then this will be their signal that they need to look up and figure out like, why isn't this working anymore?
And that's when they'll realize, hey, I need to migrate to my wallets to a post-quantum cryptography scheme.
After that three-year period, that's when we no longer have the spending of coins from an elliptic curve cryptographic scheme.
So generally like ECDSA or Schnorr signatures, those transactions would become invalid, at least in the sense that if you're only providing the elliptic curve signature, and so we would no longer accept it.
Now, this of course is very controversial to people.
It was like, you're breaking people's money, yada, yada, yada.
Now, this isn't the final aspect of it.
There's another aspect, which is still under active research and development, and that is how can we allow for people to be able to spend those funds and recover that money?
If for some reason they weren't paying attention for three years, how can we let them recover their money in a quantum safe fashion?
Well, this is where it's going to really depend on what your wallet setup looks like, but it looks so far from the research that we've been seeing that there should be various ways to construct a zero-knowledge proof so that you basically, you would sign your transaction the same way as normal.
And then you will add something at the point, maybe the opportunity to obtain an additional zero-knowledge proof, and essentially that proof would prove that you have the seed phrase or essentially a hierarchical deterministic wallet that the keys were generated from that correspond to the same keys.
And the reason why that makes it quantum safe is because a quantum attacker won't have your whole wallet.
It will only have one key.
They won't know any of the other keys or any of the derivation skills or so on and so forth.
That is all still private data that a quantum attacker would not be able to have.
So if you can construct a proof using that private data that a quantum attacker wouldn't have, the network would be able to quantitatively assert that, okay, you know, you are the real owner.
You're the real owner of these coins and you're not a quantum attacker.
That is the biggest gray area, like open area of research that's ongoing.
I think will continue to be ongoing for several years as we try to figure out all of the different ways that we could allow for like a, call it a rescue operation.
And I think that that is important because I think it makes this proposal somewhat less controversial.
It's always going to be controversial because there's probably always going to be some set of coins that are unable to construct that transaction.
In particular, the like pre 2012 wallets that were not hierarchical, hierarchical deterministic wallets, but we have seen some schemes that could work for single key wallets, but only if they don't have exposed pub keys.
And so, you know, the biggest issue with all of this and, and one of the biggest parts of the controversy, of course, is what may refer to as the Satoshi coins, which is a lot of those early mind blocks that have never.
And they have public keys exposed on the blockchain already.
And I am skeptical, uh, that there will be any way to come up with like a quantum resistant boost for those because, uh, there, what are your thoughts on our glass?
So our glass V one, I was not a big fan of because I felt like it didn't throttle enough.
Like you still would have been able to spend most of those coins.
I want to say within a few weeks.
So our glass V one, I believe, uh, the proposal was, we throttle it to only allow one pay to pub key spend per block.
And so that would have been 50 Bitcoin per block, you know, times 144 blocks a day.
It's, it's still pretty fast.
Uh, our glass V two is proposing that we throttle the pay to pub key outputs to only be able to spend one Bitcoin per block.
And so I think that turns it into like a 30 year, uh, potential spend curve, which I think should do a lot to, to actually like mitigate or dampen like the economic volatility as a result of a quantum computers being able to spend, uh, those funds.
That's the other interesting thing from a game theoretical perspective, if you stretch it out that far, is that you would expect that at some point in time, there will be multiple entities with, uh, cryptographically relevant quantum computers.
And they will be kind of fighting over being able to spend those.
And so the NAFO result is that you should expect that they will probably get into like a replaced by fee war and, and the, the end result of any, yeah, the end result of any replaced by fee wars.
Then a lot of those, uh, along those Bitcoin will end up going to the miners themselves as transaction fees.
Yeah.
I mean, I, I find it a lot more palatable than V one.
Um, and we even, we even added a mention to it in the three 61 at the very end, we said, um, that this BIP is compatible with the hour grass proposal.
You know, if people should choose to adopt that, then we would support that.
Now let's talk about privacy.
Your home was swatted in 2017.
What's your privacy level today?
Considering level five is maximum.
Yeah.
I mean, uh, I, I would say I have pretty much the highest level.
of privacy that doesn't involve going to, you know, lives in a cave in the mountains, uh, the highest level of privacy, while still maintaining, uh, a presence, uh, online and, and.
Doing events, uh, every now and then, but to kind of put it in context, uh, on an annual basis, I basically, uh, pay private investigators to try to find me.
That's like the level of privacy that I want is.
Like if someone who really hates me and has a lot of money is willing to pay, uh, for actual professional investigators to find me, will they be able to find me?
Um, I'm not trying to go for like, can the government finally, the government can definitely find me in the government has far more resources than I'm willing to try to, uh, you know, put up any sort of barrier against.
But, uh, for the average person is not going to be able to find me and, um, even reasonably wealthy individuals are not going to be able to put in the resources to track me down.
Um, so that allows me to sleep at night, uh, because I still get plenty of threats on the internet and, uh, and thankfully I can just last them off.
You work as a, as the chief security officer of Casa for high net worth Bitcoiners, living in the bunker.
What is Casa and how does it work?
Casa is basically.
Our attempt to make robust self custody as simple as possible for people.
What does that mean?
It means that we make it easy for you to put yourself into a wallet architecture that eliminates single points of failure.
And that means many, many different, you know, potential threats.
Like we've thought of every threat that could happen and we've seen everything that can go wrong.
And, you know, over the past eight years now, it was built up a pretty massive collection of like knowledge and best practices and understanding of what the most common things are that can go wrong.
And what some of the more edge case, uh, remote risks are, that can go wrong and how to protect them, uh, against them.
And that's basically by doing a few different things, but the most important thing is just how do you distribute your keys?
And so instead of just having, you know, one device with your keys on it, they'll instead have either three or five different devices.
And these devices are from different manufacturers and that gets rid of things like supply chain risk.
And then the devices themselves need to be geographically distributed.
So that, you know, something like a natural disaster doesn't destroy more than one of them.
Also, if you want to be wrench attack proof, it's very important that you don't have a spending threshold at your home.
For example, we also pair this, you know, not only with hardware devices, but with a very user friendly mobile app.
It's specifically simplified and does not contain a lot of the advanced functionality that many other Bitcoin wallets have because we think that a lot of those are actually dangerous foot guns where people can get themselves into bad situations.
And then finally, it comes with like a high level of advisory service.
We have a number of tiers.
We have a sort of do it yourself tier that's like $20 a month, but at the higher level tiers, you actually get on a video or phone call with your CASA advisor to talk through things, ask them questions.
Um, you know, do your regular health checks, make sure all your devices are working as expected and talk about any other concerns that you have.
Um, and we also help people do things like set up their inheritance protocol.
For example, over a few year period.
Managed to optimize, uh, an inheritance design that you can onboard your family, your beneficiaries into, and they're just a matter of minutes.
There's no like legal set up required.
Uh, you can actually get people onboarded with, with nothing more than their phone and be able to like cryptographically share all secrets with them.
And then get you into an, uh, interesting game theoretic, uh, scenario where essentially if something happens to you, the people who you have designated as your, uh, beneficiaries can just.
Kappa button in the act and that basically kicks off a sequence of events where they're claiming that you have passed.
And then you have the ability to dispute that claim.
If you haven't passed, then kick them out, uh, if they're trying to be nefarious.
But otherwise after, uh, you know, several months time period has gone by, uh, then, or they can get access to those funds.
So it's, it's basically an all in one, uh, solution and it's really tailored for people who have a, you know, a significant amount of their wealth in Bitcoin.
And.
They want to sleep well at night.
Like one of the biggest problems I think in the space is that people get very nervous, of course, about the responsibility that comes with doing self-custody.
And so it was very easy for you to just, you know, weave all of your money at a custodian and say, oh, you know, they're the experts.
They're going to take care of it.
There's still plenty of things that can go wrong.
Even if the experts are taking care of your keys, our goal is to make people feel comfortable with taking all that responsibility.
And also knowing that they're not doing it alone.
They're, they're getting guidance from folks who have many years of experience working specifically on this problem.
So for the audience, if Casa ever went out of business, could I still access my Bitcoin?
Absolutely.
That is, as we said, uh, eliminating single points of failure includes Casa itself as an entity.
And one of the first things that actually happens when you set up your Casa wallet is after you've initialized all of your keys, we send you what we call a sovereign recovery instructions.
And that's basically a step-by-step guide for if, for whatever reason, Casa ceased to exist without warning.
How do you then use other wallet software along with your devices to be able to spend your funds without ever relying upon any of our infrastructure?
Do you use Casa yourself for your assets?
Yeah, I actually, I designed it for myself.
Um, this is kind of part of the, the origin story is that, um, you know, 10 years ago, I went and I set up, uh, last will and Testament.
And the only reason that I did that was because I was afraid of what would happen if I got hit by a truck and nobody knew how to use my Bitcoin wallet.
And it was me going through that process and basically setting up my own sort of do it yourself inheritance, which is something that we've seen a lot from our new incoming clients is we call it the treasure.
It's basically, you know, you, you, you maybe use of like distribute some keys around, uh, distribute some, um, guides for like where to find keys or for like how to like recreate the wallet or so on and so forth.
You give maybe like one initial map piece, like to your, your beneficiaries or your executors of your will.
And then you kind of, you cross your fingers and you hope that, that, that if you get hit by a truck, that they'll actually be able to follow those instructions.
And of course, most of these guys, they're not battle tested.
Um, they probably don't do any dry runs through them.
And, and, and also you, you probably set it up once and then forget about it.
And 10 years later, uh, you may have changed your setup and not remember to update your treasure map.
And so there's just a lot of things that can go wrong there and it's pretty brittle.
And it's, I think a lot better to be in a more standardized setup, uh, where it's like, well understood how that works.
And the games theory has been like battle tested and thought through.
So yeah, like the, the short version, I was like, I, I ended up with this really convoluted setup and I was, I was looking at it and I was like, you know what?
I am not confident that my executors are actually going to be able to follow this.
And it involves a lot of cryptography and like encrypted data all over the place.
And so this is one of the reasons why I was like, you know, if it's this difficult for me and I'm supposedly an expert at this stuff, then I can only imagine how difficult it is for like a normal person.
Who's not living and breathing Bitcoin, uh, 24 seven.
And, and that was really the impetus for starting Casa was user friendliness.
And, and being able to put people into a setup where, as I said, you're, you're confident that it's going to work and you can sleep well at night knowing that you don't have some potential failure scenario that you forgot to think about that could happen.
We've thought about everything.
We've seen everything.
This, uh, I think is an important way to kind of fight back against the convenience of using trusted third party custodians is a fight in the good fight to try to keep the actual custody of Bitcoin more decentralized.
What is BIP 110?
What are your thoughts on it?
And what is the Sibyl attack?
Yeah.
Uh, I wrote a fairly lengthy essay about BIP 110 a couple of months ago.
Basically it's not particularly well thought out.
There's a number of things wrong with it.
Like the, the biggest thing is of course that it's the first ever Bitcoin improvement proposal that's actually trying to reduce the functionality of the protocol.
So that's interesting in and of itself.
Like Bitcoin improvement proposals tend to improve by adding more functionality or, you know, adding something new that people will be able to take advantage of.
And so as a result, there's a number of things that would break across the ecosystem.
If this BIP actually got activated, but I think it has practically zero chance of being activated.
It's not really being pushed forward.
By well-respected technical members of the community.
I think it's more of a philosophical reaction from the people who I, I tend to call them Bitcoin puritans because basically they're upset that people are using Bitcoin in ways that they disagree with.
And generally that means anything that they consider to be like non-monetary usage.
And this is a really tricky rabbit hole to go down because, and I've been saying this for over a decade, like Bitcoin is many different things.
Um, yes, Bitcoin is money.
Like the goal of Bitcoin as a project is to be sound money, uh, you know, preferably, uh, that anyone in the world can use.
But at a technical level, it is a programmable ledger.
It is a protocol that has a rudimentary programming language.
And even though it's not a Turing complete language, like some other crypto networks are, um, there's still enough leeway and flexibility in there that people can do weird stuff.
And they can create weird, you know, non-monetary things and they can embed arbitrary data in the transactions and you know, it's not possible to extricate those two things from each other.
This is what get one 10 is trying to do though.
Even the bit one 10 proponents admit that they can't perfectly extricate it.
Really what they're trying to do is they're trying to send a signal that like, we don't like this activity, which is fine.
I mean, anybody can do whatever they want, but I think that there's just not enough, uh, interest and economic weight behind this proposal.
It's not really going to go anywhere.
Uh, and so mostly I'm just in a wait and see pattern, uh, because the, the way that it's currently coded up is anyone who's running one of these BIP one 10 nodes is going to folk themselves off the network in August.
And what's going to happen after that, that's when I think it's going to potentially get interesting to see whether they continue doubling down and, and try to do some sort of hard for, or what have you, or do they come crawling back to the main Bitcoin network?
And then they just, you know, they just continue their, uh, you know, angry, crying on social media, uh, and won't leave the rest of us alone.
Now the simple attack stuff is another interesting facet to all of this because the BIP one 10 proponents and the BIP one 10 influencers or what have you have been loudly crowing about how many Bitcoin one 10.
Uh, nodes are out there on the network and they're showing all the charts with the numbers going up and stuff.
And I've been looking at this since late last year, kind of incredulous, it's like, you know, I don't think that there's that many of them because I was blocked all of them on X and I know how many people have, or how many accounts I've walked on X.
And this is like a hundred times more than that suffice to say, we we've seen some very odd inorganic patterns in the charts that show the, the counts of the different nodes over the past, uh, six to nine months.
And it's pretty clear that, you know, there, there are people out there running fake nodes.
They may be doing it for a number of different reasons.
We've seen this all before, like we've seen civil attacks happen 10 years ago during the, the scaling debates and it's happening again now.
And, and I think that one reason people do it is because they know that, uh, a lot of the less sophisticated folks out there.
Can be looking at these charts and they might be able to manipulate their sentiment by having them think, you know, there's more support for it than, than there actually is.
But then ultimately you're running these civil attacks, it's not really sustainable.
I mean, it's a, you can do it for a lot cheaper than I think non-technical people understand.
Like there, there are ways where you can essentially run thousands of quote unquote Bitcoin nodes on a civil best pocket if you really know what you're doing.
Um, but even if you're doing that, you're not going to be doing that for years at a time.
And eventually you're going to get bored and you're going to stop doing it and so it actually looks like somebody got bored and stopped doing it just in the past few days.
And we saw this like massive nosedive of the, the bit one 10, you know, I think those shenanigans are going to continue to occur until we get to August and the actual fork happens.
And then the, the one 10 supporters will have to decide, you know, how badly do they want to be on their own pure folk of Bitcoin or are they going to keep suffering along with the rest of us on the chaotic, uh, permissionless Bitcoin network.
At the end, we have rapid fire questions, short questions, quick answers.
Ready?
Sure.
What's your favorite web browser?
Brave.
What AI tools do you use?
Mostly chat, GPT and quad code.
How many smart devices do you have at home?
Actual home smart devices.
I have no, no home automation or other smart devices.
Now I do have like a TV that has some apps dosed into it.
That's about it.
What is the best hardware wallet?
Well, that's a tricky one because there is no best hardware wallets.
Uh, then, and this is the exact reason why CASA, uh, is a like multi device setup is because every hardware wallet has strengths and weaknesses.
And the way that you create the best hardware wallet is by using multiple ones all together in one logical.
Who is the most influential living person in Bitcoin today?
I mean, I still think, uh, Andrea Santinopoulos is the goat, uh, though, um, that he has really stepped back.
So he's no longer trying to be influential.
If we're, if we're talking about the, the most influential.
As of today who's exerting their influence, I would say you'd probably be a toss up between sailor and Adam Beck.
In three words, how would you describe yourself?
Cypher punk.
Crypto anarchists.
Jameson Love, thank you so much for your time.
It was a great conversation.
Thank you so much.
Thanks for having me.