Is Bitcoin Maximalism Still Needed?

Hi and welcome to Stephan Livera podcast, a show about Bitcoin and Austrian economics. Today we're talking about whether Bitcoin maximalism is still needed. This show is brought to you by Swan Bitcoin, and Swan Bitcoin is organizing Pacific Bitcoin. This is a new conference, it's going to be on November 10th and 11th in LA, California. This is going to be the biggest Bitcoin only conference ever. Hang out with thousands Thousands of Bitcoiners from around the globe. I'm excited to be there, and there'll be a bunch of your favorite Bitcoiners there. You can ask questions on the Q&A stage, and you can hang out at the conference and the events throughout the week. This one is optimized for fun with sports, games, music, photo ops, and high fives. This will be just one part of the overall LA Bitcoin Week. So come and join us at the inaugural Pacific Bitcoin Conference in LA on November 10th and 11th, 2022. The website is p a c is paving the way as the leading enterprise-grade Lightning solution for anyone building on Layer 2. Lightning is the future for Bitcoin payments, and you can't overlook this anymore. Voltage helps to integrate Lightning and payment infrastructure into your solution quickly and hassle-free. So whether you need to scale your Bitcoin nodes by the thousands, or whether you are just a merchant who wants to set up and take payment, or whether you are just a person who wants to run your own Bitcoin node in the cloud, Voltage can help you. They can help you running either a Bitcoin node, an LND node Or a BTC pay server node, so go and check them out, don't stumble on your own infrastructure, go and get started at voltage dot cloud. So today, Pete Rizzo, editor at Bitcoin Magazine and editor at large at Kraken, rejoins me on the show to talk about Bitcoin maximalism. There's been some discussion recently on the role of so-called toxic maximalists, and Pete has clarified some thinking on this in his recent article, as well as some discussion on the topic. So we chat about Bitcoin maximalism, social and cultural arguments, technical aspects, and whether it is still needed. Pete, welcome back to the show. Good to see you, bud. So, Pete, it's been a while, and obviously, you know, I had a chance to catch up back in Miami, and I've seen, some of your work recently. Obviously, this whole debacle has come up again, and I thought it'd be good to have a chat again. So, yeah, do you wanna just give us, from your point of view, what has spurred this recent round, this recent debate again? And now, look, the debate about Bitcoin maximalism has waned,

Pete Rizzo, editor of Bitcoin Magazine, also editor at, Kraken Exchange. so, yeah, my work for a while has been focused on exploring Bitcoin maximalism, you know, looking at what it is, trying to objectively define it. it's something that I think, you know, has been discussed in the space for a while, often as like a criticism of people who are in Bitcoin, right? So I think that, you know, kind of at the base of this whole controversy is essentially a lack of definition, right? So you have a group of people who Convinced at this point that, that Bitcoin is the innovation and the invention of the sector, that is the one worthwhile thing worth focusing on within cryptocurrency. and then you have, you know, people who reject that belief, right? And they might have a financial incentive, to do so, right? So I think what really spurred this recent round was obviously, you know, a very prominent person who was associated with Bitcoin, positively, Nick Carter, a venture capitalist at, Castle Island Ventures, to even call him a, a venture capitalist is a pretty product of the recent controversy, I would ar- I would argue because he's, he's largely been looked at, you know, as sort of a public defender of Bitcoin through his work and papers, and, you know, essentially, he made an investment, people in the Bitcoin community felt that wasn't aligned with their ethos, and I think really what supercharged this was the reaction to it, which was essentially, you know, this turning into, or Nick kind of using this forum to basically unload on everything that he doesn't like within the Bitcoin And a community, right? And I think this has come after a time in which, you know, his work on Bitcoin has mostly been positive, right? And external is focused on, you know, people who are, sort of the enemies of Bitcoin, right? So I, I think it was a very interesting thing for a lot of people to witness, because essentially you have this great public defender of Bitcoin, you know, confronted with criticism, and then, you know, there's just this barrage of material, and again, we can get into the specific material that he released, but, We're treated to sort of a laundry bag of, critiques that, you know, apparently Nick has sort of been building up. You know, and I think this is a broader conversation about just how people create content within the Bitcoin world, right? And how deferential you are to the Bitcoin base. So, you know, I think Nick did a very good job of, you know, putting out work that was positive for Bitcoin, but he wasn't very critical of Bitcoin within that, and then sort of there was this disconnect, right? And from that, you get a tremendous amount of emotion on either

And so once again, you know, the Bitcoin maximalism is, is, is being debated. my argument is that is simply a sign of its relevancy, otherwise it wouldn't be debated. But yeah, I think, you know, I've been talking about this publicly for a while, right? I think in a, in every bear market you see a sea change in terms of how people view Bitcoin as a technology. I see this as the opening salvo for that, right? The bear market is really great at tearing down the previous idols in the space, and You know, the, the starting gun or whatever is coming next. So.

Right. And so historically, there's been a bit of a meme in the Bitcoin world that every bull market requires a sacrifice, and so, in years gone by, as I'm sure you're aware, there was, Mike Hearn famously wrote a piece very anti-Bitcoin, and, and, and ironically or unfortunately for him, he wrote that I think in early 2016 or early 2017, and then we saw this huge bull run and so on. But anyway Well, to talk about the definition, because I think that is actually one of the issues, is that perhaps people are all working off different definitions, and some people are perhaps blurring that line for their own benefit.

Yeah, this is tough because I think, you know, Bitcoin is, was an invention, right? It was created by someone who's no longer in the community, and the current Bitcoin product is, is a product of those individuals, right? So nobody, nobody here who's in Bitcoin today, was, was a product of that founding or, or launch of Bitcoin, right You know, you have this, this phenomena where, you know, Bitcoin culture has very much emerged in reaction to other things, right? So I think if you really trace the lineage of Bitcoin maximalism, is where does it come from? well, in an environment where there's only Bitcoin, you know, does Bitcoin maximalism exist? And I think the answer to that is, is no. It requires some equal opposite thing. and so if you really trace the history of it long enough, you know, you really find that, that originally Bitcoin maximalism is a reaction to the emergence of The cryptocurrency space at large, you know, which is the entrepreneurial efforts to recast, remake, improve, rebuild, replace Bitcoin, right? So Bitcoin maximalism is reactionary by default, right? I think this is one of the things that Nick really missed in the piece, is that essentially you don't have Bitcoin maximalism in isolation. And in a world where Bitcoin is the only money, it's the only digital money that people are building on, it effectively has no purpose. There's nothing for it to oppose. So, so it exists in opposition to something. the thing that it ex- This, in opposition to, is the cryptocurrency industry, right? And so that first sort of metastasizes in a very explicit technical definition, right? This idea that, you know, we can build, and it is possible to build, you know, pretty much everything that you could on any other cryptocurrency, within Bitcoin, right? Everything that, that you would want to rebuild within the context of a decentralized financial system. So again, let's, let's, we'll put a huge asterisk on that, but that's the original definition. I, you know, my argument in the So really is that it's become a lot more cultural and there's different components to it now, right? So I think that, you know, and I laid out a definition with essentially three points. One, it's that Bitcoin is a computer science invention, and that invention is a working non-state monetary system, and that, you know, through that lens, if you see Bitcoin as a free market monetary system, you know, powered by computer science, every other cryptocurrency competes with that definition. the second, you know, part of that is that most people who are Bitcoin maximalists think Or aren't interesting to build, to build on other cryptocurrencies. I think they get hung up on their specific flavor of being disinterested in it, but, you know, there's the combined disinterest, right? It's not interesting, that's, that's the implicit claim. and then the third part is that essentially, you know, anything we can do within another cryptocurrency on a long enough timeline, and again, this is where it gets very debatable, you know, you can do with Bitcoin, right? That's only limited by our ability to improve it, and that the correct

Cryptocurrencies to build it on Bitcoin, because it provides the greatest good, right? Because you're gonna assume that Bitcoin, you know, is gonna last for a thousand years and people will continue to find value in it, right? So, to me, I think those are the essentially the three current components, but I would also argue, that it exists to solve, you know, pretty defined questions, right? So, in an environment where there are many cryptocurrencies, why would you invest in only Bitcoin, right? Why would you build on top of Bitcoin? And why would you That supports only Bitcoin when the financial incentive for you to do that for many cryptocurrencies, which may or may not be useful, is simply larger, right? So you see this a lot in the terminology bitcoiners use around exchanges, right? It's like shitcoin casinos is, is essentially the meme, right? but the meme exists because the financial incentive for cryptocurrency businesses in the space is simply to buy and sell many cryptocurrencies because that is aligned with their business model. So my argument is that modern Bitcoin maximalism- exists to solve some pretty important questions, right, about how Bitcoin will evolve, and it exists in opposition to a set of economic incentives, to which there is no equal or opposite financial incentive. And so, in response to that, you really see modern Bitcoin maximalism as, you know, really enforcing like a cultural boundary, right, that it is okay to do something, some things, or it's moral or right or righteous to do a set of things, and it is a- Moral to do another set of things. And so now you're sort of really getting into what I think Nick is actually trying to critique, which is that that, you know, his assertion, and I think he's, you know, piggybacking on some other thinkers in the space, Udi Werdermeyer being kind of the, you know, the principal one, which is that this defense mechanism is-- has outlasted its usefulness and that, and that it should be discarded, right? So when I, so when I think what Nick is saying when he's saying "reject Bitcoin maximal To that, my counterpoint to that is that in doing so, he introduces no other claim to satisfy the issue, right? Because again, if you're going to reject Bitcoin maximalism, you're going to say, okay, well, we no longer require this social or moral penalty for people who don't build on Bitcoin or support Bitcoin. You know, let's just take Jack Dorsey for an example, right? let's just say Jack decides to support many cryptocurrencies, which, you know, he has, right? He tried to, you know, and Twitter did add NFTs One point, right? but then the reaction to that, you know, mitigated that, right? So there's this sort of social response, which tries to dictate or enforce action, and I think it's pretty much universally, the reaction of intellectuals, in the space, and I would say like Nick being one of them, and even myself, like for many years, it's, it's pretty much universal that their reaction to that is negative because they see it as being, either dishonest or disingenuous or associated with sort of like a mob-like, you know, belief system type behavior, that they don't, you know, again, you can't intellectualize it 'cause it isn't an intellectual thing. so all this is to say, I think, you know, we've really opened up kind of like a new battle front in, you know, the industry right now, and I think, you know, Nick's claim is essentially we need to move past or reject, you know, Bitcoin maximalism. and I think there's obviously people who are going to oppose that But, you know, look, if you're going to, to make such a strong claim, if you're going to say, "Oh, let's re-reject the entirety of the system," you have to then answer the questions that the people are asking, right? You have to solve the problem that people want to solve. And the, and the question is, "Why build on Bitcoin when the financial incentive is greater elsewhere?" Right? So if you're going to pro-propose that you-- we tear down the system, what exactly are you suggesting? And I think this was a You know, remarks as well as like, you know, there's this idea that we need to kind of purge, you know, this ideology, completely, just because they find it annoying or, you know, cult-like or whatever, but they don't actually-- they're not attempting to understand what it's trying to achieve. so they're just yelling at it, you know, and they're not really getting very far. and I, and I suspect they will continue to not get very far, as long as they continue to, to be We're using the ideology to try to solve. I know that was too long of an explanation, but-

Yeah, okay. so let me offer another way of thinking about it. I think it's related to how you're thinking about it. I mean, the way I think of Bitcoin maximalism is just- I think, do you-- if you believe that Bitcoin is going to be the money of the world or that we're gonna live on a Bitcoin standard, I say you're a maximalist. I think that is a maximalist, you know, you believe Bitcoin will be the money of the world. Now, there are, let's say, I guess different flavors or subcultures inside that, right? You've got some people who choose to be Bitcoin only. I'm Bitcoin only. I don't hold any other coins. You know, I work at Swan. Swan is Bitcoin only, right? It's The wrong, stupid, immoral, uninteresting. I think probably the answer is that a lot of Bitcoin maximalists, let's say if we're using that definition, they're just interested in fixing the money first and foremost. That's what they're fixated on. Now, to bring in, I guess, some of the arguments from the people who are kind of raging against maximalism now recently, it seems that the arguments are-- This is how I understand it, and you tell me how you're seeing it as well. So as I'm seeing, you're saying, "You guys are sort of making And that's, that's gone now. And secondly, you should also look at how many, how much volume there is on these other coins and look at all these stable coins that are operating on other coins. What, you know, like why, you know, Bitcoin isn't solving for that. W-what's, what's your answer to that? Bitcoin maximalist is kind of the, the question that is being asked, right?

Yeah. So I think this is where you get into like sort of the, there needing to be some sort of reason that is presented by the people who are anti Bitcoin Saying, you know, we want to grow and support Bitcoin, as you said, I would agree, Bitcoin is the money of the world. So how do we support it when the financial incentive for you to attack it, sell that fake solution to the market, and then profit from it is massive? And again, look, I mean, the people who want to say that things have really changed, I mean, SafeMoon, Shiba Inu, like, you know, there's this, there's implicit, and again, this, this comes from the overall intellectualization of the argument, and Essentially, you know, it's like Udi and, and Nick, I think want, they wanna focus on the stuff in the cryptocurrency world that is, you know, the best of, of the class, you know, you wanna say, right? So they wanna focus on the things that they think the good builders who are doing the good things, you know, are doing and say, "Oh, well, things have changed. Well, the status quo is still Elon Musk going on SNL and, and pitching Dogecoin to people. It's still, you know, Coinbase adding Shiba In That's what they know, so they just conflate Chiba Inu with Bitcoin. So, so again, like, there's, this is where I'd say it's like, while I'm sympathetic to what they're doing, they're trying to-- what they're trying to do is they're trying to say, "Hey, there's this group of other cryptocurrencies that are achieving things in the short term that Bitcoin isn't currently able to do." This was really the strongest part of Udi Werther-Wertheimer's argument, which is essentially that, you know, and again, we're seeing In the crypto space, they have, they have done this. The, almost everyone, who has a, a Bitcoin maximalist or Bitcoin only podcast is a sponsor of one of these companies. And, and what the, their users do is that they give them their Bitcoin, those companies take that Bitcoin, they lend it out, and they either do that responsibly or not, right? And so in the DeFi world, essentially, you, you really have the same thing going on, right? People are putting Bitcoin, or in many cases, mostly other assets, they're locking it in some and then, you know, essentially, you know, the argument here is that, you know, again, this is where it gets really into splitting hairs, but, you know, the argument that's being presented is that what's currently happening in the cryptocurrency world is that we're decentralizing financial intermediaries, and that if you really look at the behavior, well, what, what are the products and services of these new protocols, the ones that are good, right, the ones that we're gonna separate out from, from not being the, the obvious scams, that they're very And that they also have less risk for the users. That's, that's the claim, right? but anyway, my main point on this is to say is like, if that was the subtext of the argument, and that was entirely what we're talking about, sure, we can debate those points. But that isn't what's happening in the industry. That, that isn't what these companies are, are currently doing. That's, that's not the current conversation, right? That's not really, I think, what Bitcoin maximalism is, is currently opposing. It is currently opposing the

Currencies. And so again, all of this becomes like very muddy, right? And so again, do I think there are legitimate questions to explore here? Sure. I've been very open with Udi about thinking that his argument about, you know, decentralized custodians versus centralized custodians and those products and services, is there an argument there that Bitcoiners should be having? Ab- absolutely. I think, but you have to actually write that argument down, you have to evangelize for it, and then you have to do it in a way that doesn't sort of antagonize, you People who are against it, right? And I think this is the big, the other big problem with Nick's argument is, again, it's by virtue of him writing this post in reaction to being attacked, it undermines almost the entirety of it because it, it calls into question why he's saying these things now versus some other time, right? So he, again, we have the whole question of like, why are we bringing this up now? If it was a problem to you six months ago, you know, why didn't you say anything about it, right? So again, you have this sort of

I guess I could, now obviously I'm, I'm in the Bitcoin side myself, but let's, let's be fair to Nick, he could say, "Look, I've been investing in altcoins and altcoin companies and, you know, doing all these other things for years. Why did you, Bitcoin, you know, and from his point of view, why did you Toxie Maxies go after me now for this investment in this company, Dynamic or Dynamics, I believe it's called? " He could say that, right? He did

say that. I mean, I mean The major influencers have largely, you know, played Bitcoin only to social media. Like it's, it's very obvious that the strategy's been going on. People have been, they're Bitcoin only on social media, and then behind the scenes, you know, it's sort of anything goes, right? So, you see this sort of, you know, again, it's, it's just sort of like there's this willing, like, theatrics to it, right? Where in public you sort of play the Bitcoin defender, and then behind the scenes you sort of support, the crypto This phenomena, which is, you know, that essentially there are people who actually don't believe the things that the movement supports, but then they do so in public for their own benefit, and I think the claim here is that, you know, it's unclear, you know, if that's something Nick did. I don't think that's something I really, you know, maybe wanna litigate. I think what I wrote in the piece is like, either way, right? Either way this happened, right? Either way he-- either through his own actions or through the media that portrayed him, 'cause again You know, and I, I talked to this about, to people about this at the Bitcoin twenty twenty-two, 'cause I was asked about this, and they, I was asked, "Okay, well, what do you think about, you know, what Nick's doing?" And I said, "What's really interesting is that he's often always talking about two things. It's either proof of work and how it's specifically a unique invention, or he's talking about, you know, the decline of the US dollar, you know, and Bitcoin's role within that." And I said, "It's

We have an answer to like, you know, partially to that, well, why is that? So again, like, you're-- Now we're sort of faced with it's like, okay, is-- Did we create that? Did he create that? Was this a willing participation of both parties, right? and I think that, you know, this is another side effect of Bitcoin maximalism, right? If you're going to socially police people, then you- Set yourself up to sort of be, you know, either create false heroes or you create disingenuous conversation, and, you know, whatever you wanna think about how the situation evolved, it's bad either way. I think both parties were likely involved, us, the audience, and Nick as the person who was venerated. but again, like, you know, the whole thing is that really what we're talking about here is now there's this big cloud of dust around what the actual argument is. And again, the actual argument is, are these behaviors relevant? Like, should we continue to, you know, maintain this social culture around Bitcoin, right? Is, is that valuable? Has that actually created meaningful change? and is it true? Like, is it, does it reflect reality, right? or, you know, and I think this is the worry of some of the The other people in the camp is, does it create a condition under which, you know, the people who are pushing for that ideology are gonna find that it's not true and they're gonna abandon it, right? So the argument I think is that, from that point of view, is that, okay, you know, great, you've got Jack Dorsey, he's Bitcoin only, and, and Michael Saylor is Bitcoin only, but you've, you've told them something that's wrong and they'll need to change, and then you will end up looking bad because what you're saying is So again, I think there's this, there's this idea about, you know, what is trying to be achieved here, and is it being achieved in a responsible way, right? And again, you can see all sorts of people in the industry, like McCormick, Peter McCormick, you know, another podcaster in space, constantly, you know, chafes at the, at the Bitcoin maximalist movement because it is intellectually rigid, right? You, you have to prescribe to a set of ideas, right? And I think I tried to outline that in my pieces, but just being clear on Supporting other cryptocurrencies, supporting other cryptocurrency protocols, you are someone who's attacked because we are trying to discourage those behaviors. I think the legitimate criticism here is like, okay, well, if you, if that's your goal, this is discourage those behaviors, is, is there another way to achieve that? I don't have an answer to that. I don't think Nick presented an answer to that. I don't think that means that that's not a good question. I think it's the right question, right? You can't socially police everyone. It's not reasonable, it's not reasonable. but I think it's the best thing that's happened so far, and I think again, it's, it's not really-- you can get into whether it's like social policing or whether it's like, have you told a story? Have you, have you marketed a better story, you know, to these, to these people, right? Have you, have you told them something about Bitcoin that's, that's good? And I think in my piece, I tried to- Defend the modern Bitcoin maximalist worldview, because I think the worldview is really strong, i- and it's very clearly defined, and there's a lot to like about it, right? There's a lot about the current-- it's, it's very easy to inhabit, right? I think you see people who are sort of in or around Bitcoin or cryptocurrency for years, and there's nothing for them to latch onto, whereas the Bitcoin maximalist worldview is pretty easy. It's, Bitcoin is good, it is a money that will create freedom for the world, fiat currencies are- They're bad 'cause they're the old regime, and then cryptocurrencies, to the extent that they exist, are either something you shouldn't be doing or they're a new form of Wall Street. Bad investment, whatever. It's a very, very defined worldview. There's three camps, right? and so I guess the, the question then again is, you have to go back and it's like, how, how real is that? How real is that view? Is it actually rooted in, you know, technical specifics? But I, anyway, I feel like I'm maybe getting off track here, but I- Yeah,

sure. Yeah, no, I've gotcha. And I think the other question that people are probably thinking in the comment that I can imagine listeners are thinking

reflecting criticism from their own projects, from their own investments, and from things that enrich them. And so it's, it's almost like they just use it as a deflection tool, and they know that by critiquing all those toxic maxis, they get this sort of inbuilt fan base or allies from other shitcoiners who sort of say, "Oh yeah, I'm with you, person A B C. those maxis are just rude and intolerant, or they are just, you know..." Well, that's why the

conversation's

bad

on either side, 'cause it doesn The incentive problem is. So, and I think this is what the point I've really tried to impress on Udi, though I don't know how successful it's been, is that if it is true that the cryptocurrency world beyond Bitcoin believes now that Bitcoin is a unique invention and that what they're doing is no longer to recreate Bitcoin, right? So this, this is a change, right? So again, we're gonna reintroduce a claim here. And so for a long time, it was the claim of people who were building alternative cryptocurrencies that what they were doing was to replace or extend Bitcoin or, or to do something that Bitcoin couldn't do. This was, this was an implicit part of the marketing, it was an implicit part of part of the marketing for years, and it's, and the claim here is that this has ended, right? This was the conversation around, if you remember Terra Luna, which was the, you know, stablecoin that was buying Bitcoin that collapsed. The claim here is that that has changed and the new group of currencies, the cryptocurrencies or crypto asset projects, whatever, recognize Bitcoin's role as money, they recognize a future where Bitcoin will be, continue to be the dominant cryptocurrency, and what they are doing is, is not opposed to that. That the opposition of them to that is just mis-marketing. That is essentially the intermediaries, the financial exchanges, the companies, the, you know, in the space, who essentially aren't clarifying to the consumers that there's been the change. That's the claim.

Yeah. Now even on that, I think there's probably two main points. I, I get that you're saying that's just a claim, but there's probably two main lines of disagreement even on that point, What about all those people with ultrasound in their, in their names, right? They're kind of making an argument again, sort, sort of suggesting, and this isn't just like a few fringe people, you'll see on Twitter, there's a bunch of people with this ultrasound emojis in their

name. Right. It's an implicit part of Ethereum culture that Ethereum is competing as money, and I, I think that's pretty obvious that, that, that, that is, if not the mainstream view of the Ethereum community, at least a, a view of a dominant subgroup. So now it's

like a large And then the other point is that there are literally some shitcoiners who are sponsoring attacks against Bitcoin, right? So the obvious example, Chris Larsen, right, yeah, what is he, CEO or CTO of Ripple, like basically, I don't think he's no longer involved,

but he was the founder of the company, yeah, he was the founder

of the Ripple, which was the company that issued XRP, so Back to the show in a moment. The events at exchanges and lending platforms of the last few weeks have been an important reminder of how important it is to take control of your Bitcoin keys. Holding your Bitcoin with someone else puts you at risk of blocked withdrawals when you need your Bitcoin most, or even worse, having your Bitcoin caught in someone else's insolvency. This is where Unchained Capital can help. Unchained offers concierge onboarding. This is a personalized service to guide you through setting up cold storage and help you with withdrawing from an exchange into keys that you control. They ship you The hardware, they walk you through the setup, they answer your questions, and there's some ongoing support afterwards to help you get comfortable. So if you've been putting it off, this is a great time to get started. Concierge onboarding can help you. Go and book yours, unchained dot com slash concierge, use the code Livera for a discount there. If you're interested in Bitcoin security, consider coinkite dot com, they have the Coldcard. This is, in my view, the leading Bitcoin signing device, and you can use this in all kinds of different configurations, whether single signature or multi-signature or single signature with a passphrase, or you can use it with seed x or a plausibly deniable means of storing secrets in two or more parts that each look and behave just like the original secret. So the coldcard is a very well-recommended device in the community, and that's for good reason, it's because it has all sorts of features that make it very practical to use as part of your Bitcoin security setup, and it allows you to take your keys offline. So if you want the new coldcard, go to CoinKite. dot com and use the code Laverara for a discount. And finally, brains dot com. Brains are a Bitcoin mining software and service provider in the space, and if you are doing Bitcoin mining, you've got to check out brains dot com. They have Brains OS Plus. This is firmware that you should be looking and considering to install on your Bitcoin ASIC machines. It can give you additional efficiency and get you more sats for the same hash rate. You can find that some people are improving efficiency by as much as twenty-five percent. You can mine on any pool, or you can choose to mine with Brains OS Plus and point your hash rate to Slashpool. If you do that, you get zero percent pool fees. And on the Brains website, you can find Bitcoin mining content and also the Insights dashboard. So this is really useful if you wanna keep up to date on what's going on in the world of Bitcoin mining. That website is insights.brains.com, and it's brains with two eyes. Back to the show. Right. And then he's put in five million into Greenpeace and this other EWG organization that are basically out here trying to attack Bitcoin's proof of work. So it's kind of like, which one is it? Well, that's what

I'm saying is I, I think really you wanna kind of-- I, I think what I've been viewing this as is, is an opportunity to kind of rehash this conversation. I think during the bull market, I think it made sense for each camp to like settle into their preferred position and then just sort of remain in opposition to each other. But here we Of it, and so the question is like, do we have any alignments here, right? And I think the more interesting thing that, that, and again, this isn't something that Nick has said, but, you know, given that he's somewhat influenced by Udi and that we've, we know that Udi believes this, I think it's interesting to think about is like, is there any scenario where there's alignments? And again, my comment goes back to the, to the original one, which is that You know, again, if you, you have to actually think about what Bitcoin maximalism exists to do, right? And it exists to do a couple things. It exists to, to make clear that Bitcoin is something completely separate from the rest of the cryptocurrency universe. and it exists to provide a reason for people to fund development and for people to build Bitcoin businesses and for people to actually extend and, and, build, you know, this truly decentralized financial system that, again, has these, you know, the human rights benefits that Alex- Gladstein has, has been talking about, right? That is, that is legitimately good for the world. The other cryptocurrencies, to the extent that they exist, the question I think then is like, okay, well, to what are, what extent are you to accept something else from them? Is the Bitcoin maximalist ideology completely opposed to them, like in any form, or are they just con- opposed to them in a format where they're doing one of the two things that I just mentioned, which is either just misleading people about what Bitcoin, what Bitcoin is, or they're discouraging people to invest

Like, you can't actually reject Bitcoin maximalism without solving those two things, because it solves those two things very well, and that it gives you a specific reason to do those two things. And again, now we're getting into the question of, like, okay, well, is that the best we can do, or can you find a way to, to solve those two problems in another way? That I don't know, that I think is interesting, and I think it's worth discussing, which is again, partly why I published the article and, and to, to, to promote this disc question, because I think, you know, the unfortunate part is the people who want to demonize Nick or punish Nick for what he did, you know, I understand why they did it. I'm making clear in this article why they did it, but then I would also, as a participant in that conversation, ask those people, is there a better way to have done this? I understand why you did this. I, I get it, I understand it. it is the best current solution we have for solving this problem. and I do agree that it is a way to solve

I believe that it's the best current lens in the market, and I believe all the claims that people are making about it, that I, I believe that it reduces consumer harm, right? You're looking at what happened, right? And again, there's, there's a spectacular collapse of the lenders in the space, the people who the Bitcoin maximalists were telling the new people to come in, you know, buy Bitcoin, take it off the exchange, get a wallet. Are, are the exchanges doing that? Are the Bitcoin, are the crypto industry companies doing that? They're not doing that. So Clubhouses doing the hand-to-hand combat with new people. Because again, I think the, the other side of the Nick and Udi argument, and again, this comes from the intellectualization of it, is like they're smart people, they get it, they can sit and read white papers all day, they work in the industry. The average person who came into the market in April of last year, it's like they're just here to get money, they're just here to, to, they don't have any idea, no conception, like they have no idea why they're here, they don't By virtually everyone, right? So again, like if you're going to make a steel man case for Bitcoin maximalism, and again, this is what, what I think I did in the article is, what else are you gonna tell these people? You know, even people like, you know, it's like my own brother, like, right? I've, I've, I have three brothers. One of my brothers is now a Bitcoiner. He told my brother to get into Bitcoin. My brother listens to, and again, I don't, I don't, I, I try not to influence So my brother ended up with his girlfriend's brother ended up getting him Bitcoin, but an account on Voyager, and I'm like, sitting there in October, I'm like, "What are you, what are you?"" I was like, "I've never heard of that company, you should take your keys off the exchange." You know, so okay, his Bitcoin now is, is gone, right? So, you know, again, there's an actual real hand-to-hand combat in that the-- and this is, this is, again, a new criticism that I didn't raise in the Right? They, they don't deal with the people, they profit from it. Right. They don't, they don't actually interface with the guy at the kitchen table who listens to other people babble, and again, you know, who for some reason listens to my brother and not me, who's been working in the industry for eight years and decided to like trust this weird exchange and then just put a bunch, put some money in it and just lose it entirely. That happens. This is real. This is a real problem. It's a real problem. It's happening. And again,

Set, sure, happy to do it, but it exists, and again, it's not Nick Carter and Udi's world. That's not, that's not where they live. They're not having those conversations, they're not witnessing those things happen. so again, you have to say something to the people who are coming to the market. And, and, and we have to mitigate consumer harm in some way, and I think of all the philosophies in the space, Bitcoin maximalism, I think, does the best job of this. It says Hold your own money, take it off the exchange. This is what is valuable with technology. If you're gonna come in and you're gonna lose everything to something else, at least do this. This is the American huddle. At least love yourself. Take, take the Bitcoin off the exchange, right? There's a, there's a valuable components to this, right? so again, if we're really entering an era where the battle lines are redrawn, my, what I'm trying to implore the people who are, are, are kind of attacking the ideology is that they're This is, this is a, this is really a cultural movement. Bitcoin maximalism is a cultural movement, and I think this is where Udi's and Nick's critiques like often fall flat, is because they're, they're bringing in technical arguments. The, the idea that for some reason Bitcoin needs side chains or like it needs to lower the block size, like these are all technical arguments. They're, they're, they're, they're just, they're completely irrelevant to the domain that Bitcoin maximalism currently addresses. Are they valid? Are, is there, is there merit to them? Sure. Again, I'm happy to debate all this stuff, and to the extent that I've done this in my other work, it's like, you know, the, the article that I published prior to this article on Bitcoin maximalism was essentially, you know, looking at, you know, it was essentially, It's called Bitcoin after twenty-one forty. It was like looking at the different versions of maximalism, so essentially saying that, like, you know, even within Bitcoin maximalism, if you're looking at it from purely a technical definition, there's, there's just all these different ways to slice it, right? So again, there's this, there's a complexity to the technical definition of like, can we achieve everything that you can with other cryptocurrencies on Bitcoin? That's like almost a separate problem. That's outside of what this, this conversation is, in my opinion. It's not really why Bitcoin

I started from a technology conversation, but it's no longer purely technological conversation. So if you're gonna fight it on those grounds, Godspeed, but like I can't believe you're gonna get anywhere because I don't think the newer people view it as that at all. They're not even thinking about that. so if you wanna go die on the low ground, you know, go do it, but, it's a bad way to approach the conversation because I just don't think you're gonna get any-- Nobody's gonna understand what you're talking about.

Yeah, sure. So what about this argument then of the, I guess, without talking about specific individuals, I guess is it that the, you know, I'm asking this devil's advocate, right? Is it, is it that there's a, a way to be a responsible shitcoiner, right? Is there a way to be a responsible, from their point of view, crypto person who, let's say, guides people to the non-scam projects while warning against the scammiest crypto coins, such as the Terra Luna? I think

UDY's argument comes from, and again, this is something that I would agree with him, that, that the people, that the Bitcoin ide-ideology really hasn't assimilated in any way, is that there are now a group of projects that provide, that use cryptocurrencies to provide a product or service, and that that product or service isn't dissimilar from what the centralized custodians are providing. So if you look at, you know, and again, this is a classic UDY example, BlockFi and Aave are essentially the same thing. You deposit assets in them, you, you, you Money at some rate, and this is a product or service, right? So Udi's argument, I think in this instance, is that Bitcoin maximalism essentially is anti-- you know, is, starts to become, starts to look like something that's like anti-business or like anti-capitalism in some way, because, you know, if you take a pure capitalism argument and say, okay, well, there's these centralized services that exist, they have their own set of risks, which is that they have, you know, depository risk, you know, whatever the risk profile of the lending that We're doing on the backend, and then you have these DeFi protocols, and they have developer risk, right? Surely somebody can introduce a bug, there can be some sort of, you know, governance around these tokens that influences the pro- prod- these software protocol, but for all intents and purposes, they're providing you the same thing, which is you're depositing Bitcoin in them or wrapped Bitcoin or something, you're getting some loan at some rate, and you're able to go on your day having used the service, to move to this forum, which is that, yes, there are, there, these things exist, they do, and the Bitcoin maximalism, perspective is to currently treat those things as if they are entirely similar to the Safe Moons and the Shibae News of the world, which are totally useless grifts So I don't think that's my view. I think my view is that, okay, so the question then becomes, can you or should you create these things on Bitcoin? Is, is it better to have the alternative to BlockFi like exist on the Bitcoin blockchain in a trustless manner? And I think the answer to that is unequivocally yes. It is, it is better to build it on, on Bitcoin. So in an environment where you allow these other decentralized protocols to continue to get business, and again, this is- Where Udi really objects to the "you allow" part, because what can you really do if they exist? so where an environment where these things continue to exist, they will compete and discourage that. So again, I think this is where now we're sort of starting to get to like, okay, we're getting past the bad arguments to some of the good terrain arguments. So in an environment where you have decentralized lenders that exist outside of the Bitcoin world And you possibly could build that in a trustless way on Bitcoin. What is your incentive to do that? And again, this is my argument that this is what Bitcoin maximalism solves. It actually, it gives you the reason to do that. The reason to do that is the other thing is immoral or bad or not ideal, and it could be done in a better way. So if you, so if you lose the moral penalty here, if you lose this idea that, that building on Bitcoin is the best possible thing you can do, then you allow the incentives to be warped. It's just simply, you would just do the thing that provides you the most monetary return, like as an individual in a rational world, right? You would just build, the cryptocurrency lending service that uses wrapped Bitcoin, doesn't build on the Bitcoin protocol. You don't have to spend years trying to go through the service, you know, through the technical process of Bitcoin to do that. you exit in, you know, three years, you dump your tokens, and then you leave. And maybe the project continues, maybe it doesn't, maybe people find it useful, maybe they don't. That's the choice that the entrepreneurs face. And so what I'm trying to make the case to the Udis and the Nixes is that you, you have to give them something. So what is the reason they are building a Bitcoin? If you, the venture capitalist, aren't going to invest in Bitcoin-only businesses, you who even believes that Bitcoin is the best of all cryptocurrencies, well then who will? Who's going to do that? Or it'll just never happen, right? So now, this is really where the argument is, right? And this is really why people are upset. They're upset at Nick because he is in a position where he could do that, right? He could make the choice to fund the development of those things and say, "Hey, this is a good idea, I'd rather build it on Bitcoin. I'd actually, I'm gonna fund, look for a team to fund this on Bitcoin." This is how the-- this is how people perceive this, right? And this

is This isn't about people bullying Nick or getting mad at Nick for those reasons, it's about them being legitimately unhappy with the decision that he made and the incentives behind it, because they exacerbate the problem that they're trying to solve, which is they're trying to get legitimately useful things built on Bitcoin. That, that is what Bitcoin maximalism is currently trying to solve, and if you refuse to understand the, the modern cultural movement of Bitcoin as trying to achieve that, then you will not get it. Anywhere. So if you want to get somewhere, you have to address that problem. What is the, what is the way that that problem gets solved? And if it isn't you, the venture capitalist who's in a position to make change, chooses to fund that project because you are aligned with Bitcoin and the Bitcoin ethos, a la Jack Dorsey, Jack Dorsey has done this very well, what is the alternative? That's the question.

Yeah, so lots of things there. So I think some of the arguments will be that, "Oh, okay, it's not technically feasible on Bitcoin." Or the other argument that I think Nick made himself was, "Oh, look, we've got this funding, we just can't find the companies to put it into." And so that's another argument. So I, I think it also does bring up this whole question of what exactly is building on Bitcoin, because even that question can be-- It can be a bit of a blurry line. This

is where, this is where I think, you know, I'm trying to, again, pick at both sides here and, and, and really kind of, you know, say that there are legitimate questions on either side, right? So I think Udi's claim, if you really trace it back to the end of last year, where, where he, you know, really started with this whole thing, is that in an environment where you, you, we the Bitcoin users are not allowing Bitcoin to change, right? Where we aren't making decisions to further the Bitcoin protocol in some way, and people are then choosing to build elsewhere, are we not complicit, Decision not on us, right? On, on some level. And again, I think that you can get into that. I think Goudy's terrible at articulating a lot of these points. I've told that to him, I think personally, but I would say like, that is the question, is it actually partly our fault that this is occurring, or that, or we should-- Maybe that's how we should look, is there a benefit to us looking at it that way? And again, I think this is where the anger at like Liquid and Blockstream particularly comes from,

it's They didn't think that they, you know, they didn't think that you could preserve Bitcoin as it currently is and achieve that, and they chose to stop doing that. they see that as some sort of renegging or some, you know, they see this as some sort of dishonest or, or, or fraudulent market activity. I think it's entirely unfair. Bitcoin is a science, you know, this is, this is something that we don't know how to do, and you have to make good faith attempts to Extend Bitcoin, and then recognize that those aren't gonna actually possibly happen, right? So like another one of these is that if people are new and they don't understand what sidechains was, I mean, you know, you can look at the Taro proposal by Lightning Labs, right? So this is a proposal to rebuild a stablecoin infrastructure on top of Bitcoin. It's probably the biggest technical proposal since sidechains, and in, in many ways, it's very similar. It's essentially the Bitcoin technical community saying, aspirationally, we think we can achieve this. We think we can migrate the stablecoin

More beneficial for the world, we're gonna actually take this idea that now exists with, you know, centralized entities, and we're gonna migrate it to the trustless Bitcoin blockchain. They might not achieve that And, and that might be okay, like that they might not be able to be achieved now, and might be able to be achieved later. But again, my, my would draw back to the point is that if those people weren't Bitcoin maximalists, I think they are, I don't think they could do what they're doing without being Bitcoin maximalists. Why would they do that? Like, why would they make the choice to try to build these stablecoins on this trustless Bitcoin infrastructure? They, they have to have a reason for the choice. And my, my point is that the, the right Moral. It is, it is a belief structure. You have to believe that Bitcoin is the greatest money that will exist, and you have to believe that ex- extending that system for the maximum possible benefit for the greatest number of people is ethical and moral, and you have to deny a financial incentive to do otherwise. So again, we, we arrive at really which is the essential problem, is that Bitcoin maximalism solves this problem very well. It, it, it actually clearly articulates why a person and that- That situation would make that choice. And nowhere in the counterarguments is there anything resembling something that is being presented for another reason that someone would do that.

So let me summarize then. Essentially you're saying it's like this cultural and moral reasoning behind why build something in a way that works with Bitcoin, even if it's the long pathway, even if you can't take the quick money now. That's essentially what you're getting at, as opposed to, and I, I guess in a way you're contrasting that with, let's say, it is a Pragmatic or technical only reason for building on Bitcoin. You're saying there's almost this cultural or moral element also. Well, I'm saying

that, yeah, the technical reason is only part of it. It misses the thing that is actually trying to be solved. So in, in, in focusing on the technical thing, they, they, they miss the greater problem. Like the problem isn't, oh, we can't build sidechains on Bitcoin, so therefore all these other cryptocurrency projects should exist. The, the problem is how do you, how, why do you incentivize people if you believe that Bitcoin system to expand to be maximally useful, right, including the greatest number of, of things, businesses and services are, are moved to a trustless decentralized financial system. Then what is the reason that you do that? What is, what is the reason that you make a choice to build and extend that infrastructure versus building a separate infrastructure unrelated to it that provides that service in a way that is going to enrich you financially faster and provide the same service? With fewer benefits to the end user or, or less benefits to the end user than what is possible. And again, I think this is where you get into the many, many questions that once we're framing something like this, you get into, is this disingenuous? Is it the correct framing? Whatever. But this is the framing. This is, you have to actually fight this on this framing, because you, again, you, what is the reason that we are building on Bitcoin? and again, do you, do you think that there will be some limits to what we can build on Bitcoin It's a, it's an abstract question. It's like saying, are there limits to where we can go in outer space? I mean, it's like, how do you know? You have to build rockets, you have to put chimpanzees in them and then people, and then you have to fire them into space. Like, there's just no, there's no other greater way to do this, right? so that, to me, that is the Bitcoin maximalist viewpoint. So you have to expand out into the universe, and it's gonna be a painful process with many rocket launches

continues, and right now Bitcoin maximalism in its current ideological form, like, does that very well and says, you know, you are doing the right moral thing by doing that, and you shouldn't do these other things, because even if they give people, a service today that maybe they can't have elsewhere, it's, it's not the right thing to do to advance, you know, the human cause, right? That's, that's, that's Bitcoin maximalism. And if you're gonna fight it, fight it on those grounds, but don't Around because it's just not helpful. You're just, you're just, you're just fundamentally ignoring what is trying to be achieved. And then this is what sort of is exposed, is like after reading expose, it's like I have to wonder, it's like, okay, does he think that that's not what is happening here? Does he know, does, does he not think that extending the Bitcoin protocol is the right thing to do for, for, for humans, for, for like, for, for us, you know, as, as you-- Innovating on financial infrastructure is, is that Actions to it,

right? Yeah, let me key into one other aspect of your definition. So I think the third prong of, of your definition about, you know, things being achieved either by Bitcoin or by a CFI alternative. Here's another idea, right? So is, I view Bitcoin as mostly challenging central banks. I don't view it as challenging all banking. Like I actually see a role for banks, ideally full reserve banks, on a Bitcoin standard. And I guess maybe one way I'm thinking of it is more like, Bitcoin is just doing the money, and all those other things Not all of them, but many of them may well be done by centralized institutions, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. I think, you know, it's not that Bitcoin has to achieve everything on chain or in some technical way. It's more like I'm interested more in solving that monetary issue first and foremost, and then those other things. Well, then you could be, and then you

know, then you sort of get into this, okay, so if you support those centralized infrastructures, right? And let's just say hy-hypothetically, the, the, the, you know, Version of that is correct is that you, you can actually meaningfully distribute the operations of those things. I don't think you can decentralize them, but let's just say you can meaningfully distribute them and those services can be competitive, you know, with those centralized entities. This is where I feel like Udi's argument is strongest. It's like if you, if you, if you assume a world where all cryptocurrencies are considered, other than Bitcoin are considered equities, let's just not even say securities, let's just, let's just assume they're considered equi-equities, and Still immoral, like in that case. And, and this is, this is really gets to the fundamentals of what, you know, if you really ask me, like, what I think the Bitcoin maximalism wants, and I think how you satisfy the movement, is I, I think it really just wants Bitcoin to be clearly differentiated. I don't, I don't think that people actually really care how. I think this idea, like, and, and again, I think this is where some of the criticisms are coming across, is like, there was the Bitcoin legal tender movement, and then there was the,

Is that really what we want? I don't actually think so. I think we, we just want Bitcoin to be meaningfully differentiated from everything else, and we want everyone else to treat Bitcoin as what it is, which is, is the one, the centralized cryptocurrency. That's it. It's the decentralized, non-government money. And I think, I think, I think Bitcoin maximalists will live in a world, and they will accept a world where Bitcoin is treated as that, and the other cryptocurrencies are just treated as something else. And, and I, again, I don't think they really care about care about that other stuff being treated differently. And this is where I think, you know, again, you're getting to some of the more interesting stuff in Udi's arguments, where it's like, in an environment where you, you can you have those other cryptocurrencies, can they be something else? Can they still not be regulated as securities? Can they still actually compete in the kind of market that Bitcoin has, where anyone can buy them and anyone can buy and sell them? and are we okay with that? Can we as Bitcoin maximalists live in that world? 'Cause I, I This is where this is going, again, his claim, and again, this is-- we're both talking for communities that I think are filled with a lot more complexity, but again, his claim is that the cryptocurrency builders of the world recognize this. Maybe they're not doing the best job of it, that's his claim. So can you live in that world? And I think that, that-- I think the answer is yes, because I think really what Bitcoin maximalists care about is one, differentiating Bitcoin meaningfully from everything else, and then they care about consumer- Harm that is done by misrepresenting that. and I think, I think a world in which those two things are meaningfully addressed and crypto assets still exist other than Bitcoin and they can be dismissed, ignored, you know, we can try to improve them, whatever, pick your definition, I think that's a better world than what we have now, right? Where both of those communities are just opposed to each other and, and in being opposed to each other, the end result of that is these other cryptocurrencies essentially market themselves in opposition to Bitcoin. the question then is, okay, is that an achievable world? That, this is where I think like some of the interesting questions are, right? Is that an achievable world? And would you accept it? And I'm curious, like, would you accept that, right? Like, would you, like, in a world where you can buy and sell any other cryptocurrency as an unregulated form of equity, but then everyone meaningfully differentiates that Bitcoin is something else, like, would you live-- Is that something you can accept under your definition of Bitcoin maximalism?

I believe yes, yeah, I believe yes. I mean, if, if it was like Bitcoin is, you know, Bitcoin and, and these other things are equities or securities, then I could appreciate that. And I think part of this also comes to, because obviously Bitcoin has different ideologies inside it, but generally speaking, broadly speaking, it's cypherpunks and libertarians, is kind of broadly speaking. Now, as a libertarian, we could say, "Look, abolish the SEC. Abolish, you know, we believe that, you know, there shouldn't be an SEC. It Libertarians still believe there should be laws against fraud, and they may have an issue with some of the shitcoins on that basis, because they may believe that there's been fraudulent marketing, deceptive advertising, and this kind of thing going on, or they could secondarily believe that a government has-- if governments have kind of given a, a, a preference in that way, then that could be seen like, okay, that's not okay. but yeah, generally speaking, if, if it's seen like, you know, for a long time, I personally have been saying Bitcoin, not You know, again, as a, I guess, as a maximalist, as we, we might say. So, yeah, from my point of view, the short version is, yes, yeah, I think, yeah, that would be okay. People,

I think, I think one of the core claims of the Bitcoin maximalist movement is, is about consumer protection and it's about how the cryptocurrency industry treats the end consumer, right? Again, and so, you know, I'm interested to see, does this argument unfold? Personally, I think this is gonna be where the next couple years of argument

You know, I'm not sure what the right way forward is, but, you know, again, if, if this is what's happening, you know, generally, you know, speaking, these, these sort of bull and bear markets, you know, you, you do have a relitigation of like what Bitcoin is and the, and the ideology, right? And so I think, yeah, sure. To me, I think the, one of the worst ways to read this p-- the piece that Nick put out is that this is sort of an opportunistic way to do that, right? He

That there is, there is worthwhile infrastructure within the Bitcoin maximalist movement. It is, if you think the Bitcoin maximalist movement is just people yelling on Twitter, that's not it.

Yeah, of course. So, I mean, look, let's leave it with that then. I guess the final question and any closing thoughts, is Bitcoin maximalism still needed? Absolutely.

I think as long as there exists an environment where there is a lack of clarity for the end user of the person who is coming into cryptocurrency, and as long as people re- Require a world where we want to extend Bitcoin and bring the, you know, its full capabilities to life, there will need to be a way to support those two things, and I think that's what Bitcoin maximalism does very well. It actually, in, in lack of a market signal, it provides an incentive to build and extend the Bitcoin protocol for the greater good of, of the human cause, and I think it, it also does a great job of protecting the newer people in the space, from things that they don't understand and marketing that is disadvantageous to them. in a, in a, in attempting that, is it, is it always honest, truthful, factual, and technically correct? my answer to that would be no, I don't think that it is. But again, that misconstrues what Bitcoin maximalism is, is, is a cultural movement, and it's a cultural movement founded around certain ideas trying to solve certain problems. And, and that's the, like, I just wanna take a huge sharpie and, like- Underline that, and it is currently doing a good job at solving those problems, which is why it's around. People are using, people are, you know, you're great, you're a libertarian, people use tools that are useful. If the ideology wasn't useful, nobody would adopt it. You don't see many, you know, stellar maximalist stuff there. They don't exist. The market doesn't, the market doesn't, the market doesn't need it, you know? There's no, you know What's the other one, Bit-- what was Dan Larimer's first project called? Bitshares? Bitshares, yeah, Bitshares, yeah. There's no more Bitshares, right? You know, the market doesn't need that ideology. The market clearly needs the Bitcoin maximalist ideology, it's clearly valuable, or people wouldn't be using it, so therefore rejecting it is entirely stupid endeavor.

Yeah, excellent thoughts, and I, I think, definitely something to chew on there for SLP listeners. Listeners, go, if you're not already, make sure you're following Pete on Twitter. His handle is at pete underscore rizzo underscore, and of course, read all his work over at Bitcoin Magazine, and, I'll link to the Forbes piece. thank you again for joining me. Great to be here.

Always enjoy it. We'll, we'll see, we'll see you at the next Bitcoin conference, I hope.

So what do you think is maximalism still needed? Go to stephanelivera dot com slash three nine two for the show notes, and I'll see you in the citadels.