00:10 Everybody's seen the agenda so far and you prefer to have the [meeting]
start off with the general QA so it may be an opportunity for each of us to go
around or each of you to go around and just give some comments and general
questions and answers about the group type tokenization proposal that's been
put forward by hammerstone.

00:32 I just want to remind you a couple of little housekeeping items:

00:36 We also record these meetings for reference to the content but they are
internal.

00:44 We don't release them externally unless the group decides they want to do
that.

00:49 I'm not going to step into that right now but just to let you know that
that's why it's being recorded.

00:56 The second point is that there is a gallery option with zoom for those
that are not familiar with it.

01:02 It makes it easier to say everyone at the same time.

01:04 It's usually in the top right hand corner.

01:10 I guess the first point of order should be acceptance or a change of the
agenda.

01:16 I'm sorry I'm jumping around a little bit here but is everybody
comfortable with the agenda, or would anyone like to add or make any changes to
the agenda?

01:31 A nice quiet well-behaved group, okay.

01:37 Then we'll move on and maybe start with Emil: Do you want to begin with the Q&A?

01:48 no I better start

01:50 okay, Brad [not credited in video], do you want to go ahead?

01:59 I'm only halfway through the documents, it might be best if I don't 02:01 stop the questions.

02:00 okay, moving on to Shammah [Chancellor, Bitcoin ABC]

02:02 I don't have any questions

02:10 right, the Q&A; portion may go very quickly. Daniel [Connolly, nChain]?

02:17 I know I might have some some questions

02:21 is there's any estimate on like implementation or proof-of-concept?

02:33 I'm working on the wallet portion of it right now. I have the consensus
stuff basically implemented with unit tests so I think I could get a proof of
concept in a few weeks.

[missing at 02:50?]
03:00 no it's in my private repository

[missing at 03:10?]

03:17 yeah there are a few parts of the document that I didn't quite
understand. Regarding how the groups actually manifest in the consensus layer I
would like to see the example implementation is in play.

03:41 so as we go through the document section by section maybe we can talk about some of those parts

04:10 yeah no I don't have any questions at the moment. I've gone through the document, I think it's all [...]

04:27 I'm sure things will come up later but I don't have anything right now

04:31 Yo, Daniel [Connolly, nChain]
04:32 Daniel, do you have any questions regarding the document?
04:35 No, is this the part to give just general thoughts or whatever?
04:41 yeah yeah

04:42 I'll pretty much just repeat what I put in the chat yesterday: I think we
should be looking at this in a risk/reward type of framework. There seems to be
some clear benefits or rewards over a protocol changing way to do tokens. As
far as the risks I think this is different than OP_GROUP.  It doesn't have that
scripting boundary issue I was concerned about, just a computational cost.
[With OP_GROUP it] could affect sentence structure and then just the other
risks would be ***used unknowns or so-called like unharmed me go the
protocol*** or just you know changing it. So I think getting more clear risks
and rewards will help us all get a better handle on whether we want to
implement this.

05:50 Thank you John [Jonald Fyookball, Electron Cash?]

05:54 Is it possible we have gone through the general Q&A section and will move
on to the comments per section now, Andrew?

06:03 Yeah

06:05 other than that recent addition the new

06:07 person who just joined I think his name
06:10 is Amaury [Séchet, Bitcoin ABC].

06:12 I don't see who come up.

06:13 Yeah sorry it was already just ***pumpkin*** something wrong. I assume
it's like it's a tiny window and I can expand it.

06:20 You know there's a function that allows you to change the Speaker view to being a grid?

06:30 There's like a ton minimize buttons you know.

06:35 I don't have any buttons by the way, ***bear**

06:40 Jason [B. Cox, Bitcoin ABC] has joined us as well.

06:48 we're going through the Q&A; section Amaury and Jason general comments and Q&A.

06:55 before we go through if either one of you have any general comments that
you'd like to make or questions for Andrew before he goes into detail on the
proposal

07:20 okay so my biggest question would be for the requirements and I don't
think that they're adequately stated.  There's a general problem statement
given but it doesn't really describe why Bitcoin Cash in its current form is
not able to solve this.

07:40 So that said, [what] the document needs to provide here is exactly what
we're doing without describing the technical details.

07:58 ***and used to describe here** here's the the way that we're solving this
problem and describing the impact of that solution.

08:03 ***so like freeze but we were coming in the room last night about you get those that possibly interesting***

08:10 we need to know is this by one or two orders of magnitude.

08:14 what sort of impact is this going to have on Bitcoin Cash's ***Hall***.

08:25 okay so in terms of projecting and predicting the **you** TXO set use,
that would depend entirely on the popularity of the solution

08:42 right so that would be very difficult to predict

08:48 I'm not so sure cuz clearly there's a use case that you're tackling, so
naturally you know maybe implicitly how big that market is potentially

09:02 we know that Bitcoin Cash is targeting all people in the world a certain number of transactions per day and tokens could possibly be that or even exceeded [that].

09:13 yeah

09:14 so let's just say that you know every security and every company decides
to put their stock on Bitcoin Cash - such a thing is possible, right?

09:20 And so the real question is is the you know capacity increase based on
Moore's law going to be faster than the adoption of a token scheme like this by
securities or not

09:52 the potential use of tokens is huge, I know, but we need to know how
because if that requires that Bitcoin 09:59 cash scales by ***ordering the
tutor to*** that's gonna have to change our our angle of attack on a lot of
these other scalability problems

10:08 so if I have more fun say is the potential of Bitcoin Cash itself is far
beyond our current capacity as well, right?

10:17 If you add tokens to that mix you get an infinite on top of an infinite,
right?

10:20 so what I'm trying to say is what really matters is what the rate of
adoption might be and how likely it is that transaction fees ultimately would
slow that if we hit network limits?

10:35 I think the rate of adoption is actually irrelevant because we need to
know what our what our actual capacity ceiling is and if we're we're targeting
scaling [to] everyone in the world then once we get to that point you know
tokens is going to add another another order of magnitude its scalability
requirement on top of that so it doesn't matter how fast we're going because
like you said our current capacity far exceeds the actual use

11:10 no I said the opposite which is that the current theoretical use of Bitcoin Cash alone far exceeds our capacity

11:20 yes, if every human being used Bitcoin Cash as cash the capacity would be
far exceeded right now.  If you add tokens on top of that - if every human used
Bitcoin Cash tokenization for coupons and stocks - then you're already far exceeding our capacity.
11:48 on the use of cash over tokens, I would be expecting that miners would do that using fee policy.

12:02 This is really important we can't even talk about the technical implementation details until these sorts of things are basically there because [... missing ...?]

12:14 so in Swedish we have a saying: "how long is a string?" and this is sort of the same

12:19 this is the same situation here like how long is a string you like there's no answer to that

12:28 No, I hope a good thing you know that you can some things are like you scribble to measure

12:34 No, because we should be able to give an estimate for how much impact
this is going to have and if you are unable to do that we shouldn't be making
this change.

12:48 Can we can do [the] estimations we need?

12:50 So I'm not saying that this is something that would be nice to have. It's necessary in order to evaluate this.

12:55 In engineering we make estimates. we try to hit a target. If you don't have a target then what the hell are we building?

13:00 but any 5 estimate would not even be close to any sort of realistic numbers because it's impossible to do. you can guess

13:15 invest if all you can do is guess then
13:18 why are we the reason why is because
13:21 there's a negative feedback and that is
13:23 that minor start assessing fees and
13:26 those fees will push back on capacity as
13:31 was discussed in the zero transaction
13:33 paper several years ago right the the
13:38 network pushes back on excessive
13:40 capacity unfortunately that's what
13:45 happened to be teasing right but if we
13:47 get into a case if we scale and the
13:49 problem with BTC is that the capacity
13:52 limit was artificial right but if we're
13:55 an assist in the situation where the
13:57 capacity limit is real like the huge
13:59 like human networks really cannot handle
14:03 the amount of traffic we're asking for
14:05 then it is naturally okay for you know
14:09 fees to rise and some of the smallest
14:13 transactions to be pushed off the
14:15 network into you know other solutions
14:18 like coinbase
14:20 type things right and the reason why is
14:22 cuz no subsequent currency can come out
14:25 and beat us because we've expanded
14:27 absolutely as high as current physical
14:31 capacity allows okay so if the token
14:35 solution that you are proposing is going
14:37 to push us way over our potential
14:40 capacity
14:41 why even build it in the first place
14:44 when you go on because so as I was
14:47 saying in the in the document in the
14:50 beginning I think there's going to be a
14:52 virtuous cycle which will massively
14:54 increase the use of Bitcoin Cash
14:57 alongside tokens and so we this will is
15:01 a necessary step to putting Bitcoin Cash
15:04 into everyone's wallets and you think
15:08 that's worth the technical yeah but like
15:12 this is not this is not a unique this is
15:14 not a token there's not a problem you
15:16 need unique two tokens per se like what
15:20 if they can catch moons and everyone
15:23 start using it and we're starting to
15:25 close in on the current capacity limits
15:27 this is the same problem we can only
15:31 make assumptions when or if that will
15:33 happen tokens may or may not make it
15:37 happen faster you can definitely give an
15:41 estimate as to how much impact this has
15:43 over a normal transaction but we want
15:50 the network to grow just if we can make
15:52 sure that the tokens
15:53 don't push out cash transactions then I
15:57 don't see that big well then that won't
15:59 be in the problem because you still need
16:01 to pay you still need to pay the fees in
16:03 Bitcoin Cash so every token holder needs
16:06 to be a bit from cash holder because
16:08 otherwise you can't transfer them and
16:10 the miners will still get paid per byte
16:13 so there's absolutely no change there in
16:15 fact the token home sections will be
16:18 slightly bigger than the cash
16:20 transactions so miners will get paid
16:23 more if for token transactions because
16:25 there's simply bigger in size network is
16:31 what's limiting the situation here this
16:34 problem exists in all the opportune
16:36 solutions as well right you you know
16:39 storing expanding the utx oh you take so
16:42 stored on disk disk has very high
16:44 capacity compared to the ability to move
16:47 this data you know around the network so
16:51 people can
16:53 deploy tokens permission ously and max
16:58 out the Bitcoin Cash Network if they're
17:00 successful as well okay so why are these
17:12 not discussed in the document like this
17:15 discussion that we're having right now
17:17 should have been already thought out and
17:20 I appreciate that feedback and I will
17:22 add a section to the document I don't I
17:27 don't think you're really asking why are
17:29 you because if you're asking why I can
17:31 give you an answer but that's not really
17:32 that relevant right part of the point of
17:34 this meaning is to get feedback like I
17:37 think this should be part of the
17:38 document and I we can totally have a
17:41 paragraph about this I would like to
17:44 resist making estimates just because
17:47 they would effectively be pulled out of
17:50 my ass right like can you sit there and
17:53 tell me like let's say let's say
17:55 counterparty cash is implemented okay so
17:58 now how many how many securities are
18:03 gonna go on to counterparty cash in the
18:05 first year well counterparty cash
18:07 doesn't affects the UT Exocet at all
18:09 it's totally printable yeah but the data
18:12 has to be transferred over the network
18:14 but it doesn't matter what the
18:15 technology is given we're asking for
18:22 given any technology can anyone make an
18:26 estimate as to its adoption rate yes
18:31 okay so basically what you're telling us
18:42 is that you don't want to do capacity
18:44 planning because you are unable to give
18:46 an accurate estimate we are not asking
18:48 for an accurate estimate all we're
18:50 asking for is what do you believe is the
18:53 estimate and why alright ai-ai-ai-aight
18:58 I don't I don't think this is a like
19:01 problem relevant to tokus this is a
19:04 general problem for everything Bitcoin
19:07 cash
19:07 not just this propulsive per se except
19:11 every single proposal needs to indicate
19:13 how it affects the potential capacity to
19:23 change the capacity requirements by one
19:26 or two orders of 92 and yet you are
19:28 unwilling to describe the factors
19:31 involved that seems insane it is
19:34 relevant but I would say capacity
19:36 planning is outside the scope of this
19:39 proposal capacity capacity capacity
19:44 planning belongs in a different section
19:48 it belongs in generic Bitcoin Cash
19:51 planning because all has a direct impact
19:53 on that capacity planning yeah it has an
19:57 impact on on then and then then this
20:00 should be a model and then should
20:02 actually be capacity planning already
20:03 done and then you just mentioned that
20:05 well a chorus effects this the
20:09 competitors playing we already made okay
20:12 so where's that reference because as far
20:16 as I know no one has done any capacity
20:18 planning for how tokenization is going
20:21 to change has anyone done any capacity
20:25 planning at all of course of course so
20:30 when we can you please send me the
20:35 document that described the capacity
20:37 planning on that I'll see what I can dig
20:40 up well I mean like those calculations
20:47 that should be known by everybody in
20:49 that group if we ask you that we have
20:51 five billion people using it they do and
20:53 for our transaction the day and so on
20:54 you end up with plots that are of the
20:57 order of 10 weeks in size we now are at
21:03 least like everybody in that meeting you
21:04 should know those number also why I have
21:06 no idea what
21:16 okay so I hear your feedback I will do
21:21 my best to add a section that talks
21:25 about capacity planning you know with
21:31 the qualification that this isn't a road
21:34 and so you can't actually kind of
21:37 determine how many cars can go across it
21:40 to sum up the weight of the bridge and
21:43 that kind of stuff are you saying that
21:55 because we have no idea how many cars
21:57 are going across the bridge we don't
21:59 know how to build the bridge no I'm
22:01 saying you have an idea of how many cars
22:03 go across the bridge but on say you do
22:06 know how many how wide to make the
22:09 bridge in the wait whereas in Bitcoin
22:12 cache we do not know that because we
22:14 have this this effectively this
22:18 tremendous untapped potential which is
22:20 all of the stocks in the entire world
22:23 but it seems very clear that the day
22:26 after Bitcoin Cash implements this
22:29 they're not all going to transfer over
22:32 okay so we have an upper bound yes or
22:41 exceed vailable capacity because if you
22:45 just as armory was saying if you just
22:47 think of the cache use of Bitcoin Cash
22:50 the upper bound far exceeds available
22:53 capacity yes we also know we have a
23:02 target that we can reach we know that we
23:05 have a reachable target I suggest this
23:13 that we should probably add some kind of
23:16 estimation to the document that
23:19 estimates the quantity that like how
23:23 many transactions the totus would
23:26 actually like
23:29 like the magnitude the magnitude of
23:32 transactions that would actually
23:33 increase but ask for the actual capacity
23:36 problem it it doesn't really belong in
23:39 this in this section only only like a
23:45 short estimate that we estimate that X
23:47 percent of the intersections will be
23:49 tokens and we expect it to grow X number
23:54 more than it otherwise should if we
23:56 don't so Jason was something like you
24:03 know I don't know like like across the
24:05 world the average there there's
24:08 typically X percentage of people who are
24:10 stockholders and so there are so many
24:13 Bitcoin wallets Bitcoin Cash well it's
24:16 estimated and so if you take that same
24:19 percentage and project it out then you
24:21 would imagine that you know it's let's
24:24 say there's a million you know says 1%
24:26 of the people who own who have cash
24:28 actually own stock and there's a million
24:31 wallets let's say so therefore 10,000
24:36 additional stock holding wallets that
24:40 kind of thing is that what you're
24:41 thinking of okay we can do this did you
25:15 have any other further general Q&A;
25:17 comments for questions and answered
25:19 questions for Andrew yeah so another
25:24 another one that I was thinking of was
25:27 the document doesn't describe so much
25:30 about alternatives like we've talked
25:33 about Takeda a lot in the channel and I
25:36 don't believe the document just
25:39 is not does not just the Arctic we know
25:43 I have a prototype document that sort of
25:50 comparison contrast alternatives I do
25:53 strongly feel though that that is not
25:56 really appropriate in the group document
26:00 just like Takeda doesn't describe our
26:04 group and and counterparty doesn't
26:09 describe Takeda and and Jane doesn't
26:11 just go yeah this right the solution
26:15 from A to Z right but you want you you
26:21 want to be able to specify why people
26:23 would use that solution rather than
26:25 another one and also what the solution
26:28 can do that the current one cannot there
26:30 is something and then we can change that
26:33 compared to whatever use case we are
26:36 aiming for I can add a paragraph that
26:39 puts the solutions into sort of broad
26:42 categories and explains the pros and
26:45 cons of each category so for instance
26:50 I'm gonna tell Yunus you have no idea
26:52 what AR c20 does or does not do but it's
26:57 very clear that this is like the number
26:59 one competitor that focus on it's a very
27:08 important question to answer like why
27:10 would people use that rather than they
27:11 are sequiny that they seems to be using
27:13 right now and needs to be sufficiently
27:16 better than people I cannot be wind
27:17 which is you Android is your prototype
27:25 document any of this and is that
27:27 something you can share
27:28 I can't share it like right now no it's
27:33 I haven't looked at it in a month
27:40 or is there a more specific question
27:43 that you could ask Andrew because I'm a
27:46 little confused and I don't understand
27:50 all the technical aspects but are you
27:52 suggesting that this needs to be
27:53 compared directly with theorems platform
27:58 yeah so I don't have any specific
28:00 question because I don't know enough
28:02 about the RC question but that's kind of
28:07 like that's kind of the larger point
28:08 right obviously if we expect this
28:15 solution to work in its to do better
28:17 than your sequiny because people are
28:21 already using the RC 20 today right so
28:23 it needs to be not just as good but
28:26 better so that it justified the cut of
28:29 your existing infrastructure to Google
28:33 and just as a point of clarity do you
28:35 agree with that I'm confused
28:40 well it depends on how you define better
28:43 right I mean aetherium is gonna be more
28:47 highly functional than this solution
28:49 because it allows so I feel like there
28:55 are niches and Bitcoin Cash fits a
28:57 niche and group tokens will fit a niche
29:01 which some people might prefer more like
29:05 the less like the you know I think it's
29:08 sort of sweet spot will be people who
29:10 just want tokens and not really smart
29:12 contracts and I think aetherium is gonna
29:15 be better and the smart contract ability
29:18 for well basically forever I doubt we
29:21 will ever you know allow a contract to
29:26 define state variables well I would say
29:31 the outside is that it's not a smart
29:33 contract because we're a very bait for
29:35 most basic tokens you don't really need
29:37 a smart contract anyway yes that gives
29:40 us an advantage for some applications
29:42 and a disadvantage for others
29:46 yes so that's that kind of like goes
29:50 back to the point chisel was making like
29:52 what are they use case we are aiming for
29:55 what are the sales of like what kind of
29:58 size are those whose gizzards it's not
30:04 very clear like right now we have a set
30:05 of requirement is not even sure that the
30:07 requirement like do any use case better
30:09 than existing solution you want to
30:20 address that can do well I I described a
30:28 lot of use cases without explicitly and
30:31 a lot of the advantages of the group
30:34 proposal without explicitly saying and
30:37 therefore it's better than this other
30:40 competing technology specify what you
30:52 know what his case and what is the size
30:54 of the serve so I could build a car
31:02 route of titanium and it would probably
31:05 be better Intel more like resistance and
31:07 weights and whatever and existing car on
31:11 the market right buddy will make my car
31:13 cost you know an extremely high price
31:17 and there is actually no market for this
31:21 because this car would not be
31:23 sufficiently better compared to the
31:25 price that you know extra price that you
31:27 would cast so at some point you need to
31:30 define you know what what you are
31:32 targeting and all those identities and
31:35 disadvantages filled within that target
31:38 and right now I see only in the document
31:43 I want ratio ties accuracy
31:44 okay we need to kinda do X Y and D and
31:47 here is all we can do search token but
31:51 we're gonna use those tokens you know
31:54 like why would they use that rather than
31:56 something else the way I see
31:59 like the big advantage of this proposal
32:01 is that you can use tokens as cash so
32:04 the point of Bitcoin Cash is to use that
32:06 use it as cash and with token you get a
32:09 multi currency feature where you can say
32:12 one token is represents airline points
32:14 and want to do when you do an upgrade to
32:17 business class for example on an airline
32:18 you pay some Sun you Kate you can pay
32:21 some in Bitcoin Cash you can pay some in
32:23 the tokens and use that as a payment in
32:26 one transaction for example you using
32:28 the tokens as a cash payment same thing
32:31 if Amazon would for example
32:32 so today Amazon is paying the Mechanical
32:35 Turk workers in Amazon gift cards if
32:38 they were tokenize their gift cards
32:39 instead you can get started paying the
32:41 workers directly with bacon cash tokens
32:44 and basically use them as cash in that
32:48 case and there is a huge difference
32:52 between this kind of token and the
32:54 contention cell rights token is born
32:56 outside of the brown chain and therefore
33:00 is not Christmas right this part of this
33:05 proposal we need to focus on what was
33:08 the the trustless yes which was the
33:12 focus right because if we don't need
33:14 trustless tokens than something like to
33:16 kata takes care of this problem without
33:19 making any protocol changes yeah so I
33:23 would like to address that so the point
33:26 of trustless is that you trust the
33:28 issuer but you don't trust the issuer in
33:31 actually handling the transaction or or
33:34 managing it so for example in the
33:37 Caribbean there are many many smaller
33:39 islands where the government officials
33:41 on these islands they are using Gmail
33:44 addresses like their official government
33:47 email is at gmail.com we're talking
33:51 about nations that are doing technically
33:54 incompetent to run any kind of
33:58 operations for if they would for example
34:01 they would like to tokenize their
34:03 currency to make it easier for
34:05 international trade because the United
34:07 States keeps blocking us the wires to
34:10 them and they would like to token
34:13 national currency at best these nations
34:18 in these central banks they the only
34:21 thing that would need to issue issue and
34:23 burn tokens is a couple of hardware
34:25 wallets they have locked up in a bank
34:27 loans so they'll may only only actually
34:30 use they only actually like used to
34:34 boxing themselves when they are issuing
34:36 and burning and then they has left the
34:39 money money flow and outside their realm
34:43 and outside their control because
34:45 they're not really interested and they
34:47 shouldn't really control their currency
34:50 but why not focus on this use case in
34:53 the document because things like very
34:55 little points and things like that don't
34:57 apply to this question in there in the
35:03 use case about the Caribbean states you
35:06 give the example that they're using
35:07 Gmail as their email provider because
35:10 they're operationally incompetent that
35:12 makes a lot of sense to me why couldn't
35:16 say Bitcoin comm provide the same
35:18 service for tokens yeah but then you
35:23 still have like a single point of
35:24 failure where like if our if if we run a
35:28 centralized of you know he'll be based
35:31 token token protocol that we have to to
35:34 manage the servers and they will through
35:36 a host of servers and approve an island
35:38 then a storm hits and stops working it's
35:41 just better for them in every way if
35:44 they can piggyback on an existing
35:46 working global blockchain that is victim
35:49 cache yeah so we're talking about the
35:51 difference between a distributed system
35:53 like Toccata which you can run multiple
35:55 servers for and something like in the
36:00 base consensus protocol that needs to be
36:02 heavily tested I mean the complexity of
36:04 your changes that are being proposed
36:07 Andrew you might have a proof of concept
36:10 in two weeks but amount of testing and
36:13 fuzzing and all the other stuff that has
36:15 to go through that code like how what's
36:20 your total time frame for wanting it to
36:21 be implemented and the consensus set
36:23 like okay des is something they can be
36:26 implemented today
36:27 by Bitcoin calm and they can start
36:28 contracting that out and make a profit
36:30 there whereas but then it but then it's
36:32 centralized and you need to trust the
36:34 issuer and even though it's like the
36:38 transfers might actually work if the
36:40 server's don't work there's a lot of you
36:42 have to trust the issuer already in your
36:45 example because think you're just pretty
36:46 lonely with the values you only have to
36:48 trust the issue with the value and not
36:50 with actual operation and function as
36:53 cash yeah can i interleaved in that
36:57 point I apologize I didn't recognize
37:00 your hand was up and you both Steve
37:03 shatters and joiners have joined us so I
37:06 want to give them an opportunity as well
37:07 and we can come back to this in a second
37:10 join us yes I wanted to take that the
37:14 scenarios of the island because I
37:15 believe it's a good one so we have a
37:17 situation where we have basically
37:20 someone who wants to have a token that
37:22 operate for themselves but they don't
37:24 want to have the infrastructure to do
37:26 that as part of a setup like Takeda you
37:31 see what I expect is that you will have
37:33 entire classes of players where you
37:35 delegate third parties where you
37:38 delegate the cushion do you take
37:40 something that is so the issue is
37:42 actually it's not one issue it's good to
37:44 say and you have a couple of I would say
37:47 commodity issuers that just stick to
37:51 whatever rules you want you want them to
37:54 mechanically apply for the rest of us so
37:57 you see it's and again the it's just
38:01 like a certificate authority to sell you
38:04 SSL certificate it's so easy to see when
38:08 you have something like certificate
38:09 transparency you know it's so easy for
38:11 everyone to see that as a meta issuer
38:14 Hugh misbehave that there is no
38:17 viability so basically you can a very
38:19 high trust on those meta issuer just
38:23 because their business is to be very
38:25 diligent real a year of transactions and
38:32 that's probably you know when you said
38:33 the small company also small you know
38:36 island wants to run their own currency
38:38 or whatnot
38:40 they trust Gmail they would actually
38:42 trust one or many of those meta issuer
38:48 that would maybe even provide the
38:50 service for free because with mr. kadar
38:53 you can even have you know the the the
38:54 fees tuned so that the meta issuer makes
38:58 a bit of profit when they when they
39:00 operate yeah but you still don't get
39:03 they get away from from the fact that
39:05 like you have a second layer of of net
39:08 of servers and a second network that is
39:12 required to run everything and I would I
39:15 would add that in this case you know
39:19 that the code that was the thing an
39:21 angle of tequila but I want to heart
39:23 because I believe it's very important to
39:25 a discussion of up group do we want to
39:27 have the cash that subsidize whatever
39:30 tokens runs on the blockchain or the
39:34 other way around the tokens that
39:36 subsidize the cash and for me
39:39 I'm very much into thinking that
39:41 whatever you know extra use has to be
39:44 framed aware that it's really
39:47 subsidizing the cash if anything
39:50 meaning that you know and and that the
39:54 tokens are now to tax on the cash or
39:57 even maintaining the infrastructure
39:58 which includes the complexity of the
40:00 infrastructure on the cash but really
40:02 some things that that helps the cash
40:04 just to again to reverse it completely
40:07 as opposed to have to have a set up
40:11 voice where we have something that that
40:13 is in the way of the cash
40:15 well basically were replicating the
40:18 ethereum model which we were just proven
40:21 to work really well because every token
40:23 holder also needs to own some aetherium
40:26 to name the transfer them which has
40:28 given a lot of people aetherium we under
40:35 working to very well as fine no crypto
40:40 kitties are brought the the network user
40:44 to enhance and it's just right now it's
40:48 it's literally although unlike Bitcoin
40:51 if you're ms playing massive attack
40:53 to the detail the minute detail in terms
40:56 of scalability you know that raid
40:59 whenever I see a bit lot of technical
41:02 decisions they are they are already
41:04 invested a lot in terms of scalability
41:07 performance optimization extra and their
41:10 network at the very moment where we
41:12 speak right now is grinding too hard I
41:14 mean the transactions fees are a hard
41:16 for Donnell and it's very very bad it's
41:19 all of that because they are so smart
41:20 contracts where that just badly interact
41:24 with a cash function this is why we
41:28 don't want smart contracts for tokens we
41:31 can we can offer a token that doesn't
41:34 need a smart contract so you get the
41:36 functionality that people want but
41:38 without of complexity and all the
41:39 problems that a theorem has you don't
41:44 have any know any plasticity do those
41:47 rules you can't add or remove features
41:49 at that point when it's in the base
41:51 consensus layer that doesn't seem like a
41:54 wise thing to do to add like specific
41:56 rules for a particular type of token and
41:59 then be unable to extend those in the
42:00 future I mean already aetherium has gone
42:02 through several revisions of the ERC
42:05 spec because they didn't have all the
42:09 functionality that people wanted I don't
42:11 remember what the latest one includes
42:14 but for its name it includes preventing
42:18 the issuers from taking profits too
42:24 early
42:25 yeah I mean that that would be awesome
42:27 again if you want to on this talking on
42:30 the myth on the really big concerns that
42:32 needs to be addressed up front you know
42:34 where we can even consider the situation
42:35 so first the use case of having a party
42:40 that is not competent enough to operate
42:41 that and that there is an info there is
42:44 something the infrastructure that does
42:45 it I think layer 2 is the right that you
42:50 of the year 2 is more that I would not
42:52 think of it as as the year two but
42:54 rather is there markets will ignite
42:55 incentives so that you have players that
42:58 will most likely emerge to do that in a
43:01 way that is not dysfunctional you know
43:03 that's rather than thinking of it as
43:06 layer 2 as if we have
43:07 hoping with like limitation and whatnot
43:09 more of thinking it from an economic
43:12 perspective is that do we have a setup
43:14 where we can have those talkin
43:17 capabilities brought to Bitcoin with
43:20 players that have an incentive to do so
43:22 and to support it and commit very
43:24 powerful capable and maybe just to join
43:27 the remark of Shama I believe with yes
43:31 you need to have indeed a lot of
43:33 latitude in terms of where you evolve
43:36 your interpretation and again we don't
43:39 know all the failure modes that you can
43:43 have with tokens if we are taking the
43:44 the Mechanical Turk example that you are
43:47 giving I can see plenty of ways where a
43:52 company when a company as competent as
43:54 Amazon could make mistakes in their
43:58 design and we need to have practical
44:00 ways to recover and again that do not
44:05 and older those animals should not enter
44:10 stuff that people are working on the
44:14 Bitcoin class infrastructure need to
44:15 care about but the point is if the point
44:20 is to create a note multi currency
44:22 basically right now there's only one
44:24 token on bacon cash and it's called BCH
44:27 they only have one token today and the
44:30 whole point is to create more they'll be
44:33 able to create more different kinds of
44:35 tokens that has exactly the same
44:37 properties as cash so if you're trying
44:41 to do smart contracts that that's
44:42 outside of the scope of what trying to G
44:44 here so so what I'm hearing is that what
44:47 you're saying is that you want to do
44:48 like mini Bitcoin Cash in Bitcoin Cash
44:51 you know that the poem is that well I
44:52 kind of agree on the very idea that it
44:56 makes sense to have a digital currency
45:00 inside the digital currency you know
45:02 that's that's where you're me
45:04 enough that I'm really at loss where
45:08 what is the use case supporting that you
45:11 know because the island did the use case
45:14 of having the small island I can
45:16 understand but that's a very different
45:18 use case this is not that
45:22 put the question like if if we're making
45:26 a distinction between the token use case
45:28 and the smart contract use case only one
45:32 of them gets to get baked into the into
45:34 the base protocol into the into the
45:36 consensus layer why why should one be
45:39 given preference over another I think
45:42 this is a good argument for the saying
45:44 they're actually think we shouldn't have
45:47 a design that is restricted to a single
45:49 one we should have a design where you
45:52 know multiple types of tokens back on
45:55 track whatever solutions can exist in
45:59 such a way as they support the the
46:02 underlying cash I mean what you
46:06 understood before the total potential
46:08 subsidizing catch yeah I mean to me to
46:13 me this is basically saying this is the
46:16 only token solution you can have on
46:18 Bitcoin Cash because we've got
46:20 preferential access to the consensus
46:23 validation behavior no the point is is
46:28 we're gonna put tokens on the consensus
46:30 layer it needs to do one these needs to
46:33 do one only one thing and do it really
46:36 really well so no smart contracts and no
46:39 complicated stuff and only they only
46:43 like the what we're trying to achieve is
46:46 basically is to have like a mini a
46:49 different kind of currency that is baked
46:52 in Dom because again I would like to
46:55 have just seen again that's the use case
46:58 that I do not understand what is the
47:00 point of having be say yeah it should
47:02 we've been weaving bch you know again
47:05 that's that wasn't a because this is not
47:08 a small nation scenario the small nation
47:11 scenario you need let's say if you want
47:14 to unlike a national one and a national
47:16 state issued currency it needs to be
47:19 load to be unknown food let's say a boat
47:22 you know so it's so again we might be
47:26 believer or not on the package of
47:28 currencies for nation States even if
47:30 it's a very small island but it cannot
47:32 be like
47:34 boy ever baked into something that
47:37 cannot be changed this this is a typical
47:40 scenario where people will need to eat
47:43 to have control to change it so what is
47:45 the scenario you're thinking of where
47:46 you could have something that would be
47:48 essentially between cash inside Bitcoin
47:51 cash decoupled and where it would make
47:54 sense that's where I'm still having your
47:57 coordination the nation-states example
47:59 is pretty obvious like they get a
48:02 currency that the government cannot
48:05 interfere with they cannot they can only
48:07 they can only print more or they can
48:09 they can increase the supply or they
48:10 think they can decrease the supply but
48:12 that's pretty much the only thing they
48:14 can do they cannot converse gets
48:15 people's money they cannot interfere
48:17 with transfers or anything they cannot
48:20 actually they but talking I would you
48:23 just sad you know again it in a
48:26 practical world
48:27 you just take four or five you know
48:31 highly trusted companies and whenever
48:34 there is one that that that do something
48:38 some garbage because you can be very
48:41 resilient to to bad behavior you can
48:44 recover very easily see again to block a
48:52 particular address for example yeah so
48:57 in the Takeda case its authority based
48:59 system so the nation-state would just
49:02 say to those four companies here's a
49:04 list of blacklisted addresses do not let
49:07 any transfers from these addresses and
49:09 then if the company says no you know
49:12 we're allowed to use whatever ones we
49:14 want then the nation state says well
49:17 your paycheck for the monthly upgrade is
49:20 now removed but again again real-world
49:24 okay
49:27 in in the real world if you have a quote
49:30 you know where the court decide that I'm
49:33 not supposed to receive money on one
49:35 address and it doesn't matter if it's
49:38 rational or not they can still fuming
49:40 Shane no matter what is happening on the
49:43 blockchain you know they the fact that
49:45 something is even proven true or proven
49:47 wrong
49:47 it's up to a jury that can decide
49:49 whatever the hell they want and if they
49:51 want to close their eyes and ignore what
49:53 is happening on the blockchain they can
49:54 so I'm really feeling you see when you
49:58 say I'm sorry about international like
50:00 transfers of money and so forth there
50:02 may not really be a court that you know
50:05 then you see that's the point that
50:09 you're telling me about something that
50:11 is very much cash like okay so I'm in
50:16 China and I want to like invest in an
50:19 American company or in the other
50:21 countries and you know I guess China now
50:23 allows you to invest probably in other
50:25 you know securities from other countries
50:28 but there are other countries that don't
50:29 allow that right so if the you know if
50:33 stock was tokenized
50:35 then you could circumvent those rules
50:39 with a company you see here if the point
50:45 is that if you think that your company
50:48 let's say in Thailand Thailand has
50:50 regulations that say that you cannot
50:52 accept foreign investment it's not
50:54 because wish you are talking that can it
50:56 be censored that the government cannot
50:59 step in and put everybody in jail in the
51:01 company you see that that's my example
51:05 is a company in the u.s. issue
51:08 securities on the blockchain and
51:10 individuals in other countries choose to
51:13 invest company yes the company in the US
51:22 would choose if they don't want to
51:24 operate the token that size they would
51:25 choose a couple of you know
51:28 well when trusted well-known meta issuer
51:31 that just diligently relay everything
51:34 and this is ADA lowan jet Nam that would
51:37 still let you could still I would say
51:41 stealthily who are swap with Bitcoin
51:45 cash so that you use you you buy those
51:48 tokens against beacon cash yeah until
51:51 like until the nation contacts those
51:54 companies and says hey every account
51:56 needs to be identified before you should
51:59 allow a transfer
52:01 okay just a sec wait we do have a
52:03 question from armoury as well I don't
52:04 want to miss yeah so it's more of a
52:06 remark in a question but here we are
52:09 seeing that the discussion depending on
52:11 the question has moved from one use case
52:14 to the other and this is where we see
52:16 that the lack of definition for use case
52:19 is a big problem and I see generally
52:21 like two categories of this case at a
52:23 mention one is like currency like points
52:28 stuff like miles or Amazon also whatever
52:32 for those types so for this first
52:35 category of use case I don't think it
52:39 changed that much that the transferee
52:42 trustus or not or it like more
52:44 permissionless or not because at the end
52:48 of the day Amazon or whatever a line
52:51 company or whatever can decide to redeem
52:53 the points or not right so at the end of
52:56 the day they could monitor the
52:58 blockchain and effectively block any
53:00 payment that in which not at the point
53:03 where the payment is made for that one
53:05 point where the points I use and it
53:06 doesn't change anything
53:07 so for this category of this case you
53:10 are trusting the issuer regardless and
53:12 then the other category on this case is
53:14 effectively taking and other currency
53:16 like for a country and for those whose K
53:21 is my bigger question is essentially we
53:24 are making a complete guitar within the
53:28 code - like we are building we are
53:30 building a beacon cache competitive with
53:32 Italy and that seems the only use case
53:35 that is actually served by the solution
53:38 and not by any other solution that is
53:41 maybe more formidable so that's I mean
53:45 that's what that's kind of a problem I
53:48 have a quick question
53:50 with regards to the Caribbean use case
53:52 would this be for the st. Kitts
53:54 government that they would be interested
53:56 in this it's just a theoretical
53:59 thought experiments okay but I mean we
54:02 could get actual use cases and
54:04 requirements for a study on something
54:06 like that right like if we like your
54:10 Papa I'm not aware of any of any extra
54:14 play
54:14 to do this it was just an example sure
54:17 but like an example is a good use case
54:19 so then we can gather requirements from
54:21 that use case I'm pretty sure covered in
54:25 the document is it internal cache for
54:29 national state I happened that I had
54:30 been contacted by some groups that I
54:32 would qualify as it's a regional
54:36 autonomous in Europe I would not be very
54:39 specific on who they are but basically
54:41 we we assess what you know a large
54:43 region who wanted to be autonomous
54:45 autonomous who was like a significant
54:48 particle support so it's not like a very
54:49 typical scenario it's like they are 40%
54:52 votes at the elections and basically in
54:57 the case of often I can because I went
54:59 through that with with at least two
55:01 different groups in Europe as far nation
55:05 I would say national state currency are
55:07 concerned there is clearly there is a
55:11 deep concern of being able to whatever
55:13 has been done needs to be able to be
55:16 undone
55:16 because there are big believers in
55:17 democracy so if there is a vote to do
55:20 the currency one way they can be about
55:23 to have it modified another way so so
55:27 that's and again I think if we joined
55:31 the fact that that the second remark of
55:33 MOA the only case where we have where
55:37 where a group really make sense of this
55:40 sort of type of tokens really make sense
55:43 is to bake a competitor inside you know
55:45 something that is fundamentally aligned
55:47 with Bitcoin Cash inside we can cash and
55:49 that's where again I agree I fail to see
55:52 the the really use case for that yeah it
55:56 is sort of a bacon cash compared as in
55:58 it is a multi it's like another currency
56:01 on Bitcoin Cash
56:02 it makes bacon cash multi currency but
56:04 you still painted intersection fees in
56:06 bacon cash know anyone that holds tokens
56:09 needs that oh and Bitcoin Cash to be
56:11 able to transfer them but what is the
56:12 government's model of that you see
56:14 because whether I feel is that I've
56:16 discussed with will people who wants to
56:17 have like real currencies or real
56:19 countries with a specific Democrats I
56:23 mean a democratic governance type of
56:25 model modernized
56:28 and clearly this is not what they want
56:29 so this is this is kind of well use
56:32 something else with like the whole point
56:33 is that there is no government it's the
56:35 whole point is that it follows exactly
56:37 the same consensus rules as Bitcoin Cash
56:39 with the exception of minting and
56:41 melting so currently we only have one
56:44 token of bacon cash and it's be called
56:46 bch and only miners can mint or melt
56:48 tokens according to a very specific
56:51 according to some very specific rules so
56:55 is this is the only concern the
56:57 availability of this token because it
57:00 seems like if that is a concern that's
57:02 something perfect coin cash itself to
57:04 technically solve so that this nation
57:08 state can use Bitcoin Cash directly as a
57:11 currency if there's no other concern
57:13 than I just don't see the point of a
57:15 token with Bitcoin Cash to be used in
57:17 its place
57:21 the point where the national currency is
57:24 always tied to the local economy
57:26 so like Tedder a so like tethering it
57:31 directly to a like a global a global
57:35 internet currency that is tied to
57:37 multiple different nations economy it
57:40 might be very risky for a small nation
57:42 so they might be a parity issue on the
57:47 infrastructure that is already there
57:49 which is basically why you would you
57:52 would pray tokens on the on the base
57:53 consensus layer because you you're
57:55 basically your piggyback so instead of
57:57 bailing out this parallel infrastructure
57:59 for for tokens that is very complex you
58:02 just make it very simple instead and
58:04 just put it in the base layer and then
58:07 you suddenly can utilize the
58:09 infrastructure that's already there but
58:11 but I beg to disagree I mean again for
58:15 having discussed with people who want to
58:17 do this kind of nation state currencies
58:19 that are local and they want to have to
58:23 be I mean all of them were a very firm
58:24 on the fact that they want to be able to
58:26 undo whatever has been done and to have
58:29 the court of laws but basically you know
58:32 it's not code is load this is I've never
58:34 met people in political circles that
58:38 that we're even dreaming of the same
58:41 so so again I'm very much of the only
58:44 use case is to build a Bitcoin Cash
58:46 competitor we've in Bitcoin Cash but
58:48 I'm still trying to figure out where
58:51 what is the actual use case who who
58:53 would want that you know so what so what
58:57 one very big economy that is in in every
59:00 world it's the the gift card icon like
59:03 the gift card economist is huge and I
59:05 live in Japan every single company offer
59:09 you different customer loyalty points
59:11 and instead of Family Mart running their
59:14 own system for keeping track of all
59:15 their customer loyalty points they could
59:19 take it back on the exciton the existing
59:22 bacon cache function and yes issue token
59:26 this is deviating from what you stated
59:29 that group was for which is trustless
59:31 transfer of these tokens all of
59:33 everything but you just described
59:35 almost all of those are untransferable
59:37 like you read their terms and no company
59:40 wants you to transfer your points to
59:42 somebody else nobody wants to their gift
59:44 card money to go from one person to the
59:46 other
59:46 yeah but in in in this case they
59:49 wouldn't use it because they get they
59:50 they want different terms they suddenly
59:53 want customer loyalty points that are
59:55 transferable what is this there are
60:00 pretty but there's a pretty big gray
60:04 market for for airline points for
60:06 example we circled back to what I was
60:10 saying though all those give kept being
60:13 like family bought a lot point or
60:15 whatever a renewable or not depending on
60:19 family but of the airline or whoever
60:21 it's issuing that stuff yes so
60:24 effectively whether it was at the end
60:26 can choose to redeem or not right wait
60:29 so anyone might um
60:32 you cannot prevent the transfer but you
60:34 can look at the conference say well you
60:35 know I don't agree with that transfer so
60:38 I'm not gonna redeem those tokens
60:39 specifically any more
60:41 well I think that those kind of this
60:43 case could use counterparty or tokido or
60:46 any existing solution they don't need
60:48 whatever out-group provide on top of
60:51 this yeah but my point is the the only
60:54 trust
60:55 is that you you trust them too it will
60:57 actually guarantee the value you don't
61:00 trust them - actually the - you know you
61:04 don't trust and when it comes to
61:05 transfers or anything like that the only
61:08 thing they do you do when you do trust
61:13 them when you transfer because you trust
61:16 that they're gonna accept the transfer
61:17 coin at the end of the chain yes right
61:21 so the only difference is at what stage
61:24 of the process they can block the coins
61:29 you've not changed at all the fact that
61:32 you trust them of those coins to be
61:34 transferable yeah but then the value of
61:37 the value of the point will just the
61:39 value of the token right so say I'm
61:41 sending you use some of those point and
61:43 then you want to spend them with the
61:45 previous solution the issuer can stop
61:48 when I send you the coins and with the
61:52 opéra proposal the issuer cannot do that
61:54 so I sent you the coins but then they
61:56 sure can refuse to accept your coins
61:58 which effectively is just the same yeah
62:01 but but but then the value of those
62:02 tokens will go to close will go to zero
62:05 and suddenly they they lost you
62:08 understand like the security model is
62:11 just the same as any existing solution
62:14 photos if I block the transfer partway
62:18 down the chain because they have to be
62:20 involved in the actual transfer versus
62:24 the scenario where they don't actually
62:26 block anything until someone goes back
62:28 and tries to redeem them which might be
62:29 long after the point where they said I
62:31 want to block the transfer to achieve
62:33 the same effect all I actually have to
62:35 do is publish a blacklist if applied
62:38 blacklisted it then it doesn't matter
62:40 whether they're involved in the
62:41 transfers or not anybody who received a
62:43 token goes and checks the blacklist and
62:45 says okay well I know that's not going
62:47 to be redeemed I'm not going to accept
62:48 it well you don't even need a blacklist
62:50 like most companies have a whitelist
62:52 where they have a record of you know
62:54 who's ID purchased whatever points
62:57 coupon whatever and then they check your
62:58 ID when you redeem it if you're not the
63:00 same person it's tough shit I'd like to
63:04 just interrupt for a second we've been
63:06 going for about an hour now
63:07 I just want to check in with Emil and
63:09 Andrew do you guys feel like you're
63:12 being heard because I just need to
63:14 double-check that Emil no III think
63:24 everyone is talking about very different
63:27 things and I wonder yeah I don't know I
63:30 want to make this as comfortable for
63:32 everybody and I do feel like it's a
63:34 little awkward for you and Andrew Andrew
63:36 how are you feeling are you feeling like
63:38 you're being heard I don't really
63:43 understand that question I feel like
63:45 we're coming from very different
63:51 philosophical perspectives and I think
63:55 that this is a probably an unbridgeable
63:59 chasm from hearing other people's
64:02 perspectives just to give a simple
64:04 example when I hear people say well you
64:07 know the company wants or the government
64:10 wants you know control over the ability
64:14 to undo this kind of stuff right well
64:18 you know this the democracy is formed of
64:20 two parts one is the will of the
64:22 majority in the second is the Bill of
64:23 Rights and I'm aware of you know
64:26 personally aware of people who have lost
64:28 money in the stock market because some
64:33 trader
64:33 for example fat-fingered a bunch of
64:37 trades and this person was on the other
64:39 side of that and then those trades
64:41 because that trader was part of a big
64:44 company those trades were unwound right
64:47 so so you can't really ever undo
64:49 something without without screwing
64:54 someone over and the truth is to some
64:56 degree yes that some companies may not
65:01 adopt this tokenization scheme as in
65:04 preference to a centrally controlled
65:06 authority based ones at first anyway
65:09 because they want to have complete
65:13 control yet
65:15 what I hope is that the philosophy that
65:18 underlying Bitcoin becomes available for
65:22 companies that do want to effectively
65:26 create a users Bill of Rights for their
65:29 total yes very briefly I agree with the
65:39 idea of you don't want if your company
65:42 behaves badly you want to be able to get
65:46 reassurance that companies will behave
65:48 correctly
65:49 but again again yeah and I think we have
65:52 to go back to what Emily was saying in
65:56 the end you want to you need to trust
65:58 that they will be deemed as you see so
66:01 that they will issue dividends for the
66:03 shares you have and everything so so you
66:05 cannot remove entirely the company part
66:08 you know the issue of the trust issue
66:10 from the equation what you can do over
66:13 with something like Takeda
66:15 and also things like probably with
66:18 counterparty and whatnot is to have an
66:22 issuer behaves badly its visible for
66:25 everybody and so it will reflect
66:28 negatively on the price of the token or
66:31 whatever assets yeah they are carrying
66:34 so you see I do not see that as a
66:36 physical difference I see that as a way
66:38 that trust and verify remains you know
66:41 there and it's not and when I said that
66:45 some people make decisions
66:47 it's just aware to check trust and
66:51 verify that everybody on this token is
66:53 still binding to the very word that was
66:56 agreed upon so that is exactly that is
67:00 exactly what I said a couple of minutes
67:01 ago and you do having a list of SSL sort
67:08 of authorities that offender
67:10 authenticated you have all the full
67:12 nodes on the bacon cache functioning
67:14 that's a difference the logic the logic
67:16 you know in the real world the logic
67:19 when you have a real world I would say
67:22 complex token that is like large you
67:25 will have tons of edge cases that are
67:27 that we need to
67:29 accomodated you know if you issue
67:31 dividends or for your shares you can
67:35 make mistakes you know it's it's you can
67:38 make mistakes out are classes of subtle
67:41 mistakes and whatnot differences does
67:44 the infrastructure allow you to clawback
67:47 those mistakes or do you have to ask
67:50 nicely no I would do can you can you
67:54 I disagree with this thing you know the
67:57 blockchain is immutable so you cannot so
67:59 whenever you know it's publish it's
68:00 still there forever so I would rather
68:02 say that can you undo or correct or fix
68:07 your staff without anybody noticing No
68:10 so if then you have trust and verify if
68:12 you behave badly yes you can undo
68:14 whatever you want again it's the
68:16 protection of the individual against the
68:18 cumberly like in your specific example
68:21 so the tokay two people a clawback a
68:24 couple of transfers right so now it's
68:27 the onus is and then they you know to
68:30 stop the token value from failing they
68:34 published some reasons why right so now
68:36 the possession you know whatever so the
68:40 point is now the people who feel they've
68:43 been defrauded need to see the company
68:45 in the other case the company needs to
68:48 sue the people who they accidentally
68:50 gave the tokens to in order to get their
68:53 money back right so again the onus is on
68:55 who has to sort of take the extra step
68:58 to invoke essentially a legal apparatus
69:00 right in one case and with all the power
69:04 in the company and the force of
69:06 individuals to recourse to a legal
69:08 framework and the other case the company
69:11 does the recourse oh I disagree with
69:14 that it would not turn out that way
69:16 though the way I see it speaking you
69:20 have meta issuer do you see a token is
69:23 only worth if it's well behaved and
69:25 audited and whatnot so if you have a
69:28 token that is supposed to like a very
69:29 simple behavior like you know something
69:33 that is tangible and you know you you
69:35 you you want to preserve the mass of a
69:37 mass of tokens something that would be
69:38 just like a group what you will have is
69:42 that
69:42 we'll have specialized actors that money
69:45 told all of those tokens because it's
69:47 super easy to money told that they
69:49 behave exactly to Z I would say the
69:52 rules of up group no because it's it's
69:55 again it's very very straightforward so
69:57 and especially if they are completed
69:59 tour and they can produce improve one of
70:01 the experience so basically you can
70:04 trust the market that there will be
70:05 people who do automated monitoring and
70:08 so if you if you screw up and you want
70:13 you know to to you you want to misbehave
70:15 or fix something you know that the
70:18 penalty is that suddenly you are not
70:21 inside the nice tight up group like
70:25 framework that you had initially so that
70:28 means that for every certificate
70:30 authority that was saying well this
70:32 token is super vanillite sand up group
70:35 like token now you will have to
70:37 negotiate with every single automated
70:40 auditing company that you still a good
70:42 token and what not so it's like the cost
70:44 is very real you know it's not you
70:46 against one customers that if you
70:48 diverge from your model from on
70:50 transactions all the things that we are
70:52 purely automated and validating you as
70:55 as a pure vanilla perfectly reliable
70:57 issuer will basically have to special
71:00 case you I I have a hard time following
71:06 your your reasoning because the whole
71:08 point with the group tokenization
71:10 proposal is that you cannot misbehave it
71:13 is impossible the curse
71:16 it is based it is baked into the
71:18 consensus layer you can't but you can
71:22 always be spearhead if you do not redeem
71:24 the value at the end of the token you
71:27 know that's what yeah that is not a
71:29 that's not a problem unique to a
71:31 particular group that problem exists for
71:34 anything that issue tokens on any kind
71:37 of protocol yes group is not solving
71:41 that problem which seems to be the only
71:43 problem that authors
71:44 no but like then the tokens are traded
71:48 on an exchange an HD company behind the
71:50 token misbehaves the the value of that
71:53 token the world will plummet and that is
71:54 not really a problem do we actually need
71:58 to fix that problem but that that's the
72:00 point do we need to fix the problem of
72:02 people who merely chose action level
72:05 they can misbehave at the redeem level I
72:07 know and I'm going to interrupt again
72:09 just for a minute
72:10 we're about 15 minutes over the first
72:13 hour and we do have people that want to
72:16 leave I guess I'm going to look for a
72:18 consensus amongst this group if you
72:21 would like to continue for a while
72:23 longer and roughly how long how long so
72:27 if I could get some an indication or you
72:31 guys can find with continuing and or do
72:34 you want to schedule for an additional
72:36 meeting doing it this way again I'm
72:41 going to entertain feedback on that
72:43 I can't should be there for 20 minutes
72:46 but again I think it if there is an
72:50 agenda for next goal that would be
72:52 really what are the the actual use case
72:55 that we serve by having cash in cash oh
72:58 that's for me that's the one thing
72:59 weighs Syria should be the unique use
73:02 case yes okay so what you're saying is
73:06 that you would like to meet again but
73:07 you would like to have a different
73:09 format for the meeting a different
73:11 agenda I think the unique use case needs
73:16 to be identified and written up in a
73:18 document before I think how do you okay
73:22 can I get feedback from you Emil and
73:26 well I wouldn't call it a unique use
73:30 case like group is a tokenization
73:33 proposal for creating tokens that have
73:36 pretty much the same very very similar
73:41 properties as other token proposals the
73:43 big upside with group is that it gives
73:48 the very very simple functionality for
73:53 the for a fraction of the
73:56 actually about areum and other lay of
74:00 two solutions I think that basically
74:10 sums it up well even if there is like
74:20 even if there are several use cases each
74:21 hotel needs to be specified so we can
74:25 evaluate because we cannot continue in
74:27 that discussion we're happy where we
74:29 talk about one use case and then we
74:33 figure out that it turns out there are
74:35 some problem with das this case and
74:36 instead of praying down and we know we
74:38 jump to some other use case and again
74:40 and again and again and as a result we
74:43 get nowhere so even if there are several
74:46 use cases they need to be you know they
74:49 need to be identified and and we can go
74:51 over each of them and see you know
74:54 that's actually a solution to that use
74:56 case and if other stuff actually not a
75:00 solution to that and the second stuff
75:03 about the complexity I don't think it
75:04 removed any complexity just put the
75:06 complexity somewhere else or in that
75:09 case mostly in the consensus rules and
75:12 I'm not convinced it's a good trade-off
75:15 in the sense that the consensus reached
75:16 out to be fairly difficult to change
75:18 whereas who suicide of the coccyx roots
75:22 are much easier to change so it's moving
75:25 the complexity from somewhere where you
75:27 know it's easy to things if there is
75:29 something wrong or whatever it is
75:30 somewhere where it's very rigid which is
75:33 that you want a completely it is not
75:35 where you want to completely
75:43 need further comments I just think the
75:50 UH as far as the east case is going we
75:52 need to really justify why we put this
75:56 in consensus like what's really me crazy
75:59 what's the problem that solves that
76:01 justifies of being a consensus change
76:03 where we dilute the value of Bitcoin
76:05 cash against other versions of Bitcoin
76:09 cash oh well because I would say if
76:15 there even was very successful because
76:16 they did just this they put it in the
76:19 consensus layer because it made it very
76:23 easy for clients to validate each time
76:26 for now they're paying for a smart
76:29 contract they paying for smart contracts
76:31 it's different because we can also
76:34 become caches he take so based with
76:36 jumping from stage Morland than smart
76:39 contract and smart contract about state
76:41 but their thing for state in general and
76:43 state use the UT Exocet for us and I can
76:47 tell you for having worked in very
76:49 large-scale system managing state is by
76:52 far the hardest part and wheels and all
76:56 of that it comes from Monique and up
76:58 morally no problem CPU as long as your
77:01 career is immortality can luminaire it
77:03 and on board it the state you cannot
77:06 make it faster what's happening right
77:09 now all the logical systems such as
77:12 Facebook or whatever they do all they
77:16 can for you to never eat any of the art
77:18 right when you request them I think they
77:22 have a shit ton of heuristics that try
77:24 to predict what people I can access to
77:25 more and I've got really in memory they
77:28 try to direct you to cluster of machines
77:30 that already have the information that
77:33 you are likely to access and they do not
77:38 this for a reason because essentially
77:40 the on large-scale the time you need to
77:44 access your state is no direct meet with
77:46 the size of the state document because
77:52 you know if you have a small state you
77:54 can fit in
77:54 - it's very fast and
77:55 in pits in RAM and it's not as fast and
77:59 then it's you know maybe some memcache
78:03 server that is one hard way but it's
78:06 still a memory and then it feeds on some
78:08 SSDs somewhere and there it fits or some
78:10 breaks of out or somewhere then it fits
78:13 on some bigger writes about reading some
78:15 also data center reserved way right and
78:18 for each of those increase in the scale
78:22 of the amount of data you can store it
78:25 in performance this is exactly the
78:28 problem that a terraeum is I mean right
78:29 now the way the reason they are facing a
78:32 common thief right now it's because
78:34 their state don't fit in memory anymore
78:36 on most machines right this is exactly
78:39 the problem there Adam
78:57 anybody want to address one arm raise
78:59 Justin
79:00 I completely personally I completely
79:04 agree with this vision and and I would
79:08 add that most of what people are buying
79:11 from a theorem right now is the state
79:14 it's not even any kind of smart
79:16 capabilities and here what they are
79:20 buying is not because if you're amass a
79:23 super smart protocol is that they were
79:24 the only one who had some vanilla
79:28 prepackaged tooling to do so this is
79:31 right don't confuse the fact that you
79:34 need to emulate like solidity and
79:37 whatnot or even you know these kind of
79:39 things with the fact that if you don't
79:41 even have the to link you know to do it
79:43 conveniently no example tokido is is is
79:48 not complicated to implement but it's
79:50 fully and I take full responsibility for
79:52 that not implemented so no matter how
79:56 good or bad it could be it's just not
79:59 even coded so it cannot you know it and
80:01 I would say don't confuse the fact that
80:03 if you remember once there with some
80:06 tools that we're working but do not
80:08 scale with the fact that it's a desert
80:11 bowl orientation for the base layer of
80:14 beacon cache again it's probably very
80:17 desirable for things that are built on
80:19 top but not actually for the
80:21 consciousness rules themselves
80:30 does anyone have a sense that this
80:33 meeting is coming to an end I just don't
80:41 want to I just don't want to keep things
80:43 open if there's a no reason to continue
80:48 Andrew how are you feeling about the
80:50 meaning um well if anyone has some
80:54 additional comments and welcome to say
80:57 them I have a feeling that most of the
81:04 criticism is is against tokens in
81:08 general and to--and why we need tokens
81:10 in general and not specific to the group
81:14 implement the group implementation some
81:16 people don't agree that it shouldn't
81:17 that it should be in the consensus layer
81:19 but most of the discussions were having
81:22 is actually about tokhes in general it's
81:28 happening is with respect to the use
81:30 cases and actual requirements for a
81:33 token solution I mean I don't think any
81:38 of us actually want you know tokens to
81:41 not be available like I don't think it
81:44 doesn't impact any of us one way or
81:45 another whether they're available or not
81:47 unless you want to use it yourself so
81:50 there are two classes of token solutions
81:53 the ones that fit an OP return which is
81:56 in theory pruno bull for anyone who's
81:58 not interested in the tokens right and
82:01 then there are ones that require like
82:06 the end chain solution with multi-sig
82:08 they still have one you TXO per token
82:11 right so that solution would have the
82:13 same state problems this is what I think
82:16 a middle is getting to is you have the
82:18 exact same problems with that as you
82:20 would with out group in terms of the
82:22 size of the you TXO in terms of and then
82:25 with the OP group ones you still you
82:28 know if if tokens become important then
82:32 people will need to be verifying them
82:35 and so you still have that state and
82:39 sometimes it might be implemented
82:42 relatively and efficiently
82:45 regardless of some sums in theory like
82:49 it's kind of like the segue argument
82:51 right in theory you can run an old node
82:55 on the BTC network but no one's going to
83:01 yeah the way we see it's like for
83:04 example like if we begin a token if we
83:07 take input token functionality and the
83:11 base layer into the consensus protocol
83:12 then we we know for sure that every
83:15 single walk out there will be able to
83:16 support it so for example anyone that
83:19 shop anything at store tobacker calm
83:21 when they send the payment using the BIP
83:25 70 payment protocol we have we can just
83:28 send back some tokens that they can use
83:30 to get a discount next time they shop
83:32 and we don't actually we don't really
83:35 care if they sell these on the market
83:38 somewhere or anything but we guarantee
83:42 that if you if you have these tokens you
83:43 can use them to Ford to get a discount
83:46 in your store as long as our store is
83:48 open then maybe someday we'll shut down
83:50 the store and the talk is become
83:51 worthless but that's fine but that's
83:57 that's the whole point like so when we
84:00 are talking about these keys and
84:01 requirement that's what we are talking
84:05 about in your case so if they are token
84:07 based on the kind of shop come shouts
84:10 and stuff like that
84:11 none of the spoken are trustless right
84:16 because then they're the first when you
84:19 use that token you trust that the
84:20 Bitcoin dot-com shop is gonna really bad
84:23 fucking well they're trustless in the
84:26 way that only the only redeemable at
84:29 that at store they're gonna come for
84:32 example and we know that SVD wallet
84:35 clients can receive them we know that
84:38 every single wallet can receive them and
84:40 they can be traded without our
84:43 interference and one thing that we
84:46 actually have seen for example when come
84:49 this is this is very common among music
84:52 festivals so music festivals are very
84:55 often actually go bankrupt before
84:57 festival so what what other festival
84:59 usually do is that when they see the one
85:02 music festival goes bankrupt they see
85:04 like hey if you have a token if you have
85:06 a ticket for this music festival that's
85:08 not gonna happen you can get this you
85:10 can redeem this ticket and get a
85:12 discount if you buy a ticket to our
85:14 festival so store it up they're gonna
85:16 come closes the doors that a competitor
85:18 comes by and say like hey all you all
85:20 you guys have-have have these tokens to
85:24 get discounted become a counselor now
85:25 you can use them in our store instead
85:27 and get a discount not the same discount
85:30 but a discount and it's it's up to the
85:34 market to decide what how they value
85:36 these these times do you understand that
85:39 what a blockchain provide is a way to
85:42 you didn't infiltrate reconciliation in
85:47 the process planner so I if you are in a
85:52 trust less manner yes if you have to
85:58 trust someone to redeem your token at
86:00 the end of the road then putting it in
86:03 the blockchain that consistently or
86:05 provides you nothing yes I disagree with
86:09 that in the sense that um or a better
86:12 way to say what my disagreement is is
86:14 that I feel that Bitcoin Cash and
86:16 cryptocurrencies are effectively the
86:18 exact same boat and the proof of that is
86:21 the failure of large exchanges like
86:24 Mount cocks took the price and tanked it
86:27 right so what cryptocurrencies do is
86:29 they preserve trust what their trestles
86:32 at is preserving the quantity of this
86:36 ephemeral object right you own 10
86:39 Bitcoin Cash but it takes you know
86:42 centralized trusted companies and you
86:46 know overstock.com willing to redeem
86:49 these these tokens in order to give them
86:52 value so the value is you know connected
86:57 to the real world to entities like
86:59 companies who's who either are gonna
87:01 redeem them or the performance of the
87:03 company right but the quantities like
87:06 the currencies the quantity is is
87:11 you know enforced by the network but
87:13 really that's where Andrew that's where
87:15 you lost me again what you're telling me
87:18 is to create a mini Bitcoin Cash in
87:20 between cash no exactly as Emily was
87:23 present a competitor to become cash in I
87:26 never proposed that I think other people
87:28 might have talked about that but I see
87:30 you saying what are we talking about
87:33 because he if you had something where
87:35 the external world cannot interfere with
87:37 this token
87:38 basically we are talking of Bitcoin Cash
87:42 inside different cash no world can I
87:48 ownership of a quantity of it yeah but
87:52 the price can change based on the
87:55 success or failure of a company and so
87:58 forth and the same is true with Bitcoin
88:00 as a cryptocurrency no one can interfere
88:02 with your quantity but price is very
88:05 much variable but that's exactly you
88:10 know what talk it address for for the
88:13 price of a share in a company if a
88:18 company is visibly and remember we stock
88:22 a diaper be invisible
88:23 if a company visibly interfere with
88:27 transfer of their own shares then
88:30 basically their value is going to be
88:32 almost destroyed you know if they if
88:34 they've said that they would not do it
88:35 and they they are doing it so see it's
88:38 things I feel like they don't say that
88:40 in Turkey they say you know we do have a
88:44 blacklist and this is part of our
88:47 operating procedure and you know that is
88:50 considered just a known thing and then
88:54 people start using the blacklist and so
88:57 then individuals can be selectively
88:59 eliminated from the ability to transfer
89:07 of the proof of work system so anyone
89:11 can mine so you need 51% of the miners
89:14 to get together to create I'm going to
89:17 give you an example I can do that with a
89:19 company okay I've issued share
89:24 to 1,000 people and I one of them I
89:28 don't like so I'm a company I want let's
89:30 look at issue shares who up group and
89:32 one of the personal issue I I don't like
89:36 this person I say you out so your share
89:39 do not count this is a group so what do
89:42 I do
89:42 is as I say that everything that touched
89:45 this thing is tainted so I don't care if
89:48 you do makes you try to do anything I
89:51 just say that this one is tainted and
89:54 every share orders beware um as far I'm
89:58 concerned everything that touches this
90:00 address or whatever is tainted and will
90:02 be rejected when it will come to pay the
90:05 dividends to give money to everyone
90:07 because that's how you redeem you know
90:10 you your share in a way where you're
90:12 being paid by dividends I will just
90:15 appear dividends that are for anything
90:17 that is lineage so I understand that
90:21 example that's always been an you know
90:25 an open question of whether that would
90:27 ever happen in Bitcoin certainly has the
90:29 possibility so I think a more realistic
90:34 situation though is because the company
90:37 wouldn't identify an individual and then
90:39 issue shares to that individual and then
90:41 they therefore and they they choose to
90:45 deny that individual of their shares
90:46 right so what happens is maybe in the
90:48 course of trading you know the the
90:53 shares might go to an individual who
90:55 could not directly redeem those shares
90:58 from the company perhaps because they
91:00 live in a different country or something
91:01 but then that individual could sell
91:05 their shares on to someone who could
91:07 redeem the you know Takeda you publish a
91:12 transaction is basically say I transfer
91:15 the ownership of this to from for me to
91:18 somebody else the company diligently you
91:21 know process and do not really care
91:22 about with with their so you see you're
91:24 telling me the person are you you say
91:26 other black cased identify so I tell you
91:29 well a black list you can see not force
91:31 a black trees with a book it's not it's
91:34 not a problem
91:34 generally you're effectively arguing
91:37 that we
91:37 need mining right because the the all
91:41 the arguments are making are and you may
91:47 actually be true correct it's an open
91:49 question whether if someone created like
91:52 you know a a blockchain based on a huge
91:55 multi-sig whether it would succeed or
91:58 not but again here you're describing
92:03 you're describing a currency like a pure
92:07 digital currencies that is just like
92:09 Bitcoin Cash so let's get back to you
92:11 give me an example of shares that can be
92:15 cents old and you were saying we without
92:18 group it cannot be censored with a
92:20 blacklist so I give you an example that
92:22 I can do a blacklist exactly without
92:26 group because I just need to blacklist
92:27 as MOA was pointing out at the time of
92:30 where you want to redeem whatever value
92:33 so you see so you can do block it so
92:35 let's go back to this example do you
92:37 have you see let's not jump from one one
92:40 example to another so no and with you
92:44 and that's that system can also be
92:47 applied to crypto currencies right
92:49 the group is no more powerful than
92:51 crypto currencies a government could say
92:53 the coins in this address are anathema
92:57 and anyone caught holding them or a
92:59 descendant of these coins are gonna be
93:01 instantly thrown in jail right and they
93:04 could just publish that true right but
93:06 somehow crypto currencies have until now
93:10 avoided that problem what I'm very
93:11 worried about in Tokita is that a
93:14 government says you company who are
93:18 authorizing transactions you know I have
93:21 a face in a name to that company and if
93:23 you create a block that contains a spend
93:27 of this transaction then individually
93:30 I'm going after you and you're a very
93:32 large company with hundreds of million
93:33 dollars and you're worth going after as
93:35 opposed to you know you know like in the
93:39 cryptocurrencies sort of thing market
93:41 people could just kind of but with up
93:43 group you can do that as well you know
93:46 this example
93:48 let's move a little coin in cripple
93:54 occurs in general that an exchange can
93:57 us decide like well your Bitcoin Cash I
94:00 don't want them the covers are tainted
94:02 and let's take the same example this is
94:09 not a group this is not a group problem
94:12 no no let's go back to the initial use
94:16 case so we have the company in and
94:18 you're making a proposition and you're
94:20 saying the proposition is that a company
94:22 can have its shares treated more freely
94:25 with a group without interference from a
94:27 government then it is from tokido is it
94:30 what you're saying Andrew so that I know
94:32 what is the proposition on the table yes
94:35 okay so I'm saying I disagree on that I
94:39 am saying that you can as a government
94:41 censor a group or try to interfere with
94:46 a group just as much as you can with
94:48 something like Takeda why because the
94:51 only things that you have to do is to
94:53 interfere with the values that is being
94:56 redeemed ad C doesn't matter if the
95:01 transaction happened with all without
95:04 the control of the company all you have
95:06 to do is to appear at the time when you
95:08 want to have no right and so that would
95:12 be correct at least in the United States
95:15 if the tokens were fungible right but
95:17 that's not actually correct for
95:19 something like US dollar right like if
95:21 you if you're if someone if someone
95:24 sells you a like a diamond right and
95:28 someone can prove that that diamond is
95:30 the stolen diamond then the original
95:35 owner gets it back but four dollars
95:37 actually even if you could kind of prove
95:40 look I gave you that ten dollar bill
95:42 this sort of dollars are kind of I'm not
95:45 a lawyer but they're legally defined as
95:47 fungible and so what happens is when the
95:48 when the crook is caught all of that
95:51 money kind of goes into a pot and
95:53 everybody who who had anything stolen
95:55 from them gets a portion of that money
95:57 right so the same situation hopefully
96:00 happens with
96:02 right and so what happens is you say oh
96:05 you know look this stuff is fungible and
96:07 unfortunately I you know I am a I am NOT
96:11 a criminal and I have a few shares and I
96:15 got them from this guy and he's not a
96:16 criminal and he got him from this guy
96:18 and this guy and this guy and maybe the
96:19 criminal took those blacklisted coins
96:22 and maybe he sent them to a million
96:24 people to try and taint everybody right
96:26 I mean back in the hole in 2012 and 13
96:29 we talked about all these scenarios and
96:31 the end result is that you end up with
96:33 this huge mess of of either everybody is
96:36 tainted or you just have to say it's
96:39 fungible but it's the same with again
96:42 it's the same waste okay now you know if
96:44 you have a token where the entire
96:47 ecosystem you know trust your simple
96:50 mechanism of having your fungible token
96:52 so imagine you know the fact that people
96:54 can transact it together you simply say
96:56 there is a bunch of coins at this
96:59 address that address can no longer be
97:01 spent so there's no way to like
97:05 distribute paint and do fungibility yes
97:08 this is the same if you just say because
97:13 the same thing can happen with takeda
97:15 same thing can happen on RC 20 yes the
97:30 reason is that it's much harder with a
97:32 cryptocurrency and that is why Bitcoin
97:34 has proof-of-work mining it doesn't have
97:37 signatures by a bunch of Bitcoin is born
97:40 in the blue ocean so it's a very
97:42 different kind of yes very different
97:45 again utility tokens they are born good
97:47 side of the blockchain so you're already
97:48 trusting someone to an extent and the
97:52 question is you just put them in the
97:55 blockchain do I trust that person more
97:58 value or the not the quantity you're
98:01 trusting the value the price not the
98:03 transmissibility and the
98:06 transmissibility if you have a company
98:09 where you do not let people diligently
98:12 transact and everybody will see that
98:14 with
98:15 something like Tokido then basically the
98:17 value will climate and your thing is
98:20 worthless you know if if you go on the
98:24 blockchain and look at issue shares on
98:26 the blockchain say no it's completely
98:28 tradable and actually it's not the value
98:32 is nothing people would not just trust
98:34 it and would go to zero you know again
98:37 the company doesn't have an option but
98:40 you stick to its own 22 and ability
98:43 rules because if they do not people see
98:46 and the value they add did provide the
98:49 economic value of the token is it's
98:53 nothing you know it if you omit or token
98:56 and you don't even stick to your own
98:57 rules why would the market assign any
99:00 economic value to that they won't
99:05 basically talk it out that's all you see
99:07 we stock it up what you have is that if
99:10 somebody cheats the value of the token
99:12 goes to zero is a group if somebody
99:15 cheats to zero as well I don't think
99:21 that's true and but there is a
99:23 requirement to change and not the other
99:26 that's a that's what we've been sitting
99:28 around for the beginning we need some
99:31 use case where you can be like I can do
99:34 that with a group I cannot do that
99:36 we stock it up and there is like here is
99:39 the kind of size of the market we are
99:41 aiming for I I wouldn't call every I
99:45 wouldn't say that everything is that
99:47 binary I would I would basically grade
99:50 things and said and I wasn't basically
99:53 graded instead and yes a like well a
99:56 group behaves like this and on a scale
99:59 from one to ten its course this and took
100:02 header scores this value on this
100:05 different requirement that we have so
100:08 when it comes to transferability then
100:10 group would definitely score ten out of
100:11 ten that you have I've been asking for
100:17 these requirements for months now so
100:19 there there are no requirements that you
100:21 have there in the document no I mean I
100:24 mean I think the the bar to eat again
100:28 my opinion on that is at the bar for
100:30 something to which you know protocol
100:32 level it has it cannot be a shade of
100:35 gray it has to be something that is like
100:38 100 percent crystal clear to be
100:40 absolutely miserable but can be cannot
100:43 be shade of gray it has to be something
100:45 that is like very important something
100:49 that where the alternative is is
100:52 literally very very bad it's not you
100:55 know you don't have great stuff because
100:57 it could be tiny bit more better because
101:00 for example I returned the argument that
101:02 you were saying or if we add this to the
101:05 protocol layer then everyone that has to
101:07 do it or will do it and from my
101:10 perspective this is attacks on the wall
101:12 ecosystem you know every single drop of
101:16 complexities that you put on the base
101:18 layer is attacks that needs to be paid
101:21 by every single entity company team
101:24 implementing software extra that will
101:26 interact with it can cache so this you
101:30 have to be incredibly parsimonious in
101:33 that so that's why I reject you know the
101:36 proposition that it can be just a shade
101:37 of gray and say 8 out of 10 just to be
101:41 like but yeah and and and and that's my
101:44 point like for for most of little cars
101:47 we have the the group of poster scores
101:50 10 out of 10 for most things while the
101:53 other I can layer for nationwide
101:58 currencies it doesn't work for shares
102:02 realistically for shares are pretty much
102:05 any company you do not work for for even
102:09 for gift cards not work you won't again
102:13 sorry I I pretty much disagreed my prime
102:18 the government wizard group is that a
102:20 lot of the 10 pages are use cases that
102:23 I've identified part of the tokoto
102:25 proposal our group is serving none of
102:27 them
102:29 that's that my problem is that for group
102:31 I cannot even find a single use case
102:34 where it would be a satisfying answer
102:40 that's where I preferably disagrees
102:42 right this is where we basically get
102:44 into philosophy arguments right they
102:48 that will work
102:49 you say well why is because we want to
102:52 protect the individual against these
102:55 companies to some degree and you are
102:57 more acceptable and think that a company
103:02 can be made of one person sorry I
103:05 completed not for my perspective
103:08 thinking of Facebook versus the common
103:10 man I'm even thinking of companies a
103:12 company is nothing a better way to say
103:17 it would be protect the token owner
103:19 against the issuer yeah everything is
103:22 about protecting the token holder and
103:24 and make sure that you have very that
103:27 the token is always fungible and that
103:29 it's it's it can never be blocked and it
103:32 doesn't require a secondary
103:34 infrastructure or a parallel with I know
103:39 that there is no solution on the table
103:41 that forces the Redeemer to redeem is
103:47 not not perfect enough that problem is
103:50 not related to the Consensus business
103:52 problem because the only purpose of the
103:55 consensus layer is to maintain right
103:57 they're not worried about who who may or
104:01 may not redeem it or who may or may not
104:03 want to buy it on exchange double dips
104:07 it's very important right the fact that
104:09 sigh of like physical Amazon 50-odd
104:12 the fact that if I give it to someone
104:15 someone comes it's like I know it cannot
104:17 give it away or if I give it to someone
104:19 and that person can redeem it at Amazon
104:21 see no doesn't change anything
104:25 Amazon give us everything but you know
104:30 what porn like in most cases you are
104:33 trusting Amazon to redeem it or not
104:36 really me right like you would trust
104:38 Amazon I'm not remember but a lot of
104:40 people don't care about redeeming their
104:43 Amazon giftcards they just want to sell
104:44 it or bake on cash for example on
104:46 secondary markets they're not going to
104:49 be able to so the
104:51 grupe Amazon giftcard if once you
104:54 transfer Amazon know you've transported
104:56 and then they just zero the values are
105:01 meant to be transferred their gift cards
105:05 gift cards from loyalty points right no
105:09 no most cards are not meant to be
105:10 transferred they very specifically state
105:12 on them that they're not to be
105:14 transferred they're provided as a gift
105:16 and then activated by the person they
105:18 were gifted to the points themselves
105:20 were not transferred from the gift so in
105:27 a weird because I can just buy gift
105:30 cards from like gift calm on my phone
105:34 and then I can transfer them to other
105:35 people
105:37 limitation of having physical gift cards
105:41 that has nothing to do with the intent
105:48 on your phone can you transfer those and
105:52 drew the problem is that with what you
105:55 described if you have a gift card that
105:56 can be completely freely transferred
106:00 that has monetary value no me no
106:02 monetary value and everything then and
106:05 that can be even you know in the case of
106:07 a token split merge and everything this
106:10 thing cannot be differentiated anymore
106:12 from being a digital currency just like
106:14 between cash so that bring us back to
106:17 what Emily was was pointing out is what
106:20 you've introduced is a competitor to be
106:23 can cash in became cash well it's you
106:26 know it's not really true because the
106:31 company is realizing the revenue of
106:34 selling the gift card and I think I
106:36 think that a company still wants to sell
106:38 gift cards even though US dollars exist
106:40 right for a variety of reasons I have to
106:43 do with Sony or US dollars so when they
106:48 get revenue or Bitcoin Cash and you
106:50 still need to hold bacon cash maybe the
106:52 transfer done somewhere which means that
106:54 the one that wants the token they need
106:57 to get back on cash then why but again
107:00 if you if you want to have a company
107:02 that is like having the monetary value
107:04 in
107:05 custody so that can be redeemed again AB
107:07 group AutoCAD ah are still the exact
107:10 same weakness is that you are trusting
107:12 the issuer to redeem the monetary value
107:14 of the gift card at the end of the chain
107:17 so if adding up group does not change
107:19 anything again I'm very in this specific
107:23 example you 100% dependent for a gift
107:27 card on the company with doing the gift
107:30 card to be deemed a monetary value well
107:32 that's like saying like I'm 100%
107:35 dependent on that I'm able to like sell
107:38 my my random shit coin on an exchange
107:42 for for me to want to hold it like it's
107:47 a same problem and I don't really think
107:49 that the redeeming issue is is like not
107:54 something that's well I don't even know
107:57 what we've discussing the redeeming
107:59 issue here because we are telling you
108:03 you are missing the trust from one point
108:05 to another you are not creating
108:07 something that is just less you know
108:11 just like shuffling you're just they
108:13 think the problem putting it somewhere
108:14 else and pretending there is no problem
108:16 anymore
108:17 exactly and with the first line we're
108:20 arguing that's not strictly true because
108:22 you can sell the coin to an individual
108:25 who can redeem it the whole sequence of
108:32 transactions aren't actually fungible
108:39 you know but this fact hasn't been
108:42 exploited yet or maybe ever and if you
108:46 use more advanced cryptography the
108:48 fungibility increases right so you are
108:52 essentially correct that up group gains
108:54 a lot of its functionality why would
108:58 they even use it in the first place
108:59 though that's the point like all of
109:01 these companies and most of the use
109:03 cases want to be able to do that you
109:05 have a very limited use case for op
109:06 group right now I know it's almost
109:08 nothing once be able to do what want to
109:13 be able to control how transfers are
109:16 done by any token that needs to
109:18 control how transfers are done will not
109:20 use up group and you have yet to give
109:22 one solid example of a situation where
109:25 the issuer would not want to control the
109:27 terms under which was transferred well
109:30 well the biggest use case for for group
109:33 that that I think is most likely that's
109:36 probably no one really wants to admit is
109:38 I cos there you go for how the tokens
109:44 are transferred I said okay i ciose icos
109:52 five concern cannot be differentiated by
109:55 just emitting regular shares it's just a
109:58 different more modern way of ventilating
110:01 your shareholders and who owns what and
110:04 to make it more fluid and more credible
110:06 but we are back to what i discussed
110:08 multiple times which was the case shares
110:11 ain't no i co is equivalent to sure it's
110:14 exactly there is no i co is just like
110:16 just it's actually a public a public
110:21 offering of shares of a company yeah
110:24 twenty
110:25 there's entrance and your shares have
110:28 only value you know on the real world a
110:32 share of a company has only value
110:33 because you expect people expect that
110:37 dividends will be paid and the
110:39 expectation of dividends but they keep
110:41 built into the price of the share but
110:44 ultimately wanted percent of the value
110:47 of a share of a company lies to the
110:49 future dividend that will be paid and so
110:53 as you can always interfere with the
110:57 fact that you will pay on no dividends a
111:00 group do not give you any extra
111:03 protection compared to something like
111:05 tokido or on me or whatever and ERC 20
111:11 in order to transfer this token jacked
111:13 we have to call the ERC 20 smart crack
111:15 contract which has a transfer function
111:18 it can in fact we're yeah but most most
111:22 IC o---- togas don't because most IC
111:24 o---- tokhes they just want a basic
111:26 simple token that's because most i cos
111:28 are scams and they don't give a shit
111:30 about the token anyway but you see
111:32 do not confuse that's what I was saying
111:34 do not confuse the need to have a state
111:37 which was the primary interest in the
111:40 evolution of the stay conveniently and
111:43 package such ESC 20 with the fact that
111:46 you do it without group or with any
111:48 other alternative mechanism what I'm
111:50 saying is that if you have something
111:52 that is nicely packaged built on cooking
111:55 or similar via its that is as packaged
111:59 as what you can find right now on if you
112:01 REM that has the same user experience
112:03 people would use a public company
112:06 offering on top of it in cash as much as
112:09 they would on top of if um but the
112:12 selling point is having a user
112:14 experience that is simple and package
112:16 and a trust model that is trust and
112:19 verify because ultimately the trust is
112:21 on the issuer this is it there is
112:24 nothing more there is no cryptographic
112:27 mechanism in that it's it's all
112:30 dependent entirely on the Israel and
112:32 Israel its own interests economic
112:35 interest is to make its own shares as
112:37 credible as possible we are closing in
112:42 on two hours for this conversation and
112:45 Andrews this is your meeting I just
112:47 wonder do you want to go around the room
112:50 and get a sense of the support for our
112:53 group by letting individuals speak put
112:57 sure
112:59 okay let's maybe start with Andrea
113:02 you've been here can you hear us okay
113:08 maybe not arias is muted oh nice muted
113:13 anything okay so let's move along and
113:17 we're just going to go through the
113:18 people that are here and then I have a
113:20 question about this meeting than almost
113:23 after this shade do you want to speak to
113:26 this and we're looking for aces no I
113:34 mean I'm not going to support it until
113:36 it allows the issuer to specify transfer
113:38 controls okay I don't necessarily have
113:42 to but it needs to be specifiable
113:47 Jason do you wanna speak to um I don't I
113:51 don't think making any changes to the
113:52 protocol level makes sense unless unless
113:56 there's some sort of token ization use
113:59 case that that requires restlessness and
114:04 essentially removes the Redeem ability
114:07 requirement because the Redeem ability
114:08 it just doesn't mesh well with the the
114:11 trust lessness requirement so it seems
114:14 like either a bitcoin patch or two data
114:17 work for all the use cases that have
114:20 been discussed so far in my opinion
114:24 okay Steve shadows human speakers I
114:33 questions around use cases has already
114:36 been expressed however I do recognize
114:38 that there is a powerful appetite for
114:42 being able to meet the set of
114:43 requirements that have been listed in
114:47 the in the group proposal that was going
114:54 to get blue I personally have a
115:00 assembled a team within in China in the
115:03 last few weeks with a view to delivering
115:06 an alternative solution because I
115:08 believe that all of those requirements
115:09 can be met without consensus layer in
115:15 terms of the requirements that actually
115:17 require a consensus layer I think a
115:19 secondary consensus layer is is very key
115:23 Bitcoin Cash so I would Hilty to
115:29 consider me as an individual within
115:33 Spain as opposed to do the voice lament
115:35 I mean when I say that I'm going to
115:38 produce something soon it will be a
115:41 probably a drastic start circulating in
115:48 a few weeks time it's going to be a
115:50 suspect if it really received support
115:54 obviously it's going to be a convening
115:56 expect to proposal
115:59 if it was a support and I have the
116:05 assurances of Germany that I will be
116:06 here in one of the results because I
116:08 mean - welcome to manna-fest it as a
116:12 real thing quickly okay Jonas do you
116:18 want to speak to our group
116:21 yes I mean again for me bottom line is
116:24 something eat the protocol layer it has
116:28 to have like a completely clear-cut
116:33 upside value for for for between cash
116:37 and right now the the poem that I see
116:41 that it does not pass this bar compared
116:43 to alternative options that's that you
116:46 see that's there is no differential and
116:48 that's my primary reproach I'm still
116:50 liking a use case where it would make a
116:54 game-changing difference where it's it's
116:57 not just shade of gray but something we
117:00 can do all you can't and here I do not
117:03 see that I do not have a use case that
117:05 is clearly where a group would let you
117:08 do something that you cannot do
117:09 otherwise
117:11 Thank You Jonas Brad yeah I pretty much
117:17 what you also probably articulated in
117:20 Aachen okay and right now I want to give
117:25 you an opportunity to speak are you able
117:27 to hear us
117:29 yeah immune you you hear me yes yes no
117:34 I'm just doing too late to get something
117:37 meaningful to say I just I just what I
117:40 was able to to all just the last part
117:44 the last 20 minutes and not even all all
117:47 of them so I was referring to all right
117:53 thank you Omri I think your last on the
117:56 list here yes sir I cannot return the
118:00 the general idea I don't think there is
118:03 a strong enough for the use case that
118:04 presented that justify changing their
118:08 consciousness repeal that because so far
118:12 so as far as I can see the disc is
118:16 presented all are moving shuttling the
118:20 trust around rather than removing it and
118:23 so intelligent solution to essentially
118:27 this you know do the same thing with the
118:30 same amount just in there just like
118:33 jumping stuff around but shifting
118:35 saffron is not a good enough reason to
118:36 change the console
118:39 thank you all right
118:41 Emile do you want to do a wrap-up on
118:43 your position as well yeah so yes my
118:46 position is that we want to talk in
118:48 protocol there works as cache and the
118:50 use is the Bitcoin and network to
118:52 transfer tokens instead of using a
118:55 parallel network that SPV wallets can of
118:58 access a token protocol they use this a
119:01 second consensus layer would be less
119:04 used than a protocol on the first layer
119:06 and mode and mostly be used by us like
119:09 changes and hosted wallets and full
119:11 notes so I like the group token would
119:16 cover 100% of all bch users while a
119:19 second layer solution like Takeda would
119:21 not it would only cover like a very much
119:26 smaller group and it would drive a lot
119:29 of users to hosted wallets I like
119:31 watching the info bit gonna calm and
119:33 copay and exchanges which is what what
119:36 we're seeing what we have seen with Omni
119:39 and in Tedder and Roy do you want to say
119:44 some final words we can continue the
119:46 conversation afterwards I just I just
119:48 recent no I think that I'm thank you for
119:51 you know all of your feedback but I
119:54 don't have any final words to say
119:56 because I wrote the document right so my
119:58 philosophy is encoded in the document
120:03 all right I will in it to entertain a
120:06 motion to adjourn if that's what the
120:08 group would like to do if not continue
120:11 on how a motion to adjourn
120:16 it's 2:00 a.m. here something I gotta go to bed
120:19 thank you all for attending
120:21 I will make the rough transcript available if I have time to do it but I'll talk to Andrew about that and if
120:31 you would like to go any further with this I think we'll have to continue and
120:37 we're joking right all right bye
120:41 everybody