hi everyone my name is Paul storks this
presentation is about Drive chain which is   a proposal for a two-way peg enabling Bitcoin side
chains side chains are great for a lot of reasons   you’ll see the block logo in the in the corner of
the presentation because I work for block now and   Jeff gave me a lot of time to work on this so
I thought it was least I could do let’s put the   little logo everywhere so just ignore it if you
don’t like that kind of thing this presentation   is gonna be about increasing bitcoins ability
to do things so in particular I’m gonna answer   one question that I get a lot from the technical
community which is why does my design involve the   Bitcoin miners so much that’s mostly what this is
gonna be about so I’m just these you don’t need   to be you don’t need to like read this or anything
this is just I’m just mentioning that this is Greg   Maxwell Bitcoin genius and he is he is picked
up on this that there’s a more tightly coupled   model where some miners are required to verify
the side chain that’s true in addition I have   some comments from Bitcoin wizards where a lot of
people hang out and this gentleman mr.

H is saying   that he’s not sure that this manual corroboration
on the part of the miners of the chain fidelity or   integrity is a starter there the I’m gonna argue
it’s actually quite the reverse if you don’t have   something like this around that’s a non-starter
but we’ll get into that so in general the long and   short of it is that people do not want the miners
to have control over which side chains are there   or not there but I do and I would like to explain
why my view might be so different from views that   are commonly expressed in the technical community
so here it is in one slide and I’m gonna walk you   through this slide this represents the idea of
Bitcoin with five side chains one two three four   five so over here I have this row I have like
entities this would be like the Bitcoin miners   so everyone who does double 2:56 mining over here
we got everyone who does mining and sha-3 this is   fictional I just made this up I know there are
alt coins that use this though and then over   here we have random other miners they use md5 I
just again this is made up this is just to show   that these are three different groups of people or
at least three different accounting groups and so   each of these three groups is represented by this
color here the Bitcoin miners have two side chains   these little arrows and these little cylinders
over here this group has one Bitcoin side chain   just this guy these people have two over here
okay so that’s that’s kind of the setup these   are the entities these are the rewards that each
entity gets per block that they mined so over   here of course the Bitcoin miners get a coinbase
transaction which is currently 25 bitcoins but   we have two twelve and a half bitcoins per block
and they also get the transaction fees from the   Bitcoin network presumably they also get either
transaction fees or some other kind of payment   some kind from their side chains and presumably
these miners also get some kind of payment from   their side chains so these are little arrows to
represent the flow of money in and out of what’s   going on over here so one single slide it’s going
to be a problem if what these guys here in red the   side chains that are mined by the same people and
also by other people these side chains may affect   the value of all of this to this entity and if
what they are doing is going to affect these   people they should have some kind of say in what
goes on and and by effect I mean that they might   affect the purchasing power of these you know
the the exchange rate of these coins they might   become less or more valuable but I also mean that
it might affect just the total quantity of stuff   received by each entity so that’s the entire point
of this presentation is that these people should   get a say in stuff that can ruin their line of
business and so the problem to just make it very   clear is that there’s this expectation in my view
an incorrect expectation that these contracts are   additive and then you can just take one and add Y
and you end up with what you had before plus y and   then you can take that and you can add X to it and
you end up with what you had before plus X so this   is the expectation so you take something you add
y dedd X you end up with something that’s y and   X and I think that’s a little naive the reality
is more ecological than that you can add Y and   you can add X and then something can happen and Y
and X can actually cancel each other out and I’ll   explain more about that later so here are some
metaphors for this problem so one metaphor is   an invasive species we’ll be explaining that
in a little while but this is a zebra mussel   they used to live in this tiny Russian lake or
something but now they’ve spread throughout the   entire Great Lakes region of the United States
I mean it’s good for the zebra mussel but it’s   bad for a human being so you have to decide what
you care about and you can take this concept to   an extreme this idea of a grey goo someone builds
a tiny little a very small assembler that copies   itself and since it’s so small and it’s so good
at copying and it more or less eats anything by   design this is a totally fictional this is a
fictional construction but in theory once you   build this thing it just takes over the world in a
few hours and everyone’s dead and there’s nothing   there’s nothing alive on the planet except for
these things so again good for them but you have   to be mindful of what you’re introducing to an
environment before I move on to this spam example   let me just explain that what it is is this you
have a you have this this concept of a finite   shared resource so here there’s the earth and and
we need food to survive so if either we’re eating   the food or the grey goo is eating it and or where
the grey goo is eating us eventually so over over   here it’s a literal atmosphere but here it’s an
atmosphere for conversation because you really   can’t listen to four or five conversations at once
just noise and eventually if you try to listen to   a hundred conversations at once you can’t really
hear any of them it’s just really annoying it   consumes this you’re the scarce environment of
sound and these scarce environment of attention   and your brain and so this is why even stuff like
4chan which is like Internet Anarchy is moderated   obsessively for being stuff that’s being on topic
so if you add it all together you get this kind   of 1984’s concept that censorship is expression
if you want to live in a world that has things   like Mozart and symphonies and architecture
and computers you’re going to have to censor   the gray goo character you cannot have a little of
everything so that’s the metaphor for the problem   so restated we want smart contracts that’s what
we all want right or so I thought and what we want   is a contract that enforces itself we don’t need
anyone to do anything right but even though that   was obvious what’s not obvious is that see this
positive thing is part of the obvious it’s obvious   that you don’t want it to be the case that someone
has to approve the contract but what isn’t obvious   is that this permission could be negative you
would you we don’t want to be in a position where   there are a hundred people in a room and if any
one of those hundred people say no the contract   dies it’s much worse than the original position
which is that you needed to go to person number   eight for approval now any of the 100 people can
interfere with the contract which is exactly what   we don’t want so that’s just a restatement we
don’t want here’s another Restatement to make   it just clear about what I’m complaining about if
we want to have real smart contracts we can’t have   permissionless implementation you can innovate
all you want you can code up something on your   own computer and you can test it out and you
can argue for it you can run it on your own   computer you can get other people to run it but
we don’t want to be in a situation where anyone   could just run anything on the contracts that we
already have which is why I’ve set up this idea of   a barrier which is controlled by the miners which
is a good thing and not a bad thing and I’m gonna   explain I’m gonna try to explain why okay what
I’m saying is do all the R&D you want in the   turing-complete C++ compiler I mean I couldn’t
care less but if you want to bring it into the   environment you’re gonna need to pass some barrier
okay so over here on the Left we have a good set   up or someone builds the alarm clock and brings it
over to Bitcoin as a Bitcoin contract if the alarm   clock for those of you don’t know it basically
like starts sending away your money if you don’t   get out of bed that’s the in theory it’s kind of
mostly a joke but it’s a kind of funny idea so and   then over here someone has allowed this would be
sort of like a rootstock or an etherium if they’ve   allowed something across the barrier that that
enables new contracts in here this is a bad setup   and we’re gonna get into why that’s bad right now
so here’s the talk outline it’s gonna be in three   parts I’ve got two examples of cannibalism of the
smart contracts harming each other and destroying   each other which is this over here one of
those is going to be the destruction of the   oracle contracts which are in my view the entire
really the entire point 80% to 90% of the entire   value-add smart contracts at all this second
example is sort of for fun it’s this one is quite   serious and very legitimate in imminent threat
to something important this one is just kind of   me pushing the limits of turing completeness in
particular and I’m gonna steal bitcoins without   knowing that person’s private key and so it’s it’s
gonna be quite a performance and it’s a little   outlandish but it’s for demonstration purposes
only so and then the second part will be some   theory on why you didn’t even want permissionless
implementation actually because there’s nothing   you really get out of it in fact I’m gonna argue
that if you’re a Bitcoin of sort of opposites of   each other in a major important way and then
thirdly it’s going to get very theoretical   where I’m gonna say that Bitcoin as well as all
blockchain projects is a subset of the field of   game theory or not the fields of computer science
it’s no more computer science than video poker is   computer science in my view and I’m gonna try
to explain why I think that that matters for   this concept of permissionless yes so it probably
pretty interesting my guess is it’ll end up going   on for a while and so just shut the presentation
on officers you you can’t handle it anymore

As found on YouTube

FREE traffic, Autoresponder, Page Builder, Popup Creator, Link Tracker, and to Make Money Now!