A Sovereign Bitcoiner's Manifesto

[OroroMunroe]

More than mildly, it annoys us that we have the tools to be truly sovereign and yet we continue to submit our ourselves, and our bitcoin, to centralised authorities. "Privacy is necessary for an open society in the electronic age"; yet KYC is demanded before we can trade."Not your keys, not your coins"; yet millions of bitcoin sit in the vaults of custodial exchanges and wallets.

For monetary liberty to be widespread it must be part of the social contract. We must come together to deploy decentralised systems that maintain Bitcoin's promise of sovereignty. These tools already exist and they are improving.

Awakening Our Inner Apex Predator
"When Satoshi genetically engineered bitcoin, he spliced DNA from organisms that never survived (B-money, Hashcash, Bit gold). This gives bitcoin an incredible amount of survivability and fierceness. It makes it the apex predator of money."

Billions of dollars in cryptocurrency is traded, lent and borrowed on platforms that have self-custody and no KYC. Billions of dollars in cryptocurrency but not bitcoin. This decentralized financial system is called DeFi. Many Bitcoiners deny, ignore and attack DeFi because it is an invention, a mutation, that occurred on Ethereum. This reflexive defensiveness ignores a fundamental truth about Bitcoin: If any technology can provide value for Bitcoin, Bitcoin will simply adopt it. A nuanced view of DeFi recognizes that it is composed both of valuable decentralisation but also of cancerous ponzis and evolutionary dead-ends. We will adopt DeFi where it improves Bitcoin DID (Defense-in-Depth) and cauterise the rest.  

Defense-in-Depth
Bitcoin maintains it's sovereignty through technological, cryptographic means. First and foremost, private keys provide the only means of control and ownership. Second, and most famously, Proof of Work defends the network against attack.

Attackers, however, are not limited to attacking the cryptography or the hashpower in order to limit our sovereignty. They route around and seek any weak links. "Trusted third parties are security holes". We increase the perimeter of defence by eliminating these trusted third parties.

Ethereum is Bitcoin’s Testnet
We will splice the DNA of DeFi into Bitcoin. We will increase Bitcoin's defense perimeter. The tools already exist. Ethereum is our testnet. Let it provide the radioactive pool where mutations are many. Let us observe it as it moves fast and breaks things. We will adopt it's best tools and learn to defend against its worst.

Rootstock, a Bitcoin sidechain, can be our CRISPR in this genetic adoption. We will splice the code from Ethereum dapps and improve upon them.

CypherpunkRouges
Cypherpunks write code, share code, review code and copy code. Sovereign individuals use this code. Like the X-men's Rouge, Bitcoiners will absorb the superpowers of others. I have been working on a DeFi dapp for decentralised bitcoin trading and lending. Hopefully you will join me, or better yet, compete with me.

"Those who would give up Liberty, to purchase a little temporary convenience, will have neither Liberty nor convenience." That will be our code. Onwards. BTC

[1715630871]

1715630871

[1715630871]

1715630871

[EdanYago]

I lost access to my original BitcoinTalk user a long time ago, but I have created a new one for this. I have been corresponding with Ororo for a while now and have joined Team Sovryn. For years I have been wishing for, and sometimes working toward, having alternatives to exchanges that were almost as decentralised as Bitcoin itself. I simply loath to submit my Bitcoin to someone else's control and my views on the absolute idiocy of KYC are, I think, well known.

It's time for Bitcoin to have decentralised alternatives. I think the tech is finally here.

[ArmandoAKADarwin]

If any technology can provide value for Bitcoin, Bitcoin will simply adopt it

Couldn't agree with this more and it's exciting to see this start playing out. Bitcoin is the first real application of decentralized finance, and today we have the tools to build on top of that and provide services that are immutable, uncensorable and that draw on the hardest money to ever exist..

Ethereum is Bitcoin’s Testnet

This is the right attitude. I have a feeling that many of the successful Defi apps on Ethereum will soon be migrating to other chains, and Bitcoin is a natural choice and probably the only choice, since its sound money attributes will keep on sucking in all the liquidity.

[JamieMadrox779]

You couldn't have said it better, Ororo!
I'm glad you sparked this revolution and happy to fight on your side. Investing time in Sovryn is investing time in your freedom! Who else is willing to join us?

[OroroMunroe]

To me it seems that there is a segment of the Bitcoin community that are actually fearful of Ethereum. They try to protect against this by making it their mission to FUD everything that has the mere whiff of Ethereum. An unfortunate side effect of this is an inability to acknowledge any benefits that might come from smart contracts - which is ironic, since one of the true Bitcoin OGs , Nick Szabo basically invented the smart contract concept.

To my mind, Bitcoin has nothing to fear from Ethereum... any more than Bitcoin has anything to fear from any of its other testnets. The only thing we have to fear is the mental stagnation that comes with throwing the baby out with the bath water. I am not willing to concede smart contracts to Ethereum. We invented them, they are ours.

[sapta]

~snip

Alright what this is all about, really? I've known Rootstock for a while now so I'm really curious. Posting here so that I can monitor the comments from the community.

I am not willing to concede smart contracts to Ethereum. We invented them, they are ours.

Bold.

[Karartma1]

~snip

Alright what this is all about, really? I've known Rootstock for a while now so I'm really curious. Posting here so that I can monitor the comments from the community.

I am not willing to concede smart contracts to Ethereum. We invented them, they are ours.

Bold.

Same here, commenting the post to follow closely. Clearly this is not some noob work, there is something more than meets the eye behind all this. Sometimes this forum can amaze me like the old times. Don't disappoint me

[ArmandoAKADarwin]

I think a lot of the aversion to Ethereum that you seen in the Bitcoin community stems from a sense that Ethereum portrays itself as something that it is not (decentralized, immutable, verifiable). I think these criticisms hold a fair amount of truth to them. But if you understand that Bitcoin is a singular invention (of hard money that cannot be monopolized), then there is no reason to "fear" Ethereum. All that is left is to warn noobs and learn from all the experiments that Ethereum has facilitated.  

[JuanMD]

To me it seems that there is a segment of the Bitcoin community that are actually fearful of Ethereum. They try to protect against this by making it their mission to FUD everything that has the mere whiff of Ethereum. An unfortunate side effect of this is an inability to acknowledge any benefits that might come from smart contracts - which is ironic, since one of the true Bitcoin OGs , Nick Szabo basically invented the smart contract concept.

To my mind, Bitcoin has nothing to fear from Ethereum... any more than Bitcoin has anything to fear from any of its other testnets. The only thing we have to fear is the mental stagnation that comes with throwing the baby out with the bath water. I am not willing to concede smart contracts to Ethereum. We invented them, they are ours.

I will never understand why any bitcoiner would be fearful of ethereum or vice-versa. Is just 2 different blockchains with way many differences that makes them both valuable.

If Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies is about freedom, the freedom of choosing the blockchain that better suits you should be a must.

If not it just looks like a ego battle.

With that said, I personally will always prefer Bitcoin, "never TheDAO'ed", Blockchain <3

[Darker45]

To me it seems that there is a segment of the Bitcoin community that are actually fearful of Ethereum. They try to protect against this by making it their mission to FUD everything that has the mere whiff of Ethereum. An unfortunate side effect of this is an inability to acknowledge any benefits that might come from smart contracts - which is ironic, since one of the true Bitcoin OGs , Nick Szabo basically invented the smart contract concept.

To my mind, Bitcoin has nothing to fear from Ethereum... any more than Bitcoin has anything to fear from any of its other testnets. The only thing we have to fear is the mental stagnation that comes with throwing the baby out with the bath water. I am not willing to concede smart contracts to Ethereum. We invented them, they are ours.

I share this observation. There may be a handful of hardcore supporters who seem to treat Bitcoin more than just a technology, something which people could further innovate and make improvements to. It seems to me these people are treating Bitcoin more as a dogmatic religion or a cult than just a progress out of early forbearers.

While there are certainly various technical reasons why Ethereum is being scoffed at by these personalities, it appears they lose objectivity in the process.

[OroroMunroe]

Alright what this is all about, really? I've known Rootstock for a while now so I'm really curious. Posting here so that I can monitor the comments from the community.

Rootstock (RSK) is a pegged Bitcoin sidechain. That means it is uses bitcoin as it's native currency, is merged-mined with Bitcoin and can have different features from Bitcoin mainchain. On of the cool features of RSK (there are many), is that it allows us to build smart contracts (secured by the Bitcoin hashpower).

Work started on RSK, I think 5 years ago, and at the time there was a lot of excitement about sidechains. I remember them being considered the future of Bitcoin, the next evolutionary step. I still think that's true.
However, building *secure* and *decentralised* sidechains for Bitcoin is REALLY hard. Most people have heard of Liquid which is a trusted federation and not censorship resistant and that has come to be viewed as what Bitcoin sidechains are, and so the excitement waned.

In the meantime, RSK has continued to slowly evolve and it is now, in my opinion, finally evolving to a state where Bitcoiners can start building decentralised alternatives to exchanges, lending platforms and derivatives markets for Bitcoin.

This is our goal with Sovryn. To build a decentralised, open economy around decentralised, open money: Bitcoin. Call it Sovrynomics  

You can check out our (obviously) opensource code here: https://github.com/DistributedCollective/

If things keep going reasonably well, Sovryn will be ready to start facilitating margin trading, spot trading and lending for Bitcoin in about 6 weeks.  

[raltman]

This is our goal with Sovryn. To build a decentralised, open economy around decentralised open money: Bitcoin. Call it Sovrynomics 

Great thread and great goal! Decentralized, open money and finance have always been key to improve our society and our freedom- and this have become specially relevant this year!

[Sergio_Demian_Lerner]

Hi OroroMunroe, first congratulations for the launch!

I'm a Bitcoiner since 2012 and I waited many years to this to happen. I worked my last 5 years to for the adoption of Bitcoin sidechains, not only RSK (a.k.a Rootstock) but ALL sidechains, so that Bitcoiners are prepared to take advantage of cryptocurrency innovations without interference with the base layer which guarantees the hard money properties of Bitcoin.

So I'm not only excited, but also emotionally moved when I see that DeFi on Bitcoin already happening. The early RSK team worked hard to integrate sidechains into Bitcoin when we showed in 2016 the first BIP and working code for a drivechain. But since then, the RSK community has been working to create the best possible sidechain technology within the current limitations, and I think we managed to do it. Now RSK has stablecoins, DEXes, and soon margin trading too.

I think open finance and stablecoins are key for mass adoption of Bitcoin, because stablecoins and decentralized exchanges are the lubricant required to frictionless interface with the billions of people that could benefit from it. But building infrastructure takes time, and margin trading is the spark that ignites the rapid development of an open finance ecosystem.

My only remark is that you keep your security to the highest standards possible. We must lead the DeFi movement by showing an example of responsibility towards our users.   

[OroroMunroe]

High praise and an appropriate warning from a legend. Thanks!

My only remark is that you keep your security to the highest standards possible. We must lead the DeFi movement by showing an example of responsibility towards our users.

Absolutely. This has to be top priority. And nobody should trust us. The whole point is trustlessness. Please audit the code, anyone who can. It will always be opensource. We will make sure it is independently audited and that there is a bug bounty. But our hope is that this will be a community effort. One of the best ways you can help, is by showing us we F'ed up.

That said, we are mostly forking code that has already been audited and used to transact with substantial funds on Ethereum. This is not green code. It has already been seasoned.

[kryptqnick]

More than mildly, it annoys us that we have the tools to be truly sovereign and yet we continue to submit our ourselves, and our bitcoin, to centralised authorities. "Privacy is necessary for an open society in the electronic age"; yet KYC is demanded before we can trade."Not your keys, not your coins"; yet millions of bitcoin sit in the vaults of custodial exchanges and wallets.

For monetary liberty to be widespread it must be part of the social contract. We must come together to deploy decentralised systems that maintain Bitcoin's promise of sovereignty. These tools already exist and they are improving.

It's possible and advised not to store BTC on exchanges for a long time, so having your keys and your bitcoins is not that hard. Moreover, KYC is not required everywhere, so one can choose a place where it's not enforced. Regarding Bitcoin as a sovereign, I haven't heard this one before. I've read the article now, and I think it's fair that Bitcoin should be treated with no less respect that dollar has. However, I am not sure whether sovereignty is the correct word here. Perhaps what you're talking about is covered by decentralization and, maybe, independence. But this world is built on collaborations and interconnections, so Bitcoin should not stand aside, not willing to compromise even a bit.

[ArmandoAKADarwin]

Moreover, KYC is not required everywhere, so one can choose a place where it's not enforced.

True, there are such options, however I think it's important that there be trading venues where KYC "can't" be enforced. Where there is a central operator, there is the risk of government intervention and erosion of sovereignty .

[EdanYago]

Regarding Bitcoin as a sovereign, I haven't heard this one before.

The idea that Bitcoin is Sovereign is an old one, and should have more traction. One of the most AMAZING dramas in Bitcoin was around this. Mircea Popescu, a great but forgotten Bitcoin trolls was running an exchange called MPEx. Erik Voorhees listed SatoshiDice shares on MPEx, and after a while the SEC came knocking. They emailed Mircea demanding information. The result was a hilarious email thread with the SEC.

Some of the gems from that conversation:
- SEC asks to speak on the phone, Mircea suggest #bitcoin-assets on Freenode instead.
- SEC asks for information again, Mircea politely requests they "sufficiently establish your authority to do so"first.
- SEC send him a formal letter, Mircea says he appreciates their efforts, but actually they need to prove that he or they have any authority over Bitcoin.

The whole thing ends with: "Bitcoin is a sovereign".

...but don't let me ruin it for you, read the whole thing.

[bithisach]

Rootstock (RSK) is a pegged Bitcoin sidechain. That means it is uses bitcoin as it's native currency, is merged-mined with Bitcoin and can have different features from Bitcoin mainchain. On of the cool features of RSK (there are many), is that it allows us to build smart contracts (secured by the Bitcoin hashpower).

Work started on RSK, I think 5 years ago, and at the time there was a lot of excitement about sidechains. I remember them being considered the future of Bitcoin, the next evolutionary step. I still think that's true.
However, building *secure* and *decentralised* sidechains for Bitcoin is REALLY hard. Most people have heard of Liquid which is a trusted federation and not censorship resistant and that has come to be viewed as what Bitcoin sidechains are, and so the excitement waned.

In the meantime, RSK has continued to slowly evolve and it is now, in my opinion, finally evolving to a state where Bitcoiners can start building decentralised alternatives to exchanges, lending platforms and derivatives markets for Bitcoin.

This is our goal with Sovryn. To build a decentralised, open economy around decentralised, open money: Bitcoin. Call it Sovrynomics  

You can check out our (obviously) opensource code here: https://github.com/DistributedCollective/

If things keep going reasonably well, Sovryn will be ready to start facilitating margin trading, spot trading and lending for Bitcoin in about 6 weeks.  

I really like that you are building this off as an open source project. While I understand that some projects need some sort of privacy for security settings, so this approach makes it feel as being more bound to the users that decide to use it. Wonder how the security section will work? I assume not all the code is going to be public, or will it? How do you plan to handle external attacks to security flaws in the project if it is all public? (not critizing at all, genuinely curious)

[OroroMunroe]

Love this question!

While I understand that some projects need some sort of privacy for security settings, so this approach makes it feel as being more bound to the users that decide to use it. Wonder how the security section will work? I assume not all the code is going to be public, or will it? How do you plan to handle external attacks to security flaws in the project if it is all public?

There are two approaches to security:
1. Security by obscurity (keep things private, so that attackers don't know about vulnerabilities)
2. Security by sunlight (make everything open, so that any security flaws can be found and fixed)

In opensource approach 1 doesn't work and cryptographers discovered that with good cryptography, it is not even needed, because approach 2 is better.

Bitcoin is a great example. It is totally public, and has become the single most secure software system ever devised. On the other hand, Bitcoin exchanges which are private, and have well paid security teams get hacked all. the. f'king. time.

So we are taking approach no.2. Build well-thought out tech, using well understood cryptography. Make it ALL public and ENCOURAGE people to find flaws in it.

Are there risks? Absolutely. Always DYOR! But this is the only approach that has proven itself in the long run.

[JuanMD]

Regarding Bitcoin as a sovereign, I haven't heard this one before.

The idea that Bitcoin is Sovereign is an old one, and should have more traction. One of the most AMAZING dramas in Bitcoin was around this. Mircea Popescu, a great but forgotten Bitcoin trolls was running an exchange called MPEx. Erik Voorhees listed SatoshiDice shares on MPEx, and after a while the SEC came knocking. They emailed Mircea demanding information. The result was a hilarious email thread with the SEC.

Some of the gems from that conversation:
- SEC asks to speak on the phone, Mircea suggest #bitcoin-assets on Freenode instead.
- SEC asks for information again, Mircea politely requests they "sufficiently establish your authority to do so"first.
- SEC send him a formal letter, Mircea says he appreciates their efforts, but actually they need to prove that he or they have any authority over Bitcoin.

The whole thing ends with: "Bitcoin is a sovereign".

...but don't let me ruin it for you, read the whole thing.

haha for some reason, always that there is a good anecdote about crypto "the" Erik Vorhees is present...

[BetsyBraddock]

Cypherpunks write code, share code, review code and copy code. Sovereign individuals use this code. Like the X-men's Rouge, Bitcoiners will absorb the superpowers of others.

Well said Ororo, and I'm with you 100% on this. Excited to be one of the sovryn individuals on this project. Let's go form a mesh network of superpowers  !

[Anna138]

To me it seems that there is a segment of the Bitcoin community that are actually fearful of Ethereum. They try to protect against this by making it their mission to FUD everything that has the mere whiff of Ethereum. An unfortunate side effect of this is an inability to acknowledge any benefits that might come from smart contracts - which is ironic, since one of the true Bitcoin OGs , Nick Szabo basically invented the smart contract concept.

To my mind, Bitcoin has nothing to fear from Ethereum... any more than Bitcoin has anything to fear from any of its other testnets. The only thing we have to fear is the mental stagnation that comes with throwing the baby out with the bath water. I am not willing to concede smart contracts to Ethereum. We invented them, they are ours.

There is no point in white being afraid of black and black being afraid of white. Bitcoin and Ethereum are common competing systems that develop at the expense of each other. Competition has always been and will always be the engine of trade and development of any systems. This is a pattern of life confirmed over the years.

[verita1]

Ethereum is the most requested platform to develop DeFi Apps today. If you have free time, take a look at the Avalanche platform. The community that follows them is waiting for the mainnet. These characteristics of the platform will make Bitcoin many use cases.

Avalanche finalizes transactions in about a second and clears thousands per second. This makes high-volume P2P payments and asset transfers a reality. The platform can accommodate thousands to millions of participants. The protocol is green and sustainable, and there is no mining.

https://www.avalabs.org/avalanche-x

[EdanYago]

Can you explain to me how Avalanche will create use cases for Bitcoin? It's a different chain. How is it more connected to Bitcoin than the many other altcoin chains?

[Karartma1]

I think open finance and stablecoins are key for mass adoption of Bitcoin, because stablecoins and decentralized exchanges are the lubricant required to frictionless interface with the billions of people that could benefit from it. But building infrastructure takes time, and margin trading is the spark that ignites the rapid development of an open finance ecosystem.

This! Like bitcoin took a long time to being developed and launched I would say the same should happen with these new advancements.
Ethereum has accustomed people to think that with a few line of codes one can create a bank, a casino, a stock exchange and so forth.

Being Bitcoin the most secure protocol out there we need the best infrastructure for this new DeFi world too. When we have that, there are no enemies anymore.

Very excited about all this! I am not able to read code, as I am no programmer but will follow this closely and see how I can help.

[JuanMD]

Ethereum is the most requested platform to develop DeFi Apps today. If you have free time, take a look at the Avalanche platform. The community that follows them is waiting for the mainnet. These characteristics of the platform will make Bitcoin many use cases.

Avalanche finalizes transactions in about a second and clears thousands per second. This makes high-volume P2P payments and asset transfers a reality. The platform can accommodate thousands to millions of participants. The protocol is green and sustainable, and there is no mining.

https://www.avalabs.org/avalanche-x

Might be the most, but not the only, and also that doesn't mean that will be like that forever.

Crypto world moves really fast, before you noticed it, there might be a new ethereum

[OroroMunroe]

It wouldn't surprise me if, in the not too distant future, Bitcoin defi (or sovrynomics), will exceed that of Ethereum. Bitcoin "marketcap" is an order of magnitude greater than that of Ethereum. There is simply a much larger pool of funds that could flow into the decentralised Bitcoin economy once it get's going. The technology to allow this to happen is here. This is a big reason I am so excited to be working on Sovryn.

It's not only Sovryn. Bisq and Hodl Hodl are seeing big increases in volume and are perfect decentralised P2P gateways into crypto. Money On Chain have created the first Bitcoin-backed stablecoin, and I am sure there will be many others.

Decentralised services for Bitcoin are at the beginning of a renaissance and I think the whole space could change over the next year or two.

[enquirer]

I will never understand why any bitcoiner would be fearful of ethereum or vice-versa. Is just 2 different blockchains with way many differences that makes them both valuable.

I'll explain it so you understand. The most significant promise of Bitcoin as a value store is that it's supply is limited - 21M bitcoins. Proliferation of alts breaks that promise. Now there are 21M bitocins, plus 90M ethereums, plus miriads of other cryptos.

[chipm0nk]

Nice thread. Looking forward to follow.

Moreover, KYC is not required everywhere, so one can choose a place where it's not enforced.

Where there is a central operator, there is the risk of government intervention and erosion of sovereignty .

It is not a risk. It is a certainty. State intervention is guaranteed. Government will protect its Westphalian sovereignty from any self-sovereign on its territory. It will always corrupt a central operator. And some, such as the US, will use long-arm legislation and sanctions to extend their sovereign power beyond their borders.

[ArmandoAKADarwin]

Nice thread. Looking forward to follow.

Moreover, KYC is not required everywhere, so one can choose a place where it's not enforced.

Where there is a central operator, there is the risk of government intervention and erosion of sovereignty .

It is not a risk. It is a certainty. State intervention is guaranteed. Government will protect its Westphalian sovereignty from any self-sovereign on its territory. It will always corrupt a central operator. And some, such as the US, will use long-arm legislation and sanctions to extend their sovereign power beyond their borders.

100% agree. This is precisely why we need to extend the envelope of non-KYC and uncensorable applications to use and trade BTC.

[JuanMD]

I will never understand why any bitcoiner would be fearful of ethereum or vice-versa. Is just 2 different blockchains with way many differences that makes them both valuable.

I'll explain it so you understand. The most significant promise of Bitcoin as a value store is that it's supply is limited - 21M bitcoins. Proliferation of alts breaks that promise. Now there are 21M bitocins, plus 90M ethereums, plus miriads of other cryptos.

Yeah, that's where you are wrong. That's like saying that other metals break the promise that gold is scarce.

Having other cryptos is a good thing, if you try to test or implement everything on BTC, the chances of breaking something are much higher. As Edan said, "Ethereum will be our testnet".

And also, 1 BTC = 1 BTC. That applies to everything.

There are plenty of paints in the world and every day more are created, that doesn't diminish the value of a Monet or a Picasso.

(Not to mention that so far as history goes, those periods with a higher "proliferation of altcoins" (aka altcoins 2013, ICO 2017) where what increased the price of bitcoin)

[sapta]

It wouldn't surprise me if, in the not too distant future, Bitcoin defi (or sovrynomics), will exceed that of Ethereum. Bitcoin "marketcap" is an order of magnitude greater than that of Ethereum. There is simply a much larger pool of funds that could flow into the decentralised Bitcoin economy once it get's going. The technology to allow this to happen is here. This is a big reason I am so excited to be working on Sovryn.

It's not only Sovryn. Bisq and Hodl Hodl are seeing big increases in volume and are perfect decentralised P2P gateways into crypto. Money On Chain have created the first Bitcoin-backed stablecoin, and I am sure there will be many others.

Decentralised services for Bitcoin are at the beginning of a renaissance and I think the whole space could change over the next year or two.

IF somehow Bitcoin can be superior to Ethereum in this new DeFi stuff, is there any way to make it easier? Because if I understand correctly, your average Joe won't be able to join the hype without understanding Ethereum in the first place. Easier thing brings more people, which is generally good for Bitcoin.

[ZmnSCPxj]

My primary objection to Ethereum is two-fold: first, the power of the smart contract language, and second, the fact that validation of the too-powerful smart contract language must be done onchain.  This leads to a massive inefficiency that encourages centralization and therefore is against the goal of decentralized finance.

There are two primary points that the base blockchain must enforce:

• The ordering of events in the blockchain.
• The validity of events in the blockchain

If the ordering of events is not enforced, then it is easy to create two valid conflicting histories.  If the validity of events is not enforced, it is easy to create an invalid history.

Miners only ensure the former; fullnodes enforce the latter as part of consensus.  Thus, that RSK is "merge-mined" simply means that it has some way of enforcing the first point, but speaks nothing of how it enforces the second point.  Worse, merge-mined does not necessarily mean that all Bitcoin miners actually enforce the first point above, only those that actually merge-mine RSK enforce the first point above.

That is, there must also exist some fullnode network of RSK nodes, which enforces the validity of events in the blockchain.  And those fullnodes must be well-distributed: if only a few nodes exist, they can be co-opted and invalid events (such as those that create more Bitcoins on the RSK blockchain) can be allowed.

Now, the distribution of RSK fullnodes is hampered if every fullnode must verify a fully-powerful smart contract language.  The more powerful the language, the greater the overhead of validation.  If the validation becomes too expensive, it is easier to not run an RSK fullnode yourself and trust a third party instead, which runs into the point of trust third parties being security holes.

But that is not my only objection here.  The other one is the power of the smart contract language.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_least_power holds here: choose the least powerful computer language suitable for a given purpose.

Anyone who thinks "more powerful language == better" needs to read this quite well: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/LoopholeAbuse/RealLifeLaw.  The point is that loopholes will be found in any smart contract, and they will be exploited (Murphy Law).  A smart contract is nothing more than a program that enforces certain behavior, and all laws are just such programs that enforce certain behaviors on puny humans.  Thousands of years of law have shown that humans like going through loopholes in laws, and that will hold sway as well in smart contracts.

Thus, the design of Smart Contracts Unchained: https://zmnscpxj.github.io/bitcoin/unchained.html

• The blockchain validity rules only require k-of-n signature validation.
• Participants in a smart contract can agree it is actually full of holes and can agree to ignore the contract to do the sensible thing.

[ZmnSCPxj]

Another touted use of DeFi is that of loaning out money.  With

Code:

SIGHASH_NOINPUT

this will be possible directly on Bitcoin: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2020-July/018055.html

[Rifmax]

I watched the video, it's totally funny. Is there really someone who does not know the correct way to protect assets from theft and loss?
I don't think so, owning Bitcoin + seeds and storing them in cold wallets at the moment is not that difficult!

[JuanMD]

I watched the video, it's totally funny. Is there really someone who does not know the correct way to protect assets from theft and loss?
I don't think so, owning Bitcoin + seeds and storing them in cold wallets at the moment is not that difficult!

Well, only a few people in the world (% speaking) actually knows about Bitcoin, even fewer find managing a ledger/trezor or protecting crypto "easy", and even less do cold storage by their own.

Imagine talking to your father/mother about Bitcoin, Seeds and cold wallet storage... They most probably will reply "meh, I prefer to to a tranfer to my bank and let them handle..."

Also is not only about knowing the correct way, but also the anxiety that might cause for some people (if the process is not very straight forward) to think they are doing it wrong and might lose their funds.

I still have that sensation sometimes and have been around for many years.

[EdanYago]

It wouldn't surprise me if, in the not too distant future, Bitcoin defi (or sovrynomics), will exceed that of Ethereum. Bitcoin "marketcap" is an order of magnitude greater than that of Ethereum. There is simply a much larger pool of funds that could flow into the decentralised Bitcoin economy once it get's going. The technology to allow this to happen is here. This is a big reason I am so excited to be working on Sovryn.

It's not only Sovryn. Bisq and Hodl Hodl are seeing big increases in volume and are perfect decentralised P2P gateways into crypto. Money On Chain have created the first Bitcoin-backed stablecoin, and I am sure there will be many others.

Decentralised services for Bitcoin are at the beginning of a renaissance and I think the whole space could change over the next year or two.

IF somehow Bitcoin can be superior to Ethereum in this new DeFi stuff, is there any way to make it easier? Because if I understand correctly, your average Joe won't be able to join the hype without understanding Ethereum in the first place. Easier thing brings more people, which is generally good for Bitcoin.

This is a great question. Sovryn is working on a number of innovation to make it much easier. We want to make it possible to use the system directly from any Bitcoin wallet, and no need to understand Metamask or anything like that.

We will start user testing pretty soon. Would be great to get your feedback on the system.

[ArmandoAKADarwin]

It wouldn't surprise me if, in the not too distant future, Bitcoin defi (or sovrynomics), will exceed that of Ethereum. Bitcoin "marketcap" is an order of magnitude greater than that of Ethereum. There is simply a much larger pool of funds that could flow into the decentralised Bitcoin economy once it get's going. The technology to allow this to happen is here. This is a big reason I am so excited to be working on Sovryn.

It's not only Sovryn. Bisq and Hodl Hodl are seeing big increases in volume and are perfect decentralised P2P gateways into crypto. Money On Chain have created the first Bitcoin-backed stablecoin, and I am sure there will be many others.

Decentralised services for Bitcoin are at the beginning of a renaissance and I think the whole space could change over the next year or two.

IF somehow Bitcoin can be superior to Ethereum in this new DeFi stuff, is there any way to make it easier? Because if I understand correctly, your average Joe won't be able to join the hype without understanding Ethereum in the first place. Easier thing brings more people, which is generally good for Bitcoin.

Not sure if I agree. If a bitcoiner can connect their HWW directly to an app running on RSK, why do they need an understanding of Ethereum?

[sapta]

This is a great question. Sovryn is working on a number of innovation to make it much easier. We want to make it possible to use the system directly from any Bitcoin wallet, and no need to understand Metamask or anything like that.

We will start user testing pretty soon. Would be great to get your feedback on the system.

Would love to, I'm already on Discord with the same name.

Not sure if I agree. If a bitcoiner can connect their HWW directly to an app running on RSK, why do they need an understanding of Ethereum?

I was talking about DeFi, which is right now the hottest sausage that is being barbeque'd on the Ethereum network. Then, my question above.

[JuanMD]

Can you explain a bit more what is Bitcoin Defence-in-Depth?

[OroroMunroe]

Bitcoin BTC is digital gold.

In 1933, the American authorities decided to confiscate all their citizens gold. This happened in the land of freedom. It can happen again. It can happen anywhere, anytime.

People talk about the 51% attack. But that is not the only way to attack Bitcoin. All those Bitcoin sitting in centralised exchanges? They can be seized. All that KYC data that Bitcoiners have handed over to exchanges, the IRS wants it.

Defence-in-Depth (DID) is a concept invented for medieval citadels and adapted to modern IT security. In a citadel, you don't just have one layer of defence, you have many. A moat, a wall, a keep...

In modern IT security, you have technical controls (cryptography), physical controls (hardware wallets) and also administrative controls (self-custody). Bitcoin as a system is secure because of PoW and cryptography. But Bitcoin, as a social and economic structure, needs additional layers of defence.

We need to make sure we don't have to use centralised services and pool our Bitcoin in places that make it easy to seize funds or taint coins. We need to make sure that there are not obvious points of centralised control where politicians can exert pressure. Coinbase and Binance, if they became dominant enough, could have the same centralising effect over Bitcoin as Facebook and Google have over the web. Binance already suggested they would try to re-org Bitcoin Blockchain.

Centralised services are walled gardens of convenience that you are not in control. They are honeypots. They rob us of our sovereignty.

DID is about expanding the envelope of decentralisation and uncensorability. DID is about expanding what we understand Bitcoin to be. It is more than just a blockchain or a coin. It is a social, political and economic structure.

Defence-in-Depth is about expanding the protections we provide Bitcoin and, as a result, expanding the protection Bitcoin provides us.

[Anna138]

Bitcoin BTC is digital gold.

In 1933, the American authorities decided to confiscate all their citizens gold. This happened in the land of freedom. It can happen again. It can happen anywhere, anytime.

People talk about the 51% attack. But that is not the only way to attack Bitcoin. All those Bitcoin sitting in centralised exchanges? They can be seized. All that KYC data that Bitcoiners have handed over to exchanges, the IRS wants it.

Defence-in-Depth (DID) is a concept invented for medieval citadels and adapted to modern IT security. In a citadel, you don't just have one layer of defence, you have many. A moat, a wall, a keep...

In modern IT security, you have technical controls (cryptography), physical controls (hardware wallets) and also administrative controls (self-custody). Bitcoin as a system is secure because of PoW and cryptography. But Bitcoin, as a social and economic structure, needs additional layers of defence.

We need to make sure we don't have to use centralised services and pool our Bitcoin in places that make it easy to seize funds or taint coins. We need to make sure that there are not obvious points of centralised control where politicians can exert pressure. Coinbase and Binance, if they became dominant enough, could have the same centralising effect over Bitcoin as Facebook and Google have over the web. Binance already suggested they would try to re-org Bitcoin Blockchain.

Centralised services are walled gardens of convenience that you are not in control. They are honeypots. They rob us of our sovereignty.

DID is about expanding the envelope of decentralisation and uncensorability. DID is about expanding what we understand Bitcoin to be. It is more than just a blockchain or a coin. It is a social, political and economic structure.

Defence-in-Depth is about expanding the protections we provide Bitcoin and, as a result, expanding the protection Bitcoin provides us.

Bitcoin is not digital gold. Digital gold is more like traffic. So the comparison will be appropriate. Gold is a resource that is so popular that everyone knows about it, so in the digital world this function will be represented by human traffic. Of course, it can be monetized, and therefore it is a digital asset.

[Karartma1]

Bitcoin BTC is digital gold.

In 1933, the American authorities decided to confiscate all their citizens gold. This happened in the land of freedom. It can happen again. It can happen anywhere, anytime.

People talk about the 51% attack. But that is not the only way to attack Bitcoin. All those Bitcoin sitting in centralised exchanges? They can be seized. All that KYC data that Bitcoiners have handed over to exchanges, the IRS wants it.

Defence-in-Depth (DID) is a concept invented for medieval citadels and adapted to modern IT security. In a citadel, you don't just have one layer of defence, you have many. A moat, a wall, a keep...

In modern IT security, you have technical controls (cryptography), physical controls (hardware wallets) and also administrative controls (self-custody). Bitcoin as a system is secure because of PoW and cryptography. But Bitcoin, as a social and economic structure, needs additional layers of defence.

We need to make sure we don't have to use centralised services and pool our Bitcoin in places that make it easy to seize funds or taint coins. We need to make sure that there are not obvious points of centralised control where politicians can exert pressure. Coinbase and Binance, if they became dominant enough, could have the same centralising effect over Bitcoin as Facebook and Google have over the web. Binance already suggested they would try to re-org Bitcoin Blockchain.

Centralised services are walled gardens of convenience that you are not in control. They are honeypots. They rob us of our sovereignty.

DID is about expanding the envelope of decentralisation and uncensorability. DID is about expanding what we understand Bitcoin to be. It is more than just a blockchain or a coin. It is a social, political and economic structure.

Defence-in-Depth is about expanding the protections we provide Bitcoin and, as a result, expanding the protection Bitcoin provides us.

Now that Bitcoin is on everyone's mouth whatever you stated here is of the greatest importance. But, look around, how many people are here to gain their financial freedom and how many are here because of either a quick buck or a get rich quick scheme?
Don't misunderstand me, reading your posts is like going back to the (merkle)roots, which is good.

[20kevin20]

Ororo, I like your attitude and I honestly wish the majority of people were thinking like you.

But nowadays, laziness is what pushes us back into different kinds of slavery we think means "freedom". It's like you are giving away all your personal life to some other parties just to get the taste of "social media" and "financial freedom" they make you only think you are enjoying.

I sometimes look forward to the day when we'll possibly be able to achieve having both an easy to understand & use coin and a decentralized one. That's how we can get more people to think like you. A 2-in-1. It's very hard however, because the mass is used to paying trusted third parties to do everything for them. If there was a way to enjoy both freedom and convenience at the same time, things would change. But now, let's ask ourselves for once: is it worth it? Would it be a positive change in the end?

If convenience would come up for Bitcoin, all we'd do is just attract the mass of laziness who'd only support Bitcoin because "hey, it gets you rich and is easy to use!". Therefore, after all, having to broaden your knowledge may be way healthier than having an easy to use coin. I think it's better to have more privacy-seeking people but a smaller overall amount of users than an incredibly high amount of users out of which the vast majority is looking just for profit.

It's not enough to purchase ounces of gold and silver to be a good investor. You could purchase collectibles at amazing prices and multiply your money without having to wait decades. You need to know what karats are, or how much an ounce weighs. That is, broadening your knowledge. Whoever does it may succeed and may also see a lot of stuff from a different perspective than they used to.

Satoshi probably wanted to combine all the best features of every currency (including those used in barter) and make something out of it that cannot be tampered with. He successfully did so, but he created something so valuable it attracts more profit-seekers than privacy ones. Bitcoin will surely improve in time. It'll only get better (hopefully). Your idea that Ethereum is a Bitcoin testnet is amazing and very interesting, never thought of it like that. It's why Bitcoin also has such "slow" updates: by rushing new stuff, we may mistakenly push a self-destroy trigger (literally or not) inside BTC.

The best change can only start with us. For one, I'd advise the closest of my friends to start loosening the leash and stop letting them trusted parties take our data. This starts with taking small steps, such as moving from centralized software to FOSS. Windows to Linux. WhatsApp to Signal. Maybe Signal to Conversations through Tor after a while. That's how you start finding out your personal life has always had many, many invisible intruders. The majority of people would think you're crazy if you begin with cypherpunk stuff. With small steps, as long as they're interested in getting more freedom than they ever had, they'll get to the more in-detail stuff as well, such as decentralized services.

To be honest, using decentralized services is certainly not for the beginners. Put a Ledger with a thousand bucks in some stranger's hand and a laptop with Bisq open in front of them - I bet you anything they'd have zero idea what is going on and, even if you explained it's about Bitcoin, they'd have no clue how to swap from a coin to another or withdraw funds. This is why it takes so long for freedom to be the people's choice.

As Bisq and other p2p and decentralized services/marketplaces seem to be hitting the gas pedal a bit more this year compared to previous ones, maybe, just maybe, people start wondering why the hell do we need to trust others when things are so advanced nowadays we don't need a central party anymore. The fact that I see more and more people waking up and starting to think the decentralized way makes me more excited about what the future holds for us than I thought. Congrats for thinking this way - hopefully your message is inspirational to others.

[OroroMunroe]

Thanks very much to both of you. Your encouragement makes this much easier. It would be great to see you guys using Sovryn.

I also agree with everything you said. With Sovryn we have a few guiding principles. Here are a few relevant ones:

"You shouldn't have to be technical to be free". We are working hard to make our system so easy to use that anyone can use it. It should be as easy as a centralised exchange. Maybe even easier, since you can use coins directly from your wallet.

"Don't fight greed, harness it". Sovryn is designed to make it easier than ever to make money with your Bitcoin. We want to help harness greed as tool to encourage freedom. We think that is what Satoshi was doing. So we have features we call HyperHODLing (going leverage long BTC) and SuperStacking (earning interest on your stack of Sats).

"Don't sacrifice the good for the perfect". Sovryn won't be perfect. It won't be as decentralised as mainchain Bitcoin. It won't have governance that is as neutral as PoW. But it will be one hell of an improvement over centralised exchanges. We know a lot of Maxies will probably reject Sovryn for these reasons. We think this is a mistake. The road to hyper-bitcoinisation is long and requires many steps. Not one giant leap to the end.

BTC

[EdanYago]

Don't misunderstand me, reading your posts is like going back to the (merkle)roots, which is good. Grin

We need to get back to the original sense of innovation and adventure.

[JuanMD]

Bitcoin is not digital gold. Digital gold is more like traffic. So the comparison will be appropriate. Gold is a resource that is so popular that everyone knows about it, so in the digital world this function will be represented by human traffic. Of course, it can be monetized, and therefore it is a digital asset.

Bitcoin has everything to be digital gold tho... I don't think only the popularity is to be considered to make that comparison invalid. Actually I think that the only thing BTC lacks against gold is popularity (and track record ofc).

[Karartma1]

Thanks very much to both of you. Your encouragement makes this much easier. It would be great to see you guys using Sovryn.

I also agree with everything you said. With Sovryn we have a few guiding principles. Here are a few relevant ones:

"You shouldn't have to be technical to be free". We are working hard to make our system so easy to use that anyone can use it. It should be as easy as a centralised exchange. Maybe even easier, since you can use coins directly from your wallet.

"Don't fight greed, harness it". Sovryn is designed to make it easier than ever to make money with your Bitcoin. We want to help harness greed as tool to encourage freedom. We think that is what Satoshi was doing. So we have features we call HyperHODLing (going leverage long BTC) and SuperStacking (earning interest on your stack of Sats).

"Don't sacrifice the good for the perfect". Sovryn won't be perfect. It won't be as decentralised as mainchain Bitcoin. It won't have governance that is as neutral as PoW. But it will be one hell of an improvement over centralised exchanges. We know a lot of Maxies will probably reject Sovryn for these reasons. We think this is a mistake. The road to hyper-bitcoinisation is long and requires many steps. Not one giant leap to the end.

BTC

You will see me there but you won't know who I am, or at least, I hope my OpSec is good enough to allow me to contribute being somebody else
I am eagerly waiting to see what you guys can do for us. 

[sapta]

"You shouldn't have to be technical to be free". We are working hard to make our system so easy to use that anyone can use it. It should be as easy as a centralised exchange. Maybe even easier, since you can use coins directly from your wallet."

This. Please. I read something interesting about why this DeFi craze don't really attract retail users, unlike 2017 where so many people flooded Google with 'what is Bitcoin' etc. Because you need to be technical, my dude.

Yes, it is making crazy returns for some people. But hey, look at that one guy spending $xx in gas fees while trying to do something with his $100 because he doesn't know shit. It's not as simple as keeping Bitcoin in your paper wallet and watch the price go moon then SELL!!!!!11

If the system is not gonna be easy to use, then prepare to lose to almost everything else that has option to invest BTC and earn something back. In a centralized way. Like some big exchanges already do.

[EdanYago]

On user interface, you can help out. We have a whole channel on our discord (https://discord.gg/QErxPYG) dedicated to user testing and feedback. We are currently working on a new, improved UI and will be rolling that out soon.

As for fees, I expect they will be 2 orders of magnitude lower than current Ethereum fees.

[nullius]

Well, I said that I should post here...

My primary objection to Ethereum is two-fold: first, the power of the smart contract language, and second, the fact that validation of the too-powerful smart contract language must be done onchain.

Given that the language is fully capable of supporting Layer 2 projects (and IIUC, such projects do exist), the problem there is more that the development and market culture suffers a sort of “everything on-chain!” brain-damage.

Arguably, there may be a place for a blockchain which can execute complex contracts on-chain for use cases in which it is desirable for execution to occur when some parties are offline.  (I am not saying that that’s Ethereum!  I am not saying that “complex” means “Turing-complete”, either, though I take a somewhat nuanced view of that question.)  The problem occurs when that’s the way that everything is done, even when it makes no sense—which is usually.

I think that the vast majority of “defi” use cases can have contracts executed fully off-chain, using the blockchain only as a synchronization and enforcement mechanism.  It would result in much faster, more private, more efficient trades.  Why not do it that way?

But that is not my only objection here.  The other one is the power of the smart contract language.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_least_power holds here: choose the least powerful computer language suitable for a given purpose.

Compare and contrast (somewhat different concept, but very close):

http://langsec.org/occupy/


I don’t think that a Turing-complete execution environment is necessarily fatal.  After all, if you use a non-Turing-complete smart-contract language, you are executing it on a Turing-complete computer at some level; and for those willing to put serious CS expertise into writing contracts (i.e., not average Solidity developers!), formal verification has made some great advances in recent years.  Attempts to fix Ethereum’s notoriously weak security, such as KEVM, are interesting in that regard; cf. IELE.

For a new project that is not constrained by backwards compatibility with a blockchain full of shitty code, I would hope that some concise explanations would be provided of how they address these issues.

Thus, the design of Smart Contracts Unchained: https://zmnscpxj.github.io/bitcoin/unchained.html

Thanks.  Will look into this...


Quick question:  Why not aim for Spectrum/RGB?  That’s a smart-contract platform which will support defi on Bitcoin.  It will use the Simplicity language, which is designed from the ground up for security verification; and Spectrum on Layer 3 (atop Lightning) will have the privacy, speed, and efficiency advantages of off-chain contract execution.

Overall, I would suggest that if you want to gain people’s trust, do fewer manifestos (preaching to the choir here) and more informative explanations about just how this works, what useful properties the system has, and why it should be trusted to not fail catastrophically.

[JamieMadrox779]

I think that the vast majority of “defi” use cases can have contracts executed fully off-chain, using the blockchain only as a synchronization and enforcement mechanism.

I guess, you’re putting „defi“ in parenthesis because you do not consider existing defi projects decentralized at all. If we assume that these projects will never be properly decentralized, you might be right. But Sovryn WILL be properly decentralized, even though we’ll not be able to achieve it in a single step.

Quick question:  Why not aim for Spectrum/RGB?  That’s a smart-contract platform which will support defi on Bitcoin.  It will use the Simplicity language, which is designed from the ground up for security verification; and Spectrum on Layer 3 (atop Lightning) will have the privacy, speed, and efficiency advantages of off-chain contract execution.

Nobody seems to be working on it anymore. The last commit I see was done 10 months ago: https://github.com/rgb-org/spec and the Spectrum specs have never really defined https://github.com/rgb-org/spec/blob/develop/05-Spectrum.md

Moreover, to my knowledge, it’s built upon Lightning. I do not want to argue about Lightning’s potential, but at the moment, there’s a number of caveats:
* Low adoption rate
* Not user friendly at all
* Limited channel capacity

Here is a nice summary of a study on the Lightning Network. https://blog.dshr.org/2020/01/bitcoins-lightning-network.html

Then, there’s the big advantage that with Solidity we can take advantage of all of the protocols which have already been developed on Ethereum.

Now, we want to focus on a solution, which is not only secure, but also as user-friendly as possible. You shouldn’t need to be technical in order to be free.

[JuanMD]

Btw, is this project going to be another ICO?

[OroroMunroe]

This is not an ICO. We are not creating yet another pointless shitcoin. The system will never require you to have any coin other than BTC. There is a token, called SOV, which any user or contributor will be able to earn by participating or advancing the Sovryn protocol. This is not a new coin. It is a decentralised stonk, which can provide governance rights and a share of the revenue stream.

In that respect it is, in some ways, similar to what Bisq have done for their DAO. However, SOV is not planned to provide discounts in the system. All fees will be paid with BTC.

[JuanMD]

This is not an ICO. We are not creating yet another pointless shitcoin. The system will never require you to have any coin other than BTC. There is a token, called SOV, which any user or contributor will be able to earn by participating or advancing the Sovryn protocol. This is not a new coin. It is a decentralised stonk, which can provide governance rights and a share of the revenue stream.

In that respect it is, in some ways, similar to what Bisq have done for their DAO. However, SOV is not planned to provide discounts in the system. All fees will be paid with BTC.

Cool, that's good. And what use does this SOV has? I mean, I can earn it, but what gives it value besides the shares? Is it going to be a complete governance rights or limited?

If the fees are paid in BTC does that means that the revenue stream sharing will also be paid in BTC?

[sapta]

ICO is sooo 2017. Kinda glad that you're not going that way. But still, agree with what nullius said on his post above.

[JuanMD]

ICO is sooo 2017. Kinda glad that you're not going that way. But still, agree with what nullius said on his post above.

Yeah, I know, but you never know if someone didn't come late to the party. Better to ask

[OroroMunroe]

The easiest way to think of the function of SOV is with an analogy to stocks. A company's shares provide for governance rights and also a claim on the company revenue, usually through dividends. SOV provides is similar in that it provides a way to participate in Sovryn governance and the system revenues are channeled to those who participate in that governance.

I think this is an important step in building a permissionless economy around Bitcoin. Sovryn, instead of being managed by a company, which is created by the legal system of a specific jurisdiction is like a decentralised company that is created by the smart contracts themselves. This makes Sovryn governance permissionless, global and uncensorable.

[JuanMD]

The easiest way to think of the function of SOV is with an analogy to stocks. A company's shares provide for governance rights and also a claim on the company revenue, usually through dividends. SOV provides is similar in that it provides a way to participate in Sovryn governance and the system revenues are channeled to those who participate in that governance.

I think this is an important step in building a permissionless economy around Bitcoin. Sovryn, instead of being managed by a company, which is created by the legal system of a specific jurisdiction is like a decentralised company that is created by the smart contracts themselves. This makes Sovryn governance permissionless, global and uncensorable.

Hmmm considering a stock how are you planning on avoiding Mr SEC or IRS knocking your door? Since the spirit of the project I don't think US Citizens are banned from participating aren't they?

[Karartma1]

For those who don't follow telegram/discord etc. can you please give an update regarding your developments? Perhaps, since is more of a philosophical thread, start a new one on your Sovryn app and products (if you do please post it here too).  This way it can be easier for folks like me who don't use telegram/discord to follow what's going on.