A Sovereign Bitcoiner's Manifesto

[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.