CD196: EVGENY POBEREZKIN - SIMPLEX PRIVATE CHAT

WEBVTT

NOTE
Transcription provided by Podhome.fm
Created: 03/20/2026 23:48:09
Duration: 7392.287
Channels: 1

1
00:00:31.980 --> 00:00:33.740
Happy Bitcoin Friday,

2
00:00:33.740 --> 00:00:37.900
freaks. It's your host Odell here for Citadel Dispatch.

3
00:00:38.220 --> 00:00:43.020
The show focused on actual Bitcoin and Freedom Tech discussion.

4
00:00:43.180 --> 00:00:50.445
A busy morning over here. I just wrapped up rabbit hole recap my other show, but we have a great show planned today. I'm very excited

5
00:00:51.005 --> 00:00:58.285
for it. But before we get there, as always, dispatch is funded by our audience. We have no ads or sponsors. Thank you, freaks, for continuing to support the show.

6
00:00:59.730 --> 00:01:02.050
The largest two Bitcoin Zaps

7
00:01:02.130 --> 00:01:08.610
from last episode. Our episode was Vexel, focused on no KYC Bitcoin Bitcoin donations.

8
00:01:08.610 --> 00:01:09.650
Peter Mazur,

9
00:01:09.810 --> 00:01:21.985
21,000 sats. I have to admit that I often forget to Zap because I listen to podcasts during my hour and a half long commute. And then I forget by the time I get to a stopping point, although much of this is over my head, I'm trying to learn as much as I can.

10
00:01:22.305 --> 00:01:30.280
This one definitely inspired me. Thank you, sir, for your support. And just on that perspective, that's how I've learned a lot of what I know today.

11
00:01:30.600 --> 00:01:42.655
Just immerse yourself in things that are over your head. It means you're in the right room. Absolutely love to see it. And then the second largest app was from ride or die freak map '21 a 10,000 sats. He said great rip.

12
00:01:43.055 --> 00:01:47.135
As always, freaks, all relevant links are at saledispatch.com.

13
00:01:47.295 --> 00:01:54.095
I know sats are scarce. I know Bitcoin, you're working hard to accumulate as much Bitcoin as possible. If you cannot spare the Bitcoin donations,

14
00:01:54.670 --> 00:01:58.270
the next best way to support the show is to share with your friends and family.

15
00:01:58.750 --> 00:02:03.390
So dispatch is available at every major podcast app by searching Citadel dispatch.

16
00:02:03.550 --> 00:02:07.710
Take your friends and family's phones, open the podcast app, search Citadel dispatch, press subscribe.

17
00:02:08.145 --> 00:02:11.505
They won't know what hit them, but they'll be better better off for it.

18
00:02:11.905 --> 00:02:14.545
And freaks on that note, by the way,

19
00:02:15.505 --> 00:02:21.425
I've been, as you all know, I've been neck deep in the AI world. I rebuilt civildispatch.com.

20
00:02:21.425 --> 00:02:26.890
It still has all the relevant links you would expect, but it also is live polling Noster

21
00:02:27.290 --> 00:02:29.210
for the top Zappers.

22
00:02:29.450 --> 00:02:38.570
So it's cumulative. The more you zap, the higher you get listed on the website. It's a little bit of a work in progress because it's polling Noster live. And so sometimes it

23
00:02:39.115 --> 00:02:41.595
does different results. But the dream is

24
00:02:41.915 --> 00:02:45.035
that the people that support the show the most, the top 10

25
00:02:45.275 --> 00:02:47.755
will always be highlighted on cilladispatch.com,

26
00:02:47.755 --> 00:02:49.755
and you can just click their profile picture,

27
00:02:49.995 --> 00:02:55.530
and it goes straight to their Noster profile. I'm pretty excited about it, but work in progress. Hand up. Anyway, freaks.

28
00:02:56.170 --> 00:02:57.690
We have a great show today.

29
00:02:58.330 --> 00:03:04.410
A lot of you freaks have heard me talk about in the past, the simple x encrypted chat app.

30
00:03:04.730 --> 00:03:15.665
You freaks know I love signal. You know, signal doesn't signal has its own set of But it's fantastic that it exists in the marketplace. The two big ones is that it requires a centralized server.

31
00:03:15.905 --> 00:03:17.905
And the second one is that they use

32
00:03:18.224 --> 00:03:23.105
phone numbers as a way to mitigate spam and bots. Fortunately, they recently

33
00:03:23.490 --> 00:03:29.410
removed the ability for other people you're messaging to see your phone number, but it still requires phone numbers nonetheless.

34
00:03:29.650 --> 00:03:34.130
SimpleX is a very exciting alternative that mitigates both of those concerns,

35
00:03:34.210 --> 00:03:38.290
and I'm pleased to have the founder of SimpleX here, Afghani.

36
00:03:38.775 --> 00:03:40.055
How's it going, sir?

37
00:03:40.534 --> 00:03:44.695
Hello, Matt. Thank you very much for having me. Excited too.

38
00:03:47.735 --> 00:03:53.254
It's it's a pleasure, sir. I by the way, freaks, I think the the way this came together is kind of cool.

39
00:03:54.390 --> 00:03:57.670
He found my simplex contact on my website,

40
00:03:57.830 --> 00:03:59.030
odell.xyz,

41
00:03:59.030 --> 00:04:09.110
and messaged me on his own app and reached out. And then we got onto a phone call. And I have to say the audio calls are working quite well now in simplex, and we set this up pretty cool how it came together.

42
00:04:10.175 --> 00:04:13.375
That's true. Insert. Yeah. We're we're using simplex

43
00:04:13.375 --> 00:04:14.175
chat

44
00:04:14.175 --> 00:04:15.935
as the only communication

45
00:04:16.015 --> 00:04:21.615
tool, obviously, since since we began building it. And yes, phone calls are fine there.

46
00:04:23.229 --> 00:04:26.750
I have to say, sir, my whole life, I've been

47
00:04:27.229 --> 00:04:28.350
fortunate enough

48
00:04:28.510 --> 00:04:47.225
to successfully have moved the majority of my communications to signal, which is great, massive improvement over regular phone calls and texts and emails. But when that thing goes down, I feel quite vulnerable. And we've seen a couple of outages lately. So I'm very grateful that you're building SimpleX. I think a great place to start here

49
00:04:47.545 --> 00:04:51.625
is just high level. What is SimpleX? Why does it exist? Why should people care?

50
00:04:53.120 --> 00:04:55.280
I think my

51
00:04:55.280 --> 00:05:01.439
primary motivation to to start this, to design the protocol, and to build it was never about technology.

52
00:05:01.439 --> 00:05:02.880
It it was about

53
00:05:03.599 --> 00:05:04.319
all the

54
00:05:05.095 --> 00:05:10.935
sad state of I've been observing the world is going to, how people were

55
00:05:11.815 --> 00:05:13.335
losing their jobs for

56
00:05:13.575 --> 00:05:15.015
stating the truths,

57
00:05:15.015 --> 00:05:20.150
and it all has become more and more pronounced in the last couple of decades.

58
00:05:20.790 --> 00:05:21.350
So

59
00:05:21.910 --> 00:05:40.365
I I should make some, like, embarrassing admissions, probably. I I was not never deep enough in any of the cryptocurrencies world. It was alien to me. I was never deep enough in privacy community. I didn't know it even exists. But I wasn't publishing. I spent a a bit a large part of my life in in publishing,

60
00:05:40.604 --> 00:05:45.245
from different angles as I worked as executive in publishing organizations. I

61
00:05:45.850 --> 00:05:47.610
owned a magazine

62
00:05:47.770 --> 00:05:50.570
in my country. Then I worked as a

63
00:05:51.130 --> 00:05:58.730
head of engineering at at MailOnline, one of the largest tablets. To me, publishing and communication was always one of the same. And to me,

64
00:05:59.555 --> 00:06:02.594
ability to say the truth is is fundamentally

65
00:06:02.594 --> 00:06:08.035
foundational for the society. Right? If we can't say what's right, what's wrong, if we can't say,

66
00:06:09.235 --> 00:06:14.780
what's truth, we we we we can no longer exist even, right, because everything breaks.

67
00:06:14.940 --> 00:06:17.900
And when we were building a simplex retrospective

68
00:06:17.900 --> 00:06:21.980
that we can say it's built pretty much on the same values as as Bitcoin,

69
00:06:22.300 --> 00:06:31.135
it's sovereign says primary value, primary foundational truth that we build on is sovereign. Users should own their conversations,

70
00:06:31.135 --> 00:06:57.845
their channels, their connections, their identity, everything that they use. The fact that we build protocol by removing network wide identity for the users means that now users own everything, that now they are in full control. In the same way you hold your Bitcoin keys, you you own your Symbolax identity. And your identity is what your friends see, what your contacts see, and it's not something that exists on a network. That that's why you want. And the second principle was that it's trustless. Right? So we we we always

71
00:06:57.845 --> 00:07:09.764
thought that I always thought that if a technology is built on the idea that for it to function, I have to trust my technology provider, then it's not good enough because today, technology provider can be

72
00:07:10.340 --> 00:07:11.300
practicing

73
00:07:11.300 --> 00:07:13.140
don't be evil principle,

74
00:07:13.300 --> 00:07:14.260
and tomorrow,

75
00:07:14.260 --> 00:07:21.380
some pressure has come along, and it all ends up quite evil. And we've seen it over and over again. So the only way to

76
00:07:21.700 --> 00:07:24.420
to make it not happen is to architecturally

77
00:07:24.585 --> 00:07:28.264
prevent it, right, to build technology in a way that single provider

78
00:07:28.585 --> 00:07:41.820
cannot act against users even if they want to. Right? So it's like sovereign and sovereignty has always been number one value here. So, like, we had a lot of discussions with privacy community. So, obviously, privacy community was the first to discover what we built.

79
00:07:42.300 --> 00:07:46.940
And, obviously, they had their own ideas about how we should build it. And traditional

80
00:07:46.940 --> 00:07:57.164
privacy messenger would be like, you can always delete messages you send even if they lens it on another person's divide device. Right? And this kind of approach was

81
00:07:57.485 --> 00:08:02.410
kind of more and more pervasive and happens in Telegram. It happens in in iMessage. I think to this

82
00:08:02.970 --> 00:08:24.875
at this point, we've been consistently refusing to do it this way because to me, it was like, have files on my computer. I have to allow somebody else to delete those files. It's just wrong. Right? So I have sovereignty on my machine. Right? So why should they it happen unless I agree to that? Then that's what's interesting. So, like, whenever privacy and sovereignty were in conflicts, we were saying sovereignty is foundational both for security

83
00:08:24.955 --> 00:08:26.235
and for privacy.

84
00:08:26.635 --> 00:08:35.150
So fundamentally, that's that's that's why we're building. We we wrote some, like, some philosophical almost statement recently. It's on our website about

85
00:08:37.230 --> 00:08:49.165
that we we we don't we don't see privacy as some as some add on. Right? It's not like a shield and key. It's not a measure of protection. It's just literally a thing that they always existed. Right? We always had privacy before the Internet.

86
00:08:49.565 --> 00:09:07.600
We could talk to people. Right? And nobody knew that who we are talking to or nobody was striking where we go, nobody was striking who we talk to, and we could have genuine conversations because this whole ability to have genuine conversation with people is is predicated on the fact that nobody else knows

87
00:09:08.160 --> 00:09:18.795
who is talking to whom. And that was the whole the whole premise to to return it to the to return communication to free Internet state almost, right, when we can trust the

88
00:09:19.355 --> 00:09:20.394
the environment.

89
00:09:21.115 --> 00:09:27.675
Incredibly well said. I mean, is something that I bring up all the time. Think first off, people don't realize

90
00:09:27.940 --> 00:09:40.420
the human condition is to accept the status quo as something that's always been. But we've never lived in a society that is as digital as it is today, and it's getting increasingly more digital. Our lives are increasingly more online.

91
00:09:41.255 --> 00:09:45.095
And as a result, we've lost a lot of the implicit privacy

92
00:09:45.334 --> 00:09:52.855
and sovereignty aspects of non digital life and we need to protect it. I like to distill it as I say, no privacy,

93
00:09:53.350 --> 00:10:00.950
no freedom and no freedom, no wealth. They're all interconnected. And I know wealth piece, I think is really important when we're bringing it back to Bitcoin

94
00:10:01.270 --> 00:10:04.950
specifically. But if you don't have freedom, it's not your wealth. Someone else controls it.

95
00:10:05.270 --> 00:10:08.470
I just want to apologize real quick. I did mess up the intro.

96
00:10:09.075 --> 00:10:10.675
So I'm just gonna run through

97
00:10:11.555 --> 00:10:14.675
real quick. Today is March 20

98
00:10:14.995 --> 00:10:21.795
at seventeen hundred UTC. The current block height is nine four one four five four. Current stats per dollar is 1,432.

99
00:10:22.300 --> 00:10:25.980
That brings us to a Bitcoin price of $69,792

100
00:10:25.980 --> 00:10:26.460
and

101
00:10:26.860 --> 00:10:27.900
one Bitcoin

102
00:10:28.220 --> 00:10:29.740
will get you 15

103
00:10:29.980 --> 00:10:35.260
ounces of gold right now. We're up on the one day, one week, and one month chart against gold.

104
00:10:36.255 --> 00:10:41.615
Sorry about that interruption. I wanna talk so I didn't realize your background is publishing.

105
00:10:42.255 --> 00:10:49.135
Is it were you what were you an engineer involved with publishing? You came from the free speech side, basically, not the privacy side.

106
00:10:50.760 --> 00:10:54.920
It's hard to say what is my background. I I always enjoyed

107
00:10:55.080 --> 00:11:03.480
codes and but somehow it happened that I only did codes and as a hobby hobby for my own businesses. I I probably am just entrepreneur who is

108
00:11:03.975 --> 00:11:14.135
doing what works. I spend a lot of time in in different businesses. But yes. So I I wasn't originally, I was on publishing as a as an executive,

109
00:11:14.615 --> 00:11:31.149
not technology executive. I moved to technology full time about twelve years ago or, like, a little bit more, maybe fourteen years ago. And, yes, I was working at MailOnline at on technologist side. But, yes, I came to this design from freedom of speech angle, and interestingly,

110
00:11:31.550 --> 00:11:48.505
simplex protocol was created, invented, you can say, pretty much at the same time when Nostril protocol was invented. But but to me, you know you know this x k c z comic when one guy one nerd says to another, oh, his computer has, like you you know that. Right? Like, 4,906

111
00:11:48.505 --> 00:11:52.320
bits of RSA encryption. It's kind of traded in some years. The dollar

112
00:11:53.040 --> 00:12:18.644
wrench one. Right? Yeah. Yeah. Go get go get $5 wrench. Right. We joke around in Bitcoin that with inflation, now the wrench is, $20, but, yes. Yeah. Exactly. Yeah. So to me to me, like, freedom of speech is just impossible if you cannot say say the truth without revealing who you are. Right? So privacy is not about I think it's, like, it's it's in cipher from cipherpunk manifesto. Right? You privacy is about selectively revealing yourself to the world. Right? It's not about

113
00:12:19.070 --> 00:12:26.270
Heizen. Right? And depending on what you say, you may want to say it under your name, or you may want to say it under a pseudonym, and it's essential

114
00:12:27.149 --> 00:12:29.550
to to ability to criticize

115
00:12:29.550 --> 00:12:42.135
powers. It's essential to ability to share some uncomfortable truths, and that's what it also was about. But when we designed the protocol for private for for publishing that's resistant to attacks on individuals,

116
00:12:42.455 --> 00:12:46.455
we said, oh, that's a messaging protocol. Clearly, what we did? So why don't we make a messenger first?

117
00:12:47.560 --> 00:13:04.135
Right. And we're just now approaching to the piece of the technology that they always originally wanted to build as effective as publishing channels, large communities that can scale. We're, like, weeks away from launching the first version of scalable channels on on SimpleX Network.

118
00:13:04.775 --> 00:13:18.920
Like a better version of Telegram channels or Telegram groups. Right? Yeah. We've had we've had, like, large Telegram communities that literally tried to migrate to SimpleX Network. Obviously, that didn't work because, like, the current implementation

119
00:13:19.000 --> 00:13:23.480
scales to maybe thousands of members reasonably well after all the improvements,

120
00:13:23.720 --> 00:13:48.520
but not to tens of thousands as many Telegram's communities have. So yes. So we we have a lot of interest from Telegram communities to use the network because because they would own that. Right? We we developed in a way that each community can run on multiple relays. So in a way, it's a it's a similar design to Nostre with regards to censorship resistance, but it's very different design with regards to privacy because to publish on Nostril, you have to connect to relay.

121
00:13:48.920 --> 00:14:16.020
To publish on simplex channel, there would not be no direct connection. The connection to relay will be through the messaging network, which means the privacy is preserved on a transport layer. Yeah. I mean, let's dive in here a little bit to me, I've always considered the two protocols. I mean, it is interesting how that works out, right? That they both get birthed around the same time that they're more complimentary than competitive in terms of their feature set and use case. I mean,

122
00:14:16.660 --> 00:14:18.180
Noster is

123
00:14:18.180 --> 00:14:31.235
kind of trying to solve this one to many problem as a broadcast protocol first. If I want to broadcast to the world my thoughts, something like Twitter, right? That would be a comparison. That's

124
00:14:31.235 --> 00:14:38.890
the kind of use case Noster is trying to solve. And then also on top of that, kind of goes hand in hand is an associated

125
00:14:38.890 --> 00:14:46.890
fixed identity that can be as public as you want it to be. You can be, you know, it doesn't, it doesn't require permission to create these identities.

126
00:14:47.050 --> 00:14:48.890
You can have many disposable

127
00:14:48.890 --> 00:14:53.050
identities, but most people are using it in a way that they're connecting it to

128
00:14:54.085 --> 00:15:01.205
some elements of their real world life and their real world identity. And then they're using it as a broadcast medium and discovery protocol.

129
00:15:01.365 --> 00:15:03.605
And then with simplex,

130
00:15:04.005 --> 00:15:06.485
you know, you have rotating identities.

131
00:15:06.485 --> 00:15:14.830
Maybe you use different identities in fluid in app with different people and different groups. And it's more like, I would compare it. If

132
00:15:15.070 --> 00:15:32.204
Noster's like the soapbox that you're standing on the corner broadcasting your thoughts to the world, simplex is maybe the dark pub where you're with your local community, having a beer and talking about really important things that maybe you don't wanna be on the record about, but you just wanna have free flowing conversation.

133
00:15:32.445 --> 00:15:32.764
Now,

134
00:15:34.540 --> 00:15:38.380
when you start getting into the channels and stuff, it gets a little bit different.

135
00:15:38.860 --> 00:15:50.825
Right? Telegram channels, I would say Telegram is the behemoth in the room. That's why we're gonna probably keep bringing them up. You know, they have 2,000,000,000 users at this point, and they make a lot of privacy claims that technically are bullshit.

136
00:15:51.145 --> 00:15:59.385
Yes. So there's a decent amount of overlap in the communities. But Telegram channel so Telegram first started as DMs, then they had group chats.

137
00:15:59.960 --> 00:16:09.720
Group chats, I would say, would put more in the pub kind of scenario until they get bigger. Sometimes group chats get big. They're like a thousand person group chats. Then you're in like an auditorium maybe or something.

138
00:16:10.120 --> 00:16:19.555
But then Telegram channels are like more of a competitor to broadcast media, whether that's Twitter or Noster or something like that, where the actual participants

139
00:16:19.955 --> 00:16:25.155
are not able to interact more so than maybe there's a comment box or maybe there's emojis,

140
00:16:25.235 --> 00:16:32.170
but it's really one person broadcasting to a bunch of people. And the reason I bring this up is because net net you

141
00:16:32.810 --> 00:16:38.730
want those telegram channels or large groups. I think you can kind of put them in the same small groups and and

142
00:16:38.970 --> 00:16:40.730
personal messages DMS.

143
00:16:41.050 --> 00:16:43.725
Think could be in the same group and then large

144
00:16:44.045 --> 00:17:05.399
groups and large channels can kind of be in the same group. Net net, you want them to be end to end encrypted, but you always historically have the problem of all it takes is one person out of 2,000 people to be compromised or their phone compromised or themselves would be against whatever the group is. And they can be recording everything that's happening in there. So as you move into that feature set, how you

145
00:17:07.800 --> 00:17:10.440
thinking about privacy in that scenario? Because

146
00:17:11.305 --> 00:17:12.985
if there's a thousand person group,

147
00:17:13.465 --> 00:17:18.745
once again, I think it's important that it's an end to end crypto regardless, it's the basis that everything's built on. But

148
00:17:19.385 --> 00:17:26.665
if one journalist is in there or whatever, just writing it up in The Wall Street Journal, then how much, know, how are you dealing with that? How are you thinking about that?

149
00:17:27.600 --> 00:17:30.559
I I think I think, Matt, you you you will

150
00:17:30.720 --> 00:17:40.960
have tendency to conflate what what privacy means, and here we're talking about two different aspects of privacy. I I 100% agree with you that once group

151
00:17:41.425 --> 00:17:43.345
is free to join,

152
00:17:43.505 --> 00:17:45.265
right, and anybody can join,

153
00:17:45.585 --> 00:17:49.904
then it's unrealistic to expect any degree of content privacy in such group.

154
00:17:50.225 --> 00:17:53.825
And it's just dangerous to rely that there is a content privacy.

155
00:17:54.550 --> 00:18:00.870
Because if you if you expect privacy but there is no privacy, then you may be saying something as if it is private conversation,

156
00:18:00.870 --> 00:18:02.149
but, like, beyond

157
00:18:02.230 --> 00:18:21.745
thousand that's, by the way, the basis of my scathing criticism of MLS as specification. Right? You know, this message layer secrecy I wrote. Yeah. I was gonna bring that up. By the way, it's not a surprise that you came out of publishing because your blog is one of the best blogs in tech to follow, by the way. Thank you. You're Continue. Too You have a blog about MLS,

158
00:18:21.745 --> 00:18:23.825
which is what Signal wants to move to.

159
00:18:24.500 --> 00:18:25.300
Look.

160
00:18:25.300 --> 00:18:36.420
I think it's nonsense, frankly. I can talk talk about it. No. Actually, what what Noster what Noster what what was implemented on top of Noster with White Noise is a different thing. Right? Because they correctly identified

161
00:18:36.420 --> 00:18:45.245
the weak spot of MLS design, and they completely sidestepped it because no store identity is the key. So effectively, authentication is bundled with identity.

162
00:18:45.565 --> 00:18:55.130
But that's a that's an I would even say it's almost like an edge case because in majority of systems, people don't see key as identity. Right? People don't are not hardwired

163
00:18:55.130 --> 00:19:10.585
to to kind of equate identity to the key. I mean, Bitcoin community is very hardwired to equate those things. Right? Or just generally cryptocurrency community. But in normal world, identity is a name. Right? And how do you know that this name Or a phone number. Exactly. So something secondary,

164
00:19:10.585 --> 00:19:12.904
something which is not cryptographically strong.

165
00:19:13.304 --> 00:19:25.300
And how do you equate this identity to something? So, yeah, MLS MLS tries to solve the problem of key agreement in large groups, but it's it's kind of futile because it all depends on authentication

166
00:19:25.300 --> 00:19:28.179
service, which is still depends on provider. Right?

167
00:19:28.900 --> 00:19:37.955
And the whole point of end to end encryption is to provide protect from providers. So effectively, we need to trust the provider to protect from provider. And to me, it's like a logical impossibility.

168
00:19:37.955 --> 00:19:55.700
I on the road this pause because I was asked by, like, 20 different times members of our users were chasing me and asking me to explain why we are not adopting MLS. But, like, after I explained it, like, 20 times, I said, alright. It's time I write something about it. So it's not like I had some kind of vested interest into in criticizing MLS.

169
00:19:55.860 --> 00:20:15.190
But but the point is, like, once the group goes beyond thousands of members, there are two possibilities. It's a public group. It's it's publicly available, and content is impossible to protect, and there is no point trying in a strong to expect us to protect it. Another possibility, it's a corporate group. Right? It's hosted on corporate servers. Right? So however much we may all hate corporations,

170
00:20:15.190 --> 00:20:24.150
they exist. Right? And if it's on their servers, again, it's about protecting their servers and not end to end encryption. Yeah. And to be clear here, Google has a 190,000

171
00:20:24.150 --> 00:20:47.510
employees. Right? So you can easily imagine a 5,000 corporate group. Exactly. Yeah. Exactly right. Yeah. So but but why do they need MLS for this case? Right? So they who they who who are they protecting us from? Right? They they they just need security of infrastructure. They need discipline. They need proper upsec and Google. Right? So they don't need MLS for that. So they may use it for some cases, but but it's still it's still unclear why would they use it. So

172
00:20:48.150 --> 00:20:48.630
but

173
00:20:49.030 --> 00:20:58.310
but the reality the main thing about privacy is participation privacy, I think. Right? Because we've seen it all over and over again that not only publishers

174
00:20:58.685 --> 00:20:59.644
are being,

175
00:21:00.045 --> 00:21:02.284
like, the platform, the banks,

176
00:21:02.845 --> 00:21:16.220
high fired from jobs, right, or worse. Right? So, like, it doesn't matter that, like, the the like, if if you're being dragged to court for whatever you said in public, right, it doesn't, I mean, it's kind of great that the legal system is not completely broken,

177
00:21:16.380 --> 00:21:23.020
and eventually, you are released without verdicts. Right? But the problem is that the whole process is the punishment.

178
00:21:23.420 --> 00:21:34.684
Right? You're being dragged through interrogation. You're being dragged through court process. You have to waste money on lawyers. You have to engage with all that. Yeah. So so the process becomes the punishment, and that's the problem.

179
00:21:35.005 --> 00:21:44.360
So publishers kind of learned. If they publish something controversial, they have to do it behind the pseudonym. They have to do some reasonable upset to protect their identity. Right? And and rather

180
00:21:44.520 --> 00:21:49.799
even if they say legal sense, there are some strong and powerful people who don't like those legal sense to be said,

181
00:21:50.200 --> 00:21:55.560
so they protect themselves. But their audiences may not do that. Right? And we've already seen people

182
00:21:55.795 --> 00:22:12.720
in in various countries. It happens in some even European countries, unfortunately, and it happens in in Russia. Right? You like something, and the next thing that happens, you don't even you don't even comment on that. You simply like something controversial, and then you're being riddled with some fines for liking thin bitch.

183
00:22:12.960 --> 00:22:27.515
Or maybe you're you're not even liking it. I mean, we you're in the group. Yeah. You're in a far you're in a you're in a certain politician's telegram channel, and they're just taking a full list of who's in the group and using it against you. Exactly right. And that's that's what's critically important.

184
00:22:27.755 --> 00:22:29.195
Privacy of participation

185
00:22:29.195 --> 00:22:34.075
is is very so so we currently live in a world when when some powers

186
00:22:34.075 --> 00:22:41.230
believe that they have to regulate not just what's being said, but also what's being listened to, and it's even more dangerous. Right? So people want

187
00:22:41.789 --> 00:22:49.869
and there is no law for that. Right? There is no it's it's completely outside of legal process. So it's completely outside of any precedent we've had we've seen in history.

188
00:22:50.190 --> 00:22:57.575
So people reasonably want to protect their identities, and they don't want to conflate their identities. So the in Telegram, if you follow,

189
00:22:58.135 --> 00:23:06.455
20 different channels, then everybody knows all the channels you follow. Right? There is a picture. Right. The next thing that happens, you're branded as a conspiracy theorist, and it's not the worst outcome.

190
00:23:07.030 --> 00:23:12.789
So and, Nostra has similar thing. Right? So either I have to have a discipline and create multiple profiles,

191
00:23:13.030 --> 00:23:21.910
and it's just inconvenient. Right? I have to think about it, and I have to go through the hoops. And, like, all the applications don't really make it simple to create alternative identities

192
00:23:22.045 --> 00:23:23.565
just for participating.

193
00:23:23.565 --> 00:23:35.885
Right? So you end up just joining with the same identity, and now everybody knows what what you're reading, what you're listening, what you're engaging with. So so what SimpleX protocol achieves is that every time you join a community,

194
00:23:36.649 --> 00:23:40.809
it's a next set of keys. It's a next set of addresses. It's a next set of credentials,

195
00:23:41.450 --> 00:23:46.249
and your participation remains private. If you want to new identity of by default.

196
00:23:46.970 --> 00:23:50.409
It's not even a new identity. The network doesn't operate on the concept of identity.

197
00:23:50.955 --> 00:24:01.354
I think I think I think let let me explain. I think I think it's important to understand that we didn't really build one thing. People think that we build one thing. But even if you take our earliest white paper,

198
00:24:02.154 --> 00:24:03.674
like, written

199
00:24:04.020 --> 00:24:05.460
in 2021

200
00:24:05.460 --> 00:24:10.500
even before the business was started. So it says very clearly. So we built a

201
00:24:10.900 --> 00:24:11.700
network

202
00:24:11.700 --> 00:24:14.340
for delivering packets between applications

203
00:24:14.660 --> 00:24:20.934
because this is what's the missing bit in the World Wide Web. Right? I was web developer. I just wanted a channel on my website.

204
00:24:21.335 --> 00:24:30.055
Right. Right? So how do you do it? You need a message and protocol to achieve that. To do publishing, you need messaging. So we created a transport network that allows to deliver

205
00:24:30.500 --> 00:24:32.179
packets between the endpoints.

206
00:24:32.340 --> 00:24:42.180
And this transport network today already used beyond simplex chat application. It's used by low end devices. People experiment with IoT devices using simplex network.

207
00:24:43.365 --> 00:24:55.925
One substantial distinction of this transport network was if you if you look at the Internet, Internet is a transport network. What Internet does, it it has endpoints like devices. Right? And it deliver packets to the endpoints. Right? And Internet

208
00:24:56.590 --> 00:25:02.589
uses what's called endpoint addressing. Right? Each net each endpoint is assigned an address. Right?

209
00:25:03.470 --> 00:25:11.275
We flipped it upside down. This designer said, okay. We're not gonna assign addresses to endpoints for various reasons. It compromises their security.

210
00:25:11.595 --> 00:25:19.755
It also compromises their battery consumption. Because if you think about mobile devices, right, they don't have fixed address. They keep switching between networks.

211
00:25:19.915 --> 00:25:27.589
They assign dynamic addresses. So the problem that network initial Internet was quite symmetric. Right? All net point all endpoints

212
00:25:27.590 --> 00:25:41.294
had addresses. Right? Fixed addresses. And now Internet evolved to the point that some kind of nodes we call servers, they have fixed addresses, but all other nodes and end user devices, they don't have fixed addresses. They have variable addresses.

213
00:25:41.375 --> 00:26:01.590
And that makes addressing really hard. It makes a synchronous communication really hard. It makes all application really hard. Because in order to receive messages, you now have to poll. You have to go to the server and ask keep asking, do I have messages? Do I have messages? Do I have mess people believe that's how simple x network works, but that's not how it works. The problem with this asking is that you lose power every time you ask.

214
00:26:02.230 --> 00:26:09.765
So we said, okay. What if we design transport network in a very different way? And instead of assigning identities to the endpoint addresses,

215
00:26:09.765 --> 00:26:13.284
we assign identities addresses to connections between the endpoints.

216
00:26:13.924 --> 00:26:25.490
And that's how SimpleX Network is built. We simply built a packet routes in network when address is assigned to connections between endpoints. So every time you want to connect to endpoints, you create a connector

217
00:26:25.730 --> 00:26:29.970
and slap an address on this connector, and that's it. That's that's all the innovation was about.

218
00:26:30.674 --> 00:26:47.770
Flip the address and scheme upside down, and instead of assigning addresses to endpoint you said the audience is quite technical, so I hope I'm not going to do it. You you're telling me if I'm going to do it. So that that's the whole idea. Right? Assign addresses to connectors between the endpoint, and it solves the problem. It solves problem of endpoint security because the second endpoint

219
00:26:47.930 --> 00:26:51.289
address is known to the network. It can be attacked,

220
00:26:51.530 --> 00:26:52.890
and it solves problem

221
00:26:53.050 --> 00:26:57.690
of power consumption because if endpoint cannot have fixed Internet address,

222
00:26:58.275 --> 00:27:01.635
it it becomes problematic how to connect. And what simplex

223
00:27:01.635 --> 00:27:05.475
nodes are is routers that route packets between endpoints.

224
00:27:05.635 --> 00:27:22.619
So endpoints use these routers or routers, however, it depends on which country you're in, I guess, so to to deliver packets between endpoints. That's what we built. And then they said, alright. I have experience of building open source applications, and I know that if you build a component that's not used by end users,

225
00:27:22.940 --> 00:27:25.340
it's really hard to make it valuable.

226
00:27:25.340 --> 00:27:31.725
It's really hard to make it into every business. It's hard to get adoption because you're effectively built a technological

227
00:27:31.725 --> 00:27:32.764
cog in

228
00:27:33.405 --> 00:27:39.325
a large way, and you have to convince people to I'm talking about my library for data validation. Right? I built, like,

229
00:27:39.645 --> 00:27:42.525
Sarcen from 2015. I built a JavaScript library

230
00:27:43.030 --> 00:27:46.549
that now has close to a billion downloads every month

231
00:27:46.790 --> 00:28:05.704
because it's used probably by, like, I don't know, most JavaScript applications. It depends on this one. It is. Right. It's it's it's one of the biggest used libraries because it's an independent chain of many applications, But most people don't know it exists because it's it's a it's a little cog well, not not so little. It's it's a it's a highly reliable cog in the wheel that's

232
00:28:05.865 --> 00:28:27.524
surviving AI led attacks right now. People try to find highly reliable. It's been highly supported, used by lots of people. My my kind of thinking when we design this transport network is we'll have to build application in parallel. We we cannot just build transport network and hope that it's somehow used. We have to build some application that uses this transport network. Proving the use case.

233
00:28:27.925 --> 00:28:34.004
Effectively. So we build SimpleX Chat. And what is SimpleX Chat? SimpleX Chat is a peer to peer messenger that uses this transport network.

234
00:28:34.645 --> 00:28:40.405
And the fact that SimpleX Chat doesn't need identities for the end users is a direct consequences

235
00:28:40.600 --> 00:28:43.879
of transport network not having endpoint addresses

236
00:28:44.200 --> 00:28:46.359
and instead having connector addresses.

237
00:28:46.840 --> 00:28:51.480
So and these two things have been evolving in parallel. They live in different code repositories.

238
00:28:51.480 --> 00:28:52.440
They obviously,

239
00:28:52.679 --> 00:29:00.094
SimpleX Chat application uses library provided by SimpleX software. But for us, it's always been, like, two things. We're evolving in parallel

240
00:29:00.414 --> 00:29:03.214
and try to make this whole ecosystem work,

241
00:29:03.455 --> 00:29:07.455
but together. Right? But and and that's that's that's the foundation of technology we built.

242
00:29:09.910 --> 00:29:20.389
That makes a lot of sense to me. I mean, the dream is that you have that there'll be many different applications and use cases on top of this protocol, but simplex is the first one and

243
00:29:21.190 --> 00:29:30.735
it's paving the way and proving how it works and how resilient it is. Right? Correct. SimpleX yes. Correct. Yes. We we see SimpleX chat platform

244
00:29:30.735 --> 00:29:33.294
also as a potentially platform for applications

245
00:29:33.534 --> 00:29:36.094
similar to a browser. Right? We're already playing

246
00:29:36.414 --> 00:29:40.014
with the idea of adopting programming language that will enable

247
00:29:40.429 --> 00:29:54.575
to have widgets in a chart that have some customers or activity, etcetera, etcetera. So simplex chat in itself is also like a platform you can develop on. And people already developed chatbots. Right? So there was, like I was very excited to see that guys from unstoppable

248
00:29:54.815 --> 00:30:03.614
you know you know this unstoppable wallet people probably. Right? So they developed a chatbot that allows to do swaps via simplex chat chatbot. And

249
00:30:04.735 --> 00:30:17.619
the good thing is, like, you're doing swap without connecting to any without exposing your IP address, without sharing your transferred information. You're effectively yeah. There is it's not completely trustless, of course. Yes. You you trust some swap providers.

250
00:30:17.780 --> 00:30:22.900
Right. But SimpleX Chat itself is rather trustless. Right? And you just The communication protocol

251
00:30:22.900 --> 00:30:24.420
is is

252
00:30:23.995 --> 00:30:30.075
trust minimized. Yeah. Yeah. So And private. Yeah. And I mean, it makes sense because I mean, I do think,

253
00:30:31.835 --> 00:30:40.129
you know, I think the truth is somewhere in the middle and there's a lot of hype, but I I do think the UX of how people interact with a lot of these things is moving

254
00:30:40.370 --> 00:30:43.570
to like the AI chat interface. We're like going from

255
00:30:43.809 --> 00:30:49.249
we're going away from the world of point and click and more to the world of ask and get,

256
00:30:49.570 --> 00:30:55.294
you know, where you're like just asking an agent for something. And then as the question becomes and we've seen it with the OpenClaw movement,

257
00:30:55.535 --> 00:31:04.175
which is the fastest growing open source project, end user open source project of all time. Everyone's using Telegram or Discord centralized and not private at all. Right?

258
00:31:05.070 --> 00:31:08.429
100%. And I I I I agree with you.

259
00:31:08.750 --> 00:31:10.190
You know, I was

260
00:31:10.350 --> 00:31:13.789
a CTO at startup that was selling

261
00:31:14.029 --> 00:31:18.429
fashion via WhatsApp. Right? To me, commerce move into messaging environment.

262
00:31:18.725 --> 00:31:22.965
All interaction with services move into messaging environment was, like, inevitable

263
00:31:23.125 --> 00:31:25.365
future of technology because

264
00:31:25.685 --> 00:31:31.925
this whole kind of point and click interface, it requires a lot of, like, thinking about what to point and what to click. Right?

265
00:31:32.669 --> 00:31:46.269
Sometimes just want to ask. And the constraint was always an intelligence of or or or, like, some ability to interpret our requests if they are said in plain language. Right? And they're certainly positive points when we can get very valuable responses

266
00:31:46.350 --> 00:31:57.015
from LLMs. Right? But the problem now is that the whole kind of communication pipes around LLMs are extremely insecure, not just LLM provider can read what they say, but,

267
00:31:57.975 --> 00:32:09.200
like, all the transport environment around it is not quite secure. Plus, we are not private with that. So I think I think what we're building can be an interesting transport layer for interaction with with models.

268
00:32:10.080 --> 00:32:12.799
Yeah. I mean, you especially see it, the

269
00:32:13.600 --> 00:32:18.640
commerce as messenger in the developing world. Like, whenever I'm in Latin America, it's very obvious.

270
00:32:20.215 --> 00:32:29.414
And I mean, to tie it back to Bitcoin again, the number one way that people do P2P Bitcoin trades is through WhatsApp is through existing messengers,

271
00:32:29.895 --> 00:32:30.695
not

272
00:32:30.775 --> 00:32:32.695
through like application

273
00:32:32.520 --> 00:32:40.679
They're they're going into WhatsApp. They have their broker dealer or whatever, and they're just messaging them directly there and exchanging information. I

274
00:32:41.240 --> 00:32:45.240
I saw I wanna pull it back for a second. The so

275
00:32:45.535 --> 00:32:46.575
the key here,

276
00:32:47.055 --> 00:32:50.815
the simplex servers, right? Anyone can run a simplex server.

277
00:32:53.855 --> 00:32:54.894
They're routers.

278
00:32:54.895 --> 00:32:56.014
They're routing

279
00:32:56.575 --> 00:32:58.495
the communication between each other.

280
00:33:00.610 --> 00:33:06.289
How heavy is that burden? Like and what trust is being put in the server by the users?

281
00:33:07.649 --> 00:33:11.409
The burden that router holds is very much dependent

282
00:33:11.409 --> 00:33:12.049
on

283
00:33:12.210 --> 00:33:15.090
the traffic. If you're just running

284
00:33:15.535 --> 00:33:25.934
a set of routers for a small group, you can have single core virtual machine with, like, half gigabyte of RAM or even less. It's just minimum.

285
00:33:26.015 --> 00:33:28.095
Yes. Yes. It's it's extremely low

286
00:33:29.539 --> 00:33:31.220
resource consumption

287
00:33:31.539 --> 00:33:37.940
because all it does, it receives a message. We our default implementation doesn't use any database layers.

288
00:33:38.179 --> 00:33:39.940
It can run on like,

289
00:33:40.260 --> 00:33:50.105
it's a single executable that keeps the state and memory with a fullback state in a append on the logs. So effectively, it it wouldn't lose the connections

290
00:33:50.265 --> 00:33:51.945
even on hard reset.

291
00:33:52.184 --> 00:33:59.200
It may lose some messages on hard reset, but if it's if it terminates normally, it wouldn't lose any messages. It will persist them on stop.

292
00:33:59.520 --> 00:34:09.840
So we we don't we don't we don't run this in memory servers anymore for those that are preset enough. We use, Postgres database for that, and we know quite a few people who migrated

293
00:34:10.005 --> 00:34:19.285
to Postgres database as well who run them in their companies or in their working groups. So they use use those routers with with Postgres databases. With high traffic, it's it's more

294
00:34:19.684 --> 00:34:22.405
efficient. But still, we're talking about relatively

295
00:34:22.644 --> 00:34:24.325
low power

296
00:34:24.849 --> 00:34:27.170
machines or virtual environments

297
00:34:27.170 --> 00:34:28.370
that can

298
00:34:28.849 --> 00:34:30.610
transfer millions of messages.

299
00:34:31.570 --> 00:34:32.210
So

300
00:34:32.849 --> 00:34:34.290
I'm just trying to

301
00:34:34.530 --> 00:34:42.945
like, I'm trying to key in here on what you perceive as yeah. Go on. You said you asked the second question that was trust. Right? The level of trust. Yes.

302
00:34:43.265 --> 00:34:46.465
I think I think we probably thanks to our adviser,

303
00:34:46.785 --> 00:34:50.945
we have been very explicit about trust model. It's it's in our white paper.

304
00:34:51.570 --> 00:34:55.330
So servers obviously can routers disrupt communications.

305
00:34:55.490 --> 00:34:58.290
Right? So we we trust routers

306
00:34:58.290 --> 00:35:08.745
not to do it. But what they cannot do is important. They they cannot compromise on to end encryption because they do not participate in key exchange. Key exchange happens out of band.

307
00:35:08.985 --> 00:35:11.225
They cannot drop messages undetectably.

308
00:35:11.225 --> 00:35:13.625
They cannot insert messages undetectably.

309
00:35:13.865 --> 00:35:18.505
So the best the service can do is just delay communications

310
00:35:18.505 --> 00:35:18.825
or,

311
00:35:19.320 --> 00:35:43.705
like, send loads of spam traffic to the end user's device. Like, reliability and uptime is the trust, basically. Right? Yes. Yes. Effectively. Yeah. And and with servers, there's a routers that we run that had very we had no no much problem. Right? I I had, like, very funny situation when somebody who I connected, like, on the day of the first mobile app launch four years ago recently messaged me and said, hello. I said, okay. This thing was, like, four years ago.

312
00:35:44.105 --> 00:35:48.665
The connection somehow survived through all this time. So yeah. So so we we we

313
00:35:49.250 --> 00:35:51.890
aim to minimize the trust. And, also,

314
00:35:52.290 --> 00:36:07.595
if initial design had a single router in a message passing chain, and, obviously, even though on a simple x protocol layer, servers don't have identities, there is IP call layer. Right? And if server can if router can observe IP address of one party and IP address of Yep. Another party

315
00:36:08.154 --> 00:36:18.350
then then they can see who talks to whom. So on on IP address level. Right? So we changed this routing protocol. So now messages are passed always through two routers.

316
00:36:18.830 --> 00:36:29.310
So even though the first router and the message passing okay. So each conversation with these four routers. Right? When I say two routers, it's a one way communication. Right? Okay. So so

317
00:36:29.985 --> 00:36:39.745
I can be messaging you through one router and using our another router to connect to yours. And when you're replying, you also will be using two routers.

318
00:36:39.745 --> 00:36:47.130
So effectively, you choose the routers to receive messages from and I choose the routers to forward the messages

319
00:36:47.210 --> 00:36:51.530
to your router. And they would all have to collude to connect

320
00:36:51.530 --> 00:37:02.525
the It's it's really hard. Yes. They'll have to and it's really hard because it means they'll have to do some coordinated protocol changes and introduce some additional metadata in the message envelopes.

321
00:37:02.605 --> 00:37:14.610
So I would say it's not impossible, of course. If routers collude, they can do time and correlation and compare those things. Right. But but the technical bar is quite high, And the clients are already programmed

322
00:37:14.690 --> 00:37:17.810
to use router, not just different routers,

323
00:37:17.810 --> 00:37:23.090
but routers of different operators. We introduced the concept of router operator. App understands that.

324
00:37:23.490 --> 00:37:32.005
And it will tell already has two preset operators right now. There will be more. So and if you add yours to the routers, then it will be a third operator.

325
00:37:32.325 --> 00:37:37.445
So App knows this concept of not just router, but of router operator, and

326
00:37:37.790 --> 00:37:40.990
it chooses different operators, so different entities.

327
00:37:41.150 --> 00:38:07.660
That was my biggest criticism of Tor, by the way, because Right. Tor Tor network is built on the idea that you choose three relays on a on a packet pass and pass. Right? You don't control the relay choice or you have limited control of relay choice. Right? And we know that there are large entities separating those relays on Tor network. Right? And we know that there are entities who sell traffic data as well. So so if actually this whole kind of idea that different servers, different relays means

328
00:38:07.820 --> 00:38:37.590
that they don't collude is kind of questionable. Right? So we Like, the whole model is based on at least one honest actor in the route. But if it's all the same actor, then the the assumption breaks down. Exactly. Yeah. And and given that you have limited control of those again, there there are some advanced settings, but by default, you don't choose, and it means that means that you potentially don't don't have privacy of this of this circuit. I think it's important since for simple extra protocols, like, if you compare with TOR. Right? On TOR,

329
00:38:37.910 --> 00:38:44.150
you create a persistent circuit. So you build a circuit, and then then all the packets comes through the circuit.

330
00:38:44.635 --> 00:38:56.875
And then the circuit can see all the packets, and they understand. They all understand it's the same circuit. It's persistent circuit. Right? Right. So even even though like, for example, it's it's it's a session design. Right? So you may message different people through this network,

331
00:38:57.520 --> 00:38:58.080
but

332
00:38:58.480 --> 00:38:59.360
the

333
00:38:59.360 --> 00:39:05.760
the the server that receives your messages would know that they come from the same person because they come through the same circuit.

334
00:39:07.040 --> 00:39:14.155
And you understand. Right? So, like, because the the session is the same. Different packets come out of the same session. It means that

335
00:39:14.875 --> 00:39:22.155
you know at least that it's the same person communicating all these different contexts. Right? With SimpleX Network, we designed it differently.

336
00:39:22.234 --> 00:39:29.390
We do the same as Mixnet do do. So, effectively, there's no circuit. There there is a packet level. And,

337
00:39:29.550 --> 00:39:30.590
the recipient

338
00:39:30.590 --> 00:39:31.390
router,

339
00:39:31.470 --> 00:39:35.870
it doesn't know whether packets come from the same session or from different session.

340
00:39:36.190 --> 00:39:48.785
So it only knows that they come to different recipients. Right? And the forwards in router, again, it doesn't know how many addresses would be because there isn't an encryption between sender and the receiving router

341
00:39:49.265 --> 00:39:51.345
going deeper in technical details.

342
00:39:51.665 --> 00:39:59.970
So, effectively, they cannot establish who talks to whom on a cryptographic level because because the each each packet is anonymous

343
00:39:59.970 --> 00:40:01.410
in this message person.

344
00:40:01.730 --> 00:40:10.770
That's awesome. Yeah. It makes collusion significantly more difficult by default, which is key because if defaults are what matter, most people are not gonna actually be changing things.

345
00:40:13.835 --> 00:40:14.555
Yes.

346
00:40:15.595 --> 00:40:17.675
How do you how do you handle

347
00:40:17.994 --> 00:40:18.715
the,

348
00:40:19.275 --> 00:40:21.835
like, the discovery problem? The

349
00:40:22.075 --> 00:40:26.715
and by discovery problem, I mean, it can mean a bunch of different things. What I mean is

350
00:40:27.530 --> 00:40:28.890
you message me

351
00:40:29.369 --> 00:40:32.570
and I'm connected to a different router than you are.

352
00:40:33.130 --> 00:40:34.970
How does the path get

353
00:40:35.609 --> 00:40:36.570
determined?

354
00:40:36.570 --> 00:40:46.695
Like, do you how does it how does it get to me? Right? You know what I mean? Your address. You published an address. Right? So we don't have have anything in the protocol or in the op

355
00:40:47.255 --> 00:40:49.415
to help me discover your address.

356
00:40:49.735 --> 00:40:51.495
That's that's the future

357
00:40:52.215 --> 00:41:02.800
That's a separate discovery problem. That's not what I'm talking about here. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. You went to my website, and there was a there was my my address was there. So we just used a traditional website

358
00:41:02.960 --> 00:41:04.800
for that part of the discovery problem.

359
00:41:04.960 --> 00:41:05.680
Correct.

360
00:41:05.920 --> 00:41:06.960
The address

361
00:41:07.920 --> 00:41:12.480
the way it works now the way it worked before, the address itself contained the router address.

362
00:41:13.224 --> 00:41:13.945
Okay.

363
00:41:14.105 --> 00:41:26.025
The way it works now, the address contains a a a reference to an encrypted piece of data, which contains the reference to the address, which I have to mention. So the the the address itself

364
00:41:26.310 --> 00:41:27.270
cryptographically

365
00:41:27.270 --> 00:41:28.070
bound

366
00:41:28.070 --> 00:41:35.670
to the point I have to forward my messages to. So your your router is determined by your address,

367
00:41:35.830 --> 00:41:46.005
and the router I choose to forward messages to this address packets is randomly chosen from my configurate from my client configuration. So my client says, okay. I will choose any router,

368
00:41:46.325 --> 00:41:50.724
but it will try to use a router of another operator than you use.

369
00:41:51.285 --> 00:41:59.900
Right. So and that's what and when I send the first message to your address, when the client sends the first message, it includes the reply address,

370
00:42:00.140 --> 00:42:12.165
end to end encrypted. So your client gives you a discovery path, basically, to get back. Yeah. Yeah. Your client learns where it can reach me. When I message you, it's all it's all works rather seamlessly.

371
00:42:12.325 --> 00:42:21.845
And on a technical level, discovery is not a problem. Obviously, the the whole idea is, like, for for us, right, we have a a support team member who answers

372
00:42:21.845 --> 00:42:30.230
user's request. The most common request is how do I connect to people? Like, where do you where do you where do you type the name? Do you type the phone number? How the hell like,

373
00:42:30.550 --> 00:42:39.030
how is it even working? Right? So the whole idea that you have to create a link and share the link with somebody else in order to connect is is alien to absolute majority of people.

374
00:42:39.935 --> 00:42:49.215
We're doing a lot of redesign of this initial connection experience right now to make it easier to understand. We we don't change it yet. Say the in person is more intuitive

375
00:42:49.535 --> 00:43:03.860
Yes. Than not because in person, you just scan a QR code. Boom. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. That's that was, like, that was literally version one of the app had nothing else. Right? You could scan a QR code and you can start sending text messages. That was what we released four years ago.

376
00:43:04.980 --> 00:43:06.420
But, yeah, that makes sense to me.

377
00:43:08.765 --> 00:43:13.405
Okay. So one of the things that MLS does attempt to solve is

378
00:43:15.085 --> 00:43:19.885
is this idea of groups scaling poorly in encrypted chat. So

379
00:43:20.540 --> 00:43:23.580
a lot of times the most basic and you

380
00:43:24.220 --> 00:43:29.260
can correct me where I'm wrong here. My most basic interpretation of how standard

381
00:43:29.260 --> 00:43:31.020
encrypted group chats work,

382
00:43:31.420 --> 00:43:35.020
whether it's signal or matrix or any of the existing ones

383
00:43:35.285 --> 00:43:42.805
is I'm basically if there's 50 people in the group, I'm sending 50 individual encrypted messages every time I'm sending a group text,

384
00:43:43.285 --> 00:43:50.100
but the UI is making it look like it's just one message in a group text. But in the background, what's really happening is

385
00:43:50.260 --> 00:43:58.180
every message has to be sent to every group member and private, you know, encrypted separately. My understanding is part of the MLS spec

386
00:43:58.500 --> 00:44:00.340
is trying to solve that

387
00:44:00.515 --> 00:44:06.995
scaling limitation because maybe it works at like 20 people. Maybe it works at 50. But once you get to like 2,005

388
00:44:06.995 --> 00:44:09.955
people, it's insane. You're like basically DDoS each other

389
00:44:10.435 --> 00:44:12.755
and then the servers would obviously

390
00:44:13.075 --> 00:44:21.820
have a lot more overhead attached to them. So how are you thinking about that? Is that a real limitation? Is that and how are you mitigating it?

391
00:44:23.020 --> 00:44:31.825
Okay. So there are several questions. I'll try to answer all of them. So first, that's not that's not that's not that's that's not exactly how a signal works. Right? You're not sending messages to each member.

392
00:44:32.224 --> 00:44:36.945
What you do is you generate a random key for this message,

393
00:44:37.664 --> 00:44:38.625
and then you

394
00:44:38.865 --> 00:44:40.625
encrypt the key itself

395
00:44:40.625 --> 00:44:41.664
for 50 people,

396
00:44:43.200 --> 00:44:49.440
but the message is encrypted only once. So for example, if your message is, like, 200 characters, but your key is rather small,

397
00:44:49.680 --> 00:45:00.155
you don't need to send message 50 times, and you don't need to send message to 50 people in signal. You encrypt message with the same key, and then you encrypt key with different

398
00:45:00.315 --> 00:45:10.075
so if I say and then you send one bundle, which contains one message encrypted with this key and 50 encrypted keys, but they are small because it's, a fixed size 32

399
00:45:10.075 --> 00:45:18.650
bytes bytes key. Right? So so it's not it's not exact. And then the server does the fan out, the broadcast, right, to to the to the recipients.

400
00:45:18.809 --> 00:45:20.410
And server has to do it anyway,

401
00:45:20.569 --> 00:45:22.170
however you agree, keys.

402
00:45:22.569 --> 00:45:30.965
Right. Because they have to see the message. Right? Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. So they they like, it's either, like, in simple yeah. So if you if you communicate

403
00:45:30.965 --> 00:45:31.765
via

404
00:45:31.845 --> 00:45:33.925
signal or matrix,

405
00:45:34.165 --> 00:45:43.800
then the the the whole way it works, you send the message once, and then the server distributes it to all the group members. Right? And server obviously has more power than your mobile device,

406
00:45:44.200 --> 00:46:10.744
and that's why it's it's it's it's working. Right? And the fact that you have to send 50 different keys encrypted for each recipient is not, like, the same as sending message 50 times. It's it's obviously some overhead, but it's not as much overhead. So this approach scales to some thousands of members. Alright. It doesn't it doesn't scale to 50,000, but it scales to several thousands. But it am I right that there there is a little bit of a I mean, I will just say, I've been in very large encrypted matrix groups,

407
00:46:11.450 --> 00:46:14.970
And maybe it's something else with how they have it implemented,

408
00:46:15.049 --> 00:46:16.970
but it like become it

409
00:46:17.529 --> 00:46:18.970
becomes nearly

410
00:46:18.970 --> 00:46:20.089
unusable

411
00:46:20.410 --> 00:46:22.010
as you get to the higher

412
00:46:22.329 --> 00:46:23.130
numbers

413
00:46:23.130 --> 00:46:29.385
in terms of people. And, like, not that high. I don't know. Like, 1,200 people or something. Content good consciousness.

414
00:46:29.385 --> 00:46:41.670
Comment on why matrix works, how it works. So Fair enough. Yeah. So I will leave it on their on their conscience. So yeah. So I think it can be done reasonably usable for several thousand people.

415
00:46:41.830 --> 00:46:43.910
But Okay. The problem is that,

416
00:46:45.510 --> 00:46:50.790
we discussed it before. Right? My my view is simple. Right? Once your the group gets past 10,000 members,

417
00:46:51.984 --> 00:46:53.825
you need a trusted server.

418
00:46:54.145 --> 00:47:07.760
Right? You you really need you you you can't you can't protect participation privacy, but there is no reasonable way you can protect content privacy because somebody in the group has it anyway. Right? Yep. And trying to design communication protocol that protects you from server

419
00:47:07.920 --> 00:47:13.840
is an interesting direction, but MLS doesn't solve this problem because MLS arrives to the point

420
00:47:14.080 --> 00:47:39.100
that in order for this to be protects from the server, you still need a trusted server. They just call it authentication service. It's a different trusted server. Yeah. Yeah. You still need some trust. Right? And kind of that's that's questionable. And and they acknowledge that, and it's an ongoing area of research, and they agree that this is a serious limitation because that that's kind of the whole foundation of trust. Because the idea of end to end encryption is that you are protecting content

421
00:47:39.100 --> 00:47:41.020
from your messaging provider.

422
00:47:41.260 --> 00:47:43.180
And if messaging provider

423
00:47:42.935 --> 00:47:46.055
can inject a participant into the group,

424
00:47:47.494 --> 00:47:54.695
then you're not protecting content anymore. And that's what the lack lack of trust to this authentication service achieves. You can have participant

425
00:47:54.695 --> 00:47:55.575
that is injected.

426
00:47:56.260 --> 00:48:00.660
So so yeah. So the problem of SimpleX designed for groups is different.

427
00:48:00.900 --> 00:48:03.060
We do not have a broadcast

428
00:48:03.780 --> 00:48:07.700
thing at the point. Right? If you have a group on SimpleX,

429
00:48:07.700 --> 00:48:09.460
you really need to send message

430
00:48:09.714 --> 00:48:13.875
fifty, hundred, or thousand times every time you send a message.

431
00:48:14.915 --> 00:48:15.635
And

432
00:48:16.675 --> 00:48:22.275
people still use groups on simplex. We have lots of, like we host a small experimental directory ourselves

433
00:48:22.434 --> 00:48:25.954
where people can submit groups. It's kind of our early

434
00:48:25.680 --> 00:48:28.000
view on what it may be. So

435
00:48:28.960 --> 00:48:30.720
there are groups of 5,000

436
00:48:30.720 --> 00:48:31.280
people,

437
00:48:31.599 --> 00:48:43.765
and they kind of work. Right? Yes. You to send a message, you have to incur lots of traffic, but people use it anyway. And the the design for channels we are now doing is effectively adds in a a chat relay that would be doing this rebroadcast.

438
00:48:45.045 --> 00:48:48.484
So in end to end encryption in such groups is possible

439
00:48:48.644 --> 00:49:01.150
via the same approach as signal does. Right? When you encrypt not the message, but the key and attach multiple encrypted keys, and then the the relay does all your rebroadcast. So that that that's a viable approach. I think realistically,

440
00:49:01.310 --> 00:49:06.350
to me, pairwise ratchets, like pairwise double ratchet, so for each member,

441
00:49:06.430 --> 00:49:13.795
you encrypt separate key. It scales to quite large numbers. It scales reasonably well to even 5,000

442
00:49:13.795 --> 00:49:14.835
recipients,

443
00:49:15.395 --> 00:49:20.595
and that's that's how we see large groups with end to end encryption in the future.

444
00:49:21.470 --> 00:49:23.070
Not MLS spec, but

445
00:49:23.950 --> 00:49:28.430
effectively what Signal does. So Signal works Signal limited at 2,000

446
00:49:28.430 --> 00:49:38.515
because they have, like, tens of millions of users, and some of them are on really bad Internet, and they don't want to have a very low power devices, so they don't want to go beyond thousand,

447
00:49:39.075 --> 00:49:40.835
with end to end encrypted groups.

448
00:49:42.035 --> 00:50:08.795
But I think even five, ten thousand, it's a it's a tractable approach if if you only encrypt keys and not the not the full message. But beyond that, it's just like it feels like you're not you like, you cannot remember 10,000 people. You don't know who's in the groups. You don't know who reads it. Like, what's the point of end to end encryption? I I kind of agree with So then we move into the channels. Right? Yeah. Effectively. So then how are you how are you envisioning the channel setup, and what's that what does that look like in practice?

449
00:50:11.915 --> 00:50:15.435
User experience but from user experience point of view, you

450
00:50:15.435 --> 00:50:20.350
just it works in the same way. You scan the link, you join the channel, you start receiving messages.

451
00:50:20.590 --> 00:50:27.630
The difference is that if you have right to send messages to the channel, then instead of sending it to whatever number of subscribers,

452
00:50:28.355 --> 00:50:32.835
one, ten thousand, 50,000 subscribers, you send it only to chat relays,

453
00:50:33.155 --> 00:50:34.515
and they do rebroadcast.

454
00:50:34.595 --> 00:50:35.715
The server?

455
00:50:36.275 --> 00:50:44.820
It is not exactly the server. It it is again, it's some sort of a message. It uses client client side technology because you're not connecting to this chat relay over the Internet.

456
00:50:45.380 --> 00:50:48.260
Okay. Actually, the chat relay is a mess messaging client

457
00:50:48.260 --> 00:50:58.515
that's calls plays or all plays as a server, right, that that is a router. Right? So it receives your message as a as a simplex client. Right? And it has it's a special kind of client

458
00:50:58.995 --> 00:51:16.180
because you're never connecting to it directly. You don't know its IP address. You don't you only have its simplex address forwards your messages through simplex network. You can you connect to it via SimpleX network, and it forwards the messages to SimpleX network. So unlike no store relays, you never build direct Internet connection to this relay.

459
00:51:17.700 --> 00:51:20.660
Okay. I I mean, to help me understand,

460
00:51:20.819 --> 00:51:23.285
maybe it's more helpful

461
00:51:23.285 --> 00:51:28.245
because if I don't understand it, then it's less likely other people understand it. Let's say,

462
00:51:29.125 --> 00:51:32.965
I don't know, some politician wants has a 100,000 person

463
00:51:33.365 --> 00:51:35.525
channel. Right? Wants to broadcast

464
00:51:35.850 --> 00:51:39.130
to his audience, the 100,000 people big.

465
00:51:39.530 --> 00:51:42.890
What does that look like? Is he running his own chat server,

466
00:51:43.290 --> 00:51:47.050
and is who's running the chat relays, and how does that all fit together?

467
00:51:47.610 --> 00:52:03.329
It it's not different from who runs simplex network routers. It can be there will be some chat relays that run by third parties preinstalled in the app. He can run his own, and each channel can have multiple. Our idea is that you you want more than one chat relay in each channel for redundancy,

468
00:52:03.329 --> 00:52:13.569
for censorship resistance, for mitigating any trust issues. So the way we designed the protocol and Laura's implemented is that some critical messages are are signed by senders so they cannot be faked.

469
00:52:14.065 --> 00:52:17.905
Most messages are not signed, but they are kind of delivered redundantly,

470
00:52:17.905 --> 00:52:31.790
and recipient clients can see if some relays decides to invent messages or change messages or so with, like that's in case they are not end to end encrypted. Right? We're talking about public channels at this point. Right. Yeah. Big

471
00:52:32.190 --> 00:52:34.750
big thing with public channels is not

472
00:52:35.470 --> 00:52:37.230
is not necessarily

473
00:52:37.230 --> 00:52:40.590
encryption of the content. It's verifiability

474
00:52:40.590 --> 00:52:44.255
of the content that it hasn't been changed in transit and

475
00:52:44.255 --> 00:52:46.175
privacy of the participants.

476
00:52:46.895 --> 00:52:57.455
Correct? Correct. Correct. Yes. And end to end encryption between this relay and the participant helps privacy. Right? Because because there is end to end encryption between the relay and participant,

477
00:52:57.455 --> 00:53:00.650
all the traffic information is not uniform.

478
00:53:00.730 --> 00:53:08.410
So the transport network cannot observe the content. It cannot correlate the content. It cannot understand which groups you are receiving content from.

479
00:53:08.890 --> 00:53:13.450
For the same reason, it's, it's end to end encrypted. So so end to end encrypted and

480
00:53:14.135 --> 00:53:17.735
this broadcast and relay and the members

481
00:53:17.815 --> 00:53:19.495
helps privacy of the members.

482
00:53:20.295 --> 00:53:30.500
Right. Because because without end to end encryption, transferred network could see content. Right? And if transferred network could see content, they know what you're reading. Right? So the same time encryption is very important to provide

483
00:53:30.980 --> 00:53:32.420
And the members are known.

484
00:53:32.660 --> 00:53:46.945
Exactly. Yeah. Yeah. So but and and with end to end encryption, transport network can see nothing, and chat relays don't see your IP address, so they kind of protect you from each other. And then from the why aren't all you mentioned so the broadcaster,

485
00:53:46.945 --> 00:53:50.145
let's call him the broadcaster in this in this scenario.

486
00:53:50.625 --> 00:53:55.985
Mhmm. The guy who owns the channel that's sending out the messages to people. You said every message isn't signed.

487
00:53:56.640 --> 00:54:01.920
Why isn't every message signed? Is it a is it a is it an efficiency thing? Or

488
00:54:02.960 --> 00:54:05.040
No. There is no cost on sending messages,

489
00:54:05.359 --> 00:54:07.760
but it's it's always a double edged

490
00:54:08.000 --> 00:54:12.445
sword. Right? So, like, one one of the qualities in communication is deniability. Right?

491
00:54:12.765 --> 00:54:18.365
So Right. The double rated protocol has this quality called reputation,

492
00:54:18.365 --> 00:54:24.365
which means that it's not possible to prove to a third party that you actually ever sent this message because

493
00:54:24.690 --> 00:54:26.050
the message is is

494
00:54:26.530 --> 00:54:29.730
encrypted by the key that the recipient also possesses.

495
00:54:29.730 --> 00:54:33.890
But the second you start signing the message, you're effectively putting your signature

496
00:54:33.970 --> 00:54:47.045
on the message saying, I actually said that. You lose the the name of verifiable. Yeah. It's not just it's not just verifiable. It's also verifiable is a good thing, but the flip side of this coin, it's nonreusable.

497
00:54:47.045 --> 00:54:53.650
So you can no longer say, I have no idea where this message come from. I I never sent it. Like Yeah. We see that issue with

498
00:54:53.970 --> 00:54:56.930
a separate rabbit hole that I've dove down in the past,

499
00:54:57.329 --> 00:54:57.970
which is

500
00:54:59.490 --> 00:55:02.450
the idea of of

501
00:55:01.335 --> 00:55:02.135
of more

502
00:55:02.215 --> 00:55:06.455
modern voting techniques that would involve a signed receipt.

503
00:55:06.695 --> 00:55:10.615
And that issue there is you could have an employer or a

504
00:55:10.775 --> 00:55:15.255
husband or a government come to you and be able to

505
00:55:16.160 --> 00:55:20.080
with no doubt whatsoever know how you voted and then pressure you accordingly.

506
00:55:20.400 --> 00:55:27.120
Exactly right. Because on the surface, it seems like such a great idea. It's like, oh, I should have a verifiable receipt so I can make sure they're not faking the votes.

507
00:55:27.825 --> 00:55:32.305
But then all of a sudden, you realize why votes are supposed to be private in democracies.

508
00:55:33.025 --> 00:55:40.865
Exactly right. We we we effectively saying, okay. So some like, for example, if if the command you're sending to ChatsRelay

509
00:55:41.150 --> 00:55:49.630
is to remove a member, it should be signed. Right? Because the the consequences of mem of relay removing a member are irreversible.

510
00:55:49.630 --> 00:56:02.885
So, like so you or for example, you say, I want to delete a channel. Right? This section requires your signature because it's it's irreversible and it's destructive. Right? So everything irreversible and destructive, we add signature by default as a requirement,

511
00:56:03.125 --> 00:56:09.204
and the receiving clients will simply refuse to process the message if it's not properly signed. And your key

512
00:56:09.460 --> 00:56:10.500
is cryptographically

513
00:56:10.500 --> 00:56:24.740
bound to the channel link. So this is like we we build this whole kind of cryptographic trust chain with the with the channel owner that when the member when the subscriber just joins your channel, they already get the key from the link. It cannot be faked.

514
00:56:25.244 --> 00:56:27.884
So effectively, they know your credentials

515
00:56:27.884 --> 00:56:28.925
for this channel

516
00:56:29.325 --> 00:56:33.565
from the get go from them joining. Got it. Relays can't take locally.

517
00:56:33.724 --> 00:56:40.285
Yeah. Exactly. Yeah. But for messages, we want to make it an opt in. If you really want to sign important messages,

518
00:56:40.740 --> 00:57:13.630
then maybe we would provide it as a as an option or as a feature, but I believe it's wrong to make it a default because think about that. And so what the UX would display, this is a signed message? For example. Yeah. Exactly right. Yeah. Exactly right. So imagine this. Like, you already have five relays in a group. Right? These five relays are operated by different entities. Right? If one of them decides to substitute the message, the recipient client will see it and say, what's going on here? Right? So there is some kind of trust said one thing and one said a different So and I think it it's actually better than signature because

519
00:57:13.950 --> 00:57:38.740
that gives them similar degree of trust. Right? The probability of four relays collusion Right. If they are run by different parties, right, is low. Right? And especially if the politician himself runs the relay. Right? So then then what's the chances of it being replaced? Right. But at the same time, there cannot be used, as you said, as a signed receipt, which kind of which can be used as a proof of of doing that. Right? So, like, it's

520
00:57:40.420 --> 00:57:53.465
That kinda makes sense to me. It it still solves it's all yeah. Yeah. It still solves the main underlying problem, which I think is going to become a bigger concern is as digital communications become the main way people digest information,

521
00:57:53.545 --> 00:57:56.105
there are serious real world consequences

522
00:57:56.105 --> 00:57:58.425
on what influential people say.

523
00:57:58.744 --> 00:57:59.865
And we've seen this.

524
00:58:00.105 --> 00:58:05.740
Trump sends out a two social post, and military is moved and markets react.

525
00:58:06.060 --> 00:58:15.895
And meanwhile, there's zero way for me to know that Trump actually sent the true social post. Right? There's a bunch of men in the middle that can can fake that. Yes.

526
00:58:16.855 --> 00:58:19.815
And we haven't seen a large scale repercussion

527
00:58:19.815 --> 00:58:21.655
yet of that type of attack,

528
00:58:22.375 --> 00:58:27.575
but I assume it's going to happen sooner rather than later. And so it's important that there's at least some

529
00:58:28.580 --> 00:58:30.020
level of verifiability

530
00:58:30.020 --> 00:58:32.500
or trust here. And I see how you're kinda trying to

531
00:58:33.140 --> 00:58:35.220
You know, trade offs on both sides.

532
00:58:35.460 --> 00:58:41.140
Fant. Yes. You know, it's there is a value in being able to sign important messages, 100%.

533
00:58:41.220 --> 00:58:44.285
But I believe it's wrong to make it default

534
00:58:44.285 --> 00:58:46.285
and rather than opt in because,

535
00:58:46.445 --> 00:59:05.119
like okay. So we are like, imagine the situation. Right? You talk to me and we record this conversation. People kinda list it. And obviously, nobody of us can deny that this conversation happens. Right? Right. Imagine a different situation. We meet in a cafe. We have a private conversation. We really don't want this conversation to be public. Right? Whoever

536
00:59:05.760 --> 00:59:14.085
knows what we may be discussing. Right? It doesn't necessarily we're conspiring. We can be just having a private conversation about our lives. Right? And if anyone later

537
00:59:14.165 --> 00:59:15.525
quotes that

538
00:59:15.685 --> 00:59:20.485
he said that, it's improvable. We have Right. Plausible we have plausible deniability.

539
00:59:21.045 --> 00:59:23.765
Now imagine if it happens in encrypted messenger,

540
00:59:24.440 --> 00:59:33.480
if you use signal, you also have plausible deniability because or sig Symbolax because messages, even though are end to end encrypted, they are reputable.

541
00:59:34.120 --> 00:59:38.040
Right. So there there is no way to prove that you actually sent this message.

542
00:59:38.600 --> 00:59:53.935
And we haven't seen what I hear the criticism I hear from technologists is that nobody has ever used this concept in courts. It has no legal stance and so on and so on. Right? But the reality is, Signal is the first widely used messenger that pioneered

543
00:59:54.410 --> 01:00:00.170
reputation as a as a cryptographic quality in message sensing, and it only happened, like, ten years ago.

544
01:00:00.490 --> 01:00:06.410
Right. And before anything becomes understood by legal systems, we usually observe,

545
01:00:06.410 --> 01:00:19.575
like, many, many of the case of not understanding what it is and how it can be used and what legal consequences of this is. So, yes, I don't know any precedents of this concept being used, but it doesn't mean it's not valuable potentially.

546
01:00:19.575 --> 01:00:28.590
So we we like to stick with reputation as a cryptographic codes of the protocol. Yeah. I mean, it's the difference between building the technical foundations

547
01:00:28.670 --> 01:00:38.695
versus real world repercussions, and the real world repercussions always happen later. I mean, this is the first administration that I know of where we've seen official business

548
01:00:38.855 --> 01:00:42.455
happen on signal and there was that leak of that group chat.

549
01:00:42.455 --> 01:00:45.335
Right. And I'm sure a bunch of those group members

550
01:00:45.575 --> 01:00:51.470
are grateful that at least they can technically say that they didn't send a message in there. Whether anyone

551
01:00:51.470 --> 01:00:55.150
believes that they didn't send the message is a different thing because you kind of have to

552
01:00:55.790 --> 01:00:58.270
modify some things and signal to do that.

553
01:00:59.790 --> 01:01:00.510
Yes.

554
01:01:02.045 --> 01:01:14.525
I mean, and to your earlier point about different types of conversations, I mean, is a perfect example. Right? Because we had a conversation on simplex that was off the record. And then this one, will be hashing and signing with my nostril key

555
01:01:15.170 --> 01:01:18.850
Because as someone who has spent a lot of time

556
01:01:19.490 --> 01:01:20.290
broadcasting

557
01:01:20.290 --> 01:01:24.850
my thoughts and having candid conversations like this on the podcast,

558
01:01:25.170 --> 01:01:30.050
it does frighten me that we could have AI deep fakes and basically me saying anything

559
01:01:30.474 --> 01:01:32.795
this without no verifiability.

560
01:01:32.875 --> 01:01:38.795
So I really take that verifiability piece very seriously when it comes to these types of conversations. Like I want there to be

561
01:01:39.115 --> 01:01:50.490
for this conversation. I want there to be a historical record of truth that if some AI in five years makes us say whatever it wants us to make us say, you can go back and see that hash signed

562
01:01:50.970 --> 01:01:56.810
version of the MP3 and know that it hasn't been changed. That's what was originally said, right? Yes.

563
01:01:57.690 --> 01:02:02.055
Okay. This is all fascinating to me. I'm really enjoying this conversation. The

564
01:02:02.775 --> 01:02:09.335
big one that will come up next is, which I mean, I see all the time in distributed systems is,

565
01:02:09.575 --> 01:02:11.975
okay, so the system relies on people

566
01:02:12.660 --> 01:02:15.540
running servers and relays and whatnot.

567
01:02:18.099 --> 01:02:18.900
Ideally,

568
01:02:18.900 --> 01:02:22.579
the system works best when there's many, many operators doing that.

569
01:02:25.734 --> 01:02:29.095
And this is something that Tor for instance,

570
01:02:29.255 --> 01:02:36.455
I think on a widespread scale has had a lot of issues with right having more independent operators running these things

571
01:02:37.734 --> 01:02:38.615
Bitcoin.

572
01:02:38.615 --> 01:02:43.820
We've it's a it's a it's a major contention point of Bitcoin, making sure that Bitcoin nodes are

573
01:02:44.700 --> 01:02:50.540
easy and accessible to run so people can use it without relying on the trusted third party. We see it in Noster with relays.

574
01:02:52.305 --> 01:02:54.225
So how are you thinking about

575
01:02:55.345 --> 01:02:59.185
this, like, fundamental problem? Right? Which is you need as

576
01:02:59.345 --> 01:03:05.265
many people running servers as you need more, the better. The more, the better servers. And so how do you see that scaling?

577
01:03:10.090 --> 01:03:16.730
Right now, we see lots of communities running their own routers in simplex network.

578
01:03:17.450 --> 01:03:18.170
It's

579
01:03:18.330 --> 01:03:23.235
I think there are some Bitcoin communities. I think there are some Monero communities that do there are some,

580
01:03:24.595 --> 01:03:31.795
discussion groups that run their own servers. They advertise it on their websites. We we we cannot know exact number, but I think conservatively,

581
01:03:31.795 --> 01:03:31.875
there

582
01:03:33.190 --> 01:03:37.110
are over a thousand routers and Symblax network at this point.

583
01:03:37.990 --> 01:03:38.470
So

584
01:03:40.230 --> 01:04:01.845
and and that's fine, and that works, and people get their own sovereignty and autonomy and independence of anything that that we may be they may be doing or anybody else can be doing, which is great. The downside of this model is that your sir your router, because it has fixed endpoint address. Right? Like, the whole point of simplex network is protect your endpoint address. Right? But if you run a router, this router becomes

585
01:04:02.380 --> 01:04:05.820
effectively your address. Right? So, like, if if if it,

586
01:04:06.300 --> 01:04:25.445
if it's a if it is run on public network, then, obviously, anybody knows the IP address. They somehow can link it to your identity, and maybe that's not what everybody wants. If you run it on Tor, then it's potentially not very usable even though we build Internet to Tor routes and capabilities. So for example, if you send messages to Tor router,

587
01:04:25.445 --> 01:04:30.450
it will be delivered even if you don't use Tor because a simplex routers would connect

588
01:04:30.690 --> 01:04:42.609
they can connect to Tor routers. Right? So even even if that router is only on Tor network, then simplex router that has Internet address will be able to forward message to Tor Tor network. That that's how That's cool. That that's why network remains interconnected.

589
01:04:42.609 --> 01:04:51.425
Right? So you don't have to use Tor to deliver messages to Tor on the routers. And it's all great. But I think long term, this is not really scaling because

590
01:04:51.665 --> 01:04:57.345
I don't know. You've probably seen Moxie Martin by Martin Spike said once that people don't want to run their own infrastructure.

591
01:04:57.505 --> 01:04:58.625
Yeah. The founder signal.

592
01:04:59.240 --> 01:05:21.095
Yes. Yes. So my my view was always if we want privacy to be a norm, then we have to be built built in technology that everybody can use. Right? People who don't want to run their own servers, people who don't want to think who want to use just default software out of the box and get this privacy, and that's the only way it can be normalized. Right? And I think it kind of resonates with what cypherpunk

593
01:05:21.095 --> 01:05:25.815
manifesto author was writing later. Right? So for just writing code is not enough.

594
01:05:26.055 --> 01:05:34.520
It was his later that are not the manifesto. That we have to have acceptance in the society. We have to have wide usage of those technologies.

595
01:05:34.760 --> 01:05:38.040
We effectively see adoption as as a privacy feature.

596
01:05:38.760 --> 01:05:42.680
So so this whole idea is that in order to be autonomous,

597
01:05:42.680 --> 01:05:44.520
you have to run the server. It it is it

598
01:05:45.995 --> 01:05:47.755
is not scaling to the future.

599
01:05:48.235 --> 01:05:52.395
So so that's why we want to build a network when,

600
01:05:53.755 --> 01:05:57.675
hundreds of commercially incentivized operators

601
01:05:57.990 --> 01:05:59.750
can run routers

602
01:06:00.230 --> 01:06:01.190
and be

603
01:06:01.990 --> 01:06:07.750
making more money from doing that from the network than they're spending money running on this infrastructure.

604
01:06:08.470 --> 01:06:09.350
Bitcoin,

605
01:06:09.510 --> 01:06:11.510
obviously has in built

606
01:06:12.494 --> 01:06:13.535
monetization

607
01:06:13.694 --> 01:06:18.335
solution. Right? You run the node, it's potentially can mine Bitcoin,

608
01:06:18.335 --> 01:06:27.055
and it's kind of at least covers the cost of operation. Well Right? And I think kinda lost that, to be honest. I mean Yes. Yes. Most nodes are not mining nodes now.

609
01:06:27.789 --> 01:06:35.550
Yes. I understand that. Yeah. But at at least But initially you get a benefit that you can you can use it. It allows you to use the network without trust,

610
01:06:35.789 --> 01:06:42.430
is kind of what we're holding on to at this point. Then also if you hold the money, the money tends to increase with purchasing power. So we have that going

611
01:06:43.755 --> 01:06:58.234
for us. I'm I'm not quite sure. I've I've seen I've seen some talk a couple years ago at at a conference when somebody was talking about running Bitcoin miner at home, and his idea was that, okay. We can't make profits from running the miner, but we can convert electricity costs

612
01:06:58.770 --> 01:07:08.850
to non KYC Bitcoin, and that's a great thing, and let's do that. Right? So it's actually your We do have that aspect going well for us. And there actually is a company called Futurebit

613
01:07:08.850 --> 01:07:16.655
that, like, puts the node and the miner together in one convenient package that you can run at home. But a lot of those miners, just to be clear, and it's

614
01:07:16.895 --> 01:07:22.815
kind of a tangent, it doesn't really matter that much for our conversation. A lot of those miners have

615
01:07:22.815 --> 01:07:30.480
the heater in their home, but then they're connecting to someone else's node, Right? So it's not their node. They're not running the actual node infrastructure.

616
01:07:30.799 --> 01:07:40.000
More are, which is awesome to see. But, yeah, fair enough. So for so for SimpleX Network, we see the imperative to create a commercial model when

617
01:07:40.405 --> 01:07:43.285
anybody who wants to provide infrastructure

618
01:07:43.285 --> 01:07:49.925
can make more money from providing this infrastructure than running this infrastructure cost. A financial incentive.

619
01:07:50.085 --> 01:08:00.250
Yes. 100%. And we don't want to create any blockchains to do it. We don't want to do any mining operation. We don't want to create any but we still need a solution. And we've been discussing

620
01:08:00.250 --> 01:08:24.120
it with the community for quite some time. So the idea is that to to answer how servers are paid, we have to answer first the question is what what in the network itself is paid. Right? When we were just starting developing this, we were thinking, okay. Maybe some premium features can do that. Maybe some something else can do that. Right? But then we've seen what happens with Telegram premium. We keep talking about Telegram. Right? To me, Telegram to

621
01:08:25.080 --> 01:08:30.920
me, Telegram premium is is a proof that premium model for messaging application is a dead end.

622
01:08:31.400 --> 01:08:39.494
Because, yes, you may be generating revenues, and, yes, you may be developing the nice features. But, really, see, what happens is you're fragmenting your network. Right? You

623
01:08:39.735 --> 01:08:40.695
very quickly,

624
01:08:41.255 --> 01:08:47.015
as a provider of this application, realize that in order to make profit, you have to make your application unusable.

625
01:08:48.130 --> 01:09:04.505
Yeah. The best features need to be behind the paywall, basically. Pretty much all of them. Yeah. Right? So so so you already there are already features when I can't message people until I have or I can't make call to these people, and it's just, like, not because they choose to, but it's just, like, it's just fun. Right? So

626
01:09:05.224 --> 01:09:11.144
and to me, that's kind of very much a dead end for communication network. Imagine, like, a web browser. Right?

627
01:09:11.945 --> 01:09:23.510
We what we build, we take lots of inspiration from the web. We we say often that what we build is a missing part of the web, the messaging part, to say, next step. Right? Because web has never created messaging solution

628
01:09:24.070 --> 01:09:26.070
as part of it. So

629
01:09:27.350 --> 01:09:29.830
if you look at the web, how web is monetized,

630
01:09:31.270 --> 01:09:37.635
users don't pay for the browsers. Right? Right. At all. At all. Users don't pay for using the web at all.

631
01:09:38.275 --> 01:09:40.675
People may say, oh, yes. We pay ISPs,

632
01:09:40.675 --> 01:09:49.659
but it's a different story. ISP is not the web. Right? It's simply a transport network that connects you to the website, but the web itself, like, all the DNS systems,

633
01:09:49.659 --> 01:09:53.179
all the infrastructure that allows web to function,

634
01:09:53.420 --> 01:09:54.139
it's free.

635
01:09:54.460 --> 01:10:05.525
Right? So who pays for all that? The answer is very simple. Websites pay. People who want to host the websites, they pay. And because every content distribution network has this distribution when

636
01:10:05.845 --> 01:10:09.125
5% of websites generate 90% of traffic

637
01:10:09.605 --> 01:10:15.285
Right. What it actually means is that it's enough to charge this 5% of websites, and everybody else can be free.

638
01:10:16.180 --> 01:10:35.885
Right. So you don't need to pay to host a small website today. Right? You just go, you create account, you can pay either a $1 a month or nothing or But it's subsidized by the big guys. Exactly. Yeah. So the whole web is subsidized by the big websites. So 5% of websites create all the carry or maybe 20% of the websites carry all the costs of the web.

639
01:10:36.445 --> 01:10:43.245
And that's why we see channels as so important because we see channel on simplex network as equivalent of the website.

640
01:10:44.230 --> 01:10:47.510
And we believe as this part of the network grows,

641
01:10:47.830 --> 01:10:51.030
the the traffic distribution, the cost distribution will be similar.

642
01:10:51.190 --> 01:10:51.749
So,

643
01:10:52.869 --> 01:11:05.505
10% of large channels will generate 90% of the traffic, and that's who they should who should be paying. And they will be paying. Right? Because if you say, I'm a politician, I want 100 tons 100,000 people audience. Right?

644
01:11:05.825 --> 01:11:06.465
Yeah.

645
01:11:06.705 --> 01:11:16.800
If your choice is to be on the platform that can shut you down because the current administration doesn't like what you say. Right? We've just seen it happening with Trump before. Yep.

646
01:11:17.040 --> 01:11:19.039
Right? So before Twitter

647
01:11:19.679 --> 01:11:23.840
acquisition, before Sitting president of The United States gets banned from Twitter and Facebook.

648
01:11:24.965 --> 01:11:27.364
Which is ridiculous. Right? So and one of the

649
01:11:28.405 --> 01:11:41.260
he can pay. Right? And anybody who has a 50,000 people in this buying and building his own social media network. Exactly. Yes. So what what we see is a much cheaper solution. So if you want a channel that's sovereign,

650
01:11:41.260 --> 01:11:53.099
that you actually own, you have to pay for it. You have to cover infrastructure costs. You have to cover discovery costs. You have to cover some costs. And that's the business model that we see for the whole SimpleX Network. So messaging will remains free forever,

651
01:11:53.900 --> 01:11:57.605
as a as a just a as a add on service effectively.

652
01:11:57.605 --> 01:12:10.965
And small channels and communities can exist for free, but large channels and communities carry the whole cost. And they just need to find a solution that allows to transfer value from those channel owners to the infrastructure owners

653
01:12:11.310 --> 01:12:16.749
in a way that kind of preserves privacy and security of all all participants

654
01:12:16.829 --> 01:12:22.669
within within what's possible. So so that that that's our view. So our view is not our view for the network is not that

655
01:12:23.070 --> 01:12:28.844
it's a suggest run network, but it's a professionally run network. But it's run by so many independent

656
01:12:29.005 --> 01:12:31.324
facility and infrastructure providers

657
01:12:31.324 --> 01:12:41.909
that trust is minimal because it's distributed. Right? If if each conversation uses four different companies, right, and those companies are rotated on a weekly basis,

658
01:12:42.230 --> 01:12:46.150
then your dependence on this particular company is extremely low. They get

659
01:12:46.390 --> 01:12:49.590
profits from doing that, but they have no control over your conversation.

660
01:12:51.925 --> 01:12:54.325
I love that. I mean, look, I love from

661
01:12:54.405 --> 01:13:01.685
I wear two different hats. I wear my charity hat with open sites, and I wear my for profit hat with ten thirty one,

662
01:13:02.085 --> 01:13:08.329
where we invest in for profit businesses that are often built on top of open source stacks. And so I see both

663
01:13:08.810 --> 01:13:13.849
worlds in the greater open source movement, the foundation led, charity led, and

664
01:13:14.730 --> 01:13:17.130
then the opposite side, which is a for profit led.

665
01:13:17.530 --> 01:13:20.010
And oftentimes you see foundations

666
01:13:20.010 --> 01:13:22.545
get spun up and run donationware.

667
01:13:22.545 --> 01:13:26.224
I mean, we've seen that with Signal is probably the best example.

668
01:13:27.585 --> 01:13:37.229
It's probably the easier path for these types of things in the short term. I think long term, they scale much worse. They're not sustainable. You have to go out and constantly seek donations.

669
01:13:37.310 --> 01:13:40.510
And the incentives aren't necessarily aligned that well. I think

670
01:13:40.830 --> 01:13:44.429
one of the issues you start to see is longer term, it's like, okay,

671
01:13:44.750 --> 01:13:46.989
the employees or the stakeholders of the foundation

672
01:13:47.415 --> 01:13:50.775
don't necessarily need to see the thing grow significantly.

673
01:13:50.775 --> 01:13:52.054
And the truth

674
01:13:54.055 --> 01:13:55.655
is in the reality, which is

675
01:13:56.215 --> 01:14:00.215
SIGNAL is probably one of the most successful nonprofit

676
01:14:00.860 --> 01:14:01.660
privacy

677
01:14:01.660 --> 01:14:03.739
freedom focused projects. And

678
01:14:04.220 --> 01:14:08.380
it's found massive success, but it's at about a 100,000,000 users, maybe less.

679
01:14:08.700 --> 01:14:21.005
And then you have things like WhatsApp that are in 3,000,000,000 plus. You have Telegram that's 2,000,000,000 plus. And those are for profit ventures. And I don't think it's a coincidence that those for profit ventures tend to have significantly

680
01:14:21.005 --> 01:14:22.284
bigger user bases.

681
01:14:22.764 --> 01:14:25.244
I think it's an incentive alignment thing. So,

682
01:14:25.724 --> 01:14:34.110
have a lot of respect that you're trying to go this for profit ethical, for profit sustainable approach. And I kind of want to dive a little bit deeper in here.

683
01:14:34.990 --> 01:14:38.830
Look, think the challenge is that I

684
01:14:39.550 --> 01:14:43.534
can go philosophical here, frankly. I think it all comes from people

685
01:14:43.535 --> 01:14:44.335
seeing

686
01:14:44.655 --> 01:14:46.335
most choices as binary.

687
01:14:46.735 --> 01:14:47.374
Right.

688
01:14:48.015 --> 01:14:48.574
So

689
01:14:48.895 --> 01:14:52.094
I have heard this in my life million times. You have to pick a lane.

690
01:14:53.630 --> 01:15:06.110
Right? And I refused to pick a lane. Right? When I was building my you know, I was building like, I will go again to this library that nobody knows about, but that's a good example. Because when I was starting this library, there was, like, 12 different competing libraries,

691
01:15:06.430 --> 01:15:08.430
and they all were either

692
01:15:08.775 --> 01:15:13.015
super fast and really badly compliant with the specifications

693
01:15:13.255 --> 01:15:14.055
or

694
01:15:14.855 --> 01:15:20.535
very, very slow and somewhat better compliant with specifications. So I said, alright. How about how about I just build one library

695
01:15:20.960 --> 01:15:22.719
that is fastest

696
01:15:22.719 --> 01:15:31.039
and also best in compliance with the specifications? And everybody was laughing at me. Said, alright. It's classic. It also exists as a comic. Right? There are 14 bad frameworks.

697
01:15:31.199 --> 01:15:42.065
Let's make one more framework. Fifteenth. No. We have 15 bad frameworks. Like, I was sent this comic by, like, 10 different people in my life. Right? But, rather, I what I learned from this kind of retrospectively

698
01:15:42.065 --> 01:15:58.400
again. Right? So if you refuse to compromise on important trade off because trade off is artificial. Right? The choice between fast and standard compliant wasn't the real choice. It was just easy path. Right? It's just harder to build something that is both fast and standard compliant, but it's not impossible.

699
01:15:58.640 --> 01:16:07.135
So I built a library that came to be the only library that people use today for data validation in JavaScript world because the choice was eliminated.

700
01:16:08.575 --> 01:16:10.335
And, again, same between,

701
01:16:10.495 --> 01:16:14.735
like, private messenger versus convenient messenger. Right? So

702
01:16:14.735 --> 01:16:18.575
people have been trying to pigeonhole what they're building into

703
01:16:18.655 --> 01:16:19.135
like

704
01:16:19.489 --> 01:16:22.130
like, some people say, you're

705
01:16:22.130 --> 01:16:55.270
building a private messenger. You shouldn't worry about convenience, really. You should add more privacy features. Right? That's half of our user base, what it says. And some other half of the user base says, you are focusing on privacy too much. You should compromise on privacy. And It's not convenient enough. Yeah. And instead, like, for example, the fact how you discover people, some of the hurdles or, for example, that we still don't have multi device in the messenger. Say, whatever. Compromise on privacy, build multi device. Everybody wants multi device. I don't know. I think my brain is wired against making such compromises and then start to find proper solution that deliver both without compromise.

706
01:16:56.150 --> 01:17:04.355
And it's obviously slower. The the the downside is, like, what you compromise on is time to to work in products. That's that's what have to go. Right?

707
01:17:04.755 --> 01:17:07.795
But I think reality is by taking this Right. Mean, yeah.

708
01:17:08.275 --> 01:17:12.675
Signal's the perfect example here. Right? Yeah. Because the easy path was saying, okay.

709
01:17:13.315 --> 01:17:15.475
Let's just use phone numbers as discovery.

710
01:17:15.890 --> 01:17:24.770
That's what WhatsApp does. That's what Telegram does. We can do that. My grandmother can use it. And then you're stuck. Yes. You took the easy path and then you're stuck with that building block.

711
01:17:24.930 --> 01:17:29.650
Exactly. Yes. It's not something that you can revise later. It becomes a foundation of your architecture.

712
01:17:30.435 --> 01:17:34.114
It's used everywhere. It's pervasive. It's it's not removable.

713
01:17:34.195 --> 01:17:43.875
So I think what we're trying to build is a communication protocol and product and transport network that's used by everybody. And, yeah, it may take decades to get there, but

714
01:17:44.560 --> 01:18:02.864
I I still have time. So and talking about private like, for profit versus non profit, going back to your question. Right? I also see it as a false trade off. Right? I was when when we took venture capital money, took it, like, without any control provisions. It's a proper, like, a minute or safe agreement. There are no board seats, no control.

715
01:18:03.105 --> 01:18:42.909
Right? I I have to chase my investors for advice. And, like, when people say, oh, they will have influence to you on USA. I would I would like to have more influence if I can. Right? This is or some advice because they're very busy people. Right? But reality is we run our business how we want, and they just trust. Because, you know, I think the intra capital has changed dramatically after some major successes when most of venture capitalists arrive to conclusion that they have to let founders do things they disagree with because that's the only way founders Face Facebook was a big one. I mean, obviously Yeah. It's kind of a weird example to use here because they turned into one of the most evil companies. Yes. Yes. But Facebook early days was we try you know, the the investors were like, we trust Mark.

716
01:18:43.310 --> 01:19:11.889
Mark is the leader of the ship. We're not gonna take any control. But before that, historically, it was like VCs would come in and they would just take full control of a company and push the founder out. Yeah. Apple would be a classic example. Right? And and this pushing the founder out pushed the Apple to the brink of bankruptcy, so they had to bring the founder back. Right? So so yeah. So we see the world has changed. Investment doesn't mean control. And yet we've been, like, vilified by everybody, like, that we did it. Right? So I had to write a blog post. Right? For profit capital.

717
01:19:12.130 --> 01:19:16.769
Yeah. I had to write a blog post about why privacy becoming a norm requires venture funds. Because

718
01:19:17.745 --> 01:19:23.025
to me, privacy becoming a norm requires building a mass market widely adopted products.

719
01:19:23.825 --> 01:19:36.670
The problem with this premise is that it is the costs are exponential. It's like, gets in, like, 10 x more adoption. It's not necessarily like, you you also what I mean. Right? So you simply cannot build a mass market widely adopted product on a grassroot movement.

720
01:19:36.830 --> 01:19:45.469
And that's what SIGNAL observes. Right? Foundation model doesn't scale. The nation model doesn't scale. So either you build at some point the model that allows

721
01:19:45.875 --> 01:20:05.840
it to be a business that generates profit. Right? And, again, when people say, oh, you're for profit company. It's a bad thing. My response was always, like, what is profit? Right? It's either it's independence. Right? That's what I think Bitcoin community, privacy community believes in independence, right, in sovereignty and ability to make their own choices. But nothing of this is impossible

722
01:20:05.920 --> 01:20:08.400
if you are existing handouts.

723
01:20:08.960 --> 01:20:16.560
Right? Because you're dependent on whoever gives you handouts. Right? Children are dependent on parent until they start earning their own money. Right?

724
01:20:17.335 --> 01:20:21.175
People who get whatever Social Security benefits,

725
01:20:21.175 --> 01:20:25.574
they are dependent on government to tell them what to do, and it's not a good thing.

726
01:20:26.215 --> 01:20:42.880
So any organization that wants to be independent has to make profit. Otherwise, it becomes dependent on whoever gives its money. And that's another dark side of the kind of for for profit model nonprofit model because not only you can't scale it really well, you become dependent on your donors.

727
01:20:44.014 --> 01:20:47.135
And those donors may have not necessarily,

728
01:20:48.415 --> 01:21:00.309
like, good motives. Right? So we've seen nonprofits who have been like, you've seen this chat control legislation. Right? The biggest lobby effort for chat control legislation was coming from nonprofits funded by Big Tech.

729
01:21:01.190 --> 01:21:17.655
So talking about nonprofit being a good thing. So I I honestly I honestly think that morality and integrity of what happens doesn't depend on the organization for them. I think it depends on people behind this organization in the first place. Right? We've seen companies doing moral sense, and I've seen nonprofits doing immoral sense. And Right.

730
01:21:18.055 --> 01:21:39.329
And I think yeah. So so what what we are doing right now? So we we kind of understand. We are building a network that nobody should own. We don't want to own. Right? We want a, like, general purpose transport network that is run by community, operated by community, which means that the model when they control the protocol, the model we control all the licensing on the software is not sustainable long term. Right?

731
01:21:39.650 --> 01:21:42.530
So what we're doing right now, we are

732
01:21:43.965 --> 01:21:49.565
we already announced to the community that we will be transitioning the governance. We are transitioning the governance to consortium model,

733
01:21:50.045 --> 01:22:02.059
which is similar to how the web was governed until recently. It's interesting, by the way. I didn't know about that. I only learned when it was written. So World Wide Web was governed by consortium,

734
01:22:02.380 --> 01:22:06.139
not an entity. Like, it's effectively an agreement between four different entities

735
01:22:06.300 --> 01:22:10.459
in different countries. World Wide Web was governed by consortium from

736
01:22:10.780 --> 01:22:14.060
Netscape shutdown in, I think, 2004

737
01:22:15.135 --> 01:22:16.895
and until 2023

738
01:22:16.895 --> 01:22:27.934
when World W three c became a US nonprofit, a single entity, which is fun, which means the worldwide web that we all believe is decentralized now have a centralized governance model.

739
01:22:29.410 --> 01:22:32.130
Even though it's by nonprofit, it's still centralized. Right.

740
01:22:32.450 --> 01:22:35.650
So what we did, we worked with one exceptional

741
01:22:35.650 --> 01:22:40.530
open source lawyer, Heather Maker. She has authored multiple

742
01:22:40.875 --> 01:22:58.599
open source licenses such as Mozilla license, Elastic license. She participated in some big size network. She helped us draft this agreement for consortium for SimpleX Network, and we are in a process of setting up the entity that will be in a consortium agreement with SimpleX, the company, and then they'll be setting up additional nonprofits

743
01:22:58.599 --> 01:23:00.119
in different jurisdiction.

744
01:23:00.520 --> 01:23:06.919
So these multiple entities will be able to run network together and this way avoid,

745
01:23:07.159 --> 01:23:30.659
like, jurisdictional pressures or risks and avoid any kind of corruption from any centralized governance models. Like corporate captures, whatnot. Exactly. Yeah. Because we've seen we've seen corporate captures happen in in nonprofits a lot. Right? The whole Linux like, look at this. You're you're probably observing this noise about California law of, like Yep. This is, like, this is insane. I like, we we We're adding KYC to

746
01:23:30.980 --> 01:23:37.874
Flash Linux. This is insane. I made a tweet yesterday. It resonates with lots of people. It's the fact that they tell you, you no longer own your computer. Right?

747
01:23:38.114 --> 01:23:44.275
So state, we're gonna break and enter into your computer and demand your it's a violation of, like, multiple constitutional

748
01:23:44.275 --> 01:23:52.034
amendments. Like, certainly, first constitution it's it's fourth and fifth and god knows what else is violated. And they say it's okay. What what I find completely

749
01:23:53.210 --> 01:24:01.209
ridiculous is that all those open source foundations developed in Linux software, I I just quit. They don't say anything. Right? They don't

750
01:24:02.010 --> 01:24:10.045
the only the only open source the only privacy foundation is EFF. EFF is campaigning against this law. Linux Foundation says nothing. Right?

751
01:24:10.365 --> 01:24:16.125
All these kind of foundations developing Linux software say nothing. They already commit code that implements

752
01:24:16.125 --> 01:24:19.485
the Sage control into open source code, which is just ridiculous.

753
01:24:19.900 --> 01:24:21.260
Why do you think that is?

754
01:24:21.820 --> 01:24:23.900
Because they were captured, I think.

755
01:24:24.620 --> 01:24:29.500
Because we've seen a lot of decisions in those foundations that don't necessarily

756
01:24:29.660 --> 01:24:39.105
they they they have been pressuring creators of software to leave. They have been pressuring. So that's not that's not good at reliant on their donors to pay their rent, basically?

757
01:24:39.585 --> 01:24:51.310
I don't know, Matt. I cannot say why it happens, but to me, it was always like, always the I I don't want to go into there, but Well, reason I bring it up the reason I bring it up is because

758
01:24:51.790 --> 01:24:54.110
I'm neck deep in this with OpenSats.

759
01:24:55.310 --> 01:24:56.909
You know, OpenSats,

760
01:24:56.990 --> 01:24:58.510
we saw

761
01:24:58.830 --> 01:25:00.110
a concern

762
01:25:00.110 --> 01:25:04.094
of very centralized funding options for open source developers

763
01:25:04.095 --> 01:25:04.975
building

764
01:25:04.975 --> 01:25:07.295
nonprofit stuff in the Bitcoin ecosystem.

765
01:25:07.535 --> 01:25:12.095
And to be clear here, there's a bunch of foundational open source stuff that can't be monetized.

766
01:25:12.829 --> 01:25:14.349
It cannot be monetized.

767
01:25:14.670 --> 01:25:15.149
Ruin

768
01:25:15.949 --> 01:25:19.789
the value prop for something like Bitcoin protocol software to

769
01:25:20.030 --> 01:25:21.389
be monetized directly.

770
01:25:22.429 --> 01:25:28.030
And so we built open sites in a way to resist that. And I think one of the biggest things

771
01:25:29.125 --> 01:25:34.885
is we're a volunteer board. We're a nine person board. That's all volunteers. We make money doing other things.

772
01:25:35.364 --> 01:25:35.844
And

773
01:25:36.244 --> 01:25:38.324
it's because of that concern,

774
01:25:38.565 --> 01:25:39.284
the

775
01:25:40.165 --> 01:25:44.970
concern that you get captured by your donors because you're making $500,000

776
01:25:44.970 --> 01:25:49.050
Some of these nonprofit boards, it's insane how much money they're making. And if

777
01:25:49.690 --> 01:25:55.610
that donor base disappears, then they lose that. If my donor base disappears directly financially,

778
01:25:55.610 --> 01:26:05.114
there's zero impact to me. Right? I think that's a key piece, but it doesn't completely solve it. Obviously, if the donors disappear, OpenSats is gone.

779
01:26:05.675 --> 01:26:14.630
And so then I do agree to your point that it does come down to the people in a lot of ways. Right? It's like I would rather OpenStats be gone than ever take direction from a donor.

780
01:26:15.270 --> 01:26:31.364
Exactly. Because you'll because you are independent, because you're personally making profit in your life, and you wouldn't get other other people around your life. That that that comes to who should be on the board, which is also very important question. Right? We still didn't form the board, but they're reaching out to various people who we believe can create value

781
01:26:31.605 --> 01:26:35.844
for for for for governance, and, also, it would be helpful to them as well.

782
01:26:36.165 --> 01:26:37.764
So yeah. So we

783
01:26:38.329 --> 01:26:42.170
but I think it's still important given that jurisdictional

784
01:26:42.170 --> 01:26:47.929
law changes quite rapidly. Sometimes, I think it's important to have multiple layers of decentralization

785
01:26:47.929 --> 01:27:14.309
of government's decision. So my initial thinking was that we should have shared ownership of IP. Right? But intellectual property. The legal advice from from from our lawyer was that it's not possible really because there is no such thing. Right? So shared ownership of intellectual property means that any owner can dispose of it, not just some cons consensus is needed. So so what is gonna happen is that the company will be remain the owner of AP, but it will be licensed to all consortium members

786
01:27:14.550 --> 01:27:15.670
irreversibly.

787
01:27:15.670 --> 01:27:23.965
So there is a specific close in open source license and when there is already unattached. So even if the company stops existing or sold, license still survives this.

788
01:27:24.605 --> 01:27:25.565
So effectively,

789
01:27:25.645 --> 01:27:27.324
we will transfer

790
01:27:27.485 --> 01:27:28.525
licensing

791
01:27:28.765 --> 01:27:32.684
to multiple consortium members in a way that we can't revoke

792
01:27:33.005 --> 01:27:43.300
it. And then bit by bit, we want to transfer governance over the KIPP protocol in the same way. Again, like, Netscape has always been an inspiration to me as a company. Right? Netscape builds

793
01:27:43.460 --> 01:27:46.019
web as we know it. Right? Because Netscape

794
01:27:46.099 --> 01:27:53.219
pick up the protocol when it was embryonic. Right? Nobody, like you you know, who who knew about the web in 1985

795
01:27:53.219 --> 01:28:07.505
1985. Right? No. Nobody knew about that. But they picked it up. They built a browser. They added JavaScript. Added cookies. They added SSL. They added like, people think cookie is a bad thing, but cookie is a foundational piece that allows you Facebook know to you is you. Right? It's verifiability.

796
01:28:08.100 --> 01:28:12.340
Right? So without cookies, Facebook doesn't know who you are or Twitter or whatever.

797
01:28:12.900 --> 01:28:14.740
So they created WebAsVINO,

798
01:28:14.740 --> 01:28:17.060
and then they shut down in 2004.

799
01:28:17.220 --> 01:28:18.100
Took

800
01:28:18.100 --> 01:28:19.540
over abruptly.

801
01:28:19.940 --> 01:28:22.980
And what happened is that all the innovations stalled completely.

802
01:28:23.465 --> 01:28:28.264
Right? Took them, like, seven years to get CSS to next version.

803
01:28:28.664 --> 01:28:35.304
Right. Right? The industry was so frustrated with WSCC Gartner, so they had to hold their own working group, if you remember this, WODWG.

804
01:28:35.719 --> 01:28:46.040
So and they had to take matters on their own hand, and it was, like, super frustrating for everybody. Right? And that's exactly what, obstruct. And that's what, unfortunately, we see, I think, with many decentralized

805
01:28:46.040 --> 01:28:48.840
protocol because they want to be decentralized.

806
01:28:48.840 --> 01:29:01.665
Right? But they Right. Don't understand that from the point of early enthusiasts using this protocol to the point everybody else can use this protocol, it's not just time and adoption. It's radical changes in the protocol that's required. And

807
01:29:02.385 --> 01:29:04.145
these radical changes require

808
01:29:04.225 --> 01:29:05.985
speed, commercial incentive,

809
01:29:05.985 --> 01:29:06.385
funds

810
01:29:06.840 --> 01:29:10.999
centralized decision making. So you simply cannot get the protocol to mass adoption

811
01:29:11.560 --> 01:29:22.199
without running things as a venture funded company would run things. That's what Netscape did. Right? Netscape was doing Netscape browser. At the time, there were, like, 30 other companies in browsers

812
01:29:23.055 --> 01:29:39.640
also trying to do browsers, right, with venture funds. It didn't occur to Netscape to ask other browsers what they think about protocol changes. They honestly didn't care. Right? If they did, they wouldn't have the web. So that's how I see the whole kind of decentralized governance. There are some stable parts of the network,

813
01:29:40.040 --> 01:29:42.199
and changing them should require

814
01:29:42.360 --> 01:29:53.624
consortium vote. Right? But there is some evolving part of the network that's kind of on the boundary, require adoption, require radical changes, and they're not ready for decentralized governance yet.

815
01:29:54.025 --> 01:30:00.744
Do you need to be able to move fast and adopt? And Exactly. Yeah. And and that's what we lost that that's what we lost with XMPP.

816
01:30:00.744 --> 01:30:08.350
Right? That's what we lost with Matrix. That's what we lost to a large degree with Nostr. For example, Nostr has idea of channels, but I think they are not supported in

817
01:30:08.670 --> 01:30:11.070
in iOS up even today. Right?

818
01:30:12.030 --> 01:30:15.550
I may be wrong. Maybe it was ads. But the problem is, like, if you have

819
01:30:16.110 --> 01:30:16.910
decentralized

820
01:30:16.910 --> 01:30:19.870
protocol governance, you lose ability to innovate fast.

821
01:30:20.275 --> 01:30:23.315
Well, nice thing about Noster is you don't need consensus.

822
01:30:23.395 --> 01:30:26.115
So like if certain actors are breaking things,

823
01:30:26.835 --> 01:30:29.475
there's no global state of Noster.

824
01:30:29.715 --> 01:30:32.595
100%. That's the issue that's one of the issues we have with Bitcoin,

825
01:30:33.430 --> 01:30:34.790
which fortunately,

826
01:30:34.950 --> 01:30:39.910
I think is more of a feature than a bug for something that needs to be like this decentralized

827
01:30:39.910 --> 01:30:40.630
asset,

828
01:30:40.950 --> 01:30:45.030
like this global base of a global financial system, because you don't want it to change that much.

829
01:30:45.430 --> 01:31:08.500
But there is a global state. So as a result, you need consensus from like an overwhelming majority of peers. With Noster, like, if one if one actor is breaking something, everyone else can ignore it if they want to. And then if it actually is working, then they can accept it in the future or not. There's no global state. Don't get me wrong, Matt. I didn't come to criticize Nostrad. The point I'm trying to deliver is I don't think you are.

830
01:31:08.980 --> 01:31:16.500
I think the Nostrad community will benefit a lot if the condition of funds in for one op to develop a feature

831
01:31:17.095 --> 01:31:22.935
will be that all apps develop this feature because then effectively some degree of centralization

832
01:31:22.935 --> 01:31:33.969
in in protocol governance. Because if the feature is added only to one app, it means nobody can use it. Right? Right. I I'm not going to use channels on Nostril if half of the users can't use channels.

833
01:31:34.210 --> 01:31:42.610
Right. I will just use the default account. And that's what happens. That's what happens with XMPP. That's what happens with Matrix, and that's what's hap I think the presence of OpenSET

834
01:31:43.095 --> 01:31:51.415
and some degree of centralization and OpenSET could take a role beyond just funds and and really drive innovation much faster

835
01:31:51.655 --> 01:31:57.255
if if, let's say, any feature should be universally supported by all ops to be funded in any of the ops.

836
01:31:58.500 --> 01:32:29.410
I think I think that may help Nostair because we we really like, I think competition is a great thing. Right? So, like, for example, in our channels, people ask why do we allow people to we we want everybody to succeed, frankly, because we're not competing against each other. Right? We're competing against Telegram and WhatsApp, and we we we share the same enemy. I think Right. Simplex network will be better off if Nostro is better off, and Mastodon is better off, and Matrix is better off, everybody is better off. Because we all together if you think about it, it's crazy. All privacy technology together

837
01:32:29.650 --> 01:32:33.810
are used by maybe, like, what, 2% of people in the world? Nobody.

838
01:32:34.850 --> 01:32:50.525
Yeah. It's like it's like It's a negligible amount. You know, I keep saying to our team when they kind of start suddenly think that they I say, look. We build software nobody uses, and nobody knows about. And this is super important, nobody. Have you ever watched the movie? Right? Yeah.

839
01:32:51.070 --> 01:33:02.350
These are these are the most important people in the world. No question about it. But on a on a balance of things, we really need, like, to get to 10% adoption together, not to 2% if we really want to progress with

840
01:33:03.435 --> 01:33:14.875
Yeah. So that's, that's what we want. That's what they're trying to achieve. That's why I always use like signal as an example, because they, once again, not perfect, but very pragmatic trade off balance that they went with. They they've had,

841
01:33:15.530 --> 01:33:26.170
it's funny, right? Because you can look at it from both perspectives. You can be like, oh, they're a massive success for a privacy project because it's a 100,000,000 people. And then you can look at it the opposite side, that's nobody.

842
01:33:26.810 --> 01:33:32.005
It's 2%. It's still 2%. Right? 100,000,000 people is 2% if I can count.

843
01:33:32.485 --> 01:33:37.844
Ten years. And, Yeni, I want to dive in just before we wrap here. I I think it's important that,

844
01:33:38.565 --> 01:33:40.165
like, high level, the

845
01:33:40.405 --> 01:33:40.645
the

846
01:33:41.460 --> 01:33:55.780
monetization makes sense to me in practice. Everything's harder to execute on in practice. And so I want to dive a little bit more into the details because there was some controversy around it, about how you're thinking about implementing it. And the big one is,

847
01:33:56.535 --> 01:33:57.655
okay, so

848
01:33:58.215 --> 01:34:00.534
the main operators that are doing

849
01:34:01.335 --> 01:34:04.934
90% of the traffic, these big channels are going to be paying for things.

850
01:34:06.935 --> 01:34:11.015
Basically got flack. You know you're doing well when you get flack from everyone

851
01:34:11.590 --> 01:34:19.590
that has all different conflicting interests and everyone is mad at you. But the two big ones that I noticed was the Bitcoin and Monero communities,

852
01:34:20.230 --> 01:34:21.030
respectively.

853
01:34:21.750 --> 01:34:32.505
The Bitcoin community being saying, Why aren't we using Bitcoin for this? And the Monero community being like, why aren't we using Monero for this? And so my question to you is rather simple. Why aren't you using Bitcoin

854
01:34:32.585 --> 01:34:37.065
for this? And what's the alternative? Why is why is that being chosen?

855
01:34:38.670 --> 01:34:42.990
Oh, okay. So one thing at a time. So Okay.

856
01:34:43.150 --> 01:34:44.670
To have network

857
01:34:44.670 --> 01:34:46.590
pay, to have network function

858
01:34:46.990 --> 01:34:52.590
Yeah. We need to we don't need to just pay for servers. Right? We need to have mechanism

859
01:34:52.590 --> 01:34:53.230
how

860
01:34:53.495 --> 01:34:59.655
governance layer can be paid, how software developers can be paid, and how channels can make profit,

861
01:34:59.895 --> 01:35:04.695
and that requires some mechanism of revenue sharing and distribution between those parties.

862
01:35:05.255 --> 01:35:07.575
We cannot tell channel owners,

863
01:35:08.239 --> 01:35:13.119
say, you have to pay this and this and this. Right? So we have to create some codified approach

864
01:35:13.120 --> 01:35:19.280
for revenue distribution. And not just that. So we also need to solve problem of server discoverability.

865
01:35:19.280 --> 01:35:21.920
Right? So how will people learn

866
01:35:21.945 --> 01:35:24.425
where the service exist? How they find them out?

867
01:35:24.665 --> 01:35:28.024
Right? So, okay, they want to use paid service. How they find them? Right.

868
01:35:28.505 --> 01:35:32.985
So or they want to have channel names. Because, again, if you're talking about usability,

869
01:35:33.385 --> 01:35:36.105
you need to have a name for the channel. Right? Right.

870
01:35:36.870 --> 01:35:38.630
You cannot have gibberish

871
01:35:38.550 --> 01:36:00.945
Letters and numbers. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. You cannot have. So it's Nostril keys are great. Simple access addresses are all great. There are 100 characters of gibberish. Normal people will never ever use it. They want to type music and go to the channel with the music, or they want to type sport and go to the channel with music, we don't go to direct IP addresses. We type in a Exactly. We type domain names. Right. So how do we do it? So we

872
01:36:01.185 --> 01:36:03.345
need some mechanism to agree

873
01:36:03.425 --> 01:36:14.000
on what this address means. Because if you simply give this address to a server and say, okay. I will tell you music. You will tell me the address. The problem is that is the server can give you any address.

874
01:36:14.240 --> 01:36:21.600
They can execute man man, the middle attack on your connection. Right? So you need some way to get trust to the information you're getting.

875
01:36:23.245 --> 01:36:28.925
And how Internet solve this problem and the world wide web solved this problem? They created, like,

876
01:36:29.085 --> 01:36:37.389
hierarchy of trust. Right? Certificate authorities and domain name systems when your trust is built ultimately because you have an authority.

877
01:36:37.869 --> 01:36:48.349
But that's antithetical to both Bitcoin, Monero, and to us because the second there is an authority, this authority will be corrupted. Right? And they've already seen attacks on certificates

878
01:36:48.349 --> 01:36:50.829
via major certificate authorities.

879
01:36:51.125 --> 01:36:59.605
Yeah. It's a mess. Yeah. It's complete mess. Right? So we cannot build a system based on trust or on authority. We have to build a system that's properly decentralized

880
01:36:59.605 --> 01:37:09.880
when any information you get about the network is trusted without having authority that you trust. And the solution exists. It's called blockchains. Right? So

881
01:37:10.760 --> 01:37:13.240
but I think the way I see blockchain,

882
01:37:13.240 --> 01:37:16.199
and that was the the root cause of this misunderstanding,

883
01:37:16.200 --> 01:37:23.905
and the way many people see blockchain is very different because people see blockchain as a way to transfer value between participants,

884
01:37:23.905 --> 01:37:26.385
as a ledger that records transactions.

885
01:37:27.105 --> 01:37:35.425
But that's just one use case. Like, since there are lots of technology has evolved and blockchain can act as a global distributed computer

886
01:37:35.425 --> 01:37:38.210
that can perform arbitrary computations

887
01:37:38.449 --> 01:37:42.929
and arrive to consensus about hands, not just transactions,

888
01:37:42.930 --> 01:37:43.969
any consensus,

889
01:37:44.290 --> 01:38:04.115
can execute arbitrary logic in a way that it's trusted without having a single party that you need to trust. That that's what's called smart contracts do. Because people Right. Think contract is some sort of agreement that you sign or it's some sort of an asset or it's not. It's it's just a code. Right? So when you go to the server, you run some code that gives you some result, you have to trust the server.

890
01:38:04.700 --> 01:38:07.660
If you go to smart contract enabled blockchain,

891
01:38:07.980 --> 01:38:21.915
then you can run computation and get the result, and then you trust. And this trust is not based on a particular node of this blockchain. It's based on the whole decentralized blockchain. The best example of that at scale in my opinion right now is Polymarket.

892
01:38:23.355 --> 01:38:27.114
Potentially, yes. I'm not that familiar with that. I know a lot of I

893
01:38:27.835 --> 01:38:34.870
mean, they have a similar problem, right? Their problem is if they can't have a centralized entity taking custody

894
01:38:34.870 --> 01:38:37.590
of funds and handling arbitrary

895
01:38:37.590 --> 01:38:38.229
code.

896
01:38:39.110 --> 01:38:40.389
Exactly Like settling

897
01:38:40.630 --> 01:38:45.830
of the markets, right? If a missile strike hits or not, it can't be a single company doing that.

898
01:38:47.055 --> 01:38:57.455
Correct. So when we say we need to so so several things should happen for simplex network for it to be usable and sustainable. Right? We need to have a registry of servers

899
01:38:57.535 --> 01:39:05.429
that can receive money and trust this registry. Right? We need to have a registry of names so we can discover

900
01:39:05.430 --> 01:39:12.230
channels, and we also have designed for private names when you can discuss people without anybody knowing their addresses. We have designed for that already.

901
01:39:12.470 --> 01:39:20.735
And we also have to have a way to transfer value as also but not just transfer value, but also distribute the revenues in somewhat agreed way.

902
01:39:21.135 --> 01:39:30.335
So it depends on Right. It's like it's programmatic value transfer. Right? It's like an auto split that's going to multiple. Exactly. Yeah. Exactly right. So because

903
01:39:30.829 --> 01:39:31.710
otherwise,

904
01:39:31.710 --> 01:40:37.190
we yeah. Transferring value is a simple problem, and, yes, Bitcoin is the best at solving this problem and the first solving this problem. And if transferring the value would be the only problem that we needed to use, then Bitcoin is a viable solution. And likewise, Monero is a viable solution. Right? But that's not the problem that we need to solve. We need to have a distributed computer that we can trust that will solve all the problems that require a network wide state. Because today, simplex network has no network wide state. You also network wide. Right? So there are no registered servers. There is no list of participants. And there was no global state. Exactly. It's fragmented. It's and and when people say, oh, we have to bring the whole message on the blockchain, that doesn't work because messaging is, like, has to be fragmented. Right? Communities have to be fragmented. Network. But if you want to have a global namespace that is recognized by all clients, then you suddenly want a network wide state. Right? If you want to have a server registry to which you can pay money, you want a network wide state. And if you want an agreement with those servers that you can trust and everybody is paid who is doing the work for the network, you need some programmatic way to split revenues and distribute money. That requires smart smart contracts.

905
01:40:37.605 --> 01:40:49.284
So our whole idea is behind that to program all this logic. So effectively, if anybody's on on the blockchain and have server operators and network users interface with smart contracts

906
01:40:49.285 --> 01:40:58.320
so that payments can be transferred from the channel owners to the servers with whatever revenue sharing agreements that can be put in place as code.

907
01:40:59.120 --> 01:40:59.680
So,

908
01:41:00.000 --> 01:41:11.905
specifically, we're going to build a proof of concept quite soon on some on some blockchain so people can have a feel of how it's going to work. But imagine you're operator. You're going to smart contract via some service hosted

909
01:41:11.905 --> 01:41:14.704
on IPFS, for example, and you say, I want to be an operator.

910
01:41:15.025 --> 01:41:26.070
You will be asked to give you details. You will be asked to, like, put our server addresses and whatnot. You'll be asked to sign a deed. So I believe that technical guarantees have to be supplemented by contractual guarantees.

911
01:41:26.550 --> 01:41:36.525
So let's say, if you want to run a server on simplex network, you have to guarantee the users that you're not gonna sell the data, that you're not gonna collude, that you're not gonna so there have to be legal remedies if you do.

912
01:41:37.005 --> 01:41:53.630
I think that's a big missing bit in networks like Tor because they ask for they only think maybe because they're technologists. Maybe maybe they just don't think about it like this. But I think if I am using the server on the network, I want not just technical guarantees. I also want contractual guarantees as well.

913
01:41:54.429 --> 01:42:03.764
And we want blockchain to deliver it all. So participation network would require providing contractual guarantee in exchange for making the money, which I think is reasonable.

914
01:42:04.085 --> 01:42:04.644
So

915
01:42:04.965 --> 01:42:14.885
that requires programming. That requires writing code. That requires deploying code in a way that it's executed not on a particular computer, but on a distributed network of computers.

916
01:42:15.900 --> 01:42:16.860
That kind of

917
01:42:17.660 --> 01:42:24.060
And that kind of there is not a there there are choices. Right? There there there are multiple networks that can do it. Think think

918
01:42:25.580 --> 01:42:27.100
it would benefit Bitcoin

919
01:42:27.355 --> 01:42:37.354
a lot to to to to evolve into this direction, but it's not there yet. I think Bitcoin I mean, why does Bitcoin have to do all the things? I'm I'm in the camp that,

920
01:42:37.755 --> 01:42:39.275
like, if you use

921
01:42:39.770 --> 01:42:43.130
I mean, because the problem is adding that functionality

922
01:42:43.610 --> 01:42:44.650
reduces

923
01:42:45.050 --> 01:42:46.570
the robustness

924
01:42:46.570 --> 01:42:54.164
of whatever blockchain has that functionality. That's always been the the trade off from Bitcoin protocol point of view.

925
01:42:54.725 --> 01:42:57.124
Correct. So like, if you use like, for instance,

926
01:42:58.165 --> 01:43:01.925
and I've gotten some shit for this, and this is why I use Polymarket as an example.

927
01:43:03.045 --> 01:43:04.245
Like, Polymarket

928
01:43:04.245 --> 01:43:08.380
runs on, I think, like an Ethereum layer too called polygon.

929
01:43:11.260 --> 01:43:13.179
A user point of view,

930
01:43:13.580 --> 01:43:15.820
I just need to be able to deposit Bitcoin.

931
01:43:16.060 --> 01:43:27.585
Yes. Like if it runs on a different tech stack, that's in a lot of ways, a benefit. That's in a lot of ways a benefit to to Bitcoin holders because it's not burdening Bitcoin with with that tech stack.

932
01:43:28.865 --> 01:43:45.540
Just need to be able to send Bitcoin to it. 100%. And that's actually a solved problem. Right? The whole idea of, like, foreign assets have been, executed in a trustless way by other blockchains. For example, I think Polkadot did it, Starknet did it. There are some other blockchains that did it, that you can hold asset

933
01:43:45.540 --> 01:43:47.300
on a Bitcoin blockchain,

934
01:43:47.860 --> 01:43:58.505
but in a way that you operate on this asset on another blockchain. So it's kind of it's it's it's almost not like trustless, but No. No. They're a trustless they're a trustless solution I as question.

935
01:43:59.305 --> 01:44:00.905
I question if that's the case.

936
01:44:01.465 --> 01:44:08.530
There's a lot of hype around it. Look, I think it's important that you minimize the trust as much as possible for that cross chain situation.

937
01:44:09.010 --> 01:44:10.530
There are atomic swaps

938
01:44:10.850 --> 01:44:17.490
that can handle it. Bolt's just released an atomic swap that moves you from, for instance, Bitcoin to Tron Tether.

939
01:44:18.435 --> 01:44:22.594
And in between, there's no custody. But, you know, trust is a hard thing.

940
01:44:23.315 --> 01:44:29.074
I agree that it's hard to do a completely non trustless way, but I think they think they're they're doing something reasonable

941
01:44:29.074 --> 01:44:38.550
with that. But but that's not the point. So what But we got derailed. Yes. Exactly. Yeah. So so I think what we want to do is to just have ability to transact with

942
01:44:38.790 --> 01:44:41.430
with any currency on the entry.

943
01:44:41.510 --> 01:44:47.190
It can bit Bitcoin, of course, as well. But, ultimately, to have a mechanism of revenue sharing between

944
01:44:47.895 --> 01:44:48.855
participants

945
01:44:48.855 --> 01:45:16.885
that enable like, you're using the browser. Right? You're not paying to the browser. It doesn't mean that the browsers are not paid. Right? Ultimately, web browsers find a way to make revenue. So we believe that companies developing client software for networks should earn revenue from the network for doing that. Right? And it's not just our company. Any company that develops software should earn money proportional to the usage that they are able to to generate for the network. Yeah. Mean, the web browser is an interesting example, right? Because

946
01:45:17.285 --> 01:45:20.005
it wasn't built in a programmatic

947
01:45:20.005 --> 01:45:25.284
way of revenue sharing and stuff, they have to find revenue streams that are very convoluted

948
01:45:25.205 --> 01:45:29.519
oftentimes have warring incentives. The best example being Chrome,

949
01:45:29.840 --> 01:45:36.479
which Google figured out was the way you monetize it is with search and mining data of people. Exactly.

950
01:45:36.880 --> 01:45:40.719
While like Internet Explorer was monetized basically

951
01:45:40.775 --> 01:45:45.414
through Windows and Windows lock in, Safari is is Apple's ecosystem.

952
01:45:45.415 --> 01:46:00.699
And as a result, we just don't have many different web browsers we can use. Right? I think. Exactly. So it stifles competition because there is no mechanism to get the revenue for making a browser from the network that requires browser to access. Right? So

953
01:46:00.940 --> 01:46:16.715
and also all all sort of perverse incentives. Right? When privacy gets compromised and security get compromised, then users' data is being sold. And and that's just corrupt model. And the only proper solution is to just build in this revenue sharing model in the network. So browser developer or, like, whatever

954
01:46:17.195 --> 01:46:21.915
software developers get some share of the revenue proportionally to to

955
01:46:22.020 --> 01:46:24.820
to the value they create to the network. And likewise,

956
01:46:24.980 --> 01:46:28.099
governance of the network. Right? When we say we're established in consortium,

957
01:46:28.180 --> 01:46:29.300
governance carries,

958
01:46:29.540 --> 01:46:39.045
legal costs. Right? It carries documentation costs. It maybe not cost a lot of money. It may be, whatever, a $100,000 a year, $10,000. It doesn't matter. It's still money that somebody has to pay

959
01:46:39.445 --> 01:46:40.324
ultimately.

960
01:46:40.325 --> 01:46:46.244
Right? And until some point, it's okay to sustain on donations. Right? But beyond some point,

961
01:46:46.645 --> 01:47:07.784
it may be hard to sustain on donations, and it may require explicit revenue sharing agreement with the network. So we we really I really see it's important to have foundation that that would allow it. I think it's fundamentally the vision of Timber and Earth's lay around the web. Right? That's why we say that what we are building is potentially an extra because he was talking about micropayments, powering the websites and generally

962
01:47:07.785 --> 01:47:20.825
web ecosystem from day one. Right? It was way ahead of, like, blockchains or cryptocurrencies or even understanding what these micropayments means. But I think, like, he was talking about the future for which we today have technology.

963
01:47:23.270 --> 01:47:34.950
Fair enough. So so yeah. So that's that's that's why that's why we we didn't we didn't make a final decision. We we still iterate on which which is the blockchain, what smart contract. We saw fundamentally, we are looking for solution with smart contracts.

964
01:47:35.635 --> 01:47:54.260
I I know this I'm trying to be mindful of time because this is supposed to be this was supposed to be a tight hour, and I know time is scarce. No. Don't apologize. I was apologizing to you, but this conversation has been so fascinating that we're almost at two hours. But I I I mean, I still want to just go a little bit deeper on this

965
01:47:54.739 --> 01:48:00.499
before we wrap. If you have a little bit more time? I have all the time you have. Okay, great.

966
01:48:01.380 --> 01:48:02.260
I, what

967
01:48:03.139 --> 01:48:04.900
thought have you given, I mean,

968
01:48:05.585 --> 01:48:09.665
the big concern, right? I would say is

969
01:48:11.425 --> 01:48:12.864
we haven't seen.

970
01:48:14.865 --> 01:48:21.880
So basically there's two pieces here, right? And I think the first is the reason the community's gut reaction

971
01:48:22.440 --> 01:48:23.800
was outrage

972
01:48:23.800 --> 01:48:26.120
is because most of the time when

973
01:48:26.440 --> 01:48:27.080
a

974
01:48:27.480 --> 01:48:28.360
proprietary

975
01:48:28.360 --> 01:48:30.760
token scheme or

976
01:48:30.435 --> 01:48:32.434
credit scheme gets presented

977
01:48:32.514 --> 01:48:42.355
is very scammy. I don't think it inherently needs to be scammy. I just think that 99% of the time it is scammy and there aren't many examples of it not being. So people default to that.

978
01:48:42.930 --> 01:48:47.810
I understand why you would choose this path, and I don't think it's necessarily

979
01:48:47.810 --> 01:49:01.344
unethical or anything. It's not even it's not even that, Matt. We're not going to do any tokens or emission for that. We see a smart contract as a holder of the existing value. We're not going to create any digital asset class.

980
01:49:01.744 --> 01:49:07.025
Okay. All we want is a scheme that allows people to deposit some existing assets.

981
01:49:07.739 --> 01:49:37.889
There's no final decision on what the payment is. But it can be multiple different assets. Right? I mean Exactly. They they deposit it, and smart contract simply holds it. We're not interested in emitting digital assets at all, and we're not planning to issue any tokens. What we want is a autonomous smart contract on the chain when you deposit existing assets that we didn't create, and then you assign it to a community using zero knowledge proof, which already decouples your purchase from assignment. And then once community has assigned credits

982
01:49:38.210 --> 01:49:45.730
credit is an existing asset. It's not our token. It's it's not something they created. Then they can redeem it to the server, and then when the revenue gets distributed.

983
01:49:45.890 --> 01:49:56.185
What we achieve with this scam is that privacy is preserved because it's effectively, you're pre it's like think about it like prepaid telephone cards. Right? You go into the store, you pay cash,

984
01:49:56.745 --> 01:50:06.025
and you get the card, and then you use the card to pay for your phone, or you may give it to your friend, and your friend will pay for his phone, right, or for her phone. So that's that's fundamentally what we want to develop.

985
01:50:06.970 --> 01:50:09.770
Prepaid scheme allowing you to use

986
01:50:10.090 --> 01:50:14.969
existing digital assets on a blockchain to prepay server capacity

987
01:50:15.210 --> 01:50:18.010
and do it in a way that preserves your privacy.

988
01:50:18.330 --> 01:50:27.975
Right. Because fundamentally, there's always dramatically split it between And program, it's split revenue. Right? So we have no interest in issuing tokens. We have no interest in creating any digital asset class.

989
01:50:28.135 --> 01:50:30.295
We have interest in creating a mechanism

990
01:50:31.095 --> 01:50:35.655
that allows people to transact in a way that protects their privacy.

991
01:50:36.500 --> 01:50:48.500
Because you cannot really like, yes, people go through all the hoops to have privacy. They have to think about how they connect to blockchain nodes, how they do this, how they do that. So privacy is possible with blockchain,

992
01:50:48.580 --> 01:50:50.340
but it's not possible for mass market users,

993
01:50:51.195 --> 01:50:52.074
realistically.

994
01:50:52.074 --> 01:51:05.594
Yeah. It's quite difficult. Yeah. But it's been a major focus of mine. Exactly. So what we want to develop is a layer that is built on top of blockchain, uses existing blockchain primitives, existing blockchain assets, and that allows people to pay for infrastructure

995
01:51:06.380 --> 01:51:08.939
in the same way they would pay for telephone

996
01:51:09.340 --> 01:51:11.979
buying a telephone prepaid card.

997
01:51:13.179 --> 01:51:24.514
We didn't like, if if if if I tell you that we are doing a prepaid telephone card, it doesn't mean we are printing cash. We're not printing cash. We're just doing prepaid telephone cards. So we don't want to do any token that would hold value. We simply do analogy.

998
01:51:25.155 --> 01:51:40.199
Effects of the treasury contract, which will hold some other tokens that already exist. We we we didn't know. It maybe USDC. It may be some other token. It may be something that people recognize as a value and use it as a transient value store

999
01:51:40.920 --> 01:51:47.719
to to to to pay for the service. That brings me to my second piece, which is I would just say as someone

1000
01:51:47.960 --> 01:51:48.840
who

1001
01:51:49.785 --> 01:51:57.465
is pretty excited about what you're building and understands the need for it, and I don't want you to make any bad decisions that you regret later,

1002
01:52:00.105 --> 01:52:07.519
is, you know, the way Bitcoin is designed and the trade offs Bitcoin has made make it very resistant to centralized capture,

1003
01:52:08.400 --> 01:52:12.320
both on the protocol level and then also the token itself is a native asset.

1004
01:52:12.480 --> 01:52:18.000
When you're thinking about how you're going to actually execute on this and build it out, I think it would

1005
01:52:18.485 --> 01:52:25.045
and I'm sure you're already thinking about it. There's two pieces. Right? First of all, the protocol you decide to build on

1006
01:52:25.605 --> 01:52:30.965
is gonna have varying levels of centralization. Right? So Tron, for instance, is an example I constantly use.

1007
01:52:31.365 --> 01:52:32.965
Tron has $10,000,000,000

1008
01:52:32.965 --> 01:52:34.005
worth of Tether on it.

1009
01:52:34.780 --> 01:52:52.635
But at the end of the day, it's just Justin Sun. It has full control. Now regulators perceive it as federated control, and he doesn't have full control. Maybe that's enough for him in his use case or whatever. But when it comes to something as important as simplex, I could easily see censorship happen on that chain.

1010
01:52:52.955 --> 01:52:53.435
Now,

1011
01:52:54.875 --> 01:53:12.989
there's varying levels of this throughout the ecosystem, right? With I would say Bitcoin being the by far the most secure, but not programmatically for your use case or whatever. And then things like Tron being incredibly centralized, but a lot of people are using them as a result. And then the second piece is the actual assets itself, right? USDC

1012
01:53:13.469 --> 01:53:14.270
is

1013
01:53:14.270 --> 01:53:15.389
controlled by

1014
01:53:16.350 --> 01:53:18.750
a centralized group of regulated institutions,

1015
01:53:19.175 --> 01:53:22.535
right? It gets frozen all the time. So does Tether,

1016
01:53:22.695 --> 01:53:25.495
right? So you gotta think through these

1017
01:53:25.815 --> 01:53:27.495
because ultimately,

1018
01:53:28.215 --> 01:53:30.695
I I could imagine a world where you build this all out.

1019
01:53:32.230 --> 01:53:40.229
And then if that layer gets broken, everything starts to break around it. Right? Like people, it hurts the robustness of the protocol itself.

1020
01:53:40.710 --> 01:53:50.604
These are things like I'm sure. Are you thinking about this or I assume you are. 100%. Yes. Matt, you know, one of the reasons why we announced our strategy and technology direction

1021
01:53:50.844 --> 01:53:56.925
long before we have answers is exactly that. Because we usually iterate ideas internally,

1022
01:53:57.090 --> 01:54:03.809
And then when they think, okay. We we don't know how to make it better at this point to announce. It it it sometimes happens,

1023
01:54:03.889 --> 01:54:14.744
like, months or even more than a year before we actually start building. We didn't start building it yet. We we only we only arrived recently to a cryptographic design that that hits all the goals.

1024
01:54:15.065 --> 01:54:21.465
Right? We didn't even we we only recently were running the review of all the blockchains

1025
01:54:21.465 --> 01:54:30.020
that can be used for that. And Tron is disqualified. Right? Same as many other just centralized blockchains. We absolutely don't consider high degree of centralization.

1026
01:54:30.180 --> 01:54:32.340
I understand the downside of

1027
01:54:33.060 --> 01:54:38.500
so choice between USDC or you or Tether and other tokens is effectively

1028
01:54:38.500 --> 01:54:40.580
a volatility versus centralization.

1029
01:54:40.580 --> 01:54:46.215
So it's it's a hard it's very it's a very hard choice. Right? So and for many so I would say

1030
01:54:47.095 --> 01:54:48.695
in the same way I,

1031
01:54:48.775 --> 01:54:59.690
like, reject false trade offs and false binaries. Right? Some choices are just not real. Right? You just invent them and you say you cannot have both. In many cases, you can have both. But sometimes there are some genuine trade offs,

1032
01:55:00.010 --> 01:55:01.850
and they're really hard to take.

1033
01:55:02.490 --> 01:55:08.730
And with this kind of specific technology, there are a lot of hard trade offs. That's true.

1034
01:55:09.450 --> 01:55:17.995
What I think what I think is important, though, we're still in enthusiast territory. I think it would be correct to see what we are building right now as a as a prototype.

1035
01:55:18.155 --> 01:55:47.935
Right? In the same way as SimpleX v one was a prototype. And if you compare SimpleX design on the day of launch with simplex network design today, it's like almost like two different products. Right? We we have completely different layer of security. We have completely different and we have managed to evolve it all kind of with backwards compatibility. So people were effectively using a different network without changing the client, without having dis being disrupted, etcetera, etcetera. So I think we can do the same with payments. So whatever we built in the first instance

1036
01:55:48.175 --> 01:55:52.015
is likely to be a prototype to learn on and

1037
01:55:52.719 --> 01:55:55.119
that will evolve dramatically

1038
01:55:55.119 --> 01:56:01.999
as it gets adopted, as it gets tested. Because I think the biggest test for the product is not technology. It's market. Right? We kind of hypothesized

1039
01:56:02.239 --> 01:56:02.800
that

1040
01:56:03.040 --> 01:56:07.335
channels will pay for servers, servers who want to participate. Participate. We hypothesized

1041
01:56:07.335 --> 01:56:15.574
a lot about the market, and you you know it better than anybody else. You're a VC. Right? Products don't fail because technology fails. Products don't fail because nobody cares. Yep.

1042
01:56:15.735 --> 01:56:21.310
Nobody cares to use them. Nobody cares to build them. And I think at this point, it's much more important

1043
01:56:21.310 --> 01:56:28.670
to prove that our hypothesis about the world that people will pay that service will want to sell are correct.

1044
01:56:28.990 --> 01:56:41.715
Right? That that there is actually a market. I think to prove this is much more important than to, avoid, like, central what you also what I mean. Right? So, like, it's it's much more important to and once we see, okay. Yes. There is a market. It can grow.

1045
01:56:42.034 --> 01:56:52.260
We'll just rebuild the technology in a way to avoid the capture. You can see and it's in the same way as we were building simplex network. People were telling me from day one, you should create a foundation. It should run a protocol evolution.

1046
01:56:52.660 --> 01:56:56.420
But my response was, look. We don't know if anybody needs it, number one.

1047
01:56:56.660 --> 01:57:22.090
Right. We we don't know what people need. It's not just we don't know. Even if we know that people need something, it's it's almost like, you know, like, your your trade has an expression product market fit. Right? We've been running product market fit experiments for four years, and now we kind of have an understanding of what people need in terms of messaging. Right? What people need in terms of payment for infrastructure capacity, we're just in the beginning of running this experiment. Right? We we hypothesized.

1048
01:57:22.090 --> 01:57:25.850
We learned. We talked to people. We It's putting the cart before the horse otherwise.

1049
01:57:26.330 --> 01:57:31.705
Exactly. Yes. So so I think I think it's important for community not to overvalue

1050
01:57:31.705 --> 01:57:50.890
technology choices. Of course, we'll make our best job. Of course, we'll do decent technology choice. Of course, we'll avoid obviously bad like, Tron is always a bad choice. Right? There is no way there is no road in which we use Tron or or Base or something else centralized. Right? So it's literally not even on the table. Right? But but within reasonable choices, I think I wouldn't over index

1051
01:57:51.050 --> 01:57:53.530
the importance of doing a trade on the first try,

1052
01:57:54.185 --> 01:58:13.570
but rather doing something that's kind of they're trying to do a good job. I think they're trying to do a good job with version one. But that's Directionally correct and learn from it. Exactly. Yes. That I that's how we've been evolving the product from day one. Right? We built something, and then it was pulled by users into some direction, and we pushed in some other. It was kind of a combined

1053
01:58:13.810 --> 01:58:14.610
effort.

1054
01:58:14.930 --> 01:58:27.364
And I think that's why people use it because we we we tell people early what we do. We listen to what they say. We learn. We do something that they think is we're building for people, look. I'm too old to do it to be rich. Right? I personally

1055
01:58:28.005 --> 01:58:54.835
no. Come on. It's just like, you're not doing what you're doing to be rich. Right? If you wanted to be rich, you would be doing different things, I think. I I agree with that. That is correct. Yeah. There are there simple ways today to get rich. Right? We really I think what kind of is common between us is that you kind of dislike the place where this world arrived. Right? And you do what you can in your place with your resources, with your abilities to make this world a little bit better.

1056
01:58:56.035 --> 01:59:10.410
I think that's why we're building communications technology because I I care about communications. Right? I experimented with page you know, pagers. Like, I had some was dev in those things. So, like, I really care about people being able to connect to other people. There is nothing more important.

1057
01:59:10.810 --> 01:59:16.010
And me seeing, like, the whole world is converted into some kind of surveillance panopticon

1058
01:59:16.010 --> 01:59:17.050
when, like,

1059
01:59:17.755 --> 01:59:20.155
you can't really talk to anybody anymore.

1060
01:59:20.635 --> 01:59:22.155
That's just not right.

1061
01:59:22.475 --> 01:59:24.315
Then try to do something.

1062
01:59:24.795 --> 01:59:36.540
Exact I was saying that something has to do something for the last twelve years. Yeah. Fifteen years now. Right? So, like, four years ago, I said that less than who? Yeah. Four years ago, I said, alright. Nobody does anything. I have to do something. Right? Yeah.

1063
01:59:37.180 --> 01:59:53.695
That's what compels me too. I look. I think you're thinking about it the right way. I think it's the right perspective. Obviously, you have my contact now. So if I can be helpful as you try and figure things out, don't hesitate to reach out. Thank you so much. But yeah, I think it's the right perspective. I think it's I mean, just really well said across the board.

1064
01:59:55.614 --> 02:00:05.840
Evgeny, this was a great, really great conversation. I enjoyed it. Maybe we'll do a follow-up in the future, like in a year or something. I don't wanna take too much of your time, but I think it'd be cool to

1065
02:00:06.080 --> 02:00:11.120
have, you know, kind of like a timeline as we, as you build all this out. It'd be fun.

1066
02:00:12.355 --> 02:00:16.675
That would be fantastic. Yeah. So we're yeah. So that would be fantastic.

1067
02:00:17.074 --> 02:00:19.554
Okay. We are trying to make it work.

1068
02:00:20.755 --> 02:00:29.409
Yeah. We're past the two hour mark now. This was an epic, epic conversation. Do you have any final thoughts for the audience before we wrap? How they can be helpful?

1069
02:00:29.970 --> 02:00:38.850
I'm gonna obviously link to all the important links in the show notes. We we didn't do a formal announcement yet. And what we're playing this year is effectively

1070
02:00:38.385 --> 02:00:49.024
transfer and give people more ownership of simplex network across multiple dimensions. So this con consortium governance is one thing. Another big thing we are playing for this year is crowdfunding.

1071
02:00:49.264 --> 02:01:00.310
It's not formally launched yet. We kind of in testing the water phase. We're not accepting any money. We are not doing that, but we we will be doing it this year. We've been criticized

1072
02:01:00.310 --> 02:01:05.270
a lot by our users for taking private investors' money, and we think it's,

1073
02:01:06.005 --> 02:01:13.604
like I think our users have to own a piece in this network and have a say in where this network evolves and not only via nonprofit governance,

1074
02:01:13.925 --> 02:01:19.844
but also via having shares in in a company that builds this network. So we're we're creating this opportunity right now.

1075
02:01:20.800 --> 02:01:23.920
It'll probably launch in, like, three months or so,

1076
02:01:24.400 --> 02:01:32.960
but there will be announcement soon in the blog post, on Twitter. So, yeah, that's that's a big sense. So I really wish to see community

1077
02:01:32.325 --> 02:01:37.365
supports and benefits and from from what we are building because we're we're not trying to be just

1078
02:01:37.605 --> 02:01:47.125
nonprofit entity. We we believe, like, if if what we are building is the next step and where the company builds on the next step, then it may be a really large business, and our early investors can

1079
02:01:47.510 --> 02:01:52.950
benefit a lot from participating in that. And I really want to see community members in their numbers.

1080
02:01:53.350 --> 02:02:09.545
And I don't know if you're comfortable with sharing how that's gonna be set up or like was that just a traditional equity sale? Or Yes. We we don't believe in tokens. We will sell company equity. It will be some sort of modified safe agreement. We can't use ways as safe as is for crowdfunding.

1081
02:02:09.625 --> 02:02:19.669
It's not it's not decided. It's premature. It's currently what we're working with with lawyers. But, fundamentally, yes, it will be the community who that participate will own company equity.

1082
02:02:20.949 --> 02:02:26.630
Awesome. Got it. Well That's that's that's our big news for this year. So I keep an eye out for that.

1083
02:02:27.735 --> 02:02:34.935
Yeah. And that's that's that's that's I have to say what my lawyers keep saying. Maybe I have to say a disclaimer that this is not an investment offer, and then they cannot

1084
02:02:35.575 --> 02:02:39.415
accept any money at this stage. This is just us testing the interest.

1085
02:02:40.300 --> 02:02:44.220
I think that was good legal advice that you received. Yeah. I'm glad you said it.

1086
02:02:46.620 --> 02:02:54.380
Sir, it was a pleasure. Thank you for joining us. It was a it's a privilege, Matt. It's a privilege, Matt. I really appreciate you doing that with me. Thank you so much.

1087
02:02:55.645 --> 02:02:57.405
Thank you. Freaks,

1088
02:02:57.405 --> 02:02:59.965
thank you for joining us. I hope you found the show helpful

1089
02:03:00.285 --> 02:03:01.485
or fascinating.

1090
02:03:01.725 --> 02:03:08.925
I enjoyed it. As always, share with friends and family. Search Cyla Dispatch in your favorite podcast app. All relevant links at cyladispatch.com.

1091
02:03:09.272 --> 02:03:11.592
Love you all stay on with stacks at peace.