The Bitcoin Group, the American original, for over the last 10 seconds, the sharpest satosis, the best bitcoins, the hardest cryptocurrency talk. We'd like to welcome our panelists, Chris J. from Feathercoin. Hello. Chris Doth atlas from Anonymous Bitcoin Book. Hey, it's good to be here. Derek J. Freeman from Peace News now. Peace be with you. And Paige Peterson from San Francisco, Bitcoin Meetup. Thanks for having me. Issue one, Bitcoin and Sports. A very exciting weekend for Bitcoin and Sports. With Max Kaiser successfully winning his kickboxing match in London and mad bitcoins and the Sacramento Bitcoin Group attending the Sacramento King's game, paying entirely in Bitcoin. Personally, I thought it was a lot of fun to buy a magnet from the team store in Bitcoin, not having to deal with any change or having to swipe a piece of plastic from my wallet. But let's hear your ideas. Why should sporting teams take Bitcoin? How can Bitcoin improve the fan experience? Should other sporting leagues get involved? Chris J. Well, we had a lot of fun last Saturday night. I was one of the co-organizers of the kickboxing championship. And the idea by Matt O'Connor, the entrepreneur who started it all, was that people should really be taking Bitcoin for granted. We shouldn't really be questioning why Bitcoin could be sponsoring a kickboxing championship. So he wanted to kind of bring it into the mainstream. He was very quizzotic and ambitious. He booked out the O2 in London, which is a very big, prestigious, expensive venue. But the people that showed up really enjoyed it. They had a great time. We even had a few of the people who were critical of the idea. Some of us are kind of early on accused us of being a little bit gimmicky. But actually, I spoke to one critic last night in a meeting and he actually came around to the idea once he saw all the press about it in coin-dead, and people talking about it on Twitter. They were like, hey, you should do this a little bit more often. I think sports has a way of bringing people together, particularly like if you remember World War One on that day on Christmas when the troops on the front line started playing football together. It has a way of bringing together the two tensions between different tribes. So it certainly has a mass appeal. I'm still would love for a soccer team to adopt Bitcoin. Chris Doff, Atlas. Well, I think that sports, the people that are involved with managing sports, the players could be hugely benefited by cryptocurrencies, particularly through the mechanism of smart contracts. Because this is the way of doing more of the negotiations and enforcement of agreements through cryptographic means as opposed to with lawyers. I imagine that quite a bit of money that's in sports is sunk into lawyers on both sides of the aisle. So I think that would be very, very beneficial. I also wonder though, how popular are sports going to be in the future when we have a cryptocurrency-based economy? If you think about the open design of the blockchain and the level of accountability, a lot of the stadiums that are out there are built with taxpayer money. This is money that's being taken from people, not fallen terribly. This is just kind of being snatched out of their hands and they build erected these giant facilities in which to have sports. Of course, sports have been long used by the state as a means of simulating combat and getting people into the spirit of military conflict as well. So I wonder exactly what sports are going to look like in that kind of future. I wonder exactly how sports teams would and leagues would hope to pay for the facilities where these sports are being conducted. So those are a few things that I'm curious about and I'm not exactly sure yet how cryptocurrencies are going to affect sports. Some good points, Christoph. I like the idea about linking the contracts to the blockchain. A lot of the contracts are incentive-based. If you get 50 touchdowns, you get a certain bonus. I'd like to see that paid out automatically through the contract rather than through a legal system. Derek J. Sports are a unique arena, so to speak, in this area of Bitcoin development because I haven't seen anyone yet take advantage of the possibilities of ticketing through something like a colored coin where you could issue your own tickets and then allow the people who bought them to buy and sell and trade them amongst themselves and each other. And they could do that all cryptographically. It would save them money in sourcing their ticket master or whoever processes their tickets and it would also make their fans happier because they could buy and sell them without that being illegal and they would be able to cryptographically prove ownership. The unique idea and it hasn't been done yet, sports could be the new way in. That would improve the ability to sell tickets online as well. You could send them the actual colored coin instead of sending them a virtual ticket. It would be one of the same. Page, your thoughts. Yeah, I guess kind of going off of what Derek was saying. Another option is for the sports teams themselves to make their own cryptocurrency that could act as a way to kind of keep it within the area because sports teams are generally based in certain regions. Doing something where it's a little more innovative on their part and they can sort of announce a new technology that they're experimenting with is good for them. Also just the aspect of buying things online. Maybe the in-person purchases aren't as necessary or beneficial using a cryptocurrency, but certainly the online purchases and most of the ticketing is online purchase. I would definitely like to see sports play around with maybe their own cryptocurrencies. I guess that goes to say also for any kind of event arena or performer. I think it's a great idea page for a sports team to have their own currency. They could offer discounts on jerseys and what's great is once your fans buy your currency, there's nowhere else to spend it. It's a closed loop. Whether you're a rock star or a sporting team or even a whole sporting league. I mean there's some danger, there's some coding difficulties obviously, but with the more and more meta coins and master coins and what have you would be a lot easier for them in the future. Exit question. Think outside the box. What smaller sporting league could get some free press by accepting Bitcoin? Bowling, fencing, curling, Chris J. I actually don't like the idea when smaller companies try to use Bitcoin as a way of like piggybacking off of its awareness. So I'm not really a very keen on that. Christoff. Christoff. Ables. Maybe college, quidditch teams could do that. There you go. And they could raise more money to fight the brooms overseas. There's a lot more options for them. Derek J. Rather than a small sporting league getting free press in itself, I think all local teams of any sport should advertise that they accept Bitcoin because Bitcoin is as local as it is international. So if you play on a sports team just for fun, you invite people to come and attend in the audience. Maybe you charge for tickets. If you tell the customers in the newspaper or online that you accept Bitcoin, that's going to get people like me out there who otherwise wouldn't be attending a sports event, but I want to support their Bitcoin efforts. They could have a special Bitcoin day, sell it at the concessions, and maybe raise enough money to run their local baseball league for 10-20 years. Who knows? Page. Any small leagues you'd like to see? Someone last week mentioned UFC. I think that would be interesting just because they tend to have a small group where they're really, really passionate about the sport. Yeah, I don't know too much about other sports though. Definitely a growing group there, the UFC. I would like to see them accept it. Moving on. Issue two, investors offered to buy Mt. Gocks for one Bitcoin. It's not clear whether they'd be taking on the debts of Gocks or just buying the name, but I've heard they've offered customers a 20% return on their lost funds, which isn't great, but is better than nothing. Should Mt. Gocks come back? Is the brand strong enough to return? Kristoff, Atlas. I have an alternative proposal for them. They could have a series of ships that they're going to produce. Take people on cruises, they could call it the Titanic cruise line. I think it could be really popular because the Titanic is very well known. So many great memories of the Titanic. Derek J. No, their brand is unfortunately not strong enough to return with any positive memories. Anyone who heard about Mt. Gocks and was naive or new to Bitcoin thought that Bitcoin itself had crashed and that was a big problem, caused a lot of confusion. I would not welcome Mt. Gocks into the Bitcoin space. Page Peterson. So maybe the branding is a little tainted. I do enjoy the aspect of trying to help the people that did lose Bitcoins in the process of them going bankrupt. I think that was the general purpose of what they were trying to do and buying it out. They said that they were going to work towards building charity so that they could help these people without needing to go to regulators. So all these people are getting helped in the free market through charity that is being set up in the aftermath of Mt. Gocks. Maybe not using the brands, maybe calling it Mt. Gocks, something else. Gathering online exchange. Yes. But definitely maybe not as an exchange because that could be bad for the brand. But as something else that would help to reimburse the people that lost their Bitcoins. Could you imagine if they came back as an exchange and failed again? Would that be the greatest story ever? We get some whole new guide to blame. You know, that car pellets, Fred car pellets, somebody else comes in. You know, that would be great. Yeah, I was going to say if they do launch it as Mt. Gocks 2.0, I would not do what Silk Road 2.0 did and keep the name of the leader. Like the name Mark Cabellis should just not be carried forward. It's going to be used to actually heard that in one of the test versions of open transactions, and one of the servers goes rogue and is proven to have to not be solvent cryptographically. They call that like a car pellets condition or something like that. So that's the way that name is going to move forward, not, you know, being adopted by the next Mt. Gocks 2.0 CEO. I wish there was still doing episodes of Star Trek, the next generation, so they could go to some strange planet and discover a car pellets. Chris J, your thoughts. I think I have some concerns about the fact that essentially what they're proposing is doing a sort of a Ponzi scheme by commission, because essentially what you're saying is, well, we have got some funds. We know for a fact that Mt. Gocks does have some liquidity. It had at least 30 million left in the bank and also recovered, apparently allegedly recovered 200,000 big coins all of a sudden when he found a paper wallet under his cat next to his keyboard, if you remember. And so what should happen in my view is that those funds should be divided up between all of the creditors, the people that had the money on the exchange just be handed out equally. What this company is proposing is that in light of the fact that there's so much, as they said, it was an information vacuum around the internal finances of Mt. Gocks. They were just going to give this nominal fee of one Bitcoin. They then inspect it, take a look at it, then reboot the brand and then try to pay people back based on trading fees. But of course, that isn't just a Ponzi scheme. You're just stretching the problem out even more than you were before. So I think it's probably just edited to let a sleeping dog lie and just give people their money back based on what's left inside of the company. It sounds like a lot what was done by a coin X and Silk Road 2.0, some of the other exchanges that have run into trouble. But what's different about their situation is they were still able to do this while they were still solvent while they were still in exchange. Mt. Gocks has gotten to such a disastrous condition now where they've shut themselves off for so long. I don't know if they'd be able to recover the trading potential that these people see in it as well as recovering the trust. I'm sure everyone remembers Silk Road 2.0 is hacked just like Silk Road 1.0. All the money was taken at one point. There were some issues. Any more on that? Moving on. Issue 3. Bitcoin sidechains. How about instead of altcoins, we just have a series of sidechains that interoperate with Bitcoin. This way the Bitcoin network and its asic-generated hash rate could benefit all coins. The downside is that it might kill all the current altcoins. Should Bitcoin itself be the laboratory for new coins or should they stay as separate altcoins? I ask you, Derek J. This is a real tough question. A great one to be asking because I see benefits, of course, in having the laboratory happen in networks other than Bitcoin. So that if they fail or new ideas are tried and damaging, then it's just an altcoin that's affected. I don't know. I'd be curious to hear what the other panelists think if a problem with one of these sidechains could affect Bitcoin, that's something I'm not aware of. As a newbie, I would look at this situation and say, I'm fresh to Bitcoin. Oh great, yeah, just go ahead and do it. Work it all on to Bitcoin. That way it's easy. I just have to follow Bitcoin. But if I were someone who's been developing an altcoin for a few years, I would clearly object because it might threaten my altcoin. This is a tough one. I'm not sure where I stand on this. Page Peterson. So as far as I know, the points of these sidechains is that if something were to happen to a sidechain, only those bitcoins and transactions in that sidechain would be affected and it wouldn't have a larger effect on the main blockchain. That being said, I am not a fan of this because it's just centralizing the whole idea of cryptocurrency into Bitcoin. I think that having the alternative options, they talk about how if one of the sidechains fails, then Bitcoin, the main blockchain isn't affected. But what if the main blockchain fails? All of those sidechains also fail. It's a very centralized way to structure it. I'm in general in favor of competing currencies. They can offer different benefits and they can, again, they can be for different companies or sporting teams offering their own cryptocurrencies. If they want to do it, I don't think it will kill altcoins. It might be a good thing to try, but as the end result to getting rid of all the other altcoins, I don't think that's a good idea at all. It seems like it's very definition is a distraction from the development of Bitcoin. Chris J. I have quite a lot of thoughts about this. I've been reading a lot about it. If you're watching this, you should definitely check out episode 99 of Let's Talk Bitcoin, which is where Austin Hill and Adam Bakus, the creator of HashKash, which is what Bitcoin gave us. Bitcoin gave us digital scarcity. The first time you had digital assets that could be replicated, but you'd be able to trace them infinitely, which meant that they could be finite at the day zero when you launched it. If you said there were only 21 million coins, there would only be 21 million coins. What has happened is one of the most important features of Bitcoin was that it was open source, and making something open source is about giving up the need for control. You're saying that I don't necessarily want to own this in perpetuity. What happened then is, of course, everyone started creating their own scarcity. You had all of these different races to scarcity. Adam Bakus' anxiety was that this would dilute and undermine the very thesis behind Bitcoin. Indeed, I think that most of Bitcoin's vulnerabilities lie within side of it, within side of the actual concept. But let's make sure that we're clear. What's decentralized is not the protocol, and it's not the implementation, it's not the code, it's the idea itself. All of these altcoins simply represent the same idea in a different location. They are very valuable, and there's still a lot of unanswered questions about these side chains, about whether or not you'd be allowed to have a proof of stake side chain, alongside of the proof of work as the main chain. The innovation here is key to point out is really just the pegging. What happened was they worked out that you could have a test net. We already have test nets already, so if we want to experiment at Feathercoin, we just create a Feathercoin test net. Some of the miners sacrificed some of their hashing power with their mining rigs. They pointed at the test net, and then they start doing all kinds of crazy stuff on the test net. What happens is you start getting Feathercoins on the test net, which aren't really worth anything. I mean, you could try sending them to somebody, but they'd be stupid to give you money for them, because as soon as that blockchain dies, they're not really worth anything anymore. So what the developers have done, in this case, and Adam back is proposing, is this two-way pegging, which is where you'd be able to send bitcoins into this side chain of Bitcoin. You wouldn't be able to generate bitcoins from within inside of it, and if the side chain were to fail, you'd lose those bitcoins. But if it were to succeed, you'd be able to spend those bitcoins back into the main chain, which would mean that any negative externalities, if you produced anything that went wrong, it wouldn't affect the main chain. I do not see this in any way as being a threat to all coins, and of course, I would say that wouldn't I check my bottom third below. But mainly because Litecoin and Feathercoin are those could all integrate their own side chains. They could just integrate it at their own level. You're still going to need what these all coins represent, okay, is they represent divisibility by diversification. You've still got the issue, one of the most important things about all of these tech companies, whether it's Bitcoin as an organization, or whether it's Square or any of these other Twitter, Facebook, is they're mostly just marketing operations, okay. You've got a little tech company, and then you've got a huge massive, great, big marketing operation sat on top of it. I think I got that quote from Peter Teal. And essentially, it's just about persuading other people to back you. I think the insight that Adam Back has come up with here, and he also didn't interview with Andreas Antonopoulos in December, was that the value of your coin is coupled very, very tightly with the ongoing engineering costs of the actual code base. I think what he started to realize is that if you don't have that ongoing development at the level of the coin, miners can just switch off their mining power. Yes, it might be a multi-petahash network at the moment, Bitcoin is, but it might not be forever, because of course, a lot of people, a lot of miners could just use to cut their losses and just turn their mining rigs off. They do consume a lot of electricity after all. So no, I don't think this is healthy for competition. There's also a quote, if I may, there was a quote that Austin Hill made in episode 99, which kind of gave me some course for concern. I might be taking this out of context, but I'll just read it out by way of response. When you start looking at embracing or extending the functionality to include part of their asset base, he's talking about financial institutions, encoding into blockchain technology, you can start to see the demand for Bitcoin will far outpace the availability and will ultimately drive up the price of Bitcoin. Now, obviously I'm taking that out of context. That's around 30 minutes in. You should definitely go listen to it, and I'd love to hear what you think. But that for me just kind of gives me a course of concern. I wonder what the intention is here, because if we all put all our eggs into one basket, and we all put it into Bitcoin, and we put all the innovation around Bitcoin, then what if Bitcoin fails, and what if we don't see something else coming? I think diversity is key here. Christoph, Atlas, your thoughts. I think this is a fantastic idea, not necessarily the idea that we should merge all existing altcoins or future altcoins into sidechains, but just the technology in general. For example, with zero cash, which was the evolution of zero coin, I think that it would probably fit naturally as a side channel, whereas as an altcoin, it's a little bit awkward. Keep in mind that when you launch an altcoin, it's not just a matter of cryptography, you're launching a currency, which means that you need to have the economic savvy as well, in order for the currency to be successful in the long term. I think there's a lot of altcoins that are out there right now that ultimately will not exist in the future, or their value will dramatically drop, because of the lack of economic savvy that their designers have. So I think that there will be space for altcoins, there will be space for these sidechains, and so forth. I'm very confused by the economic argument that somehow, since people can create more and more altcoins, this is inflating the cryptocurrency supply, I find that to be very, very confusing, because that's ultimately where just, no, if we keep adding new altcoins, most of them are not going to be worth anything. And I don't see that they particularly affect the value of the majority of the other coins that are out there, especially Bitcoin. They affect Bitcoin the least. So if someone creates a new alt currency, and sort of they create a thousand of them, and they have a million bajillion units of currency, I'm not sure why we should care about that at all. It's going to fail probably. And so the person wasted their time and people let try to get it and wasted their money, but eventually people will figure out that a lot of these schemes are pumps and dumps, and they will start to develop the savvy to identify which altcoin proposals are actually have something behind them, and have the right kind of team behind them to make them go somewhere, and they'll be able to identify the products that are just bullshit. I think we have a lot of bullshit in the ecosystem right now, but it's just because it's new, and people don't have the wherewithal to identify that quite yet. So I'm confused by this argument. I'd like to see some more statistics, data, some hard evidence to back up the idea that we have an economic problem with cryptocurrency inflation, that somehow that these many, many altcoins that are going to be created are not going to just be lost in the end of the long tail of cryptocurrencies. And so I think that's important because that is that hinges the argument that we should merge all these altcoins into as side currencies for Bitcoin. It hinges on this idea of that there's a problem there, and I don't see that this is a natural other case. So I think this is just going to be another complimentary technology, another piece of technology in this Bitcoin 2.0 space. I don't expect a theorem to jump into this side currency stuff. I don't see that happening with mastercoin or some of these other things. So I think they're going to continue doing what they're doing. And keep in mind, at this point, we should learn that whenever these new products are proposed, they're going to take a long time to come to fruition. They always say, we have this new idea. It's the best freaking thing since sliced bread, and it's going to be here tomorrow. And then tomorrow comes to me like, yeah, but that'll be, and then, you know, it becomes along the bill. We're shooting for Q1 2016. There's all these legal issues, and we need to pay the developers, and a bunch of people left our project to jump on this other new project. And so I'm not worried that the altcoin space is going to collapse, and it's all going to fall into side chains. I think that it's something that is going to the gradual change over time. And some altcoins will remain on the outside. I just thought of an idea tying this into our last topic. Maybe the National Football League could create their own Bitcoin, then they could create side chains for each one of their teams, so that you could hold individual team currency. Then maybe there could be an exchange rate even where certain team coins were more valuable, less valuable. All kinds of options. It's all right there. It's a whole wonderland of cryptocurrency options for the big corporations to come play with. Hopefully they will. Moving on, issue four. Dozecoin and Litecoin. Merged mining. Similar to the last question, a bug was discovered in Dozecoin, which may require Dozecoin to merge their mining with Litecoin, gaining a technical solution to the problem, but also giving up their mining power to Litecoin. What are your thoughts on merged mining? Should Dozecoin join Litecoin? Page Peterson. Your thoughts. I have to admit I'm not too aware of the technical implications of this, but as just kind of philosophically, I think it's an interesting experiment to sort of introduce cooperation in the face of competition. So just showing that these two competing currencies are, you know, they're trading against each other in the market. But when it comes down to it, if both of the communities that are using them want this to happen and think it should happen and want to come together to make it so that Dozecoin and Litecoin can continue to exist, then I think it would be a great opportunity. And I'm, again, like I don't know about the technical implications, but I think it's an interesting thought to do, and I would be for it. Chris Ellis. So, Kobli has actually made the same offer to Federcoin last year, and the skepticism was on the forum, on the Federcoin forum at the time, was that essentially it was like a poison chalice. It was a way of killing Federcoin, because what had happened was that we had introduced a competitive edge, just as what Litecoin did to Bitcoin, Federcoin did to Litecoin. It contextualized it on an extended continuum. And because the hash rate is finite, what you do is you take away the hash rate from one coin and you give it to the other. And actually, I think that's perfect, just like I said, the side chains and the altcoins could coexist. So it's right that you should have to compete for hash rate. It's a very powerful signal of strength. So essentially what's happening here by the looks of things is that Kobli is trying to position himself. You can see that Dozecoin has taken away a lot of the Litecoin hash rate. In fact, I believe in some of the Dozecoin marketing material it did actually feature Litecoin being trodden on by a row of communist troops, if I recall. So there was some aggression and some provocation from the outset. Now I would recommend everyone go visit the Merge mining AMA, ask me anything, which is Kobli actually did on the Dozecoin Reddit. I posted the link in the sidebar. I don't know if you can post that Tom in the main thread. And I'd recommend you go read it, but also there is a Merge mining article on the Bitcoin Wiki, which is fairly Googleable. I'd recommend you clue yourself up on it. I think what this would mean is it would do more favors for Litecoin than it would for Dozecoin. It would also lock Dozecoin into scripts or whatever Litecoin wants to do in the future. For example, if Dozecoin wanted to move to a different algorithm, that would suddenly become a non-trivial thing for them to do because they would be locked in. So they'd have to hard fork again. Obviously you don't want to be hard forking your blockchain too many times because that requires everyone to do a mandatory update of their wallet and that's not that suboptimal. So I would be a little bit skeptical if I was at Dozecoin right now, but I think Jackson Palmer is a very smart guy and he'll make the right decision. Kristoff Adless. Yeah, I think this is an interesting proposal. I actually, you know, I wonder whether it could be beneficial for Dozecoin in the long term. I feel like one of the weakest things about Dozecoin as a currency, as a means of storing value, is their economic model, the inflation basis for Dozecoin. Makes it something that I would not personally be willing to speculate on for the long term. It doesn't seem like a safe speculative vehicle for me. So at some point they're going to have to decide, is this always going to be a fun silly coin around memes and pictures and videos and stuff like that and tips? Or at some point do we hope that people are doing actual commerce with Dozecoin and if it's the latter, then I would like to see them take a more serious look at the economic side of things. Maybe what they're doing is just working well for them and they can continue to scale that up to whatever extent is possible. I don't know what the ultimate market cap is for tipping people through Reddit and Twitter and so forth. But maybe it's big enough that that's what Doze is happy to do. I'm not really sure, but I think it's an interesting proposal and something worthy of consideration. Derek J. I think this is great. This is a no-brainer to me. I would love to see the two most popular altcoins or some of the most popular join teams to fight this galaeth. Not that I want anyone to really lose, but I think the competition makes everyone better. Like Chris Tauvin mentioned, Dozecoin is going to get its act together on the economic side by joining with Litecoin. Hopefully they're going to see this thing can't persist on just being a funny meme. We're going to need to build in more technicalness into it. I see it as a huge win because it means more competition and it means people are going to learn more about the cryptocurrency eco space. Moving on, issue five. Journalist creates his own Bitcoin and suddenly learns it's not so easy. He used CoinGen, but ran into trouble when a fly was discovered that he couldn't afford to fix. Still an impressive journey from Coin Bitcoin to Lipsmania 2.0 to creating his own coin. Will we see more of these journalist conversions in the future? Will one of them succeed in creating their own coin? Will everyone have their own coin in the future? Chris J. I think it's about the blockchain, though, not the coin. I think everyone will have their own blockchain in the future. How that translates. I don't know. I think a lot of these all coins, what they want to be, are digital assets, secure digital assets that are finite. But what they tend to be used for at the moment is money because money is in very high demand at the moment is what people want. I think they're very good for adding value around borders of trust, around borders of culture. I've said that a few times before. There are people that are working on trying to get a raw coin going in Iceland. I like these ideas, but I don't think that setting up an altcoin is easy. I know because I've been very closely a part of that process. It's definitely an experience that I would recommend, though, although it's very hard work, very exhausting. I definitely recommend it as an experience. It was very enjoyable, and I've learned a lot by doing it. Kristoff Atlas. For me, this story underlines the fact that when critics of Bitcoin or cryptocurrencies actually get their hands dirty and start using it and start to understand some of the fundamentals of cryptocurrencies, they lose their criticisms. It sheds a lizard skin, and they grow into their more educated, future-proof version of their journalistic selves. I think this is a fantastic story, and I wish that more journalists would have the balls to step up to the plate and give these cryptocurrencies a try and figure out how they truly work rather than rehashing the same tired, ignorant remarks about cryptocurrencies. It might have taken him a while, but I like the experimentation that he showed. I'm asking for all the panelists who are going to regulate Bitcoin to it. At the very least, try it. Buy some, send it around, spend some money, donate to a charity. He went way beyond that, making his own coin. It took him a while to get there, but I applaud him for going there. Derek J, your thoughts. Yeah, totally. It's good to see someone take the lead in this realm of like-looking. Like, look, I'm just some journalist. I just learned about cryptocurrency, and I can do it. It's definitely going to encourage more people to look into it who think that they're not technical enough, and they'll learn that they are. Will everyone create their own altcoin? Gee, I hope not. I don't want to have to follow a whole bunch of altcoins. I'd really like it if just a few succeed, and I can just stick to those. There's already too much noise in this environment for me. And there's more ideas too that maybe kids could make their own altcoin. They could try this out. Trial and error. They could break it a few times. Like, I used to break windows all the time. It's a learning sandbox for them. Cryptocurrency could be fun. So, page your thoughts. Well, I actually do hope that everyone has their own blockchain. I don't think it would necessarily be too hard to manage. You would just need the technology to be built around it. So, there's things like Ripple that exist where it's kind of like decentralized exchange. So, if you want to trade one currency for another on the Ripple network, it kind of matches everything up for you, and you don't even have to think about it. So, I think the technology just needs to come about in that, you know, the actual exchanging between currencies is a lot easier. And then, yes, I hope that everyone has their own blockchain. And that also kind of goes off of the whole sidechains discussion from before. One of their arguments was the difficulties between going between different currencies and the whole exchange process. But I think that whole bridging thing is going to get extremely easy in the future. And that is probably one thing that we should be focusing on. Or I think I would enjoy to see people focusing on more than just like pumping out a bunch of different altcoins right now, yeah. I agree. And there's also a chance that open transactions is going to come through with an easy way for people to create their own altcoins. So, they're definitely going to be a lot of altcoins in the future. Exit question, if your favorite journalist created an altcoin to support his or her work, would you buy it to Libycoin, Palastcoin, Barbara Walters' bucks, Chris J? No, I'd just tip them. If they wanted to create like a share, that's fine. But why does it have to be a currency? I really like what Paige is saying about the distributed exchanges. It's a very good point because that's probably the next thing to get distributed. At which point everything becomes a currency, absolutely everything, including tokens on top of blockchains. Kristoff Atlas. No, I wouldn't. I think I would like to create a flow chart. It's going to be, should I create a new cryptocurrency? And the vast majority of the boxes are going to go over to no. I think that if people really thought critically about a lot of these cryptocurrencies, they would realize that it would just be better off using Bitcoin or some other major cryptocurrency. Derek, Jay, would to Liby to a good for Bitcoin? No, I'm just going to stick with what I know. Paige Peterson. Not until the exchange process is made a lot easier, maybe in the future, but not right now. All right, moving on to questions and answers. If you haven't sent your questions in, there's still a chance for you to send your questions in. Google is now telling me how to use the question and answers week thing because it's 25 weeks in. So they've finally written a help program. So good job guys. I'm going to go ahead and get some questions and I'm going to go ahead and ask you a question. I'm going to ask you a question. I'm going to ask you a question. Can I answer a question for the other panelists? I heard people mention this idea that they would like to see everyone having a blockchain. And so I'm curious about what the envision being possible with everyone having their blockchain. What would be the point of that? What would be the benefit of it? A blockchain is a memory. So what we've been discussing on Twitter with Bryce and Andreas. And Andreas mentioned this, the conference, just probably went on holiday, was this idea like it would be like a blogging. Having a blockchain would be like blogging and you'd be embedding all kinds of data, all kinds of witnessable, memorable events inside of the blockchain in order to make it permanent. But what's useful about having your own blockchain as opposed to people, but for people sharing blockchain, a single blockchain? Oh, like I don't know. I'm not anticipating yet where the hash rate is going to come from necessarily. So it could be an Ethereum based thing, for example. But I see lots of potential in reputation systems about making a claim about something you can do, a capability that you have in the future, and then either succeeding or not, and then commenting on that process. But there's going to be a very real necessity to want to keep that private to you. The rest of the network can see there is some activity going on. But you may wish to keep the encoding of that data private to you because you may not want everyone knowing what you're witnessing, for example. It sounds like if Facebook was a blockchain, but if Facebook didn't have access to your data anymore, because it was encrypted, and only your friends and friends of friends had access to your key, and you would upload your photo into the blockchain instead of uploading your photo into Facebook. Yes, that sounds what you're talking about. And I'd like to see that. Christoph, can I answer your question? Yeah, I guess so. I guess I'm sort of wondering, like, if we have all these different blockchains that we need, do we need lots of different ways to secure the blockchains? Because right now, if you just create a new proof of work based blockchain, then it's pretty much worthless. You have no network effect. You know, no one stops you from doing a 51% attack on your own blockchain. And so I'm not sure what kind of integrity or authenticity those blockchains have. I would kind of rather see people focusing on getting a public key data into existing blockchains and distributing those public keys so that they can put stuff in the blockchain. And in the Bitcoin blockchain, or one of these other more larger blockchains that's already been secured and encrypting it and then having some technology to mediate who gets access to the proper keys and so forth, rather than taking this kind of round about approach. What I see is about a run approach. I mean, I know it's important to be kind of very humble about what we expect to come out of these cryptic app technologies because you asked me two weeks ago about side chains. I would have, it's nothing I would have conceived of. But I'm sort of confused about what the benefit is of having these many, many different blockchains, possibly replicating the same kind of effort. What's the next answer? Well, yeah, but remember that you have to separate the tokens from the actual memory function of the blockchain. It's a way of recording the sequence of activities, which is a very important thing. That's how clocks run. It's essentially a giant unstoppable clock. And so that's what the blockchain is provided that you're able to maintain the hash rate. And so we can't even anticipate right now what's going to be invented. What all I know is that clocks are very important, recording the sequence of events is very important. I go, therefore, I'm anticipating some kind of personable, witnessable blockchain that I'm able to encode in into my own private, you know, personality. That's true, although I will note that we have really just one world clock that everyone goes off of, and then we have 24, 24 times. It's essential, I'm sorry. That's the next thing to be centralized. Yeah, maybe. The the the the standard is just going to be contextualized and we're all going to have our own clocks. It does seem like it's akin to the post office where they stamp that information on your stamp that your stamp has been accepted and it's postmarked. And that now we have this universal postmarking system. We just don't know what we're going to use it for yet other than currency, which we're trying right now, obviously. Moving on to the next question, he says that there's there's no buy my coin pump and dump in the atom back side coin proposal. So it is slightly different than the the alt coins and the Charlie Lee. It is different. I wasn't I wasn't suggesting personally that he was trying to get rich off of it. I was quoting Austin Hillen in the interview where he made a comment that to me subjectively came across as like, okay, so is the purpose of this to try and get the price of all the money? Or is part of the intention of this to try and get the price of Bitcoin to go up on based on the assumption as crystal pointed out that these all coins are somehow bringing the price of Bitcoin down because I don't think these all coins are bringing the price of Bitcoin down that that's all my. It's tough to say. I mean, I think a lot of people saw Bitcoin as a bridge to get money into the alt coins where it flowed for a while. But now I've flowed back in. It might have become less money. I don't know what happens to the money. So the user crypto coin user also says that the side chain proposal is a leap of faith to end all leaps of faith. I agree. It could be very bad if the side chain somehow infected the Bitcoin or caused a problem in an otherwise working system. So here's something funny and recursive. They'll probably need a side chain for the side chain initially. So you're what you're probably going to get. No kidding. You're going to get a test net that's going to have a side chain on it. And they're probably going to have to test that for a year or so. But remember that these are not costless activities. So you do have to divert otherwise useful heart mining hardware at a test net. So this is not free. This will cost you money, especially considering these a six are not cheap. It's fine with feather coin because all you're doing is pointing a graphics card at a network. And in fact, you don't even have to use your best graphics card. You can just use it a cheaper one. But when you're talking about a six where all the a six have a very start, you know, high starting price. That's going to cost people real money. And at the moment, they're not even talking about merge mining straight straight away yet. They're considering merge mining. But then you've got to go to the pools and you've got to negotiate with them and tell them, look, it's worth your while merge mining with this side chain at the moment. The only incentive to minus side chain would be the transaction fees. Crypto coin user also says that silos are for storage. Interoperability is for innovation, safety and robustness. Good comment. Yeah, let's see. We also have a comment. He'd a set there says, don't forget a shout out for Bitcoin expo 2014 happening into Toronto April 11th to April 13th. That's right now. It even says it's where Christoph is. Christoph, are you in Toronto? No, I'm not. Are you going to go? No, unfortunately, I don't have the pocket change to just jet off casually to Toronto. So I am told that will. Penguin is in Toronto representing the Bitcoin group. So if you see will payment say hello from me and we might be joined by them later, but I'm not sure if they're going to make it, but we'll see if that happens. Mr. Axe says that last week's prediction came true storage in the blockchain. It's very true. The made safe company announced they're raising safe coins to put files in the blockchain to hold them for you. Kind of like Dropbox, but more long term and more along the postage stamp postmark idea or even a more serious idea than notary idea where a significant person comes in and signs it and you sign it and they stamp it and it's official. Well, you could just put your official documents in the blockchain. Now it's pretty much the same system. So we'd like to see more of that in the future. Just a little clarification on that actually. So made safe isn't based on the blockchain at all. It's based on a consensus network. So there isn't a central blockchain where you can find all of the different places that things are stored. It's very, very, it's almost like a decentralized blockchain. It's a very interesting technology and I'm actually extremely excited about it. There's a subreddit and stuff like that. I highly recommend people go check it out. And that's the made safe. Yeah. We've got a question for Chris Ellis. Mr Chris Ellis. How did the debate go with Ben Dyson from positive positive money? I tried responding to his blog post. Did you manage to change his mind at all? Well, I certainly picked his curiosity. So let me a really nice email after the debate saying thank you so much and it learned a lot. So I do plan on doing another one with him. I think I think he brings up a really good point because Ben isn't a technical geek, but he is very well versed on economics. So from the outside looking in, I felt that it was important to have his opinion on it. His opinion on it is that Bitcoin is just a prototype. And this argument comes up all the time on the Bitcoin talk forum about whether or not you know Bitcoin is analogous to, you know, AOL or my space, even though those were centralized companies or whether it's more analogous to TCP IP. I think all analogies are wrong. Metaphores are useful for a while. It helps you to get grips on something. But Bitcoin will just be what Bitcoin is. But I don't think that his criticism is entirely unmerited. It may well be that the whole world has to catch up and it's understanding because at the moment, everyone's at very different levels of understanding or of Bitcoin. Some people have a very deep level of understanding. But most people just have vague awareness. They know that it's some kind of internet based currency. Some people even understand that it's not controlled by any central authority. It may well be that Bitcoin has to fail so that we can relaunch the whole thing with everyone in the world being coped ascetic with everyone in the world having a good understanding of it. That was what he was introducing. One flaw in Ben's argument that I didn't pick him up on enough in the debate, but I will do next time, is if he's suggesting that the economics of Bitcoin is flawed, I'd be interested to know if he knows what the answer is. What would you do with positive coin then Ben? What would positive coin look like? What kind of monetary supply? Because none of these coins so far have had good launches. There is no such thing as a perfect launch. All of them to some extent have their own struggles. And actually, I think what you're going to see is a fitness function emerge where we start to look back over these all coins over a number of years. When we start to say, OK, it turns out that advanced check pointing is a pretty key feature that you want early on to stop your chain being forked. But actually, the length of time that you have the advanced check pointing will also be a negative indicator of success because the longer you need it, presumably the worst job you're doing at stabilizing the hash rate. So there'll be all these kinds of things that we're going to be learning over the next few years about how well these coins survive. And of course, it leaves open the question of inflation whether or not an inflationary coin can survive an ecosystem of deflationary currencies. I'd like to comment on the positive money guys proposals for fixing things. So this is on positive money.org slash our dash proposals. So he proposes three ways of fixing money. I'm just going to focus on the first one. Number one, money should only be created through a democratic and transparent body working in the public interest. So he says he would like to see something like the Bank of England or a new committee that decides whether to create money. It should be accountable to parliament and protected from abuse by vested interests. And I, you know, it's hard for me to take seriously someone's economic criticisms of Bitcoin when this is their proposed solution to the existing financial system. The idea that you're going to somehow take over the reins of government by forming a new committee and cast some magic spell that's going to insulate it from corruption is truly naive. I mean, that's a staggering kind of statement to make it as if this hasn't been tried in the past. I think that's I think that's the square itself. It does seem like they're taking a very philosophical experimental approach to something that because of Satoshi's work has become real. Like Satoshi didn't need to consult with this super government committee. He didn't need to get them all to agree. It was more of a math programming issue, which he was able to work out with the help of other people and the internet, etc. But this is so Christoph, you bring up an excellent point and this is what I mean when I say everyone's at very different levels of understanding. You know what it's like sometimes when you meet someone and they come up with a counter argument to your particular argument. Maybe I'll believe that you've held for a long time that you held very dearly and all of a sudden somebody comes up with a really cutting criticism, a devastating criticism of your belief. And it's very very difficult in that moment and I've done both things. I've either defended a belief that I knew wasn't true. That's called bad faith when you do that. Or I've gone, okay, it's totally right. I now need to go away, read that book or wherever you got that information from. I need to go and read that. I sort of get the sense that it's a little bit of that case of that with Ben. That's why I tried to set up that debate between you and him and the other bankers on the panel because I do feel as though particularly the sort of libertarian crowd in the US. So that would mean something very different in the UK. So I wanted to avoid it if possible. But I do think they can learn or fallot in this country about some of the ideas that are coming from you and Josh and Michelle and Derek. But I wanted to do it and I still want to do it in a way that is constructive and philosophical where we get to the underlying issues and we don't just sort of say, well, if only you'd read so and so, you know, 1953 or this paper or that paper, rather we just keep it to the core issues. Moving on next question with the, I think this has to do with the recent drop in the Nasdaq and the drop of tech stocks. I'm going to ask the whole group, have we seen the top in the Dow and the bottom in Bitcoin? Chris J. What do you think? I'm sorry. Oh, right. So what the like the Nasdaq do, if you look back at like the last 14 years of the Dow, you've got lower lows and higher highs, which means everything is volatile right now. It's not just Bitcoin. The whole world is volatile because information travels faster than it ever has before. And so we're learning things faster than we ever have before, which means we're intervening and we're acting more. We decide that we're making more decisions than we've ever made before. We're getting distracted more than we ever have before. So all of these markets are going to be less stable in the future. I is my belief, still my belief that we're going to see a huge redistribution of wealth, particularly from west to east, mostly because in the west, all I see is a lot of consumption. I don't see a lot of production. I think we're serving and waiting on each other in the west. I think particularly in the UK, we're a nation of shopkeepers. If you go like around Google campus or any of these kind of tech startup incubators, I mean, the most popular startup category is the incubator. I'm not even kidding. Right. The most popular startup you can have is an incubator. You might as well just get your incubators inside of your accelerators. Accelerate your incubators so that they can incubate more. Like it's just a joke. It's just parasitical. I got accused the other day of being anti-capitalist. I was shocked and mortified. I was like, no, this isn't capitalism. This is corporatism because all you're doing is you're getting a bunch of rich people crowding around a bunch of hipsters. They were all frankly living off the bank of mum and dad most of them because the rental prices in London are like at least 1200 a month. You're living costs so much higher than that. You can't compete on a global scale when you've got those kinds of outcomes. How you meant to charge for a freemium product. Which is what most of the internet is and most of these startups are selling software. They're not selling hardware. They're just doing social networking or they see a startup on why combinator. And then they think, oh, that's a good idea. I'll do the same thing in Europe and then just try to reach a different market and then maybe Google will buy me out or something. They have all these kind of weird exit strategies and then you've got these vultures, these kind of angel investors, I call them vulture investors. And maybe okay, they got lucky, they got overpaid for the last 10 years, they lucked out. And so now they want to obviously they want to take this money and they want to turn it into even more money because presumably they weren't happy with the money they made originally. And so what they do is they pump money in one end with the view to getting more money out of the other and they don't care about the customer, they don't care about the staff. Usually what they are is they're called acu-hires, which is where they buy the company, not for its intended output, but they actually buy it for the staff so that if it all goes wrong and by the way it usually does and none of these startups really succeed maybe maybe like 5% of them or something. Failure is the norm in this era. They just take the staff and then they repurpose a lot of the products or they just can the product and put it somewhere else. That is the nature of it, I do expect that these stock markets to be more volatile in the future. I don't think this is the bottom for Bitcoin, I'm not seeing a lot of strength in the price at the moment. I think we probably will have to test 269 and it is going to get very scary for a while. So watch your stock positions. Is this the bottom and the top? I can't really speculate on whether the doubt is at the top. I think that's fundamentally unknowable. We are in the west, we are blown up on this incredible debt bubble and we don't really know exactly when it's going to burst. It's going to keep pushing the stock markets up until finally we have the real reckoning and it's going to happen at some point but we just don't know exactly when that's going to happen. It's based on the highly chaotic back room deals that are going on in Washington DC and London and places like that. As far as the Bitcoin bottom goes, my sense is that we're not a lot of the growth that happened last year was based on the idea that Chinese investors were going to come into Bitcoin and that the bank of China was going to leave them alone. It doesn't look like that's going to be the case any longer. So a lot of that positive take on the Bitcoin price based on China's entrance is going to deflate. I think it could go lower. I would point people in the direction of Tudor Demister who the other day he tweeted out some analysis and chart analysis that he did that I thought was very solid and very good looking at some of the recent highs and lows and where the resistances are and what the market, who the market movers have been during these different highs and lows. So I would check that out. Derek J. The low of Bitcoin, I don't know, Bitcoin could still go to zero. I don't think it will but it could. And I'm more sure about the Dow, the top of the Dow. I'm calling at $10 million because inflation. Page your thought. So I actually met someone. He's kind of like a traveling trader. He travels around the country. He calls himself corn feed hobo. And he was telling me about how he thinks that the real price of Bitcoin should be somewhere in between $100 and $300 based on some like observances that he's done and like calculations with how many merchants are on BitPay and all of these other things taken into consideration. So I wouldn't be surprised if it went lower. I'm not concerned though. I think obviously Bitcoin is more about the currency. It's about, you know, the protocol and the idea and that's what's really exciting about it. So the price being lower probably but I don't really care that much. That just means it's going to raise again eventually. When I see people talking about the, you know, the innate or intrinsic value of Bitcoin and just have to roll my eyes have these people with their, with their formulas and their calculations. No one knows what the intrinsic value of Bitcoin is changing for a moment to moment. Like I said before, with the side chain stuff, that's something that I couldn't even, you know, I couldn't even told you that this was a possibility a couple weeks ago. And the intrinsic value of Bitcoin is based on what kind of utility people can get out of it at any given moment to transfer or value from one place in the world to another. And it's constantly in flux and there's no way to predict what cryptographic technologies are going to be just around the corner. So for, I think that it's pretty silly. I've also, you know, I've heard people give their, their calculations of, oh, it's got a trade in this range because it costs this much for the miners to do this and that. And I think that's just a small piece of the puzzle. The price of Bitcoin is highly, highly chaotic system and no one's going to be able to predict exactly what the price is going to be over time. If they could, then they wouldn't bother telling us they would just, you know, they would either go along our shore and become multi billionaires overnight. So. Alright, a couple more comments from crypto coin user. He says you can buy the Bitcoin price dip with coin base orders dot com that's limit orders on your coin base account. I haven't checked that out, but if you're interested, check it out. See what it's like. There's also a notary software that already exists at proof of existence dot com. So you may already be already be able to notarize your documents. I'm not sure if this is with the blockchain or if this is just a notary service, but it is getting there. And the internet is starting to replace more and more middlemen. Yeah, the proof of the proof of the existence website, what they do is they'll, they'll hash a file or string or whatever that you give to them. And then later on, you can, you can take whatever the file is and say, hey, look, here's the file. Go ahead and hash it for yourself. And you look at such as such a day, you'll find that I put the hash there in the Bitcoin blockchain through this website. So it's a way of proving that you documented this file at that particular moment in time without actually divulging the document itself. Very cool. I think we're just going to close on one more comment from the questions and comments. He says, educate the young sports participants to all things crypto and economics and all management slash middle layers of team management would be eliminated and become obsolete. So good note to end on and we're going to move on to prediction story of the week or final thought the part where you get to add to the show. Are you ready? Chris Ellis. I've got to make a prediction. No, I can add a final three or a final thought you have to choose. I'm going to go with the final thought just because I can't predict the future any better than anyone else and I'm and I would say something like. I think it's got something to do with working as teams because my experience from last Saturday. I don't know if all of you know, but we had some technical difficulties. I put a lot of energy and work into that debate and then it didn't go as planned. So I kind of spent a few days kind of beating myself up over it. But I would say that it's very important that we learn to work together. I think one of the biggest challenges we've got now that we're becoming a more decentralized world is that a lot of these corporations do have very top down authority, which does create some illusion of order for a while. If you're being told what to do and you've got this kind of fear incentive that's making you do is you're told when all of a sudden you go into a world where it's more distributed and you're just spontaneously working on all these little projects, which I think many of the people in our audience do because I've spoken to them over the months we've been doing this show. Oftentimes if you're the kind of person that doesn't like being told what to do, then you won't like telling other people what to do. And what can sometimes happen is you get a separation of people's priorities and their roles. And so one of the biggest things I think that we all fear right now as these kind of entrepreneurs or these distributed entrepreneurs is that when I go into this project, will my work be justified or will it just be wasted. And so I think we should be collaborating a little bit more and working together on how we can work together a little bit more efficiently without these kind of fear based structures that we have in these top down organizations. I think that we've still yet to really tease out of the protocol, some of the core philosophies and which needs to be extended all the way up, not just at the level of the code, but also it's the level of society and the way we interact with another. Christoph, at least your thoughts or prediction. I have an observation and I guess this leads to a prediction. So and this is very, very exciting to me. So I was at the New York City inside Bitcoin's conference on Monday. And I had a guy that walked up to me. I'm not going to name who he is, but he is an editor at a banking publication. And one would expect that the an editor at a banking publication would be at best kind of neutral towards Bitcoin, usually pretty negative. And these are also people that tend to toe the party line and so forth and and stake clearly on their side of that thin and green line that separates the bank from the banks from everyone else. But what he said to me was look, I'm really happy with the work that you're doing in the area of financial privacy. I think it's fantastic. I love to see more of that going on. And I was just thrilled to hear a comment from from someone like that. That's in that type of position. I think that more and more people are going to catch on to the idea that cryptocurrencies represent entirely new possibilities in terms of financial privacy. And I haven't had financial privacy in any meaningful way for decades at this point. It's been dreadful. And we've had such little financial privacy that people that a lot of people that grow up now just take it for granted that there's going to be people that are looking constantly into their pocketbooks and having access to that information all times. Not just from one party, not just from the NSA or the IRS or someone else like that, but also Google and their bank and their credit card company and you name it. So I think that I'm hopeful that eventually one of these generations will catch on to this idea and that financial privacy will become a rallying call for their generation. That it's not your damn business what I do with my money. If I want to trade peacefully with other people, then I should be allowed to do so and you should not attempt to step in my way. In fact, you are benefited by allowing me to do that because this is ultimately how real wealth is generated by people people peacefully interacting and trading with each other. I'm very encouraged by the work of the Dark Coin developers and the Dark Wallet developers. We saw some notable improvements with their tools and technology in the last week. And so moving forward, I'm very hopeful for the state of financial privacy and the investments that we're going to see in this area over the next one to you two years. I don't think that we're going to see it coming. I think it's going to be amazing and it's going to be a kind of revolution. Derek J. Prediction. The IRS will reverse its position on Bitcoin. After a tax day comes and goes with record low numbers of people self-reporting to the authorities about the Bitcoins they own. Page Peterson. So speaking of all of these big coin conferences, I predict that the conferences will kind of split off into two factions. There's going to be like the financial like Bitcoin as a currency or altcoins as currencies kind of financial conferences. And then there's going to be this other side of the conferences that are just geared towards decentralized technology. Bitcoin is kind of the one that is like spearheading them all. But you see companies like Made Safe and Ripple and all these different companies going to Bitcoin conferences. But they're not like related to Bitcoin really at all. I used to work for a company called Open Garden and they're making mesh networking technologies. And we were at the very first or I'm sorry, the second Bitcoin conference, which I guess the first one was technically in England. But the San Jose conference, we had a table at just because we knew there was going to be a lot of interest in the whole decentralized internet access type of thing. So yeah, in terms of the conferences and the communities rallying behind Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies, I think it's going to kind of actually split off into the people that are interested in just the fact that it's decentralized and that it's helping people all around the world. And then, you know, I guess I, you know, I heard a lot of stories about the New York conference being very regulatory and kind of not a funnest scene to be in as libertarian minded. Well, you know, we can't have all of our conferences in San Francisco. I want to disagree with page. I actually think that all these new conferences are diluting the existing conferences. So what we're going to do is we're going to have one conference. It's going to it's going to be a 24 seven conference going to last 11 months out of the year. And it's going to be an ice land and all the other conferences are going to be side conferences that are going to join to the main Bitcoin conference. And as long as it doesn't affect the hash rate of the original. Yeah, very important. So Chris, Jay, you have a Banksy quote for us. I just checked it out on Twitter. You should follow the real Banksy on Twitter. He says, if you behave like your government, you'd be arrested. Excellent quote. And finally, a prediction. Bitcoin is awesome. And more and more people are learning about it every day. Maybe they use it to send some money to another country. Maybe to buy something at Amazon with key what GYFT maybe they just read a whole bunch about it, but they wait to invest. But anyway, you look at it. The word about Bitcoin is getting out there. And you know what comes next critical mass. We're out of time. Until next time. Bye. Bye.