The Bitcoin Group, the American original. For over the last ten seconds, the sharpest Satoshi's, the best bitcoins, the hardest cryptocurrency talk. We'd like to welcome our panelists, Kristoff Atlus, from anonymous Bitcoin book. Thanks for having me. And I'm Thomas Hunt from the World Crypto Network. 2-1 cryptocurrency protection and moratorium act. US representative Steve Stockman, Republican from Texas, introduced a bill to the House of Representatives this week that proposes a five-year moratorium on cryptocurrency regulation and defines Bitcoin as a currency. Kristoff Atlus, your thoughts. I guess it's a noble effort. I think I want to be seen as a friend to cryptocurrency. This is for all as far as politicians go. And I'm sure as far as politicians go, he is relatively a friend. But I don't really expect to see this bill getting too far. I know that Canada has flirted with the idea of going hands off for a little while. I would even be a little bit surprised to see Canada commit to not putting through any regulations for Bitcoin in the next five years and for the US that's even more unlikely. Well, I want to say that this bill is the exact right idea. That's why there's no chance of it getting done. Having a five-year moratorium on new technology before you regulate it, I can't say anything bad about that. That's straight-up intelligent. You're able to watch the rest of the world react to this new technology. You're able to learn from their mistakes. And meanwhile, there's nothing stopping them from writing reports on what possible solutions could be. You know, rewriting these reports, getting new data, analyzing other situations, and really trying to understand this. The five-year moratorium is a great idea. But unfortunately, like Kristoff, like you, I agree, it's probably not going to be passed. This is just one representative. It's not even as if his party has taken it up. It's not even as if the other party has spoken out against it. It's a very minor issue. But we will celebrate it because it is a Bitcoin bill in Congress. For the most part, we do actually agree with it. That's a shocking as that is. Exit question. Will it pass? Yes or no? I'll be pretty much answer this. This is a double note, right, Kristoff? Yeah, I mean, surely it is the first bill that had the word cryptocurrency in the title of it. But there is no Bitcoin caucus. And with politicians and regulators, they have some good reasons to be nervous about Bitcoin. And a lot of ways they Bitcoin stands to put the amount of a job, at least parts of the government. But what's disappointing when we see these kinds of things come to help is that they are continually disingenuous about why they're opposing Bitcoin. Instead of saying, well, look, it's really going to create some problems for people that rely on the petrodollar standard. And it really takes away a lot of our control over the money supply and moving money around the world. Instead, the talk is about terrorism and money laundering and child pornography and all of the old tropes that they pull out. And I really just wish for once that they could be honest about why they're quenched them nervous and then maybe have an actual conversation about that. The part that I find so disingenuous is when they talk about protecting the consumer. Meanwhile, we've had all these banks commit massive fraud, which choose whichever fraud you want. Home mortgages, scandal, derivatives, the live or fixing interest rates. Whichever one you want to pick, there's been no punishment, there's been no arrests, there's been no shutdowns of these businesses, they're too big to fail, too big to jail, and they just continue to march around the world finding new and exotic ways to make money without working. And there's no penalties on this, there's no penalties on the tax havens. Russell Brand did a bit on his show recently who's talking about the various legal ways to avoid paying taxes. And the problem is not that a few billionaires or a few millionaires are using these legal ways to avoid taxes. Yes, that's deplorable for their character, but they're using legal ways. The problem is the legal ways to avoid taxes exist. And we don't close these loopholes. These loopholes affect only the millionaires and billionaires. They don't affect the normal people and the normal people very much have laws on top of them for everything that they do. And we keep seeing that. So yes, this will not pass. It's been tabled. It's in two committees, ways and means, and the financial committee. And as we all know, committees are where bills go to die. This bill was not fast-tracked. It was not taken direct to the floor. The president did not speak about it. Obviously, stockmen are Republicans. Unlikely, he'd get support from Obama anyway. But like you said, Bitcoin caucus. What a beautiful idea. Across a party group that would be supporting Bitcoin. Let's talk up that idea. Let's try to get somebody to join stockmen and maybe the next bill can be co-sponsored by a Democrat. Or something relatively small to Congress as well. You would expect it to be more something that's snuck in in the back of some other bill that's vaguely related. And as far as this Bitcoin champion goes in Congress, I don't think that he likes Bitcoin, even a tenth as much as Chuck Schumer hates Bitcoin. So that's also an issue. I wouldn't mind if this bill was refashioned and stuck onto another bill as a writer. Or of course, if I was in Congress, every single bill that came up, I would stick it on to as a writer because that's how you really work Congress. If you really want to work, you have to be on the legislative level and you have to be submitting bills all the time. And hopefully, stockmen will. Maybe he'll keep this up. Moving on. Issue 2. Issue 2. Bitcoin giving Tuesday. Was this Tuesday? And it was a resounding success. Even breaking transaction records. Dozens of charities participated including Bitcoin stalwarts like Free Aid and Bitcoin not-bombs and newcomers like the United Way, the Red Cross and the recently announced Save the Children Foundation. Congratulations to BitGive from the very beginning charitable donations and Bitcoin have gone together like peanut butter and jelly. Thomas Hunt, your thoughts on Bitcoin giving Tuesday? Well, thank you for asking me. Come on, dogs. I think Bitcoin giving Tuesday was a great success and I was glad to see all the charities participating either accepting Bitcoin directly or accepting change stiff on their Twitter or Reddit accounts. The dogs are going crazy because the mailman's here. But let's not worry about that. And I'm always impressed to see the charity efforts of BitCorners even when the price is down. Like it is right now. I know a lot of people probably don't have the money to donate but they still donated. Even $5-10 here and there helps out a lot. So, Kristoff, what are your thoughts? I think this is a good opportunity to just remind people why Bitcoin is so effective for charities. As you mentioned, $5-10 goes a long way and because of the lack of these gouging percentages that are taken out of the donations and Bitcoin as opposed to the more typical mediums of exchange, that $5-10 stays $5-10 and that's very important. So that means that as a charity you can start to gravitate a little bit away from this model of always having to get almost all of your donations coming from a few very wealthy individuals or organizations and you can really spread it out to the masses. You could instead of having $1-million donation, you can have a million-one-dollar donations and that can still work for you and that's very effective. It's also neat the way that the Bitcoin protocol can be used in this money raising. By just putting out a public address, people can track how much money is sent to that Bitcoin address without any work by the charity. Now I do think there's additional tools that could be built on top of this. I gave this idea to my roommate and he built a pretty good version but he didn't finish it so I'm giving it to you. Blockchain.info. Put a thermometer on there. Let me set how much money I want to raise in the account and then fill the thermometer up as I raise that money. It's a very simple idea. I've seen another wallet. I don't remember which wallet it was related to CryptoKit. They had a similar system where they would show you a circle and when you got the full circle raised, you've raised the money. This ability to link a percentage meter to the Bitcoin account is all you need for fundraising. You don't need anything else. You don't need a complex web page or web designer. What's great about this is when you're fundraising with just the public QR code, your security is not in question. You haven't given out your account number. You haven't given out the ability to spend your Bitcoins and even the slightest. This is how Bitcoin works and it works really well. I think there's a lot of good fundraising in the future and it will come from charity hopefully to charity. Did you know you can ask questions to the Bitcoin group at any time during the live broadcast? Just click on the Overlaid questions icon on the YouTube video. Log into Google Plus and you'll be all set. For questions on the Bitcoin group, what could be simpler than that? Issue 3. US kicks off huge new auction of Bitcoin seized in the Silk Road bust. The second round is over. Early reports are that there were less bidders this time than last time and that Pantera Capital famously put a bid in below the market value. The government still has a third tranche of Silk Road Bitcoins waiting to be sold. Just off Atlas, how will the market react? Is it a good thing that the government now has less bidcoins? Yeah, probably. The problem with the government having bitcoins is so far, they've always had the intention of selling them off and relatively quickly after they've seized them. We know that they don't really care about the long-term interests of Bitcoins. They don't have a huge amount of incentive to sell these coins off in such a way that's not going to be disruptive to the market. To their credit, they have been doing it through these private auctions so far. It's not going through exchanges, so it's not putting this gigantic sell wall on these exchanges on the order books. That's a relief. They do that because they get more money that way. There's always the possibility that they could do something like that. There's nothing legally stopping them from doing so and they don't really have any strong incentive not to do so other than just the coins that they're trying to foist off onto the market in one shot. As they sell off their coins into the open market where people really do have an incentive to maintain Bitcoins long-term interests, people get a little bit more relieved, a little bit more relaxed, and it takes some of the risk out of the market. I think that's generally a good thing for the Bitcoins price. I think also it's worth saying too that we really want to move towards these models where we don't have a bunch of coins sitting around in one place for anyone to take hold of and sell off regardless of who that party is. I'm really looking forward to some of these more decentralized technologies, decentralized marketplaces like your open bizarre. I think Nex has their own kind of asterisk exchange thing that they're working on as well that's going to be similar. It's far better to have coins spread out on computers all over the globe, on little paper wallets in everyone's closets than to have them sitting around in one place for someone to swipe up and to be disruptive. I'm also impressed with the idea of multi-sig. I think that could go a long way towards solving problems where previously you said, okay, we're going to build this service and part of this service is going to be a large, cold storage wallet which will contain all our Bitcoins. You do the best you can to secure that, you get multi-sig and whatever, but in reality it's still one giant wallet. Of course, as you know, if you're a hacker, if you're even a bank robber, whoever you are, one giant wallet is very appealing. It's easier to steal than a thousand small wallets. With multi-sig, I think there's a possibility of redesigning these systems to not require one giant pile of money at the center of these systems and to instead have this money encoded into individual transactions with the multi-sig where yes, the server has control of them and I suppose if you took over the server in a dramatic fashion and you were a programmer, you could steal it all, but you'd have to write a script first. I think that extra step of writing the script is better security than having these honey pots with all the money in them. What do you think? Well, we certainly have seen marketplaces that have implemented multi-sig escrow and seizure for those websites is going to be a totally different story. If someone grabs one of those websites, hacks them, seizes them, whatever, then the seller and the buyer have two of the three keys that you need to clear the funds. So at that point, if you have scond with one of those keys, it's like, well, have fun with that. There's not too much that you can do with that. In the meantime, they can roll back the transaction and exit quietly from the scene. I think that's a really good point and it really shows the difference in technology from where we are now to where we were when the Silk Road was written. If the Silk Road had multi-sig technology like you're saying, the buyer and the seller could hold the key, the server could have another key, and the government never would have gotten all these bitcoins. They probably would have been agreed to be returned to the buyers or the sellers they could have worked something out using their keys. In the future, more systems are going to be built on multi-sig. As far as the government issue, well, I want to play a little devil's advocate here with your libertarians. I know you don't like government, but from some of the things governments might be okay for some things, it's very sad to see them selling bitcoins. The government has a real opportunity here to hold these bitcoins, to wait for them to go up into value, and to perhaps pay for some government services. We're losing a lot of opportunities for parks and schools here that these bitcoins, when they go up into value in the future, and we go back and we say, well, the Bitcoin pizza is worth millions of dollars, but how much did the government lose by selling the Silk Road bitcoins too early? I think it's going to be a lot when the price recovers. Just prediction, exit question, how much will be paid per Bitcoin for the Silk Road bitcoins? Will they all be sold to the last same bidder like last time? Kristoff, Atlas. Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if they are sold to the same bidder, and I expect them to go for roughly market value. I know that there's some rumors that people are putting in dids under market value, but I expect them to be outbid. We can report now that there is a breaking story this afternoon that Tim Draper only won 2,000 bitcoins. This auction did not go as well as the last auction for him. We don't have additional information as to how much he paid for the 2,000 bitcoins, but remember, we don't really have official information on how much he paid for his last set. We don't know if he's rounding out his there, if he's getting more here. Clearly he missed an opportunity with the bear whale. We don't know officially, but there certainly was an opportunity there for him to double down on his 30,000 bitcoins, which we believe he bought at 600, which he could have gotten the bear whale ones for 300. I thought that was a no-brainer double down opportunity for the drapers, but I suppose they could have. We have no idea who would really bought those. It seemed like a market reaction, like a lot of people bought those, but we don't know, and we can report that the Silk Road bitcoins have gone to different people. So Christoph, what do you think? Better than last time? Different people? Or kind of worse? I don't know. Yeah, I know. It totally depends on who ended up with the coin, so we'll just have to wait and see. I did have a theory that perhaps if Draper won a second time, they could write off Bitcoin as there's only one billionaire who's crazy about it, and he keeps buying them all. He's kind of a centric. That could be a theory, but now there's clearly other companies that are in-duim, other companies that are buying them, and clearly Bitcoin has value, if your name's Draper or otherwise. Issue 4, BitLicense, Comments, Reveal, Competitors, Hidden Agenda, Amazon, Western Union, and Walmart all had plenty to say about New York's BitLicense, and now those comments have been made public. Thanks, Super Nintendo. Walmart and Amazon are worried about how the regulation could affect their gift card program. Western Union has many anti-competitive concerns. Kristoff, Atlas, what did you think of their comments? Yeah, I thought I read Amazon, in particular, which I thought was a wonderful little piece of CYA, and they're obviously not hugely concerned about the future of Bitcoin, but they're worried about becoming collateral damage, and that's a reasonable concern. That happens all the time in regulation that these laws are put on the books, or these interpretations of laws in the form of regulations are put on the books and worded in ways that can be interpreted in multiple directions. People, companies, corporations that had nothing to do with the original intent and ended up getting affected. So I'm not at all surprised to see that they have their top councils weighing it on this and sort of eyeing the situation nervously. I think it reflects the general attitude for some of these larger corporations toward Bitcoin, which is they don't like the fact that Bitcoin is rocking the boat, that it's agitating regulators. They're concerned that this bringing the focus on to digital money or digital currencies in some fashion is going to affect their own systems that are not decentralized, and that just sort of annoys them. I think collateral damage is a good point. The original BitLicense proposal was so broad and so incredibly unclear that Amazon Walmart are right to worry about their gift card programs. They could be considered virtual currency under such a broad legislation. As far as the Western Union comments, I had Iran flashbacks. Kurt Vonnegut Jr wrote a short story called Harrison Burzaron. There's a great film of it with Rudy, from Rudy the Hobbit. In Harrison Burzaron, everyone's made equal. The great ballet dancers are forced to wear weights on their legs that slow them down and make them dance in elegantly so that they'll be just like everyone else. It's very much, of course, reminded of, I think it was Atlas Shrugged with Reardon Steel. Reardon was making a better product than everyone else. They said, well, it's not fair. We can't compete with your better product. We can't compete with your better lines. All of that stuff. Sure, Ion's work is a, I mean, she's kind of melodramatic and she's a little over the top. It's a bit difficult to really take seriously, but the ridiculous things that Western Union said in these comments reads like Ion's work. It's a very troubling and disturbing thing to see Western Union, this old telegraph and telephone company. So desperate to hang on and to try to pull down this new technology with legislation. If that's all they've got, it's not going to work and they're not going to hang on. This is going to be a tragic end to what was probably a pretty great communication company when you were relying on telegraph. They did a lot of good work with telegram and telegraph. Just don't forget this as they slowly die as a money service business. Moving on to questions and answers. I haven't even looked yet, but let's see if we have any questions. I did warn you to put them in later. There's still a chance if you put them in now, we'll try to drag this show out a little bit, see if we can get some questions. Let's see what we've got. Infinite radio rights. Crypto market caps are like unicorns. Yes they exist, but they aren't real. Can we discuss how this is right and wrong and how development and outside funding are related to the speculative value or prices for the general public? Now when he says crypto does he mean like multiple coins, like altcoins and other coins? It has been interesting to watch the price go down. I have the zero block app like a lot of other people and we used to be the 86th monetary supply in the world and I thought that was great. We used to be worth about $8 billion in Bitcoin. Now we're down to about $5 and I think we're about the 91st monetary supply in the world. I'm not as pleased. I liked it better when we were up before. Chris, what do you think? Do you have more comments on this question, more direct to it? Interesting question. I would say naturally cryptocurrencies do have a market cap simply by multiplying the supply by the value of each coin. Obviously, I think for a Bitcoin and lots of other currencies out there, they're either going to go to a much higher number than they are right now or to towards zero. They're probably not going to stay at the current levels for very long. During this, trying to make the most out of a bad situation during this price following recently, people have been saying, well, at least it's been more stable. There's less confusion for merchants and so forth. Honestly, I don't think that we can really say that we expected to stay at that point in the long term. As far as the total market cap of all cryptocurrencies go, I mean, there is a limitation of the total wealth of the world, even if cryptocurrencies were going to completely take over the world. I don't think the market cap is simply infinite. I also don't think that there's been some Bitcoin critics that have said, well, the problem of Bitcoin is you can always make another copy of it. There's effectively an infinite supply of tokens or whatever, but they don't understand that these currencies are not fungible because they can't all share the same economic effect, the same market effect with each other, network effect. That is the hashing power, the number of merchants that you can use this currency with and so forth. Those are all things that are going to factor in the price that are in some ways mutual exclusive. Even during what, sadly, I think we can now all agree, it was a Bitcoin bubble in the price. We didn't know we were in a bubble. Nobody knew that it was going to drop and go back down. There's this L-shaped curve type theory, what it really catches on, and everyone wanted to be in that. We weren't in that yet. We don't know. Remember, the original idea is with Bitcoin and the reason why a lot of people probably didn't invest when it first started and the buy and hold strategy was never really widely distributed was that people thought that Bitcoin would be a low-value currency, like a dollar of coin, and that you would send hundreds of them and you would just use it as a method of transfer. No one really thought that Bitcoin had to be expensive for it to work and no one really thinks that now. It doesn't have to be expensive to work. It could be a dollar of Bitcoin, and as long as it stays a dollar of Bitcoin for a couple of hours, I can send you money in Buenos Aires. You can cash it out for local currency, and it works as a transfer mechanism. The investment ideas, the savings ideas, and I still hold them, and I still think that we might be going up, and again, that could be a mistake. But it was never part of the deal. It is true that it works fine just at $1 and that in isolation, in a vacuum, that it could stay that way. But of course, the argument is, well, if it's so useful for moving value in the world, then why wouldn't people want to hold on to it for a little bit longer, and that's what drives the price up? The level of adoption where so many people really are holding on to it, we aren't at that level yet. We're still going to be trying to get to that level. But it is out there. We don't know if we'll reach it. When we'll reach it, a lot of people, Blake has talked about the havin'ing in a few years, I think it's 2016, and that when the reward of Bitcoin, which I've been in this a very short amount of time and it went from 50 to 25, now it's going to go from 25 to 12 and a half. And that is going to very much affect people's idea of the value of Bitcoin because less of them will be produced every day. So if they didn't get it, that there's only 21 million tokens and that it's a deflationary currency which no one's ever seen before, deflationary currency is amazing. You usually have to have incredible government controls to try to reproduce this effect. That once they see the sudden havin'ing of all the mining, as if suddenly all the gold mines in the world, half of them stopped. They're going to realize that this has value. So obviously they'll realize six months before, they'll realize three months before, the market will have reacted before the havin'ing. But it is coming, it is an event that's out there happening. We've got one more question, so still time if you'd like to get your question in. Michael asks, is there a central place where charities can put their links to be a part of Bitcoin Tuesday? I'd like to tell our local charities more. And I would say yes, Bitcoin giving Tuesday.org or they could contact BitGiveFoundation at BitGiveFoundation.org. Right now, Bitcoin giving Tuesday was kind of a one-time event. It was kind of designed to mirror just Giving Tuesday, which is a cyber Monday, Black Friday giving Tuesday. They're trying to get in on that set there. It was a one-time event, probably getting next year. But we did talk to Connie during Bitcoin talk show, if you'd like to watch that on the World Crypto Network. We did suggest that she'd do it every week. But getting this charitable giving as a regular thing, like every week you give a dollar, every week you give a couple dollars. That could be very positive for charities as well. And give her a chance to highlight multiple charities. Kristoff, do you have somebody to say on this? Yeah, I wanted to mention too. If you go to the Bitcoin 100 website, they have a number of charities that accept Bitcoin listed there as well. Some of them are actually on the Bitcoin 100 list, but any of them are not. And as surprised as see, Vicki Leaks listed very highly on this list. They're definitely a very controversial organization. And not too far below that, you also have free aid, anti-war.com. So a really Sean's outpost, Connie Katamese on here as well, all kinds of stuff here. But it's interesting to see how just how many controversial organizations are listed on there. That's an interesting thing about Bitcoin too, is it really, it extends the number of organizations that it can accept terrible donations. Whereas before you would have to go through this complicated legal process, and it may not be trans national or trans continental. And so I think that's very good. And it takes a lot of the capital controls out of the situation where you can donate to a charity that's not even necessarily registered, formerly as a charity, to somewhere entirely on the other side of the world. And no one can really stop you from doing that. And that's a good point that no one can stop you. And with real Bitcoin organizations like Vicki Leaks or Snowden or any of these other cause celebs or whatever you want to call them, any of these other controversial figures can raise money through Bitcoin. And no one can shut them down. No one can ban their accounts or say that they don't have access to their tips anymore. Real Bitcoin can't be shut down. As soon as you put your public address out there, anyone can send to it. That's another thing. A lot of charities have restrictions on who can send to them, what countries, how much amounts, how often, whatever. Bitcoin has none of those regulations. If you want to give $10,000 to anti-war.com, do it. If you want to get $5, do it. 50 cents, do it. It all works. And I think that's a big change over these other systems like PayPal, where it seems like a nice country company. It has pal in there. They're your buddies. They've been around for a while. But time and time again, we see PayPal freezing accounts. Time and time again, we see PayPal banning people from their services. So there is something to worry about when you see a large centralized service trying to plow them on to a decentralized one and maybe convince you that the decentralized one is too difficult to use. But it's not difficult to use. It's not difficult to scan a QR code. It's not difficult to copy and paste an address. It's much like an email, even though you can't read it. You read Joe.com. It's an email. It's an address. You copy and paste it. Read the beginning. Read the end. It's fine. You don't have to worry about it. So yeah, Bitcoin's out there. Bitcoin's powerful. And that's real Bitcoin. So don't get confused by other centralized services. Josh says that we should throw a rad having party. And I'd like to see that too. Maybe I was thinking we should have had another party to celebrate that we had Andreas' party last year when the price went up. But that was in the Bay Area. I don't live in the Bay Area. So it would be really tough for me to have it. And I'm not sure Andreas lives there anymore either. So we just don't know. So it doesn't look like we're going to do a repeat party. But we should do another party for the happening. I'm sure I think the Dogecoin boys, they've been having a lot of happenings. And they seem to have a party on their Reddit every time. So good for them. Good on them. Keep that up. And I'm sure the Bitcoin Reddit would have a party too, depending on how they were feeling, how negative. But we'll see. And I think we're about out of questions. And we're running out of time. So Kristoff, do you have a prediction or a story of the week? Yeah. I guess my story of the week was this video that this guy from Mastercard put out, sort of racking on cryptocurrencies in Bitcoin. He was president of the company in the Asian part of the Mastercard, something like that. And he had this pretty lame list of critiques about cryptocurrencies compared to the tried and true and trusted payment systems that Mastercard is associated with. And one of the things that he called out was anonymity. He said anonymity, it's scary. We need Mastercard to keep us safe from anonymous actors. He kept comparing Bitcoin to cash, which is also anonymous. He also is not a fan of cash, apparently. And there's been people for a long time that have been saying that the new world order is trying to eliminate cash and bring us to one single centralized electronic currency globally. And so I think he might be part of that. But here's the thing about anonymity, right? An anonymity is just privacy, it's human dignity. And another thing that came out recently was a study of charities in privacy. And they found that more and more, we are seeing anonymous donations to charities. People are concerned about ransom for their family if they give out a big donation. They're concerned about stealing the limelight away from the cause that they actually want to support. And so more and more, these donations are happening anonymously. And I think that Bitcoin could be tremendously helpful in assisting that. So I think we should be very hesitant to poo poo and anonymity and privacy. I think that this is going to be features of currencies that continue to be around for a long time and that I think are important in many ways. That's a good point. We have a couple more questions. So we'll go ahead and put this through. Infinite Radio says, I'm going to be in the Bay Area next week. Where should I spend my Bitcoin? Well, this is where the tragic truth of the Bay Area comes into view. I've actually been there. There's very few places to spend your Bitcoin. There's about three or four restaurants. And that's it. So I mean, they're working on that snap card thing. They're supposed to be giving out 500 terminals, 500 tablets to users so that they'll have 500 businesses. I haven't heard that that's finished or been done yet. So there are very few places. I would check out on December 11th, if you're here. Check out the BitGive party. I think you can get an invitation online. You should RSVP today. There's not a lot of spots left. But you could join us there. Free drinks. No Bitcoins required. And other than that, you can try to spend them. I mean, go to the, see if there's a Bitcoin meetup. The Bitcoin meetup's really cool in San Francisco. I'm not sure if they're having a meeting so close to Christmas. But I would check that out and enjoy your time in the Bay Area. We've also got a question from Chad from the Denver Bitcoin Center. He says it's good to see everyone again. And has any of us participated in the crypto money expo? And I'm going to have to say, this is the first time hearing of the crypto money expo. Christoff, have you heard of this expo? I'm afraid not. All right, Chad. So we can't really answer your question there. But it sounds good. I heard there was another future of money convention in San Francisco. The other day, but I only heard about it when they started putting videos up. So I didn't make it down to that one. I did go to the money 2020 convention in Las Vegas, thanks to Roberts and Roberts brokerage at rbi.co. So if you'd like to try some gold and silver for Bitcoin, check them out. They were fortunate enough to sponsor us. And I was able to film the Lovsky keynote and bring that back to you as well as a couple of other interviews and speeches that we did. So it was very cool to go to a convention. And I would like to go to more conventions, but funding. So if you would like to see me at more conventions, send in more funding and I will go. I don't mind airplanes that much anymore. I'm very inexpensive as far as hotels and food and things. That's not important to me. So let's see. We've got Jay Syboroski writes, does anyone have a comment on California's state law claim that they can regulate Bitcoin? I've read about this briefly and they have a decent claim. I mean, I don't know. It seems like more and more of these systems where they try to say we need new laws to regulate Bitcoin is not true. We can use the existing banking laws to regulate Bitcoin once we agree that it's a currency. As long as we're trying to hold on to this Bitcoin is a commodity idea. It's not a foreign currency. That's where everything gets confused. I think that Germany said they were going to treat it as a foreign currency. That's what it looked like to them. I know Australia had previously said that, but now they're trying to tax it twice with their value added tax. The British government said that it's not a currency. They're not going to tax it at this moment. That kind of attitude is the best way to go. California did sign a protective Bitcoin law, but now they're saying that they just have the right overall to regulate. You might have that right, but when you try to actually enforce it, you're going to realize that Bitcoin is a global currency and that your enforcement efforts have only left your state out in the cold away from technology. We've already seen it just this week. Coinbase announced USD wallets, which is making Coinbase into a full exchange, not just a bank. It's now a stock market. You can sell your Bitcoins instantly to dollars. You can hold dollars in Coinbase and when you're ready, you can buy Bitcoins again instantly. So Coinbase is now a full-fledged trading platform, except in the state of New York. The state of New York is not allowed to participate in Coinbase's USD account program because of LOSKEY, because of BitLicense, because of uncertainty, of technology held back because of uncertainty of regulations. So absolutely, an on-rand type situation and it's planning out a real time. So, Kristoff, what do you think about California's attempt to regulate? I haven't read about California in particular, but I wanted to say that it is kind of a shame the effect that these regulations are having on Bitcoin companies. If you go to any Bitcoin company and ask them what their main expenses, what their main cost is for their business, they will tell you it is regulatory compliance. That's shocking for a technology company. It should be servers. It should be programmers. It should be something along those lines. But every single one of these companies is spending 50% more of their, I guess not 50% but the largest chunk of their costs is coming from regulatory compliance. And it's a real brain drain and a real energy drain for these companies. The innovations that are coming out are just not coming out quite as quick as they would if they were not putting so much energy into regulatory compliance. And I'm sad to see that. Very good. And I think we're about out of questions again. So move on to my prediction. Prediction. Turning and turning in the widening gyre. The falcon cannot hear the falconer. Things fall apart. The center cannot hold. Mirror anarchy is loose upon the world. The blood dim tide is loose. And everywhere the ceremony of innocence is drowned. The best lack all conviction. While the worst are full of a passionate intensity. Up, we're out of time. Don't forget to celebrate the end of alcohol perhibition. A day worth celebrating December 5th, 1933. Hey, that's today. Bye, bye.