The Bitcoin Group, the American original, for over the last ten seconds, the sharpest Satoshi's the best Bitcoin's, the hardest cryptocurrency talk. We'd like to welcome our panelists. Blake Anderson, cryptographic economist. Hello everybody. Derek J. Freeman from Free Talk Live. Hello. Bill Pangman from Topiki. It's great to be back. And I'm Thomas Hunt from the world of crypto network. Our first issue today. Will Google Hangouts show me the Hangout button? No. There it is. Almost. Ripple Labs find $700,000 by FinCent. Ripple, the centralized cryptocurrency that banks love, was recently fined by FinCent for willful violations of the Bank's Secrecy Act. Ripple failed to register as a money services business and then failed to implement appropriate anti-money laundering procedures. They also failed to file three suspicious activities or ports, including one for Roger Mir, who purchased $250,000 in XRP via email. Ripple didn't require a know your customer form because as you know, everyone knows Roger. Blake Anderson, your thoughts on Ripple Labs. Well, I mean, what Ripple is trying to do is trying to bring blockchain technology to the mainstream into banks and to help to decimate the overhead that we spend on infrastructure and security and stuff like that. Which is like, good, good, good, nobody's going to come in and be a night. That's a terrible idea. There are a few people. But what has happened is they have to centralize certain things and certain services to make it so that they can interact with the legacy banking system, which is antithetical to everything that Bitcoin represents, its pure decentralization. And pure decentralization is something that's going to lead to benefits, not just in one area, but also in regulation and governance and things because there's nobody to come back after. When you have a situation like Ripple with their pre-mined coins, I can't extrapolate as to all the things that they're going to violate in terms of, quote unquote, competing with the legacy system. So I think that either they will learn and start to get some kind of a crony capitalist relationship with the legacy system or they'll continue to be fine until they're not able to do business. Derek J. Going for some sweet spot in the middle where they can be a little bit compliant and not to be fined out of existence. Like there has to be some sort of way. If there are some lawyers listening now and you see the value in blockchain technology, you may consider that it would be a better world if we could use more of these things in the old legacy banking system, transition into a world where people are more independently controlling their own wealth. If you see the value in that, please step up and help Ripple appeal these charges. Like it just wouldn't seem right to me that people would go to jail or be fined or both for essentially just serving customers. No one has alleged any fraud on Ripple's behalf. It's simply not following the government's orders and that I don't think should cost a million dollars. And especially in a raw material theater, we know raw material is, go ahead Blake. Well, they were orders that were given relative to the legacy system. This is no longer the legacy system that we're dealing in too. So I think that it's interesting to see hopefully they'll have some kind of impact on policy. They'll hopefully be able to afford the fines and say, hey, look, the reason that you have these rules are for a legacy system. I'm not talking about the neo-custodian ship of funds, but hopefully it can drive some change. Well, Penguin. So it's always important to make the distinctions between Ripple Labs and XRP. So Ripple Labs is the company. XRP is the monetary unit or vehicle or asset or whatever they're calling it. They're not calling it a coin, but it's a crypto asset or whatever. And they sold that asset without any KYC in the early going quite a bit. That was going to come back to bite some of these companies, especially the ones that are domiciled in the United States. So this is like a baptism for Ripple. They have been in talks with regional Federal Reserve Banks, major international banks, settlement banks, all kinds of different houses of finance. And they're cooperating with them and they really want to be the settlement system of the future among all these institutions. That's going to preserve some of these institutions longer than otherwise. Because Ripple Labs has been in this community from probably basically the beginning, 2010-11. And that means that they're certainly offering a helping hand to the legacy institutions to bring them up to stuff, as Blake mentioned with their security in the 21st century financial settlement essentially. So I don't think we could see this as anything bad unless you look at the fact that now Ripple is assuredly not decentralized really at all. So you can stop thinking of them as one of the decentralized cryptocurrencies. And if that's a bad, if that's bad in your opinion, then that's the bad thing. Other than that, this is their baptism by fire. They're now going to be able to play in the big boys sandbox. I think generally that's good. I don't think any of these calcified systems with all of their over leveraged problems can survive without major issues. There might be a few survivors out of the handful or two or three handfuls that there exist. And that's coming one way or another. So this is a crash landing maybe. This is Ripple's baptism by fire. They have plenty of resources and 80 plus employees and they're happy to pay this fine. I'm sure. I've read some comments where they're like, it burns, but yay. So good for Ripple. They're now part of the legacy system. Wells Wright in the long run, it'll be good for Ripple. Exit question, who will Finn Sen find next? Blake Anderson. Well, it's interesting. There's a lot of the crowd sales and startups and stuff like that. And when people call things, a share or a future or a security and then they're going to go and try to sell things through channels where they're not allowed to be called that, I think that there's going to be some kind of a blanket jurisdictional decision that you can't do that. And I think that'll be coming down the pipe next. And if done well, it'll stime me at all at once. But we're talking about the guy from where he is. So the odds of that happening are about 0%. Derek J. Yeah, if what Blake is predicting doesn't happen soon enough, it'll be counterparty.io for like a million more dollars. Like a million times more than they find Ripple. Will, Penguin. Yeah, I mean, take your pick. You know, any of these crypto 2.0s that have made themselves public and domiciled in the United States or even in any other friendly jurisdiction, which throughout the world, that's all of them, but maybe a 10 or a dozen at most. So maybe the folks who are domiciled in Switzerland get away with it. Maybe Ethereum gets out on scaved. BitShares would be my prediction as to who's next. I think counterparty might end up on scaved. And who knows? I hope swarm. I hope counterparty and I hope these people who are very active in the community and really doing really cool things and awesome experiments don't get burned like this. But the interesting thing to note is that you have coins like new bits or, you know, next that are doing very similar things and probably breaking the rules, but there's no one to target behind them because they're actually trying to be decentralized. So they'll definitely be all right as long as they manage their product well. Before we move on, I want to point out, like, philosophically what it is we're talking about is companies made something sold it to people and are now getting in trouble for that. And I think that's really wrong just because the government puts them in some sort of different classification because it's money transmission or something. Well, if I make widgets or if I make lemonade or if I make anything, if I invent something and want to sell it to you and you say, I want that and we trade and have a voluntary interaction, where's the problem in that? Why are these people any different? Oh, definitely. And if I can be devil's advocate a little bit here, I understand what you're saying and I agree with you for a majority of it. But if we're going to take law and simplify it as much as we can and say you have your own three basic laws, don't violate the people's negative rights by assaulting them and killing them. Don't steal people's, you know, the fruits of their labor and retroactively enslave them by destroying property or by stealing the fruits of the labor of their property. And then the last one is contract law and mutual assent. If you're going to sell futures for profit in your company and you're going to do it in a certain way. Yes, the government is way overbearing and there's a lot that they touch that they shouldn't. But at the same time, it really is kind of a complex situation when people are selling promises or selling trust to some extent without a centrally regulated entity. And I'm not saying that we should have a giant world government that solves this problem. But at the same time, it's like, this is a little bit of a great area. So as much as I would like to say the government just, you know, really take a hike on this and they have nowhere to put their hands in. I think that maybe we could use the internet or some kind of other system to help regulate, make regular help people, you know, absorb less risk in a centralized, corruptible institution. I agree and I hear you, but buyer view where applies at all times a thousand years ago as it does today, especially on an intangible product. And the answer is first they came for the crowd sales. Moving on issue two, bit reserve targets, India's remittance and mobile payment markets. Full disclosure, bit reserve is technically a bank, but it's not a fractional reserve bank. Bit reserve is a bank that holds gold, silver, platinum, USD, Euros, etc. And allows you to hold tickets that represent that gold. The real trick is you can seamlessly spend your gold as if it were Bitcoin. But the value of your Bitcoin is preserved because it's stored in gold. As the article says, they have an impressive founder and planning to expand into India. Derek J, what do you think about bit reserve? Yep, just going to say real simply, I love it. I think this is a great idea. I would love to see some competition of someone providing pretty much the exact same service just so that they can compete and one up each other and make each other their services better. But as far as I will wait and see what comes with bit reserve, and I would even use them if it's possible in the US. There is a Valtoro which is a Swiss exchange which will allow you to trade your Bitcoins for gold in much the same way as Bit reserve. And you can use Bit reserve in the US, UK, and they're expanding to India. Will payment your thoughts? Yeah, this market has been waiting for some really capable, responsible entrepreneurs to get in there and solve this problem. There are something like eight figures. It's over 10 million Indians working abroad as migrant workers are just sending money back home. That's the UK, US, and mostly in the Arab nations, Saudi Arabia, Israel, these kinds of countries. That's a huge problem that needs solving and of course with the density of the population there and the tech centers there, Bangalore is a huge tech center. This could skyrocket and become very popular. I'm really looking forward to it. I have been keeping keen eyes on companies like Bit Reserve because they're aggressively doing KYC AML things in these jurisdictions that are completely unfamiliar or largely unfamiliar with a lot of the overbearing onerous, let's just say, KYC AML requirements that the West and certainly the US are used to. That's the downside is, I think there are far way away Bit Reserve is from that downside at this point, but it's certainly on the horizon to be looked at and something that the community should be discussing outwardly and openly. How aggressively is this becoming a data honey pot? I think it's really great that people will be able to hold their money in gold, something that has a steady value and you don't have to worry about like you have to worry about Bitcoin. And then to spend in Bitcoin, it really does seem like the best of both worlds. Blake Anderson, your thoughts. Yeah, I really agree historically, India has had a lot of problems with overheating. I mean, they have been just rocketing into the 21st century and there's this giant deviation in the population of a wealthy people, a very, very hyper wealthy people, hyper poor people, and then the deviation seems to be getting bigger and bigger. One of the best ways to solve this problem with overheating causing a split in the population is by having liquidity into things that are good storage, stable value mediums, things like gold, India and China have been collecting lots of gold recently. So to increase the liquidity through transaction back and forth before, between mediums and economy like India, that's susceptible to overheating is fantastic. I can only imagine this company went over information and we were like, look, there's a huge opportunity right here. It seems like probably one of the better business models that you could make if you were to look at the macro information about the globe to see where money wants to go and how to get it there. So that being the case, I'm very excited. Hopefully it's executed in a very elegant way. Is it question if you could hold your Bitcoin in one precious or foreign currency, which one would you choose Derek J? Gold. Gold is money. Well, Penguin. I want to say gold, but I think I'm going to go off script a little bit and say new bits, which is essentially pegged to the dollar. Makes going in between fiat and Bitcoin per se much easier. If you want to stay in crypto, that's the way to do it. So there's a link currency. Gold certainly, but new bits, new bits is the one I use most frequently right now. Blake Anderson. Well, I mean, it depends. I guess after a block having is the price equalizes down. I want to hold it in gold. But then approaching a block having until afterwards when the price of Bitcoin goes up, I want it to be in Bitcoin and to have that choice, I think it illustrates the utility of the product. The answer is gold issue three, private blockchain island summit responds to backlash over private island bash. The second in a series of private island summits for CEOs and other rich people this time, the event includes one woman. She's a professional kite boarder and friends with Virgin mega billionaire Richard Branson. The organizers have changed their tune saying women may be welcome on a nearby separate but equal island. Will penguin will you be attending this private Bitcoin summit? My invitation seems to have been lost in the mail. No, I won't be going to this one. I did. I was invited to the Satoshi round table, which was really neat and was unable to go. But I'm in favor of all these secret meetings. That's all I'll say about that. I really want to talk about this banning of women on this island that is owned by a private person. They can do that. It's their private island. But why would you publicize your event and have these facts come out? I thought it's out on a state. My son and I made a fourth of the day and there's no girls allowed in there either. He decided. But it's his fort. That's a great point. You can feel how you want to feel towards Richard Branson for his permissiveness or impermissiveness towards women on his island. I don't understand that. It's really bothersome to me that with all of the accomplished and new names, I figured I was looking to see Blife Masters on this invite list or whatever. I saw a list of invites early on the announcement. It was all mails and I totally noticed that right off the bat. I'm sure some of these other female CEOs. There's so many great ones like Catherine Nicholson of BlockSyfer and there's a few women officers at, is it BitPagos or BitPesa? Excuse me, BitPesa. They're out there. They're everywhere. There's tons of women doing amazing things. Why you wouldn't have that influence? There's women VCs who are betting big on Bitcoin companies. I don't understand this whole. You can't come on my island or why even have it on that island. One point of clarification though, this is not the series of private conferences. This is not formal. This is not part of the Satoshi Roundtable Bruce Benton thing as far as I know. The attempt of some rich people to get their foot in the door. These are totally separate rich people conferences. It's not a series. You can't collect a punch card for each one. You don't get a free subway sandwich. It's not like Star Wars. It's not a series. I'm glad you understand. There's a certain movie for free, man. I was kind of talking a little bit earlier and Bitcoin was made in private IRC channels and all that kind of stuff. Get hub in the open source and all that stuff happen later. There's a giant guarantee of privacy on the internet. The first time I was talking to you said, well, yeah, but these older people with money and stuff don't have access to that same level of privacy on the internet. They shouldn't be able to have it. It's like, I don't know if I could make rules for the people like that. It seems like people like privacy and if they can't make their own completely and contemplatively secure system to talk to each other, it would make sense. They'd want to meet in person. I'd worry about people wearing wires and stuff. You know, the legacy stuff that you're going to go from the online improvements and secrecy to in person. But apparently that's the thing that they want. I don't know why no females. I mean, that's just like so off the wall. It's really funny. And like, that they're going to be like, well, they might just get comfortable with perfume, you know? And like, what could they be like? I'm trying to think of like an actual really, really, really tenable reason and I can't. So hopefully somebody just got really bad perfume allergies and it's all a big misunderstanding I don't know. It's because they don't like my cigars. Derek, Jay. So I believe all individuals have rights and among those rights are the freedom of association. So people can get together in houses or islands or whatever billions they want and discuss private matters or public. You know, this is an individual right that all people have no matter what your bank account is. And so I think, you know, it's well within the rights of these individuals to collaborate in private. That's their freedom of association. Their choice to exclude women on this private property seems to me an odd one. I'm just as confused as you all are. I think that we're all too young to get where these older generations are coming from. Like, I think they're still clinging to like, well, men are in boardrooms and where they're ties and women just, you know, they can't do that. There are secretaries or something. I think there's like a generation gap thing going on here. That's my best guess as an explanation. I think that there really are part of the old world that says, well, you know, we want to be men and we don't want to be thinking about how like, oh, well, Judy is very attractive and we want to we don't want to be showing up. Like, I think that some of these people honestly believe it would hurt their performance. They would distract them if there were women on this island that they would they would to further attention away from their intended goal and instead for Suhrman. I think that's really what they think. Exit question. Would Satoshi Nakamoto approve of these private gatherings of billionaires discussing his invention? Will Penguin? Everything I've read about Satoshi or from his hand or mind or whatever indicates to me that he has probably thinking about it has a private opinion, but he would not share it. So I bet he would ignore it. Blake Anderson. Well, I'm 100% sure that if Satoshi was aware of this stuff, he'd go get himself some kind of a powerful automatic weapon and do something about it, man. I mean, you know, you got to protect your currency with extreme prejudice. We've learned that like from the biggest and the best countries on earth. I mean, you've got to go and kick some ass. So that's what that's definitely what Satoshi would do. This proof once and for all that Satoshi Nakamoto is dead. Derek J. Yeah, I think that Satoshi Nakamoto would not approve of these private gatherings of billionaires to discuss his invention. However, I don't think that matters. They have the right to do it. I mean, I disapprove of lots of things in the world, but people have the right to do it. It reminds me of that one time Jesus was like, there should be more money changes in this church. There are not enough money changes in this church. And then you should more money changes, right? Like that's how that story went. Like you got gathered him right on the street and then people are like, man, Jesus, you know how to recruit some salesman. That was the birth of America. Sales force. Before Bitcoin accused of seeking patent of Bitcoin multi-sig technology, please note the word accused. After the Reddit headline, what the fuck? Bitcoin is trying to patent multi-sig boycott rock the Bitcoin world. We had ourselves a nice little debate on Twitter and other social media platforms where Peter Todd and others agreed. We don't like software patents. Bitcoin eventually changed their stance announcing an innovator's patent agreement, which may have been their plan all along, but no one will ever know. Blake Anderson, should there be more software patents in Bitcoin? Did Bitcoin make the right move in seeking a patent? And finally, do you consider their patent defensive, like they say, or offensive? That's right. It's a three-part question. Go. It's kind of a topic that hits close to home for me because my father is a graphic designer and I'll grow it up. He would design and draw pictures and stuff for a bunch of everything. And then he'd pick up some magazine or something and big companies would just blatantly steal the stuff. So now if they're not back, yeah, that's wrong. You've got to go. Get your stuff back. But as I became older and learned more about negative and positive rights in the line in between, it's like, well, intellectual property rights undermine real property rights. The mutually exclusive nature of rights means that's not a good thing. So intellectual property rights are really fundamentally untenable. Yeah, I think that maybe they did want to try to get the patent from multi-sick, so they wouldn't want to be sued later. But that is kind of the industry standard platitude that people give when they're going to patent troll somebody else. We're not going to patent troll. We're just going to have this and we're going to be an altruistic band of awesome people and everything's going to be cool, man. Trust us a lot. We need to use about trust, man. Trust us. And so that that rubs people the right way. So I mean, take it with a grain of salt. Maybe there is a viable reason to buy a patent for your stuff. You don't want to get sued by the system, which is automatically untenable, but then to go and use the system to try. It's just a big macro nightmare. So I don't think anybody should go to Nance boycott it just yet. Derek J. Should there be more software patents in Bitcoin? No. Did Bitcoin make the right move in seeking a patent? No. But so it's only a faux pas at this point. They haven't really hurt anyone. It seems to be a strategy of living in 2015 where we know that there are aggressive government regulators. There are people who could seek to do harm with this technology. And possibly it's their strategy to prevent that harm. That would be great. But the way I see it right now is like they're wearing a black belt with brown shoes. It's just you've made a mistake, but it's not horrible. And finally, do you consider their patent defensive? Like they say after the fact or offensive? A time will tell. I'm going to reserve judgment for now. I'm going to take them at their word and say that yes, this is their strategy. They're trying to prevent harm from happening. But I will be watching and I'll be very judgmental when they do harm if that time ever comes. I'll be sure to coordinate my shoes and belt from now on. Will Pagman. Yeah, there should not be more software patents in Bitcoin. I'm eager to see what kinds of things actually could be proprietary with regard to development in Bitcoin or the core itself. That's going to be interesting. We won't probably see that for several years. So did Bitcoin make the right move in seeking a patent? I agree with the rest of the panel. I don't think they did make the right move. This definitely seems preemptive. I'm going to tie into the last answer too. I think this is not a defensive measure to seek this patent. It seems to me that business models in the Bitcoin space, especially among the companies that are working most closely with and delivering most frequently products or related innovations on the core, that those companies that business models are in an uncharted territory. They have a vision of how to be profitable one day. It's probably never been attempted before. That's awesome that Bitcoin companies like this are going that route, chain.com and so on and so on. But they may never be profitable because of that reason. I'm sure there's creativity out there that could come up with monetization schemes that are equitable and wonderful for the community at large. But that's down the line. So it seems to me that because of being on shaky ground and seeing other multi-stake developments come out of other Bitcoin core-focused companies like the API building companies and so on, that they are trying to protect their market niche or trying to protect what they've captured already in the market. It doesn't seem like they could be doing anything else. One day maybe there are some state-sponsored companies that develop on the core and try to file patents. By then, I think if Bitcoin is successful, there won't be any point to any of that because it will be big by then. But yeah, I mean, this definitely stinks. I'm going to continue to use Bitcoin, especially their modular products that I can plug into other things and talk to my developers and stuff and say, hey, use this tool that just came out. Bitcoin just developed this. I certainly appreciate a lot of the people who still work there. It is interesting to know that Willow Bryan, the original founder and CEO of the company, left that post. I'm sure he's still tied to the company pretty deeply, but he's no longer a day-to-day. It would seem that there's been a kind of changing of the guard and it would seem that this is maybe part of that. Knowing Willow Bryan a little bit and knowing where his heart is with regard to open-source software a little bit, it would seem to me that he might not have been a fan of this and who knows? Ben Davenport is still at Bitcoin as far as I know and he's an incredible advocate for open-source software and developments in Bitcoin and he's been a great angel investor and all these things. So it's curious. I'd love to hear Ben Davenport talk about it. Maybe he can't because it wasn't his call. Who knows? It's a similar thing happened in Apple. I mean, you have left-brain reasons to do things and right-brain reasons to do things. And I think that if we ask the same question from both perspectives, the left-brain thing to do is to get the patent. Why would you want to risk the sacrificing of any rights or potential risk management down the road? Left-brain says, yeah, go get the patent today. Right-brain says, what are the people going to think of us for doing this? What are the actual consequences of going and trolling somebody else's patent down the line that we should have been competing with in the free market? So I mean, I think that there is a big set of understanding as far as that goes. When you have a company that going to have to work in a very logical linear fashion and people like Steve Jobs or whoever that want to come and actually transcend the limitations of that field, I mean, that can lead in two directions. Either you transcend the limitations of your field and you make a lot of money or your project goes into scope, float, and runs itself out and you die. So the left-brain-oriented company that wants to do things very, very securely and very, very tightly does not like when those kinds of things come along, but those are the kind of things that are required to bring us to the future. So I think that that's what we have going on here, the classic, you know, the left-brain thing to do is to get the patent, the right-brain thing to do is probably communicate with the community in the long view and to not do that. So it's very, very hard to be judgmental. Moving on to questions and answers. There's still a chance to get your questions in. Click on the box on the screen that says, ask questions and put your questions on the sidecar. I mean, with a couple of comments from SilverMiner, he says, he would prefer to hold his Bitcoin in platinum, also that he was reminded of Deja Vu of the creature from Jekyll Island, which was of course when they planned the Federal Reserve in secret on a small island off the coast of Georgia. And they had, yeah, we skipped the exit question. Now let's see, tackle the world's heads. Even if you had a patent on cryptocurrency, wouldn't the government steal it without repercussion? And I think, yeah, the government could, if they thought it was a military necessity or economic necessity and they needed to make a copy of Bitcoin, IBM, FedCoin, as they recently announced, they would take the patent by force. What do you think that's going to happen? I can say that's what happens when you're ruled by assholes instead of an immutable ledger. You don't know what the rules are going to be and they're going to change based on what the asshole is ruling your needs. I'm sure Derek agrees. And we're running out of questions, but we do have the Deja Vu, so yeah, I tried to mark that one off, but yeah, it was a lot like Jekyll Island, a strange meeting in the night and dark. And we're moving on to predictions and story of the week, Blake Anderson. Do you have a prediction? What? Derek, you want to do the exit question? We're going back to it. Okay, Derek. What are patents for, why do we need software patents anyway? I didn't think it was that good a question, so I was going to move on. Well, I think this is an important one because I think there are a lot of people in the software development community and all across the inventing world who think that patents are important. They've been told that their whole lives for generations, people who relied on patents for innovation and they say that people wouldn't innovate without them, but I think that's a lot. It's just not true. Patents are intended to prevent competition in a given market, but they don't actually do that. All they do is punish people who choose to compete. And remember, the competition is good for consumers. Competition brings about more goods and services into a market than existed previously. And so patents don't prevent that. They're also kind of evil because of the way that they punish people who choose to compete and thus provide consumers with more goods and services. They use guns and cages from the government to punish those people. So to use software developers who rely on patents, I say, I challenge you to find a peaceful way to enforce your patents rather than relying on government guns. The other problem with software patents is often they're patenting something that's incredibly obvious, like Amazon's one click to buy something, or that company that's patented the playing items in order off a list, which they go around suing podcasters for saying that your podcast violates our playing things in order off a list patent. It really does seem like software patents where there's so low barriers to entry and almost anyone can write software. We really don't need patents. We really don't need something to encourage people to write software. Everyone's writing software. Blake, what do you think about software patents? We have a judicial system that's supposed to be dealing with three laws that I described a little bit earlier. That's a big job. That is a hyper-massive, difficult, extremely important job. And when we have them looking at, hey, I wrote up some pseudo code for a one click application. Can you go and mess up other people's lives and their success to help me make sure I make more money off of this? That is not a tenable situation. That's not something that's going to be able to be like, oh, well, if you look at it in this way, then everybody's winning out. There's no different way to cut it than this is not a good path to productive versions of the future. Yeah, I want to echo what Blake said. My answer to the next question is, what are patents for patents? Are for trolls and trolling? Why do we need software patents anyway? This is kind of a bigger question. I'm going to try to keep it software related. But in the past, there were no systems in place. And when I say the past, let's just look at the last three to four centuries. There's really no systems in place to protect inventors and their inventions or the potential for them to capture the value that their invention brings to the world. So someone got it, they thought it was a good idea. And laws were written and patents came to be. And this was at a time, probably a good tool for doing that. And it's a tool. So it can be used for good or for bad. And certainly anyone who's looking for weaknesses in a system to exploit will find them and do so. So that's what we have with the patent ecosystem as a whole. Now, one last thought on it is, Peter Teal points out that the reason Silicon Valley is so lucrative is because the products and services, the creations, the inventions that come out of Silicon Valley are so profoundly better than the next best alternative. And they create such wonderful immense value, potential and real value in immediacy for the world. And they've also figured out how to capture more value from their invention than people in the past who relied on, this is the way people in the past captured value from their invention. They relied on a financier who was usually a global, even centuries ago, a global financier, someone with property all over the world, like J. P. Morgan, for example, in the case of Edison and Tesla. So that's a great analogy, that little story for all of the kinds of, you know, an inventor creates an invention. The king or ruler of the area coops it and captures all the value for himself, maybe indentures the inventor with a slightly improved quality of life than his peers or than what he had before. And then he can also milk that inventor for more innovation. So this is, and this is what patents actually are doing now, is they're corralling productive people and allowing the state to milk the value away from these people. Eventually, eventually, that's the outcome. Well, the most valuable resource on earth is the control and subjugation of other, subjugation of other people. If you think about what patents are, that's some pretty valuable, dangerous stuff. I want to introduce the listeners to a new kind of license called the BIPCOT NOGov license. The BIPCOT NOGov license allows any use of software and media except by governments and threatens no government guns for violators. It's not copyright based. It's entirely shame based. I'm not a fan of shame, but I really like this idea. This is really cool. I love that except government clauses. That's great. And now moving on, predictions or story of the week, Blake Anderson, do you have a prediction or a story of the week? Yeah, I guess my prediction is going to be that it's the middle men in Bitcoin that thought that they could create token substrates and things that weren't decentralized and sell it, not get in trouble from the government, are going to have a very, very, very, very rude awakening. I mean, there's certain crimes that you don't want to commit and among those are competing directly with the food on the table of the man. That's something that makes for a lively conclusion. So I'd say look for that. Derek Jey. Story of the week. This is not a paid advertisement. This is just something I've been waiting for for a long time that finally exists. It's called wage cans, a mobile wallet like many other wallets you're familiar with, where you can send Bitcoin to an address that you control. And you can get a debit card or credit card that is usable all around the world anywhere, international master card is accepted. So all throughout the United States and most parts of the world, you can spend your bitcoins from your Bitcoin wallet immediately using a debit or credit card. You can also have a savings account with wage can, which accrues interest. So this is unlike anything that's ever existed before. And I use it. I'd like others to know about it. It's called wage can. Sounds pretty cool. Will, Pangman. Well, I was torn between talking about the blocks, increasing block size discussion that's going on and really getting no publicity from coin desk, coin telegraph or even like wired New York Times. Any of the tech crunch hasn't written about all of these people are not writing about this this incredibly fascinating debate that's going to impact the future of Bitcoin economics. And that's very interesting. But I want to point out tech crunch disrupt New York and how it seems to me like every story that has come out at event from this past week had to do with a startup either focusing on Bitcoin using Bitcoin in some way or using the blockchain in some way. This is super awesome. And everyone in the tech world apparently thinks the Bitcoin and or its blockchain is sexy and very useful. So we don't, those of us who are on this panel and many of you viewers out there don't need any more affirmations about the credibility or legitimacy of Bitcoin and its adoption rate. But this is very encouraging for people who are on who are looking on much more so than big name retailers accepting Bitcoin I think. These are some really innovative products. So tech crunch disrupt New York almost everything coming out of there or at least that's written about seems to have to do with Bitcoin. Do you ever get salty about a third? Do you ever be like I've been writing about this for years and these experts are writing about this stuff today. I mean come on like aren't you supposed to be the person that's in the think of all this stuff? Writing about this stuff way before we ever did? I mean I don't know. I don't feel that way. I just wonder if maybe you ever feel that way. I don't get salty. Does not. And finally a prediction. More Bitcoin companies will go out of business and soon. Buttercoin was only the start of a trend of well-funded but badly run and badly thought out businesses that will soon come crashing to the ground. Some will be small and expected but others will be large and shocking. Here's a tip. It might take me a bit to pay but I could always change. Oop we're out of time. Until next time. Bye bye.