The long, big, long 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, Blake Anderson from Facebook.com slash God Blake. Hi everybody, thanks for having me. That distortion rock and roll intro is pretty awesome. Chris Ellis from Pro Tip. Hello. Gabriel D. Vine from Future of Rant. Hello everyone. Thank you very much for having me. Theo Goodman from Hasse online. Good evening everyone. Jeffrey Gurdkin from the Bitcoin News Show. Glad to be here. And I'm Thomas Hunt from the World Crypto Network. We'd like to welcome our viewers on the World Crypto Network and Bitcoin.com. And now onto issue one. Issue one. Bitcoin startup Butterfly Labs settles with the FTUC for $38.6 million. But it can't pay. There. Butterfly Labs settled their lawsuit this week for a whopping $38.6 million. But the company will only pay a symbolic 15,000. The company famously did not deliver on their promise to ship Bitcoin miners in 2013. Instead mining Bitcoins for themselves. While printing phone pitch court forks with the words, BFL is late. Why you know ship written on them mocking their customers. Taren Feathering has gone out of fashion. Blake Anderson. Is this punishment appropriate for the likes of Butterfly Labs? No, I mean like what does settlement mean? Isn't settlement something like you have the money and then it gets paid and everything is settled out and concluded. It's like we settled with money that we don't have. It's like what? What are these words that we're throwing around? It doesn't make any sense. So I think that you know it's settling with money they don't have. It doesn't make any goddamn sense. And I also think that you know the actual consequences of the individuals that were involved are facing are nowhere near the damages that they've done to various different people. My family for example, we invested around $3,500 in BFL equipment. And by the time that they had shipped it, we calculated that we had missed out on like over $200,000 worth of potential profits from the date that we had mined to like the year later when they actually sent the equipment that we had ordered. So raking that much money out and then being like, oh bro it's got to pay like four grand and they have to give back the Bitcoin they stole. Most of which is probably been already spent is indicative of the fact that it's going to be hard to hold Bitcoin companies accountable when they get away and do things because you know making people whole becomes difficult without all the laziness of the traditional network. So that will be something that we have to work on I guess more in the future. It is unfortunate for these cases where business fails and there is no money. You can't really pay reparations for money lost or for potential money lost like you said like Chris Ellis. The question is are we going to like keep reminding ourselves of these crimes so that we don't keep making mistakes in the future. I think like I'm definitely in favor of like you bringing this issue up and like having a sort of blast from the past and reminding ourselves of the things like the empty boxes but I fear that people will still go towards these scams. I mean if you're trusting a middle man with these kind of promises but as we've seen you know more recently with campaigns I mean I don't want to plug my own one but you know like mine which is more iterative where like I'm promising small things in manageable time frames where it's like I can demonstrate in you know months and weeks that I can deliver the kinetic gruesome trust that's much more manageable than promising the earth and they're not delivering. And remember the core of this problem is people are leaving their money on the exchange. This is supposed to be a trading platform but it became a trading platform and a storage platform which we've seen in the past is inherently unsafe. Gabriel, divine. You know there's an issue of due diligence here and of course there was fraud. There's always going to be fraudsters. There's always going to be scammers. So if you have money and there's a new company that has not yet proved itself that has not yet built its reputation and you are investing your money you have to be aware that you're risking that money and you might lose it all. You definitely could lose it all. So that's a risk that you have to be willing to take and if you take a full loss on it it's really your fault. I hate the point that you blanked there and you did get defrauded but at the same time you have to go into it aware of the risks. And then if the company has been around longer you've got to look at the reputation of the company and do your due diligence if you've got the money. So at the time I have to apologize and correct what I said really quick. I've had a lot of stuff going on the background. I thought we were talking about BFL already. We're talking about Gox. I did not lose any money in Malcox. I apologize for not paying. No we're talking about butterfly lab still. Did we didn't somebody else mention Gox? I'm sorry. I think the articles are out of order but the prompts were in the right order. So we're talking about BFL right? Yes. My bed as well. I did lose money now. They're related because they're both cases of massive fraud. Butterfly labs once it had been around about at least once the deadline had passed and it had been a week and in two weeks and a month and then two months. The people that paid after that are totally a fault for not doing due diligence. For the original people they're taking a risk and have to be aware that not necessarily at fault at all of course they're being defrauded. It's important to be aware that it was really obvious that butterfly will pull in the total scam about two months or six weeks or whatever it was and they're pulling all these things. You don't put more money into a company like that once they're already in danger of defrauding people. A lot of people kept paying them for more hardware after they had failed to deliver. That's really on them. I agree. But I also wanted to say that they had extremely detailed rationalizations on their own forum for continually why they were delays that a lot of people bought into. Again, a certain caliber of intelligence may be able to pull that apart but they really went all out to really convince people that they were working hard on it and meant to deliver. I remember this was a complex scam. They were actually building the miners. It's just they chose to mine with them themselves. As the article said, ours technical was delivered a BFL miner and used it to mine 700 bitcoins or 700 dollars worth of Bitcoin. These examples were prevalent during the time. There were many websites with demonstrations of the BFL miners and they were a real thing. It's just they weren't going to ship you one. It was a close message. It was a sound investment with the only margin of error being, are they going to do what they say they are going to or not? And they spectacularly did not. That variable became hyper damaging. Yeah. The final point that I want to make is like you said, it's not just due diligence. It's also the intelligence and intuition of the individuals that are investing because you have to read between the lines and the marketing and that's a rare skill to be able to feel somebody's energy that they're actually coming by, whether it's a scarcity of the mentality and that's the classic fool in his money or are soon parted. Because Bitcoin has truth as its core and has agreement and consensus as its core which is totally different than the scams of the past, we're going to see fool in his money being parted situations a lot more in the future. That's my prediction. Moving on, Theo Goodman. The question was what's an appropriate punishment or is this an appropriate? Well that's kind of hard to say. As soon as the government gets involved like FCC and whoever else, then the chances of the people being made good, I think went down a lot as soon as that happened, that would, the appropriate punishment would be make the people good, pay them back their money. That would be the appropriate thing to do. But as we said, buyer beware, especially in Bitcoin and especially during a parabolic move because people get greedy and they go crazy and everyone loses, everyone gets double irrational and this is just another example of it. Now what they were doing, if they were just hoping that the price would keep going up and then they could pay people back and then it didn't quite go up as they wanted or whatever they were thinking, I don't know, we could speculate about that. That kind of on the camp they thought, they would just keep going up above a thousand and then we'll be fine. We'll just pay everyone back eventually and then it didn't and then they were up shit creek. So buyer beware. I also think scams like this where they deliver a little bit and then they stop delivering can be the hardest to detect. I'm reminded of several of the black market places, like sheet marketplace, black market reloaded where people said things like they had such a great customer service right up until the weekend where they decided to run off with the money and it was like of course everything was fine and then it wasn't fine. Exactly. I just want to add one more quick, that's how you do a good scam. You have to deliver some truth. Those are the real good ones. Absolutely. Jeffrey Gurdkin. Yeah, so you know, I'm not quite sure how this company is still in business if they are in business. I'm not sure that they are getting their their their come up into them. Personally, I think they deserve a lot worse than what they have right now. I do know a lot of people like Blake who was you know, who put their good faith into something early and again, they they they delivered a little bit of truth right. They had that beautiful website with all these beautiful images and they kept reassuring people and these people just did not deliver and and you just can't do that you know in business and in markets. And the way that they handled things was was was was so childish and you know teenager ish it's just absolutely ridiculous. So I really don't see how we felt the children and teenagers I must say. Yeah, I just don't see how how anybody how these guys call anybody can right now put any faith left in this company. It is they have completely destroyed their name and they almost you know, they really put a black eye on Bitcoin at the time as well. And so yes, of course, by our beware do your due diligence. But you know remember this company promised things they they they they went the full route. They were even mining you know coins by themselves with the equipment that the people purchased that the people bought and that you just can't do that in this industry and they get away with it. So I really think that that these guys need to get a lot worse happening to them and then the whole article about you know saying that they they're okay. They just can't release products. They just can't do anymore pure orders as long as it's only 30 days and it's like what that that's the punishment they just they have to limit their product of 30 days now. I mean come on. Let's be real. These people have completely defrauded a lot of people and they really don't deserve to be business anymore. It is very unfortunate. The butterfly lapse website is still running. I do think you can still give them your money if you have ignored ignored all these news stories. Let's move on to the exit question exit question on scale of one to ten. One being your best friend not repaying you for lunch and ten being absolute metaphysical scammitudes such as buying that hat and island for a handful of beads or the Louisiana purchase. How bad are the crimes committed by butterfly lapse Blake Anderson. It was fun and preparation for this episode you and I going back and forth about like what are the biggest like scams in history what can we compare this to and you know I guess it's not the involving hundreds of millions and billions of dollars but yeah it's bad. I don't think it's up there on the level ten they kept the stuff that they were going to the sale of the you know the Eiffel Tower all kinds of stuff the sale of Rome so yeah it's up there with ten. Never trust the Praetorian Guard Chris Ellis. No it's not a ten it's like a seven and a half for me because people knew that the warning signs that were coming and people were still putting money into it even though they were warning signs and they weren't shipping and I'm sorry but I do have a lot of people that have that gift of smelling bullshit and it's also a curse in life because it basically means you can't transact with a lot of people because a lot of people are dishonest this way so I would put it at a seven and a half. Gabriel. Seven point seven five. I prefer the non-linear or a fagginal non-uclidean scale so I'm going to go with negative squared. Theo Goodman. Yeah I'm also going to go with six or seven. Jeffrey Gurdkin. I definitely think it's up there seven or eight they did terrible terrible things with people's money. I was going to give it a nine but the phone pitch forks put it over it's a ten. Yeah did it. Moving on. Issue two and here's the article from the last one from ours technical and here's the article I showed last time. Issue two, Mount Gox, bankruptcy trusty, issues new details on credit or reimbursement. The report released by Kobayashi states that 2473, 733, a filed claims against magic the gathering online exchange demanding their Bitcoin back. The creditors claim 350 million in losses for which 110 million has been approved or denied with 241 million in claims still awaiting processing. The crack in exchange is nobly assisting with the claims and relief effort. Chris Ellis, is this the final act in the never ending story of Mount Gox? No. Somehow this guy like Copelus is finally with Salonist. He's never a new troll that will never leave Bitcoin alone and I fear that we're going to have to deal with him forever because there's still going to be stories about like what he's doing. Like when he actually gets out of prison and stuff like that because I don't even know if he's still in there. I assume he is. I hope he is. But yeah, it was just such a tragic, tragic thing like one of the biggest bank heists in history like Second to Bernie made off if I'm not mistaken. I mean, there aren't many more that have, you know, this sort of four to five hundred million dollar range. So no, I don't think this will be the final word for it. It's like that bank robber. Why do you rob banks? That's where the money is. Gabriel. I actually read the entire report in Japanese and I will say that there's a few strange paragraphs in there. They're actually declaring Mark Carpelus, the prime minister of Japan as well as the new president of the bank of Japan. So it's a pretty confusing story. A lot of ins, a lot of outs. So I'm going to say the story is also not over. I'll agree with Chris there. Deal, good man. Definitely. This is definitely not the last chapter, you know, until we hear from his cats and, you know, this like mechanical door he had and all this stuff. I mean, there's a lot of pieces to the puzzle that still need to fit together. And I also think that whenever he is done with whatever punishment he gets or whatever, then, you know, he's going to need to, he's going to, if he has, I don't know, maybe let's just say he doesn't have the coins. He's going to need to, you know, somehow provide for himself and, you know, maybe he'll just make, you know, the talk show circuit, you know, around who go on Oprah or Donahue or whoever's around then and be like, you go on the Bitcoin group. Yeah, of course, or the Bitcoin group. I mean, they'll love to enter. Let me say this, though, man. Maybe he goes on the Bitcoin group. Yeah, definitely. So Mark Carpellis, if you're watching and, you know, you need some retirement money in a few years, then come on the Bitcoin group and I'm sure you'll get a lot of tips and we'll have some major sponsors that will, you know, fill up your pension fund. So just keep that in mind. That's pretty awesome. We had a talking mechanical door with you. You know, I have written a synopsis for an animated cartoon show starring a wacky Carpellis and his robot butt learned his talking cats. I think it's right there. It's right there. Jeffrey Gurdkin. Yeah, I don't think this is the last one for a few of them by far. I mean, this guy, he's answering your question, question Chris. Yeah, he's still in jail, actually. But I really don't think he's a good guy. Yeah, custody. Well, yeah, I'm not sure they've had the trial yet. He's under house arrest, which, you know, cold prison naked. So he can still have his ice coffees. That's what's important here, people. But I think he's safe. He needs them. Yeah. So I really think that really we're going to keep hearing about this because this is now become a fabric of Bitcoin's history. And this is something that we're going to look back on for it's really for the entirety of Bitcoin's history. I mean, when they write the books, the history books about Bitcoin, he's going to have a big nice, big, huge page with him, with him his coffee and his cats. So until really, until even I was going to say until he's dead, but no, we're even going to hear about it longer than that. So Blake Anderson. Well, it's interesting. I mean, it's definitely not the last that we're going to hear by virtue of the fact that the trustees are going over all the information and the evidence that they have as far as who's owed how much money, where and why and when and where the money went. That was Bitcoin. Like, you do not want to be using Bitcoin for a giant scam when you're going to have trustees going into deep exploration as far as what you did. Because there's just an orgy of evidence everywhere. So as it all comes together and they develop new systems to understand all these things, what you're understandable, but you have to put them into meaningful databases and stuff like that. It will be interesting to see how the Japanese legal system handles exploration in a trial like this. So I think from a legal perspective, it's very interesting to consider it from that angle. Exit question, which was works, Mt. Gox or Butterfly Labs, Chris Ellis, M.T. Gox, Gabriel T. Vyn, M.T. Gox. Theo Goodman. The correct answer is Mt. Gox. Jeffrey Gertkin. M.T. Gox by a pretty large factor. Blake Anderson. Well, I mean, I was directly affected by Butterfly Labs, so that's in contributively the worst thing. The correct answer is Mt. Gox. I'm sticking with the group on this one. Moving on to the plug. Don't forget the plug. Don't forget to plug Perse. That's the place where you work and people can say 15% off anything at Amazon just for shopping with Bitcoin. That's right. You can finally get paid for your knowledge and ability to buy Bitcoin. Impress your friends. Seriously. Perse.io. Issue 3. Apple stands up for encryption. After a turn of events this week as the previously cooperative Apple computer put their foot down and publicly said no to the FBI's demand that they create a version of their mobile operating system that would allow the FBI to brute force the passcode without triggering the system command to auto-delete the contents of the device. Is Apple right to thwart the FBI's hacking attempt? Gabriel, T. Vyn. I don't think that's the right question to be asking here. I'm very certain we're not getting the whole story here first of all. But this is a legitimate subject and we do have elements of the government trying to put back doors and things. I'm 100% certain this is all security theater totally meaningless. Your iPhone is already riddled with back doors with the US government and I'm feeling strong feeling that Tim Cook and or Chief Security officer over at Apple agreed to the demands at gunpoint as long as they get to pretend like they're fighting. I think what we're seeing here is the elaborate security theater totally meaningless. Your Apple devices are all pumped. Theo, good. Well, I'm not really sure what to say after that theory. But yeah, did Apple do the right thing? Yeah, okay, so far if that's what they're doing, they stood up for, like you said, they put their foot down and said, no, we're not going to just let you do whatever you want. Now, as you can tell, I have very little confidence that that will continue in the long run and this is also, I was trying to think what would happen if they'd said, okay, sure. That would be a really bad public relations disaster. The internet would go nuts. It would, I mean, it doesn't even matter. It wouldn't even be activists that are going nuts. You know, it's not Apple, it's a pretty diehard. I don't know. I think that nowadays it would have been worse. It would, the backlash and the storm would be real and they might have thought of that. Of course, they weighed out the, you know, what they want to do. Yeah, so I'm thinking, let's see, you know, how this develops. Keep an eye on it. I don't know. I have a feeling they might bend over time, but maybe not. You also have to assume that the government offered Apple the chance to keep its secret, but that Apple wisely said no, given the snowden, wiki leaks, etc. We're in a situation now where the government can't keep secrets and the corporations know it and maybe they're no longer willing to play ball. Jeffrey Gerkent. So you know, I really hope that's the case. As Gabriel said, and you know, I really think that they probably, mostly already have all sorts of different backdoors who such into device, but still, let's be clear here, Tim stood up to the FBI. Now a lot of people are going to, you know, find that hard pill to swallow, find that little difficult, you know, I've talked to some people that even said, let's throw them in Guantanamo Bay, of course, they are on the complete opposite side of what I think, but I think that this is a discussion that needs to happen. Tim is bringing it out into the open. This is an unprecedented event. We're living in an unprecedented post-snote and era, and this stuff has to get out. Now, you know, I really think that it's true what Tim says. Once they crack this device, you know, because they're trying to, the FBI is trying to say that this is just an isolated incident. It's just going to happen for this phone. What Tim made it very clear that this is, that's not the case. If they get this information, if they get this patch, this off, like, it does not currently exist, they will be able to hack any iPhone anywhere on the planet any time, no problem pretty much. I mean, they literally can take the hacking, cracking brute force down, the time down to like seconds. And so this is something that doesn't sit well with me, doesn't sit well with a lot of privacy, people, people interested in privacy, privacy advocates, and I think that this is going to play out for a while. So even though even, you know, as we said, they probably already did certain things with the iPhone and things like that, but this is going to be in the debate into the public, into the public consciousness. I hope for a while, and I hope that this is not the first time the first company that's going to do this. I hope that Apple is just the first in this long line of battle between cryptography and the government. Blake Anderson. Wow. Gabriel is very bearish about the state of our great country here. Let's see. I talked a while ago, I was to be speaking with Richard Stallman on the Ernest Hancock show about the trusted platform module. Unfortunately, Stallman couldn't make it. So I was like, damn it. So they got to hear me talk about it instead of, you know, the man himself. But basically, like the TPM module and it being included and all kinds of stuff, like this is maybe kind of a road that we've already crossed. So I think that in total, maybe Gabe is right about what happened, but I think that it is valuable. The TPM cook is like, yo, everybody, if we compromise our national security and the ways that actually matter relative to our communications all the time every day and all the devices that people make, like, why have a military? Why have anything? Like, why have any security at all? If you don't need physical access to devices to get into a back door. So I think that it was good that he wrote a letter basically to people trying to illustrate that security is extremely important. You can't just undermine all security for everybody everywhere because it makes some people feel safe. That's a profoundly irresponsible thing to do no matter how strong the emotions are. Agreed, Blake. Giving them a back door into this terrorist phone, give them the back door into all of our bank records, all of our privacy, everything about us, every normal person out there who hasn't done anything wrong. Chris Ellis. So the obvious answer is to say that obviously Apple are right to do it. And I do want to comment on something that Shani and Karen had to say to one of these sort of political liberals who are sort of coming out and defense of the government. Shani put it a little bit too softly. She said it's a little bit like giving the government a key to every house in the country. It's actually worse than that. It's like giving them a camera, access to a camera of every house in every country. It's like giving them the ability to come into your house without you knowing that they're there. And being able to go through all of your things and you're absolutely non-the-wise, which is exactly what a lot of these startups and advertisers are doing in any case. I mean, every time you browse the web, it does some different people looking over your shoulder via the JavaScript plug-ins that are embedded on that web page. You just don't see them. And then these startups maximize the phenomena that you don't see by making you this appearance that you feel private and your intimate with your device. But the problem is that the number of these devices now are coming, so many devices now come and built in with front-facing cameras and wireless networking cards. And whereas we used to be private by default and we had to go out of the house in order to be public, now privacy is a privilege. But privacy is the permission that society gives you to discover who you are. And without it, you don't get to discover, you don't get to be authentic. And if you're not authentic, then what kind of a civilization is this, really? But there are legitimate points coming from the other side, namely that in the old days, the old days of houses, just because you put a lock on your house, didn't physically stop somebody from coming in if they really needed to, let's say if you were committing some horrendous act inside of that house. What the internet and digital virtual spaces do is rather than making the house stable in a spatial way where you can identify and locate it, you can now get lost in a sea. So that now it's not that the thief can't unlock the door. It's just that the thief can't even find you in the first place because all your communications. The way I would think about this though is that this is already becoming default. This is open source already. These little devices now, these Raspberry Pi's cost about 25 pounds in the UK or about $35 in the US. And this is all open source now. So it's not really a question of whether or not we give back doors because that's kind of a non-sequitor, that's not the issue. The issue is how do we respond in this new paradigm given that this technology is going to spread and people are going to be self-suffering and they are going to be able to secure their own communications without needing to go to Apple because Apple companies are Apple probably won't even exist in 10 years. Everyone will have the software on their devices, it will be open source and they'll be in full control of that data. Exit question, the tech industry is standing up against the government. Who will win Gabriel D. Vyn? In this fight there can be no winners. Corporations and governments will both lose and I think we're moving into a future sort of like what Chris has positive there. Theo Goodman. Well it's Akatin Mouse and government is always behind. Bigger and slower. Jeffrey Gertkin. It's really tough to say but I do like, you know what Gabriel says, as long as we're on the front line still ahead of the government with cryptography then we should be all right. Blake Anderson. I don't know, I think that since its inception Bitcoin has kick in quite a bit of government and fiat ass so far so I think that we should look at that as the standard of how well is the government going to do against other disruptive technologies and they're going to get bloodied. Chris Ellis. Sorry, what was the question? The government or the tech industry who will win? Yeah, I go with neither. I think the citizen is going to win. The answer is the tech industry because encryption cannot be broken even by the government. Issue four. Hollywood hospital pays $17,000 in Bitcoin to ransomware. Bitcoin and malware are back in the headlines this week as the Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center paid $17,000 in Bitcoin to regain access to their computer systems. Is Bitcoin's fault that these attacks keep happening? Theo Goodman. Yeah, I think we need to blame Bitcoin for this. It's definitely Bitcoin's fault. Everyone knows that permissionless cash that can be sent to anyone worldwide 24, 7, 365 a day is definitely the one to blame here. It's unfortunate that they paid it and they probably didn't have to. Maybe they should, I don't know the details, but I'm going to speculate here and go out of the limits. Say next time, pay that $17,000 and pay someone to work there that knows a little bit more about what they're doing. You don't have to pay ransomware. That would be a good investment, I think, in the future. On the other hand, it could have been really simple. They have money. They need to get the computer to work. Just pay the damn thing and let's go. Maybe that's not a lot for them. I can also, it's a hospital. I can also get that. It's just important to get, we don't have time to deal with this bullshit. Just get the bitcoins and let's go. I get that too. I guess that's my, of course, it's not Bitcoin's fault. They made a lot of money yesterday after somebody who couldn't breathe, right? So there's no problem to pay it. I'm sure the lack of time was the same argument they used against having better backups. Jeffrey Gurdkin. Yeah, I really think that this is an unfortunate thing. This is an unfortunate side effect of the transitions that we're really making. Really this is the people versus the government, the people versus the big systems. Other hackers are making light of this as well. When they hacked the Xbox, they did it to prove that TCPIP is broken. Our financial system is broken. They're going to continue to go up against these things and hack these entities. Even something as good as a hospital, they're going to still hack it. Because they're going to continue to prove their point. And I think that this is not going to be the end and the long line of these cryptography hacking and feel, so you know, to your point, these crypto lockers, man, I tell you, these are no matter who you pay, you cannot get around the cryptography of some of these crypto lockers, trojans that get put on there and these ransomware. So it's really unfortunate. I do think that they need to hire a more higher paid IT person for sure. But these crypto lockers are damn near impossible to crack. And this is going to see a bunch more of these in the future. Lake Anderson. Well, I mean, before I was like an IT project manager, I was a tech consultant. And you see all kinds of stuff in hospitals and all kinds of places where they have like a mixed environment of like Linux and Unix, Windows Home, Windows Pro and stuff. You're like, what are you doing here? It's like, where's your file server? It's like, oh, we established a file share on Carl's computer. So you're just really old, full of dust. But yeah, if that goes down, nobody can work. So like you try to set them up with like redundant network area storage that like isn't in the same place and like, like, protect it against, you know, physical access and damage. And companies that don't want to do that end up, you know, having non-redundant storage that gets locked and they have to pay on the back end. Now, $20,000 isn't that much if they were getting away with, you know, a zero IT budget for three years. So are they smarter? Are they stupid? I don't know. It's pretty embarrassing when people are like, oh, all the information that we trusted you with is now, you know, who the hell knows where? I mean, if they have the ability to encrypt, the ability to probably, you know, read it and have access to it. So a lot of ag on your face for that savings of money. I don't think it's an appropriate choice to be made in the current tech system. I agree. It was all Carl's fault. And it was his first day. Chris Ellis. Yeah, I'd sort of like to build on top of what Blake said. I used to work in it in post-second news to security systems for celebrities as well as working the entertainment industry. And the key thing is like, a lot of these companies that I worked for were not willing to put the money up for good IT infrastructure in the first place. They didn't have good backup systems. Those backup systems weren't, you know, long enough. And so viruses would often get themselves into the backups themselves. And you wouldn't notice until it was too late and you'd try restoring the backup. Really, it comes down to public key infrastructure. If every, you should not be trusting your hospital with your private medical files for a start. Your private medical files should be encrypted with more than one key. It shouldn't just be one person that holds the key. You should also be keeping a local copy of your own medical files. Like I am at the moment in my honestness. And then the doctors should only be able to open that with a multi-signature key. Like more than one PGP is required in order to open up this file. So that you're not having this centralized hunting pot that can then be go after the decentralized nature of Bitcoin. I compared it earlier in a talk, private conversation with a friend of mine, it's like the chromanians and the Neanderthals. And the Neanderthals are like, you know, the big businesses like your coinbase. And that's what shouting at the chromanians going, let's go out for our food every day. Let's wander the savannah. And the chromanians are looking at it going, no, let's just fence off this area, bring all the animals here and just farm. Like it's a much better way of running civilization. Just wait until you get to philosophy and commerce and religion and all that good stuff. And then the Neanderthals go, no, no, no, our way is better, our way is better. You know, centralize all the things. And it's like, no, you're not understanding the underlying nature of reality. And if your model of the universe is fundamentally flawed, then someone that's got better knowledge than you is just going to beat you. And evolution's a bit. I'm sorry, but evolution's a bit. Somebody knew about your IT system better than you did. You should have put more energy and effort into securing your IT infrastructure. I understand for small businesses, that's very taxing. I do get that. I do sympathize with smaller businesses. But with these larger, particular medical institutions, you need to like this whole like, estrangement between IT and managers needs to stop. Like managers need to start respecting technicians. And you need to stop like this, this sort of generational war, where what we're seeing now is like this max exodus of IT people who are now becoming consultant IT engineers, because they don't want to be employment anymore, because they don't want to work for a fuck quit and a suit. And now they're turning into consultants, because yeah, and this has happened in finance. It's a Marxist alienation, all right? I don't believe with Marx's, you know, his solution, but some of his diagnoses at the problems of capital were accurate, and alienation was one of them. And I think a lot of IT people felt alienated by corporate structures, and so they left. And now the corporate structures are buying them back in the form of consultants, and the problem is, if you're paying someone $400 an hour, pro-rata for, you know, a work, then obviously they're just going to work to the lowest bidder, and then you're just going to get these bad IT systems, and somebody who's smarter on the outside is going to see an opportunity, and look, you've got a honey pot of information that's unencrypted, you've got no public key infrastructure. Blake said it well, I thought I'd just finish off the point. It's a good lesson for corporations, just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's not important. Well, also, also it's important to know that companies like United Health Group have like nine pedophlops of data, the most valuable kind of data possible. And if you look at the security standards that they have on that data silo, it's like, okay, everybody else, they compete to medical, like look at that standard that's been achieved, and you know, be ready to invest some money to keep that data secure. And it wasn't there another story about, I forget the company, Blake, but wasn't somebody hacked and their provisioning server was hacked? So the server that actually sends out copies of the software to other computers was hacked. So this problem can be a multi-level problem. This can really, you know, get into your systems if you don't take care of. Exactly, and that's what Chris was kind of alluded to, the worst problem that can happen is if a virus gets into your backup and then you have a virus backed up and how do you separate that out? What happened at Chase Bank when they had their hack was that their application authentication server was like, here's the space with all of the secure images of software that are approved for use within this network, that was the compromise. And they're like, oh, you know, so many accounts were probably, you know, we're cooperating, it's like, you don't know how many accounts are compromised, you don't have to rip down everything that you have ever built or plugged into a wall and rebuilt from the ground up, and as far as I know, they didn't do that. Yeah, I'm curious to hear how they fix that. Well, I'd like to talk to those IT guys and get them a pizza and a beer or something. Gabriel, D, Vaughn, this is all part of the transition as Chris was alluding to from a centralized, silo-based technological infrastructure that we've had on a societal level for thousands of years on a technological level, at least since 1970 with the invention of modern databases and SQL. And we're now in this gray area since 2009, since the invention of the blockchain of the database network. Now we have a transition where the first app is this money and the Bitcoin currency enables hackers to do fraud and do crimes like this, holding data hostage technically at a distance. That, you couldn't really do before. You'd have somebody be kidnapped, they'd have to go to a physical location at Kittenapam and then you have to have a special drop-off point where you're trying to get cash. That's very complicated. I mean, the mafia don is not probably going to go for it. Let's just do our protection scheme. She probably kidnapped herself too, dude. And yeah, yeah, so just throw some socks in the thing and then it's, what dirty undies. Right, dirty undies, whatever, Walter's dirty undies. So, you know, we're going to new phase now where you can do a distance crime that's totally clean. If you cover your tracks right on the technical level, if you're geeky and nerdy enough, you can do Bitcoin anonymously. And that new reality has not sunk in yet. It's only been realistically six years or five years since it's been practical to do that for a criminal. So we're in this gray area where the IT teams aren't even up to date. And as Chris said, there's this alienation and different things are going on. And it's this new decentralized reality that is going to need to be accepted. And you're not even going to be able to hold, you know, these 11 petabyte health records, anymore pretty soon, because they're too big of a honeypot. It's going to be too big of a target for criminals to go after. And we're going to have to completely decentralize, we're going to have to have situations where the information is controlled on a decentralized basis, with key signing infrastructure. And until we get there, we're going to have bigger and bigger and bigger hacks. And that's going to be part of the downfall of these centralized institutions. They're not going to be able to hold their power, their centralized power, because the decentralized systems are far too insidiously powerful for them to exist. Gabriel's absolutely right. It won't be just us throwing rocks at the walls on the outside that will bring them down, but the walls will actually come down from the inside. Moving on to the exit question, Theo Goodman, these attacks will increase or decrease in the future. I think they will increase before they decrease, because it is profitable and people will do it. And it's going to have to get to a higher level of people losing money before people say, oh, that's really serious. Maybe we just need to hire some more people and invest in that instead of... Is it, are we going to pay more by just paying the... Are we going to pay more by investing in workers? And there's just going to be a level where they're going to figure out that it's better to invest in workers in the long run. But right now, they're just on the convenient side where they're just willing, hey, little by little. Oh, whoops, I'll just fix that. So it has to be worse before it gets better. Jeffrey, good. Yeah, I think it's going to do nothing but increase, increase by exponential factors. I sort of set it a little bit earlier. You know, this is kind of a part of this new transition, it's part of the war and then Gabriel definitely elaborated on that. This is part of the transition. There will be a lot more hacks until we are fully decentralized because there is absolutely no way that they can protect their systems anymore from the decentralization that is going on. Blake Anderson. That's a very interesting question. I've worked in this industry for a long time, trying to secure these different institutions and the farther my career that we got, more militarized, basically the internet became and RSA was breached and stuff. And I'm like, can you keep us safe with our 300,000 employees? I was like, no, can anybody that says they can is lying to you because physical access, 300,000 strong is not something that you could be like, oh, we're going to set up some nice rules here and make it so that there doesn't come with USB drive. I'm like, oh, and so yeah, and it's not even as bad as it's going to get. It's going to get so much worse than this. It's incalculable because like decentralized.com is corporations and organizations will be great. But on the other side of that token, there's going to be decentralized autonomous traps and scams that go around and that hurt people with all the same genius level shit that's gone into the other stuff. So I think that yeah, it's going to be astronomically important to employ people that are smart and idealized. We consistent in the future as we move from the Kurt Vonnegut-esque past into the Kurt Vonnegut-esque future. I guess the legacy past of the Kurt Vonnegut-esque future and where we don't just have assembly lines that have replaced a lot of the physical labor, but we have scripts and computer scientists and logicians that are trying to go and make things more fair and more equitable versus a ceaseless tide of people that are fighting in the other direction. Hopefully this will replace a lot of the fighting that's going on in meat space and we can push all that out to cyber warfare. But I don't think it's going to be something that's going to calm down or not. The pretty contentious for a long time to come as humanity resolves all their differences. Chris Ellis. Yeah, no way. So risk itself is a decentralized phenomenon. So it requires, when you say like these dals and you're going to have all these decentralized attacks, that's already a part of our reality. Like we're attacked by the weather, we're attacked by all kinds of distributed events. It requires a decentralized response. That's the important thing. Absolutely. Yeah, and I know Paige Peterson wrote a blog post recently on the Made Safe blog. I don't have it hand, but she wrote really good ones. She updated the old diagrams you had, like centralized and decentralized on a continuum with all the like the puppet strings, which is nuanced to even more now. And I think, you know, if you have a chance to look it up, I'll put it in the description after this video and tweet it out right after the show. Take a look at it. It's a much more nuanced way of thinking about these decentralized architectures. But it does rely on education. Education is a decentralizing force. And so many people like Christoph was like, taking this for granted, it was like asking me, like, why are you building these full notes? What's the point? I'm like, feeling is understanding. Put something in somebody's hand and they will get it. They will start to see, oh, I understand. I see it. That's a decentralizing force. When you give somebody information, you're giving them self-empowerment, self-reliance. You're giving them the information. Well, and I think that you're transcending decentralization even to like individualism. You're bringing that individual into a fully like realized, you matter as a person. I want to help you understand something that I think is important. I think it even transcends computer science. What you're doing. It's also really, I think these hackers, we saw the same thing with Rome, right? With the downfall of Rome, where you had these trolls that would keep attacking Rome, because they found a vulnerability. Much in the same way that Amazon, I hear on the wire, is being hacked and subject to hacking. And then what they're doing is that sort of paying them off. I might get sued for saying this now. But I was at a conference once and there was an option. The conversation was had. I literally, allegedly, allegedly, allegedly, somebody that sells the services, as a security said, allegedly there was a large merchant online that had been subject to hacking, and was basically just paying off these hackers and telling them to be quiet about it. So they didn't publicize it, allegedly. And allegedly they were copacetic with this arrangement because the hacker got what they want. They wanted a steady stream of income. And the brand that was paying them off got to keep that brand position and didn't have to pull stuff of this all out. And the last one, next step would be what? Like a digital mafia, where we're not only we're going to attack you, but we will go out and actively make life hell for people that do. Right. And so this is like, well, there's also, you should follow Doc Cells as well. He talks about vendor relationship management where you basically stock this cow to calf sucking off the tit of the big conglomerates. Who like serve you all the data, the big CDNs. And everyone just becomes a master node. Everyone has the ability, like with IPFS, which I'm running on the full node right now. Right, that's IPFS running on the Bitcoin full node, running on a Raspberry Pi right now, 77 peers connected. I now have the ability to be my own web host because of this. You can put your money where you're in mouth. You're all tired, you can't do anything. Right. I'm just doing everything you do. You do it everything where you keep it up. Yeah. So that's me dumb dumb. Allegedly you can say anything you want as long as you say allegedly. Yeah, just my opinion. That's a representative of you, the very body, especially mine. This is not even my views. Gabriel, divine. Wow. How do I even follow that? Will they get worse in the future? I agree with Jeffrey that the attacks will get exponentially worse. In fact, I believe that these attacks will be an integral part of the collapse of the current power structures, which cast their dark shadow over the entire globe and over humanity. These attacks actually are an important and valuable piece of the puzzle to move beyond our current infrastructure. So yes, they'll increase. And then as Jeffrey also mentioned, they will decrease because they'll be impossible. At a certain point, you'll have a quantum computer with uncircable encryption. Nobody will be able to do better than that. And then you'll have these widespread decentralized technologies and everybody will have working infrastructure. I don't believe that it'll be a constant race. At a certain point, you'll have penetration of the proper technologies. That is probably decades away, though. So we're just coming into this upswing in massive GI attacks. These attacks will allegedly increase unless you pause the video and donate right now to the Bitcoin address on your screen, then these attacks will stop almost immediately, as if the two were connected. Isn't that strange? So yeah, go ahead and pause it, rewind, donate to that QR code. And that's about it for the show. We're going to move on to predictions or story of the week. Blake Anderson, are you ready with a prediction or a story of the week? Yeah, I mean, I'm just going to keep kicking the dead horse of decentralization. I mean, centralization to a large extent is completely untenable. The value concentrations of centralized storage of stuff, once everybody's connected on the internet, it'll be like, oh, look, there's a giant box full valuable stuff in Times Square. People are going to smash it open until they get the stuff out of it. And that's going to be the way things are. So you're going to have it put things into smaller containers. And there's going to be an actual ratio of value to security, a ratio of value to spread outness. And I think it'll be great when people start talking about that more and realizing that's more of the nature of the technical reality that we're going to have to go through and figure out, not voting in the two-party legacy system for Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders or whatever. That's a distraction. That's not going to help people pull themselves up by their bootstraps and to create the solutions to the problems that face humanity. So I think that my prediction is that people are going to continue to talk about more and more weird decentralized ideas as far as how they can make humanity better. And people will start to listen more. Chris Ellis, a prediction or a story of the week? Yeah, actually, I did have a story of the week. If I can get my screen share working. And it was Brett Scott's paper that he did under the guise of the UN. Let me just pull up his Twitter profile here. This is him. Yeah, so he's an academic and anthropologist. I have a lot of respect for him. He wrote a paper under the guise of the UN. I went to his talk the other day. Here it is. This is the link. I'll just retweet this out right now if you're watching this. You can just find that. And yeah, basically, my thoughts on the paper was I was a bit disappointed. I think Brett can do better than this. His sort of juxtaposition at the beginning and the introduction where he gives a primer on cryptocurrency and he compares it to the legacy banking system. I think this explanation can be done better. I have had a lengthy discussion with him offline about that. So I think that we can do better pedagogically, if particularly if we're going to use a brand name like the UN, who've already asserted themselves with Julian Assange and that ruling. It looks like the UN again, which, by the way, is a group of distributed bodies. And in this case, I'm told a traditional sort of think tank in Geneva. And he uses the term neocolonialism. He also uses the term technocolonialism in this, which inflamed a lot of people. So there was this sort of large reactionary response from coin desk and other sort of circles. He took it as an affront. I think he's absolutely spot on, by the way, with his critique of people like Suzanne Temple Hop bitnation. He identifies Roger there. He's probably also, although not in name, referring to Cody Wilson. But I sort of wonder, see this section here, technocolonialism solution from above, whether or not he's setting up a straw man. He's gone after a few easy targets within the Bitcoin community that are easy pickings because they're so polarized. So he calls them libertarian conservatives. And then, juxtapose is that with what he calls an alternative view, which is socialist libertarians, which is this idea of anarcho-communism where you have these distributed emerging communes that would be self-sufficient. And the problem is, is that everyone brings their own baggage and training into a discussion. And if you're going to talk about something under the banner of the UN, which carries with it a lot of weight, I think more thought needs to go in. You need an interdisciplinary approach when it comes to Bitcoin. You need to understand not only computer science, you need to understand political science, you need to understand sociology, you need to understand economics. So you need to understand a lot of things. And the problem is, he's come with his own sort of, you know, baggage, as it were, a political badge. It's not that I don't, you know, the reports of this that I really do agree with. What I disagree with though, was this sort of axis of this sort of false dichotomy that he set up between the so-called conservative libertarians and the socialist libertarians. Like the idea that, you know, these anarcho-capitalists are all evil because they're highly individualistic and he uses the phrase from Hobbes, this Leviathan, you know, a war of all against all. And sort of, you know, we're not all the same people, Brett. Like we're all different people. And the thing that you've got to understand, like at one point in his talk, I was at last, no one I was watching him. Is he said that the lead developers of Bitcoin, the developers of Bitcoin are autocrats. And I've experienced myself now that I am becoming a Bitcoin developer, like I said, I'm producing these full notes and I'm engaging with the Bitcoin Core Devson on ILC. I've said to realize that actually, I could have done this like years ago, but I just didn't. And I suppose it felt to me like this sort of hostile area. But then when I got in and I started making myself vulnerable, I asked a few sort of naive questions, hoping I didn't get trolled and told I was stupid, and I should have looked it up first or something like this. Actually, people were really nice and really accommodating. And the thing that you have to understand is that the difference between an autocrat and an aristocrat is that autocrats ask for power. They seek it. The reason I'm skeptical of Bitcoin classic and all the companies that are peddling it is that they want the power. Whereas Vladimir Van der Laan never asked to be the lead developer of Bitcoin. In fact, it was imposed upon him. He was against it, particularly wanted. He was passed down to him from Gavin Andrews, and he basically wanted to be a lazy consultant and earn lots of money for basically doing nothing. Or as he actually puts it, slutting himself out to all these various projects, those are his words. I screen-capped it. What would you do if you wanted to do that? I mean, I'm like, wait, wait. What's up, companies? I haven't finished. So it was passed down to Gavin from Satoshi. So this is an aristocracy. Aristos means that the right person is ruling. And it's an inevitability. Bitcoin is an opt-in system. It's not North Korea. It's not Nazi Germany. You're not foreign into Bitcoin and forced to obey its rules. It's something that you opt into voluntarily if you want to. It's not an autocracy. And when people use the word like coup, like Andrea Suzes, the word coup in the ulterior states documentary by Thomas, while he's talking about, he's not talking about a coup of the developers. He's talking about a coup of the brand position. Bitcoin is a huge brand. It has an ex-hash of hashing power. It has a global recognized brand name. And that's really what a lot of these people are going after, but Bitcoin, classic, and various actors. Is that really, they're in the investor class. These are like, they've got a large amount of capital. They've got sunk costs. They made a bad business decision. They didn't understand the nature of what they were investing into. It was bad entrepreneurialism on that part, on that part. Now they can't come to terms with it. And so like a annoying shareholder, does it shareholder meetings. They're stamping their feet and saying, I thought I invested in the ex. And I thought I invested in what? I got rights. And I'm going to assert those rights. Now, I am not going to stop anyone from having their say. So I have asked another developer, Ralph Duninjee, goes by, Magnus, this is real name, online, Ralph Duninjee. And I have asked him, like, OK, if there is an easy way to put Bitcoin classic on the full node, I will have a script written that will allow people to do that. Why? Because I'm not pro-censorship. And I don't want to be associated with Thymos or any of those people. I'm willing to listen to criticism. And I'm willing to be proof wrong. And I'm open to persuasion at all times. But so far, based on the evidence I've seen, based on talking to the developers of both sides of this debate, I cannot help but bring myself to the conclusion that this is not an autocracy. This is an aristocracy for for sure. But it was never advertised as anything other than that. It was always advertised as a way of like the right people make the decisions. The people would qualify to make the decisions, make those decisions. And one parallel I would leave you with that you could draw is look at the emergence of democracy in ancient Athens. You had Solon, you had Clisonese. And in my opinion, it represents Dibli, Satoshi is Solon, and Clisonese is Vladimir Van der Laan. They didn't, they're nice aristocrats, right? The people of Athens got lucky. They got some Samarice to crack so they were nice that let them go on and self-organize and do their lives. But then they came under siege. They came under siege from the Spartans. They were in league with Spartans for a while, but then the Spartans invaded. And they threatened to take away that freedom from the Athenians. And the Athenians rose up, rose up, and you had the mob. And Clisonese was offered an opportunity to come back into his city out to take it back over on the condition that he would continue with Solon's reforms. He would continue with his own reforms of instituting self-determinism. The ability to democracy at the highest level is really about the individual's ability to self-determine, not only their own personal bodies and decorate themselves with things, but also to be able to have a say on the way the park is laid out, which we very rarely do these days. We don't have a say over the way the public space and the commons is arranged. And the ability to self-organize and to get things done. This is high level democracy. And so that, I think, is where we are with Bitcoin. And that's why I think that Brett is misguided. I think he's chosen the wrong axis. I think rather he should be looking at why all these engineers left the banking industry to create this open source software. And why this sort of gerontocracy that has the durable assets and has the land and all the money is now bribing the technicality, is bribing good people like Christoph Atlas and with money and saying, come over to us, come over to us, advertise our product, become a shield for our product. This is no good. We're losing good people, honest people, to this class of people that just have a lot of money. They just sunk a lot of money in it was an investment. So anyway, OK, I'm done. Thanks very much. Gabriel, divine. All right, I love following Chris. So I mean, just I also came across that. I've been following Brett on Twitter. I have a quick prediction. But I've been following Brett's got on Twitter for a long time as well. And it's really interesting to see. For me, it's very transparent that he's incredibly threatened by Bitcoin. And the freedom that it allows, there's a lot of fear there that people are going to do bad things with it. And we need to control them with guns. So that's why he's releasing a paper on the UN in my opinion. That's all I have to say about that. My prediction is that the quote-on-quote schism between Bitcoin, Core, Bitcoin, Coke, Classic is totally manufactured. And that there's actually very little support behind Classic when it comes down to hard crypto cash. When it comes down to people with their wealth storing it on the blockchain, their private key, all encrypted in there. When they get to that date, whatever it is in a couple weeks or whatever, when they need to have 75%, they're going to have hardly anything. And if by any chance there is a hard fork and Bitcoin, Coke, Classic goes in one direction, Core goes in the other. You're going to see massive, not only fraud during the actual fork, but also massive movement away from Classic and the people that want Core to succeed are going to sell all their Classic coins and buy Core. And we're going to see a very quick snuffing out of this pseudo-spark that is Bitcoin, Coke, Classic. Yeah, good. OK, yeah. I got a triple whammy now, but it'll be short and no problem. That's a story of the week. Stories of the week, Bitcoin Classic mines total of three blocks. Brian Anderson, CEO of Coinbase, challenges people to a $5,000 bet in Bitcoin that Classic will be successful. And no one, yes, Brian Armstrong, that nobody and nobody will take them on his bet. But the thing is, how would he pay? Because you can't pay from Coinbase account, because then it would get frozen, which is OK. But anyway, back to my prediction of the week or of the future, which is a totally different topic, is, yeah, I think that sometimes in the future, one of these MMA organizations, Bellator or UFC will accept Bitcoin, which one will be first. So let's challenge them. I think Bellator will be first, because they start with a B. And they've just been doing a bunch of stuff. Like now they have kickbox, and they just like, it is ad whatever they want to add. And so let's, I'll retweet my tweet there that I got up there at my channel and see which one is first. Good stuff. Jeffrey Gherkin. Theo, you totally took one of my stories, which was the Brian Armstrong making that bet. And then they'll have the hypocrisy of not being able to actually pay through Coinbase because they actually freezing account that goes to any type of Dyson gambling site right away. So instantaneously. So damn, but I'll have to point that out. Theo, a couple other things, you know, real quick. It's a trap. A couple of things real quick. You know, I think the story I would like to, of the week that I'd like to say might have been last week, but Visa opening up their network. I wanted to kind of bring that to attention, because this is another sign of Bitcoin steadily, surely, and surely, you know, solely but surely marching. It's March against the financial system that we have today. And it's just showing that really, as Andrea said, we're now finally in the bargaining stage, right? The five stages of grief. They're starting to bargain now. They're starting to be like, all right, well, you know what? We'll open up our network. Yeah, Bitcoin's open. We can be open. Let's open it up a little bit. And of course, in reality, you know, they are rebuilding these systems from scratch in order to make this possible. And for what end? You know, for what caused you? What can you do unique on the Visa network that you can't do with PayPal or, you know, traditional Fiat? It's just ridiculous when you can try to compare it with Bitcoin. So absolutely hilarious to see that. I think that more, you know, a lot more companies are going to follow suit before they finally realize that nothing really can compare to the openness that Bitcoin provides, the ability to provide innovation, permissionless innovation, and keep the innovation at the edges, instead of centralizing it. So that would be my story of the week. And if I could still add maybe one prediction as well to have both, basically, my prediction is that Ethereum price is going to eventually go down, but down to maybe $1 or less, and that people will finally see that. Oh, Justin, time to get it all out. Speak, speak, speak, what are we going to see? I'm sure. I'm sure that the Ethereum developers are really smart, and they have hacked him and frozen his scrolling. I've done it with a dial, haven't I? It's going to be a lesson. Don't speak out against Ethereum. Yeah. I just saw how the blood had gone. I saw a pre-sale on the Ether Trader subreddit for Ether Block to stop people from overly criticizing it. I think that Dow has been launched here as we're the first witness of it. Ether Block. It's the next generation. Well, I have to agree with more tax on his hilarious illustration of, as far as financial systems and transfer go, Bitcoin is the kind of like the bedrock. And to see a race to the bottom when the bottom is bedrock, it will have to be pretty raised to that and then crash against it. It's going to be pretty entertaining. Did anyone else notice the similarity to Brian Armstrong's response and get Mark Hunt's reasons response? Because Mark Hunt recently made that really inappropriate comment about anti-colonialism in India. And then he started to block people that disagreed with him. And then the other day, Brian Armstrong made a comment about how the great thing about being on Twitter is he gets to block people that he doesn't like. And one of the things I'm looking for in a leader is I'm looking for, do they want power number one? If they do, I'm heavily skeptical. And number two, do they listen to dissenting views and opinions? And if they don't, and if they're blocking people like Mark Hunt's recent and Brian Armstrong, I'm starting to get skeptical. I'm not final in my view. I'm open to be persuaded by also sort of tweet by Brian Armstrong where he needs to be persuaded by a professor at Cornell that the mind is don't control the network. And if it takes a professor at Cornell to persuade a guy that's rated a ton of money to be in charge of a company, I don't know how he got this job or what an earth qualifies him. But if he needs a professor at Cornell to persuade him there so far, based on my limited experience of Brian Armstrong, like I'm not entirely satisfied that this guy is qualified to be in this industry at all, or whether he's just riding the great betraying. All right, and finally, a prediction. Prediction, everything will be fine. The good will succeed while the bad will fail. Keep your head down, work hard, express your truth and don't worry about the rest. Time is running out for you to be who you want to be. Don't settle, achieve your dreams, Bitcoin. Oh, we're out of time. Until next time, bye, bye. Bye, bye.