We're live! From Ethiopia, a D-S-B-R. This is me, Chris Ellis. I'm in the airport. I've literally got to run into security right now, right there behind me. I've had a great time with Johannesburg. It's been like a six and a half hour layover here in a D-S-B-R. But it's actually been pretty chilled because you can actually sit on those little seats there and I managed to get some internet as well as you can see. So yeah, so thanks a lot for everybody's support. Thank you for tipping my taxi drivers, Alex and Do Me as well. They were really grateful for that and they've told me that they're going to spread the Bitcoin love amongst the taxi ranks in Johannesburg. So I really want to get that project moving. But yes, it must go. Thanks very much for letting me say a quick mention here at the beginning of the show. Have a great one guys and I'll see you on the other side. Bye Chris. Very easy. Very easy. Very international flavor to start the show. But now the Bitcoin group. The American original also has to do screen share. That's why this isn't working. One more time. The Bitcoin group. The American original. For over the last ten seconds, the sharpest sitosheaks, the best Bitcoins, the hardest cryptocurrency talk. We'd like to welcome our panelists. Tones from Brave New Coin. Hello everyone. Glad to be back. Theo Goodman from HASS online. So everyone, good evening. And I'm Thomas Hunt from the world crypto network. Moving on to issue one. Issue one advertisement. Issue one bit fury CEO. There is only one blockchain, the Bitcoin blockchain. In a wide ranging medium post this week, the CEO of Bit fury took the emerging blockchain industry to task, declaring that there is only one blockchain, like there is only one internet. He claims that the Bitcoin blockchain is secure, while other blockchains like the intranets of the 90s do not provide the same security. His closing is powerful and it will be who of us to read it in its entirety. Everyone who cares about making opportunities available to anyone in the world who believes in democracy and the power of the people to have a voice and a say in their future should be interested in and enthusiastic about the Bitcoin blockchain. Theo Goodman, your thoughts on this shocking revelation that there is only one blockchain? Yeah, I'm just like you. I'm completely shocked and obliterated that Bitcoin is the most secure blockchain. You know, I think that he's probably coming out because of a lot of the talk about private blockchain that's going around. I think that for some people that are maybe new to cryptocurrencies, it could be a little confusing and they don't quite get it. That's cool that people are coming out with a real clear position on what they think about things. Now, yeah, of course, a private blockchain is only as secure as the people that secure it. In a private blockchain, you could do bad, but in the Bitcoin blockchain, you can't do bad because of how it's programmed. So I think that's a different. I think that actually Chris, I don't know if he coined that, but I think that's a good thing. It doesn't mean that you can't use the currency for good or bad things, just the way that it's programmed. The trust level of how everything works is much different in private. I don't know, I don't totally agree. There are other blockchains that are proof of work and that's okay. There's Litecoin, there's Monero, there's a few others out there that are pretty cool and I would still count them even though they are all coins. I think the Fiori CEO makes a good point about the power of a public blockchain. As I'm sure you all know, Andreas Antonopoulos, the master of analogies has already presented us with a great analogy to describe this. It's Suerrat versus Bubbleboy. The Suerrat of Bitcoin is out there in the mud and the dirt and the grime getting all the diseases, all the hacks, all the attempts and just getting stronger from it. He's a Suerrat. The Bubbleboy is these internet blockchains that they want to build. It'll be just like the Bitcoin blockchain, but with none of the public assets, none of the attacks, none of the security, none of the safety, none of the testing over and over again. It's going to be like Bubbleboy. They're going to have to keep him inside because if he gets outside he might get a cold, he might get sick and die. Whereas as we all know, the Suerrat will just keep on going. Tones, your thoughts on there could be only one blockchain. Well, I completely agree with that. I've been on several panels that are titled Bitcoin versus blockchain and the first thing I do is I just say how ridiculous that notion is. I also agree that there is only one blockchain of any significance. There's a bunch of blockchains, but they're all meaningless and I give them less than a 1% chance of survival to all of them, including Ethereum and people know my views on Ethereum. There'll be more comments. I'm sure. I'm not going to talk about Ethereum. I'm just going to talk about the blockchain that actually has security and momentum behind it, which is Bitcoin. In the future, if this movement survives, everything will be built on Bitcoin or a type of side chain also on Bitcoin. It's kind of great that there is innovation in some of these other projects like what Panero is trying to do and what Dash is trying to do, but it's going to be Bitcoin and I completely agree with him. There's Fury. They are probably the biggest miner in the space, so they really know what they're doing and there's a reason why they're putting all of their money and hashing power into Bitcoin. It's going to be the one big survivor. However, since I'm not without criticism, can I go screenshot right now? I wonder. Let me try this. There we go. However, reading that article by Valery, the CEO of Mid Fury, I was actually very disappointed at the following. Those were his five points and he elaborated on each of those points in his actual medium post, I believe. Point number one and number five are in direct conflict with point number three and I'll just read them just in case anyone is just listening to this. Point number one is the internet has succeeded by forever changing the way we move data and now we have a way to move value, which is correct. It says the Bitcoin blockchain is exactly the psychological solution to make this happen which is moving of value, which I agree with. His point number five, everyone who cares about making opportunities available to anyone in the world who believes in democracy and the power of the people to have a voice and say in the future should be interested and enthusiastic about the Bitcoin blockchain. Okay, agree. But then his point number three is law enforcement in the US and beyond are encouraged by the Bitcoin blockchain because they can detect and track bad actors more easily in this new system. And that is completely incorrect. I completely disagree with him and it's kind of, I guess weird and sad, he's running one of the biggest companies in the Bitcoin space. He understands what Bitcoin is, he understands what blockchains are and point number three is extremely misguided. Now there is a chance that he knows this and he's just, I guess, catering to certain people. I also am very critical of Bitfury joining the blockchain alliance, which I believe is a disaster of an organization, even though I have several friends and CEOs that I know are part of the blockchain alliance, which is a group of 11 Bitcoin companies, I believe 11 that are working with government and I don't like that. I honestly don't. I think it's going to end badly. And I'm very disappointed that Bitfury is part of the blockchain alliance and I am very critical of that. And so because of that, I don't know what they're doing and also the senior management of that company, their Russian and even in his article he talks about being around when Russia fell and having been around when Russia fell, I really hope he knows better. He knows better what a communist system is like, what a tyrannical government is like and what a capitalist free system is like. So I don't know what they're doing when they're cater to law enforcement telling them that it's going to be easier because it's not going to be easier. It's going to be harder. If Bitcoin was easier, Bitcoin wouldn't exist. The whole reason why Bitcoin is worth $400 today is because it moves value, borderless and permissionless. And if that is removed, I don't think Bitcoin has any value. The banks have had technology for years to make instant irreversible payments. At least 10 years they've had this technology. The reason it doesn't exist is because of regulation, not because it's a technological problem, it's a regulatory problem. Bitcoin solved the regulatory problem by creating technology that cannot be regulated. And if it's going to get regulated, then games over. Bitcoin died, in my opinion. It can still be worth a bunch of money, but I don't think it is what it was meant to be. So I don't know what he's trying to say with this point number three, that it's easier for law enforcement. I will say one thing, and this is how I would love the blockchain to be used, is I would love to put all government revenue through the blockchain, like tax revenue and tax collection and tax spending, put all of that on the Bitcoin blockchain so that everyone knows what the government is spending. Meanwhile, private people would have an option to completely mask all of their payments, because I don't believe that KYC and AML should exist in the financial world. I think it's bad. I think it's killing the global economy. So I believe that private people should have privacy and public servants, public people should not have privacy. And all of those payments should be open to everyone. And if the people in the public sector don't like to be open, then go find the real job in the private sector. So that's my view on it. Good. And you're starting to fuzz out for some reason. Let's address Theo's points as well. Theo, if an altcoin did have new features that we wanted to add to the Bitcoin blockchain, do you believe we could do so? Well, sure, theoretically, it's definitely possible. It's just a question of how many Satoshi roundtable meetings would it take in order for Bitcoin to adapt rig signatures on chain? No, I'm just joking. It would take, I don't know, a lot. But yeah, sure, if there was something that could be added, then that could be added to it. And those side chains are not here now. I think that some of the talk would be that. It would be a certain feature. And then that would be on a side chain. And then you could use the side chain for that utility and then still connect back. So I'm just saying that people always are going to want a choice. So I don't think that cryptocurrency is like highlander. And there's only one. I don't think it has to be only one either. But if you look at it, the main advantage of Bitcoin is the processing power of this network. That's the one feature that no other altcoin can replicate, no matter how hard they try, at least so far. We don't know about the future. Moving on, exit question. How many blockchains are there? Tones. Still muted. There is one blockchain of any usefulness. Theo Goodman. There are a lot of blockchains. There can be only one, but maybe that's just a good sound by. Moving on, issue two. What happened at the Satoshi round table? The block size debate continues to dominate the world of Bitcoin with most everyone who went to the supposedly private Satoshi round table coming back to write scathing medium articles about the people they disagreed with. Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong took the lead saying that some of the core devs have poor social skills, prefer perfect solutions to good enough ones, and have a strong belief that Bitcoin will be able to scale in the long term. Armstrong claims that having a high IQ may not be enough. In the myopia of these developers may do Bitcoin. Tones, all this drama, will it lead to Bitcoin scaling? I mean, the drama is not helping. It's the Bitcoin will scale and it would have done it with or without Armstrong, preferably without Armstrong. I don't agree with anything Armstrong, Brian Armstrong wrote in that medium post. I thought it was absolutely terrible. Him along with half a dozen people like Mike Hurn and Gavin Andreessen, they're the ones that started this whole debate, this whole argument. I've been on them from the Bitcoin XT days that failed miserably and Bitcoin classic is going to fail miserably. It's just bad. I mean, they're starting all this drama and politics in Bitcoin, the Satoshi Round Table from what I heard, it wasn't good. It's not the fact that it's private, it's not that big a deal to me anyway, but it's just a lot of people there, they're not belong there. That's the problem. I heard things like you have people standing up in front of the room and telling core developers what a blockchain is. It's just ridiculous. It's a complete waste of core developers time. Most of these things are complete waste of core developers time. Like Brian Armstrong says, they don't have great social skills. No, they have great coding skills. Their job is to solve the scalability problem and raising the block size is not scalability. Even he knows this, it's a temporary solution and it could be a dangerous one. There's no guarantee that raising the block size to two megabytes is going to make things better. There's just not. I believe that the core developers, the ones that generally are associated with block stream, they are some of the smartest developers in the world. Let them do their job. Let them scale Bitcoin. They understand what Bitcoin is. They know the core principles of Bitcoin and they know that Bitcoin's priority is not a payment network. It's not a payment system. Brian Armstrong thinks that it's a payment system. It's not. It's more than a payment system. That's what they want to make sure that it stays that way. I've worked with developers on Wall Street for a while. I hate the concept of it's good enough. Let's just release it. That's how the hard fork in 2013, the accident of fork was caused. I believe I don't want to be quoted but I heard rumors that Mike Herman was responsible for that one too. No, there's too much money on the line. Good enough solutions are not good. Let them do their job. If anybody wants to hear more about the scaling Bitcoin, go to Bitcoin Uncensored Soundcast, the things are the YouTube one. They crashed it and they had a great video from it. They also had a great article by Junessef from Bitcoin Uncensored. They give you a different side of that event. I strongly recommend people go read that. Fun video and a good article. I'm glad they were able to make the convention. Theo Goodman. Well, what was the actual question here? Let's see, will we be able to scale Bitcoin thanks to all this drama? Yes, we will be able to scale Bitcoin. Now if it's thanks to all the drama, I don't know that will go to be seen but I think that I'll take this time to announce the blockchain, block table. It's a square table and you will get an invitation if you are part of the group. If you don't, then that's just too bad. You can apply just semi-tweet or DM. Even though we have a consensus on what a blockchain is, I'm not in control of the developer group. I'm going to just make my own developer group and tell everyone that it's really important that my developer group is at the block table and that's what's going to happen. I don't know. As far as at the round table thing, I did watch the crashing video if you want to call it that or whatever. I guess for us outsiders, it was pretty funny. I guess some people didn't think it was funny that we're there and everyone had a little different point of view. But for the people that were not invited for whatever reason, that was a way for us to check it out. There was also a Reddit live thing going on and people were commenting as it was going on. That was pretty cool. At least there was some kind of interaction there. Sometimes when people don't get their way, then they get really mad and they just do instead of just going with the agreement. I think that a lot of people agreed on two megabytes before, so she round table, but some people didn't get exactly their way after and then they got really upset and now they're just going to go do whatever they want. Moving on to the exit question of whatever they want, will Bitcoin classic be adopted? Yes or no? I say no. It can't be because if it's become in a matter of pride now, they've caused so much havoc with this political war that the block stream and the core developer team, they can't adopt anything from classic. They might as well quit. They might as well leave to another project. It's gotten to a point where all the classics, the developers of classic, they just need to go away and none of their stuff will be adopted by the core because then the core would admit that they're given into the pressure and then the mind as well, then it would be over. I hope they stand up to it. Nothing from classic should be adopted. Let the core team, let the smart guys in the room do their job. Theo Goodman. My prediction is no, that it will not be adopted, but if you have a problem, I have the solution, figure blocks. The correct answer is no. At purse.io, we make Bitcoin useful by providing huge discounts at Amazon.com. Buy your wish list today with Bitcoins and save 20%. You have the ability to buy Bitcoin. Now you have the ability to shop with it too. purse.io. Issue 3. Rusha, to propose 7-year prison sentences for digital currency issuers. Unnamed source from within the government claims that individuals who issue money surrogates could be imprisoned for as many as 7 years. Digital currency is of course included as a possible money surrogate. I ask you, is this the best example yet of Bitcoin entering a new phase in the famous Gandhi quote that we repeat all the time because we want it to come true? Is this the point at which government stop laughing at us and start fighting? Maybe, I don't know. It's a nice headline and I don't know if let's see if Russia really goes through with it. It's kind of unclear, you know, what is it? Is there a discussion of digital currency or just talking about it or what gets you come up? It may just be issuing. It's only Vitalik Booterin and perhaps Jackson Palmer. Charlie Lee. Charlie Lee. Charlie Lee. Charlie Lee. Charlie Lee. Yeah, lock them up. Lock them up. Dangerous. Okay. So issuing is seven years. You go, wait, you have to realize there's also a different angle. So if you go to the, not that I speak fluent Russian or anything, but you can check it out on YouTube. I have, or I don't know the exact title, but there is more than one person in the Russian parliament that thinks Bitcoin was made from the CIA and is employed against Russia. So they have a little bit different viewpoint of cryptocurrencies than you might think. So there really is that angle that. It's a minority, but there are some people in the government that really think that. So I think that there's, I think that yeah, I could, if there, if the rubble is having issues, then of course, you know, Bitcoin is something that people might be interested in if the rubble continues to crash. You see that in a lot of countries, but I don't know. I think part of it might be that angle. I think that this is some kind of, you know, secret mission to destabilize Russia. Tone phase. I'm not really sure what to think. I don't think they know what, I mean, these articles, these constant articles about Russia, nobody knows. It's just statements from some guy who may or may not be high up in the government. And when they say issuing, I don't know if they mean creating, in which was your example of like the Pollock and Jackson Palmer and Charlie Lee, they could also mean like a money transmitter kind of thing like a coin base is issuing Bitcoin for people to buy. They're not creating them, but they're reselling them. It could mean that, it could mean the use of Bitcoin, but the thing is, it doesn't matter. It's not what the law says. It's what it's what the law is in force. And I believe it's illegal for us to smell a Cuban cigar anywhere in the world, right? According to the US government and their ban on, on Cuban cigars and Cuban goods. So it's not, it's not what the law says. It's what, it's how the law is enforced. Are they going to be able to enforce the Bitcoin laws? Well, they can enforce any open companies like a coin base in Russia, but are they going to be able to stop a Bitcoin transaction? And the answer is no. So a lot of countries have laws like what marijuana is still illegal federally in the US and how many states are now making it legal. How's it enforced? You know, it's a same thing with prostitution. How's it enforced? Some countries enforce it strongly, some countries don't. So it's all about enforcement and Bitcoin's going to fall into that same zone. How's it being enforced? And I don't see them. And there is no way of enforcing Bitcoin transactions. So it's going to go on. In fact, it might actually be, well, people should be happy about this, right? If Russia is putting this ban, then no one's going to be buying cups of coffee with their bitcoins, right? So it shouldn't clog up the mempool with unnecessary little transactions, which I like. And I keep saying, I'm sorry, Bitcoin is not for you to buy a cup of coffee. My view for Bitcoin is much bigger than that. If some guy has a few million dollars and he wants to protect himself and put those millions into Bitcoin, it doesn't matter whether Russia legalized or illegalized Bitcoin, he's going to do it. He's going to move money into Bitcoin and he's going to move it out of the country if he needs to. So that's my view on it. I kind of ignore any government statements unless I see them enforcing it in one way or another. Finally, Russia's contributing to scaling Bitcoin. I think there's also another possibility here where if Russia actually was to ban it, they might actually draw more attention to it. The average Russian person probably doesn't know of Bitcoin, but if they ban it tomorrow, they certainly might look into it. And the more people we have installing wallets and trading it amount amongst themselves, it doesn't matter if they don't have an issuer or a central location to go to together and get their Bitcoin, the idea will get to them. It will spread. I mean, exit question. Are you going to go ahead, Tom? No, I said agreed. Agreed. Exit question is Bitcoin a significant threat to the Russian rubble? Theo. Not right now. Tone Vays. No, probably not. I don't think Bitcoin is a threat to many national currencies. I may be like Venezuela, but I doubt too many people there know about Bitcoin. Now, Bitcoin is not a threat to the cryptocurrencies yet. It's the home of a few years to go before we get there. The usability may not be there. The volatility may be too much, but the rubble has a serious inflation problem as well as the Brazilian currency and Venezuela, as Tone mentioned. These kind of weaknesses will lead to more people investigating Bitcoin, but we might not be there yet. Moving on to issue four. Edwards note and broke the news again this week claiming that the FBI could easily unlock the terrorist iPhone, saying that the battle is more about setting a precedent than a technical need for a back door. In related news, the DOJ responded point by point to Apple's argument in the encryption case, calling the computer company's claims a diversion. And perhaps even hinting that the technology company could simply be nationalized. Tone Vays is Snowden right, is the battle over encryption all just a play for the cameras? Well, I am certainly not an encryption expert, so I don't know from reading about this situation from several different sources. Snowden is probably right. I've read some of the more technical detailed articles that talked about what the FBI is complaining about. And I should probably say this because not everyone knows the details of the case. So the FBI wants to guess the password and they want to have many attempts. There is a feature in the iPhone that says if you have 10 incorrect guesses at a decryption password, it deletes one of the keys that would allow you to even have a chance to decrypt the data. So what the FBI wants Apple to do is they want them to remove this. They don't want them to unencrypt it because they don't know the encryption password. But they want them to remove this condition that would delete one of the keys after 10 failed attempts at a password. So the article that I read was, which is kind of bad for Apple, is that the FBI can simply take that encrypted piece of data off the device physically and move that over to the side and then attempt 10 passwords. And then if we guess the lead, they can just put it back because they have a copy of it. So they can make a copy of this encrypted data. And then have as many attempts to crack the password as they like. So these are the kinds of things they're talking about. It still doesn't mean that the FBI can crack the password. I think this is bad. I think it's a really bad position for the American government to take, but that's what every government does. They want to just infringe on our privacy. And I think this case will go to the Supreme Court. And I don't know what's going to happen. It's hard to speculate. It's really hard to fight the government. And the government wants to see all of our information and they don't want to share any information, what in fact it should be the other way around. We should be able to see all the information in the government and they should not be able to see any of our private information. That's what actually started the US revolution, which the US government doesn't seem to realize. So I think that this problem is going to go on. It's going to grow. And if this problem grows big enough, it will lead to the next revolution. I mean, this is why revolutions happen. It's because governments become tyrannical and they don't give people freedom. And the government just don't learn. So yeah, so other than that, Snowden is probably right that the FBI could do it. And this is just a way for public opinion to sway and see which way public opinion goes. And it's unfortunate that most people are still on the side of, yeah, the government can see everything I'm doing. I have nothing to hide, which is unfortunate. And hopefully the tide will turn one of these days. And President Obama recently addressed perhaps Bitcoin saying that if we allow this encryption to continue, it would be like everyone's walking around with a Swiss bank account in their pocket. Right, which would be a lot of liberty, which would be great, right? It would be great. People don't realize that they're being suppressed. I mean, I say something controversial that I believe that freedom of your financial, you haven't financial freedom. Having the ability to move your money in any way shape of form is more important than freedom of speech. I think freedom of financial privacy is more important than freedom of speech because you can say anything you want with your money. But if it's not your money, there's nothing you can say. So to me, freedom of financial privacy is more important than freedom of speech. It should be the number one priority. And that's what the governments are really trying to clamp down on. It's a dimension of Obama. I recommend listeners to Google the following on YouTube. It's called Candidate Barack Obama, Debate President Barack Obama, over NSA surveillance. It's a really great YouTube clip. He was such a great candidate. Theo Goodman, your thoughts on Apple and encryption? I think that I'm going to go with believing Snowden and Apple and companies like that are ninja masters at public relations and spinning things around to get attention. It probably came up and they probably figured out the best way to spin it around. Probably they can already bust into the iPhone if they need to or maybe there already is some back door. I don't know, but I would tend to go in that direction as far as what tone said. Yeah, definitely that's true. Markets are a form of communication and limiting that is kind of like limiting your freedom of speech. Basically, so yeah, I don't know what we're going to do. I guess we have to use encrypted smoke signals or something like that. But yeah, I think that I'm going to go with Snowden on this one. It's also important to note that technically the government has already made a huge mistake while attempting to unlock this iPhone. They had a period of time there where they had captured the iPhone and the iPhone was already configured to back itself up to an unencrypted backup on the terrorist home computer. All they had to do is take it to a similar Wi-Fi network with the same password. The computer would then log in, find a similar computer, and an unencrypted lead back itself up to that computer. They could have just done this, but instead they tried to brute force the phone, resulting in this no longer being available because they've reset the phone now. There were initial technical mistakes where perhaps if the government had contacted Apple sooner, like Apple says on their other tech support, contact us first. Maybe we wouldn't have this problem. It is interesting to note. The question, force prediction, will Apple allow access to its back door, tone phase? I don't know whether they will or not privately. I know they will not publicly because the Apple's company is now at stake. Apple haven't innovated things in a while. They created the first MP3 player that was great. The first smartphone, the first tablet, but their innovation has kind of seized. Their cling to existence going forward will be providing privacy. So no, they're going to have to fight. If they have to, I think they will leave the US. They see the writing on the wall. They see the future will have a lot to do with people's privacy. It's important to note that Apple has taken a different stance on privacy than Google. Where Google reads all your email and then shows you advertisements, Apple is very adamant that they don't read your email, that they don't look at your pictures. Whereas Google is trying to use its AI to organize your photos, Apple is trying to leave them alone. There is a difference of philosophy between these two large companies. Yeah, well, yeah. Good. All right. You're out. Good. We got time. So I was going to say on Google. So again, I'm not happy with what Google does. But again, I'm a big privacy advocate. I don't care that Google's AI reads my email or sees my pictures. It's an AI. My problem with Google is that they stay, well, they used to share this information with the government. But I think recently Google has kicked out one of their co-founders. I forget which one it was. And he was the more government friendly one. So the two Google co-founders that are left, they're a little more stand office against government. So maybe there will be similar changes going on in Google. Again, I don't care that a private company has certain information. The other than, yeah, I want them to have internal security so they're not passing people's new pictures around. That's not right. But it's the government that bothers me because Google can't do anything to you. They can't send an army. They can't arrest you. They can't do anything to a person because they're a company. And they care about their brand. And they, the only, Google is looking through your privacy in order to make your life easier. But when they share this information with the government, the government has no reason to make your life easier. That's not how they stay in power. They only stay in power making their life harder. So that's my general view on these companies. I'm not against private companies. I'm only against when they're sharing data with governments. Theo, good man. Well, the prediction is that, yeah, that's an interesting idea. If Apple decides to move out of the United States because of this, but I kind of tend to think that there might be some big event happen. And the government calls Apple to the rescue. And Apple unlocks the telephone of the big terrorist or criminal and there are national heroes. And that's how Apple goes out and the whole company changes. I think Apple says no, but the Supreme Court says yes. Moving on to predictions or a story of the week. Tone, are you ready with a prediction or a story of the week? Oh, man. I don't really have much. My prediction is that we will have a resolution soon on the scaling issue. I think blockchain will start to release more information on what they're planning to do in order to actually scale Bitcoin. So watch out for that. Theo, good. I've got more than one story of the week. Of course, Nate Diaz beat Conor McGregor. That was really good. I'm in California. That was nice. And another story of the week in the crypto world is that BitFinex is going to add Ethereum. Now it's really funny because I believe two weeks ago what happened was on their beta website, which is a website they encourage users to use because it often works better than the normal site when there's a lot of traffic and there's a lot of price movements that everyone's on the beta site. And then all of a sudden it appeared, you know, Ether, USD, Ether, BTC, and Darkcoin came back, which they've already removed. And then people of course took screenshots. Internet went a little crazy for a while and Twitter and Reddit. And then of course, BitFinex came on and said, no, no, no, that's not true. They took it away off of the beta as fast as soon as they realized that people were actually watching. But they should have known people were watching because they encouraged people to use that. So they were like, oh no, we were just testing it out. That's nothing to do. But we also tell everyone to use that site. So of course, people saw it. And of course they denied and they said, oh no, we're just testing and just to see if it's possible. But now it comes out that yes, they were there are indeed going to add it. Yeah, no matter what you think of Ethereum as a project, that is definitely interesting for trading because BitFinex is the largest USD Bitcoin based exchange. Hey, Theo, what kind of leverage they're throwing on Ethereum over there? I think it's just going to be a spot market right at the beginning. They're not going to have the ability to short or anything. Now there's some conspiracy theories on, I don't know if it's in Bitcoin. I read it Bitcoin markets are so on. But yeah, right now you can't short it, but maybe in the future they will add leverage. And if they add leverage, then you could go neither direction, but right now it's just going to be, I think on Tuesday is the date. It's going to be Ethereum USD, Ethereum, BTC, trading pairs. But you can trade leverage over at Kraken. So now you've got battle of exchanges. Who's going to add it? Who's going to have the most features? And who's going to survive the most DDS attacks from all the users? Because Kraken has had some. They've done a pretty good job I've heard, but they have had issues when there's been a lot of traffic. We all know that BitFinex also sometimes has issues when there's a lot of traffic. So let's see how they handle this one. Oh, also, keep an eye out for any good NCAA tournaments with Bitcoin money on the line. I'm curious. It would be just easier. You don't need to sign up. March madness. Yeah, March madness. You can fill out a bracket, throw Bitcoin. Somebody should do that. If anyone's listening to this, I don't know how you're going to do it verifiably fair, but I put brackets out there. No accounts. No nothing. Just fill out your bracket, throw some Bitcoin into a pool, and then boom, somebody becomes a winner. Sounds pretty cool. And now a prediction. If you want to make Bitcoin a currency, use it like a currency. Use it with your friends to pay them back for lunch. Use it to shop online. Sometimes you might even get a discount. Spread it around, store it in different accounts. Use different wallets by a hardware wallet or make a paper one. The word currency means that which is flowing. Let's make Bitcoin flow. Oh, out of time. Until next time. Bye, bye. Yeah.