The Bitcoin Group, the American original. For over the last 10 seconds, the sharpest Satoshi, the best Bitcoin, the hardest crypto currency talk. We'd like to welcome our panelists, tone veys from Brave New Corn. Thanks Thomas, it's looking like a little fireside chat for now. I'm Thomas Hutton from the World Crypto Network. It's just the two of us today. We'll have a whole way of airbiz joining us shortly. He's up my place finishing up a business call. I get here for consensus along with most of the other big pointers all over the place. It's the big event in New York City. It's all going down. Let's see, moving on to issue one. Issue one, mycelium wallet to sell shares and release radical upgrade. Mycelium, the popular Android wallet, joins the crowdfunding club this week offering collu.cu tokens with plans to build a full fledged financial suite. The company plans to leverage an open API and interoperability to become an app store for crypto finance. No days, your thoughts. Oh man, so there's so much to say. Those that have been listening to me for a while, they know my view on tokenization, they know my view on all coins. And I have to be consistent. Let's start off with, I really like mycelium. It's one of two wallets I recommend. So the wallets that I recommend are air bits, mycelium, and that's pretty much it. Now there is another wallet that I haven't used yet, only because I just don't use Bitcoin that often. And that's lock stack. So the reason why I like lock stack is basically because I know the CEO of lock stack and I trust the company. So there's a couple of reasons why you would trust the company. One of them is, you use their product and you really understand it. I'm not that technical, so I can't dig into the code. But I do know a lot of people in the space because I'm a person in the space. So if I do trust the CEO of that company, I tend to value the product highly, which is another reason why I'm so high on block stream and the core developers because I know where they are as people. And to me that matters a lot. So having, and I don't usually mention bread wallet, people are like, oh, bread wallet, bread wallet. I have no opinion of bread wallet. I've never used it. I've never met anybody that works for bread wallet. I don't know what their politics are. And in this space, to me, politics is everything. And I really like mycelium's politics. Having said that and the fact that I really like mycelium wallet, I have to be critical of this tokenization, the way I'm critical of every tokenization. And I will specifically talk about what. So for starters, I'm not sure what this is and I'm not sure what the legal standard is. To me, this, I, I'm going to be as critical about this as I have been about Ethereum. Just because no one has gotten scammed in the Ethereum yet, doesn't mean there weren't ample chances. I thought mycelium crowd sale was closer to what Tecline did and to what Neo and D was doing. The idea is the same, just because the people didn't go through with this. What? Just because the people didn't walk away with your Bitcoin. Doesn't mean that the crowd sale was a good idea for you to invest in. I have the same view here. I don't know the details. I try reading as much as I could. I have not had time. I haven't talked to anybody about this. I barely talked to Rasa of mycelium for the friend of mine. I just got the contact of the new CEO of mycelium. I will be speaking to him. Because again, I need to speak to these people because if I'm going to criticize something publicly or speak good about it publicly, I have to talk to the source. So without knowing the exact details, here's what I know from just reading. It's an SAR. I already forgot what that stands for. But it's not a share in the company. So they're looking to offer 5% of the company, but they don't know what the 5% is. So the 5% will be determined by the amount of Bitcoin that is invested to get this asset, which is not really an asset because an asset comes with a certain legal definition. So already this bothers me. So it's legal and it's not legal. So I don't know what it is. You can't only anonymously, which is a good thing because I'm an anonymous guy. But that is not what the law is going to want to happen. So anyway, you buy into the Euternier Bitcoin into this, whatever it is. Some kind of share in a company. It's not really a share in the company. It all gets very, very murky. It's a difficult thing because they can do these things. Like we can have tokens and we can have exchanges of tokens. We can't really do these things legally. So they're always in this kind of gray area and you're never sure what you're buying. I mean, there are two different companies. There's MySyllium Holding. There's MySyllium Wallet. You're buying a piece of MySyllium Wallet. I don't know what that means. I don't know what kind of returns you're going to get. It almost feels like it would be better if they were just doing a Kickstarter where they just keep it. I know. Okay. Well, there's so much on the stand in stock. But let's go ahead and say, I've done a bunch of reading even though it was the last few hours. I kind of understand what they're doing, but it is so difficult for me to articulate it right now to you. Even though I think I understand 75% of what they're trying to do, it's incredibly difficult for me to articulate it because this will be listened to by a hundred people and everyone is going to say, I'm wrong here. I'm wrong there because it's really hard to articulate. Anyway, let's get back to my problems with this. The reason why these things are regulated is because they're hard to understand. Even for me, and I've been in this kind of world of finance, my whole adult life, basically. And here's the biggest problem. This is the same problem I had with Ethereum. The insiders can buy as much as they want to dilute the shares from the start. You don't know what they bought because it's anonymous. They can sell it. If it works out, they can not sell it. If it not work out, it didn't cost them anything. This was my knock on Ethereum. You don't know how much the Ethereum co-founders could have baked bought at the best price of 2000 Ether per Bitcoin because all that Bitcoin was used to then pay for development. Liquid of Flu and a shitload of Bitcoin in there for the best returns on Ethereum and paid themselves back that Bitcoin profit for working for Ethereum. And then if Ethereum actually worked out as it for now, it looks like it has temporarily, then they have this lottery ticket of oldest Ether that they basically got for free. So that's my knock on these things. And I trust my Celium. They had one of the best wallets in the space in forever. And I trust them as people. And I don't need to know who they are. I trust Satoshi. I don't need to know who he is. He has a reputation. They have a reputation. But the reason why there is laws to security sales is to prevent this. How do you know that an anonymous founder of my Celium isn't going to buy like a quarter of a percent of the 5% that they're offering in a bunch of Bitcoin get this Ethereum special appreciation right and then pay himself the Bitcoin that he founded funded into the company. Pay himself for working in Ethereum because that's what that Bitcoin is used for. And then if it works out, he just got himself a lottery ticket, an anonymous lottery ticket, kind of like Ethereum. So again, this is why these things are regulated. And when you go around the regulation, and I hate regulation, let's start there. But there's a reason why it's there. And they're already said that you can own these things anonymously so you don't know who's buying them. And again, I don't know what the best thing is. I just don't like it. And the crowd sale general. It's so hard to articulate everything on this topic. It all stems from the fact that there's millions, hundreds of millions of dollars going into complete garbage companies. What are they doing? Something on the blockchain, what are they trying to identify end users, which is impossible. There are so many bad projects. I recently said on an interview when I got published in an article, 90% of all Bitcoin and blockchain companies are useless and they're all going to fail in their meeting. What is not meaningless is wallets. Wallets alike my Celia. Wallets like airbits. I have to throw a lux back in there only again because of a trust factor, even though I have not used that wallet much, but I'm going to start. That's my next goal to try that wallet out. I can't talk about the other wallets because I don't know much about them. I can talk about the wallets I will never use. One of them is Coinbase. I put the opposite reasons of why I use my Celia and the airbits. When I used to be a blockchain, I'm not an influencer anymore. That wallet failed me a few too many times. Sorry, I have friends that work there. I have friends that invest in them. Sorry, guys. But I don't use that one anymore, but it's a good wallet. At least they know what they're doing. These things don't have funding. It's impossible for these wallets to get funding because they're not profit generating companies, but they are so important. It's mining, number one, wallets, number two, exchanges, a distant third, everything else, not even on my map. It's those things. And people like us that are teaching the general population of how to use Bitcoin. That's all Bitcoin really, really needs. But I've always been advocating for my Celium. I'm not sure they're allowed to do this because of rules on app. I know I thought just like there was a mining fee which used to be completely voluntary, but now wallets force you to have a minimum mining fee. I wish these wallets had a donation fee to the wallet development team. I wish these wallets had a donation fee to the core dev development team. And then users in the wallet app would set either a percentage or a minimum fee, even if it's a few pennies for transaction. Even if it's like 2% of transaction, unless my transaction is more than one Bitcoin, and then it defaults to 10 or 20 cents. I really wish these wallets had a way to be funded. And when they don't, my Celium is forced to do this because they're tied up paying out of pocket for themselves. So in a way, I wish all that mining I want to eat there, which I think is a horrible project. I wish all that money went into wallets like Ethereum and AirBits. And when it didn't, they now have to do this Ether style crowd sale, which I can't possibly support. I wish I could talk more about the financial details of it. I still have more reading to do, more studying to do. I want to talk to the CEO. I'm going to talk to Ross up who's like their public face of the company here in the US. He's coming to consensus. I'll probably be going to invite him over my place just so I can talk to him about this. My Celium is like one of my top five favorite companies in Bitcoin. And I understand why they're doing this. I just, I don't want them to get arrested. I'm already on record saying every Ethereum co-founder is going to jail and probably many, many others. And I just, I don't want that to happen to them. I don't want it to happen to even the Ethereum guy. I'm just being realistic. And again, that's just my opinion. I don't know what else I can say about this, but I'll let you comment a little. There's been so many of these token sales. There was just one recently for tokenly, which is Adam Levine from Let's Talk Bitcoin. And the LTV network. And it's once again, it's one of these ideas where we can use tokens to replace gift certificates. We can use tokens to replace loyalty cards. These kind of token ideas. But again, there's this lack of clarity. And I loved your point, too, on about anonymity. That usually we think anonymity is such a good thing. But when it comes to investing, if you're anonymous, you can rig the game. And I was a very good idea. I hadn't even thought of Ethereum backers who worked for the company, putting in their own Bitcoin, getting Ethereum, and then getting their own Bitcoin back as salaries for their own company or bonuses or whatever. It's possible. We have no idea. This is alleged. But it's a very good point that anonymity is not always a good thing. And sometimes there's reasons for the regulations. We think all regulation is bad or they're onerous. But sometimes regulations do protect us from shady characters like that. I want to say that my silly team's shady or anything I've met them. They're good people. I haven't really used the wallet very much. I was mainly an iOS user. They had kind of a weaker iOS version. I don't really know about some of the features they're talking about. Being an app store, having the QuickBooks, Mint type management. That's been done before by a couple of different companies. It's interesting to see how it turns out. But I do think that they're going to raise the money. I don't think it really matters what we say or what we think about it. I think a lot of people are interested in Bitcoin. They see this as a good opportunity. What do you think, Tony? Will they raise the money? I know they'll definitely going to raise the money. I heard people are already pledged over 50 Bitcoins before, like in the first few hours. And it shows the support they have from the community. This has been a solid wallet for a long time. A lot of people have used it. You know, it makes sense. But again, I'm really worried that the governments are going to go after them for this later on. It's like there's a lot of risk. I'm sure they have a legal team. And I'm sure they think they're getting around these laws. But I don't trust the government. I don't trust the US government. I don't trust the EU government. People think that laws are retroactive, but they are. What the IRS said about Bitcoin when it came to taxes. They're like, Bitcoin is now treated as property. They said this in 2014. Bitcoin is now treated as property. So if you vote Bitcoin, when a Bitcoin was $100, and then you want to vote a cup of coffee, but the price of Bitcoin is now $110. You need to account for the capital gains of the Bitcoin in your $1 in your $5 cup of coffee. And then they said, this is retroactive back to the Genesis block. That is a retroactive tax law. There is nothing stopping these governments from doing retroactive. Just because someone thinks that they got around the current law, and the government was like, whoa, we didn't know that loophole was there. The only way that noise, not retroactive is if your company is big enough and have enough lobbying power to go to these politicians and say, no, no, no, no, don't make it retroactive. There's nobody in Bitcoin with any power. Nobody in the world can do that. You have to understand the frustration of the Mycelium team. All these other companies are getting all this money. Some of them just for saying the word blockchain or distributor, ledger technology, distributed ledger tech, whatever it is now. It's so frustrating we have these important parts of our infrastructure, the wallets, the exchanges, the sites explaining it that aren't being funded. I feel they probably had no other choice. Do you think that would you invest in a company where the idea was a wallet that doesn't really make money? It's tough to see them gaining money from a traditional investment path. Honestly, as much as I think it's as crazy what they're doing, if I wasn't supporting myself and everything I do, if I had some extra line to throw around, I may buy until it's but not for their token just to support Mycelium. I don't remember if I don't... Let's put it this way. If Mycelium was able to put in their app a voluntary like a mining fee to pay themselves, I would have been using Mycelium wallet way more often than I used Arabic wallet and I would have set that fee to be fairly generous. People don't really go out of their way and donate much money. I would have contributed with every transaction and I'm sure a lot of people were. If I do decide to buy into this sale for Mycelium, it would only be to donate money to Mycelium because I like Mycelium. But now I'm worried that they're going to get legal trouble up to their eyeballs. It's a noble idea, Tony. If you look at some various projects, pro-tip, we raised around $10,000 to $15,000, which is incredible from our community and those are all donations. They don't own shares in pro-tip, pro-tips, open source software. We just built it and everyone can use it and build on top of it. That's 10 to 15. Then you have Adam Levine with token lead. They just raised $500,000. You know, not a huge amount but a great amount for a small company. I think Arabic also raised about $500,000 for more traditional VC methods and then you have your other larger ranges of $3 million, $7 million, $10 million. Some companies like Blockstream have raised $30, $70, increasing amounts, large numbers of millions of dollars. There's something going on in Silicon Valley. When you can raise that kind of money for your idea, even if your idea is not that great, you can get some smart people to fix it. You can get some other people to fix that. You can really get it running and cranking. It can become a real thing out of nothing because of that funding, because of that belief that these companies are willing to put into it. It doesn't seem like that funding is going to a project like my silly. I imagine that they tried the traditional VC route, gave presentations, explained their position in the community, but they can't raise it. These other people that are perhaps slicker or sharper, more flimflam men can say Block Chain a thousand times and raise money. What can be done about this other than trying this third way, this new way? What I've been saying for years, I don't think anyone is doing this, but I've been saying for years, again, there's so many few companies that matter in Bitcoin in my opinion. VCs don't see it that way because I think it's changing. I hope Bitcoin is changing. The value of Bitcoin is the Bitcoin itself. That's the revolution, the Bitcoin. To me, what a VC should do, and I'm not an expert in this, but if a VC has, let's say, $3 million to invest, I would use $1 million and buy Bitcoin and spend the other $2 million just on a good PR campaign for Bitcoin and explaining what Bitcoin is and investing in these wallets because you basically thrown away $2 million so that your $1 million in Bitcoin crushes the $2 million that you lost just to make sure Bitcoin goes up in value for being Bitcoin. We could use a good PR campaign. It has been difficult. Bitcoin.com has been doing a little bit recently, but we haven't really had that mainstream push. A lot of people talked about commercials or larger groups or professional teams. I haven't really seen it. I don't care if it's always its use. Honestly, again, I have an article out of the seven use cases of Bitcoin and none of them are mainstream. Most of them, the governments do not approve of, but it doesn't matter because it's useful. The whole panorama thing that we talked about, again, the gambling market that we talked about, these are use cases. They might not be use cases that government likes and these shouldn't be the use cases that we see should pitch. But all they have to do is explain what Bitcoin is and what it does and let people decide for themselves how they choose to use Bitcoin and the more people use it, the more valuable it becomes. And your Bitcoin is the return investment, not the company. VCs have grown up for the last, probably forever, where it wasn't the token itself that returns the investment. It was always the company that returned the investment. Right now, you have the token that can return a better investment than the company itself with its profits. People just need to learn how to use the token. It's a whole new paradigm and eventually someone will figure this out. And how to invest within the Bitcoin ecosystem. I hope so. Moving on to the exit question. What kind of wallet is on your phone? I mean, I still have error. Right now on my phone, air bits and my ceilium, but I've been using my air bits a little bit more lately. But for really no reason at all, I'm a little nervous with this move. I'm nervous for the owners of my ceilium. I don't know what their new wallet is going to look like. I don't know what kind of regulatory and government pressure they might have because of this. So but those have been the wallets on my phone. And I'm of course a big fan of air bits. I like that drop down thing that tells me the has a QR code and everything. Also to address what you said earlier about bread wallet. I've met a few of the bread wallet guys. They're good crew. Bread's more of a lighter wallet though. Bread is one of those wallets where a new user might like it because there's no user name and password, but they might not like it if they lose their Bitcoin because there's no username and password. What is that? What is it? My ceilium have switched. I still have like old devices with the original version of my ceilium where you are private key was you saving a QR code. Then when they went HD, they switched the private key to be 12 character words which to me is less appealing as a backup private key. The 12 character word versus saving an encrypted private key where you know a password to it. What is the I guess what is the private key structure and the backup structure for bread wallet? I think it would be around the same if you saved the 12 word string, you can have a backup of the wallet. It's just meant to be a lighter wallet where you can just maybe put five bucks in there and dump it out and do something else. It's not really. Whereas other wallets like blockchain.info or airbits have an account structure where if you could remember your name and password, you can always come back to it. That's the main kind of difference right now. Again, I like my my ceilium, I like my airbits, I'm not a big fan of change. If bread wallet, I like them both. The reason why I like both airbits on my ceilium is because they are different. But if bread wallet is very similar to my ceilium, until my ceilium fails me, I don't really have a reason to go to a third. I will be supporting lockstack again because I know the people and I want to support people that I like and trust in the industry. So I will be diversifying into that wallet as well, even though I have not used it today, but I will. So those are my top two and a half, I guess. Very cool. And moving on to issue two. Issue two, Japan considers making Bitcoin a legal currency. Bitcoin, Litecoin and even Dogecoin could soon be recognized as currencies in Japan. However, recognition comes with the price. As these currencies would then be more tightly regulated and taxes, but it could lead to a massive cryptocurrency investment in Japan. Tonveys are we about to experience a Bitcoin tsunami. I don't think so. Again, I don't think this is that big of a deal. I don't think most people care whether the government approves Bitcoin as a currency or not. Again, like the article states, it's good and bad. The good thing is that it's recognized. It would be, you don't have to worry about any illegality of using Bitcoin. I still argue with people. People in this country, everyone believes that you're innocent until proven guilty. I believe that has changed a little while ago. I also believe that laws, you're breaking the law unless the law says that you can do something. Most people believe that if there's no law saying you can, then you can. I don't think it's that way anymore. I mean, it might have been this way 20 years ago, 30 years ago, maybe even 10 years ago. I don't feel that way. I personally get nervous. I don't like walking next to a cop. I don't like walking up to a cop. I just feel like if I move the wrong way, I'm going to get myself in trouble. I don't know how to feel like in the West, you're innocent until proven guilty. I think in the West, the mentality is changing to guilty until proven innocent. That's why the cops just go for their guns so quickly these days. I think that the culture is changing. To me, I still today never, ever use Bitcoin that can be connected to my name and address. Again, I'm the outlier. Maybe it's because I'm more cautious than I need to be. If Japan declares Bitcoin to be another currency, then you can at least use it freely without worrying that by using Bitcoin, you're guilty by association of using Bitcoin. Which may or may not be true in the US. I don't know. I'm playing it cautious. I'm assuming that they're going to frown upon. But they're going to fully expect all tax revenue. If you are using Bitcoin, you are fully tax liable for any kind of purchases. It's good and bad. Japan is really weird about currency, other than completely messing up. If you look at the history of Japan, again, I have a couple of things. Japan had no currency for something like 500 years. They kept diluting their currency until the people just stopped using their currency. This is like a thousand years ago or something. Japan had 500 years of no currency at all of their own. People were using Chinese currency or rice as currency. So Chinese have a really weird history with currency. Also Japan had to do something because of the whole Maongang-Gok-stobacco. They needed to call Bitcoin something. I like the fact that Bitcoin is currency because traditionally currency, you don't have capital gains on currency unless you specifically use that currency as an investment. If you trade in currency in a trading account, then you pay capital gains. If you put currency for use, you don't have to worry about capital gains. In a way, that's very good for Bitcoin because you can just put Bitcoin in a wallet and use it every now and then and then you don't have to worry about capital gains. But again, the laws on whatever they make it, they can say you don't have capital gains. It lets us forward 10% of your Bitcoin appreciation. So who knows what's coming next. I don't think it's relevant until we see actual court cases of people going to court over what Bitcoin is in that specific instance. Bitcoin is a new asset class. It's going to rewrite so many laws. There's no point that we can speculate. Oh, I think fall freed up. I see him sitting here following the law. I'm sure. I'll let me switch over to fall. Paul Puy. I'm going to be chatting about what we're talking about. Japan, calling Bitcoin currency. I'm talking here, some type of regulatory body claiming to categorize Bitcoin. I laugh a little bit because I find it funny that we're categorizing anything as anything. It's all in the end, everything is money. We give something value that can be traded. One of my brother-in-law is one of these what we call sneaker heads. That trade sneakers, buy and low sell them high. And now we're then going to call shoes money and regulate them as a security. You can't donate, you can't sell to somebody unless you register them. So I understand where we came from. We came from a world where there were actions that we deemed unfit for mankind. Therefore, we wanted to regulate those things. We had to pluck it value into these different categories. And that was ideal to protect us because we were dumb people and we were lazy people. So we looked to other people to help us out. So in the end, I think it's silly, but I'll agree with tone that all the classifications that we could give to Bitcoin. Generally speaking, at least my understanding of the US, I don't know what it's like as you can, but my understanding as a currency that ends up being the most flexible for us to use the currency with, is that we can just buy and use the currency for commerce without dealing with a lot of the burdensome tax regulations. And only if you're kind of trading it, then you have to deal with it. So I like that classification. Overall, I don't think it's going to be too meaningful. I don't think it's going to cause this big spike in Bitcoin value. It gives people a little bit more. It's that extra nudge, that extra nudge that Bitcoin can use in it. We just need a whole bunch of those little extra nudge. But overall, it's not a huge piece of news. Well, let me just add something real quickly because Paul just said something that struck my memory because we were talking about tokenization and our previous topic. And I just think about other tokenizations that existed before cryptocurrencies. And the one that really comes into my head is like airline miles, right? But airline miles belong to you. You can't then trade. You can buy a ticket for another person with your miles. But that's because it's regulated and the other person's name is on the flight manifest. And they know you bought the ticket for him. But there's no open market to trade these airline points. And go back to my Celia for a second. Those special, whatever, SARS, they can be traded anonymously in the open market. And what I think is going to happen is I think Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies are going to lead a little cost major havoc in traditional reward point systems, the airline miles, even the world of warcraft, whatever the gold or whatever the hell they do in there because I'm not a gamer. I think so many loyalty points are now going to be questioned. Are they really a security? Because we have Bitcoin that can move like a traditional equity while being distributed as a traditional loyalty point. I think there's just all of this is so murky. I personally do not have the stones to be part of a company or a co-founder of a company that would decide to tokenize unless they go to traditional means to issue shares or private. Now, for this story, I like the optics of it. I like the idea of an entire country recognizing Bitcoin as a currency. I like the idea of starting a domino effect of other countries recognizing Bitcoin as a currency. I do agree with Tony. I think Japan is the perfect place for this to happen because of the Mt. Gox disaster. Japan and their regulators might not have known about Bitcoin as Losky, favorite famously, said he was in the room with the Japanese regulators on a different affair. He said, we'd be glad to help you with Mt. Gox. They said, what is Mt. Gox? This was a big turning point for Losky that he became the protector cop of Bitcoin at that point because people hadn't heard of it and millions of dollars were stolen or lost or whatever happened with Mt. Gox. I think while the Japan thing comes with the regulation, which many are going to see as negative, the taxation, etc, it's going to come with the acceptance, the permanence, much like the steam story of last week, the inevitable march of Bitcoin acceptance. Everyone online takes it, every country adopts it and approves it. This is part of our march forward. What do you guys think? No, I agree. It's once again the march forward. It's not going to be the we won this major battle. It's another few steps forward, few steps forward. I think, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this isn't the first example of a country recognizing Bitcoin as a currency. I believe Germany had passed that a year or a year and a half ago with that level of recognition. There's been some hands-off laws where they're like in Europe, we're going to treat it as this thing and we're not going to tax it in England. I don't know that they've really recognized 100%. The Japan one seems pretty special. I thought Germany had actually claimed it as being recognized as a currency of all the different classifications, a similar way that different organizations in the US have classified it as a security and then as of this and that has at least got a classification. If I remember, I think in the US we have not classified it. No department has classified it as a currency. However, in I believe it was Germany, there was a classification, so someone can come out and say, well, I have to look it up, see what the comments say. I do agree the US, the IRS said that it was a property and the commodities group said that it was a commodity. So there is some confusion there, but I think you just have to pay taxes to whoever wants the taxes. Yeah, everyone can go on tax it under their own organization and because it's so incredibly flexible and can do so many things effectively, the coin is kind of a little bit of everything. Force prediction, exit question. Japan will recognize Bitcoin, yes or no, tone phase. Yeah, I think they will. Paul Puy. Recognize Bitcoin, I'm not sure what that means. I think yes is that they already do. The answer is yes. Japan will be the first company country. I would say that to recognize Bitcoin officially as a currency. Might help them. Now they could help. And now the plug shop at purse.io, spend bitcoins, like coins or Ethereum, save 15% off Amazon, sell anything on purse merchants, get your mother something nice from Mother's Day and save a few bucks for spending bitcoins. Spend bitcoins, save money at purse.io. $23, lost $136,000 in Bitcoin. This mining pool is looking for you. Bitcoin mining pool, BitClub got quite a surprise this week as someone mistakenly sent 291 Bitcoins as the fee for a $5 transaction. It's unknown at this time whether the user reversed the two fields or if it was a software error, but BitClub is doing the right thing, offering to return the funds or donate them to the Bitcoin foundation. Paul Puy, have you ever typed in the wrong amount of Bitcoin ever this much? I've typed in the wrong amount of Bitcoin, but I've never typed in the wrong amount of a mining fee because we get a lot of people asking us to enable the ability for people to adjust their own mining fee manually. And I do think that's a bit of a dangerous capability to give users number one because it's really hard to determine how much of a mining fee to send. Sometimes you really do have to send a large amount. And when I say large, I don't mean $136,000 worth of Bitcoin. But maybe $4 or $8 even. This is the kind of thing that's complicated to calculate. I leave it to the software and we built software that makes it invisible to the user. Now with respect to how this happened, I don't know what software was used to send this much of a mining fee. We have kind of upper level caps, hard-coded limits to the maximum mining fee that we'd send in Airbus. So only $100,000 worth of airbits, not $136. It's in a mining fee that that's large inside of Airbus. There is definitely a possibility. I think with a Bitcoin core, probably let's you do this. It's a very flexible all. That's a possibility. But I'd like to know, and I think this is an important thing, is really what happens to the money. There's a piece of how the hell did it happen? So what can I avoid? And then there's the other thing of what actually ends up happening with the money. And I'm excited to see what happens. I've interacted with some of the folks over at BitClub. They seem like folks that mean well, although they've built an infrastructure that many people would see as kind of less than ideal for most of the people that enter their organization. So let's see what they do. They seem to have announced that they will return the funds if someone goes improving claims that they actually own the private keys for that transaction. So that I think is going to be kind of the biggest piece of the story. And I haven't followed it for the past few days. So I'm curious as to why that money had been returned or someone at least had proven that they own that transaction. So we shall see. It does seem unlikely that the money will be returned because it seems unlikely that anyone will claim it. Moving such a large amount of money around may connote some illegal activity or perhaps some ill-gained Bitcoins. We don't know. We are very fortunate that it was BitClub that mined the transaction. If it was say a random Chinese miner that we've never heard of, I think the logical thing to do would be to run off with the money. It would sound like they've offered to donate the money if it's not claimed. I think that's the best outcome for anyone. I think it could be much worse in the future. The tone veys. What do you think? No, I agree with that. And I mean, I think this is like the best promotion BitClub could have possibly had. I mean, it's free. It's probably the best thing. I look, I've been critical of BitClub. I don't want to turn this into, you know, whether BitClub or investing in BitClub is a good idea. People need to do their own due diligence. We can have it as a topic for another day. Now, the fact that they've offered to give it back to someone who can prove it, and like you said, Thomas, it's looking unlikely that anyone would admit to it. It would, like if that person lived in like a tax-free economic zone, like if they lived in Chenzhen, in China, or if they lived in the US probably in Puerto Rico, right? Because you don't have to pay any taxes on that. So if you lived in some kind of zone where the government can't get you, you would go and claim. And you may not even have to say what it was for. But if you, again, if you show up and you claim it, they can trace the history of the wallet. Now, they did say that the money came from a mixing service. So they may or may not be able to reverse engineer where was this money prior, where was this Bitcoin prior to the mixing service. So if that person happened to live in a, I guess, in the right jurisdiction and they didn't do anything too illegal with it prior to going to a mixing service, they may show up and claim it. But since they haven't yet, it's looking very, very unlikely. So BitCop is trying to do good things with the money. It's very good PR. Honestly, I think they're going to need that money so badly with what they're actually with the operation that they have. I would not, I guess, move down a problem if they kept this money to run their own operation. Honestly, if that was me running it, that's probably what I would do. Maybe I would use some of it to fund Bitcoin core and maybe, you know, convince my ceilium, you don't need to do their tokenization. Maybe I'll give it to them to stop them from doing the tokenization. But I think it's good what they're trying to do with it. I think it's an amazing promotion for them. I think it's crazy that somebody would make that mistake and if you make it that mistake, you deserve to lose that kind of money. I'm sorry to be so blunt. This is really, I mean, it's good that people are nice. But there's also a way for this not to happen. There are maybe wallets can have some kind of, you know, extra notification. Like do you realize you're sending $180 the mining fee? I don't know what the, what the cut-off will be, but I guess this is awarding to a wallets to help protect their users. There's nothing, you know, so let people put an awarding like for my credit card, I have a set amount. Like notify me if there are more than $500 transaction on my credit card. Same thing with my bank. I have a business account for a business. Notify me if my partner or anyone sends out like a $500 payment somewhere out of the bank account. I get notified. I get a text message from my bank. So these kind of things I guess could be added to the wallets. I'm a wallet guy right here. So I think a lot of good to come from that, they're talking comments and more. I mean, there's a lot of human elements that I think come from the wallets in exchange as can add that are not just technicalities, but actually they factor in how we behave as humans and the kind of mistakes we normally do. And so, you know, we have in our app hard limits to how much of a mining fee could get applied for in case of any of these, like a bug or a server mistake or the network claims that there's a higher mining fee that's required. So hard limits that help prevent kind of these egregious type of errors. And then in addition, like I think I like what Tony said, from the ability to spend things like a limit that's on my credit card, you know, I guess it's an opportunity for people to put a daily limit to how much they can spend. And if they try to spend more than that, then it effectively requires a full password versus a pin or just swiping the concurrent. Right. So things like that, I think are a good human element and giving people the opportunity to limit mistakes. So those are great options that I think are going to come forward in a lot of these or in tools, you know, basically a second, almost like a second factor before you go above a certain threshold that you need to be kind of high value. And I think we're going to get to see definitely more and more of that. I think it's an interesting story because it shows kind of the problems with Bitcoin, where if you put 10 Bitcoin instead of one Bitcoin, if you make a mistake on the decimal places, you could send too much money. But it also shows the strengths of Bitcoin that whoever sent this money accidentally can't cancel it. They can't get it back. They can't reverse the system. Once it's sent, it's sent. As far as a settlement platform or way of moving funds, Bitcoin again shows its strength and its value that it is one way. It is for adults. If you do make a mistake, you just, everyone needs to send test transactions, send 10 bucks first. Everyone needs to look at that box before they push send. There's a human element to this. But then for all we know, this was done on the command line. This could have been done with the core wallet. We don't know. Some people have speculated that the person intended to tip the mining pool $5 as a generous fee and ended up accidentally tipping all of their money to the mining pool and setting $5 to their intended target. So it is a very interesting story for Bitcoin. It's just a little background on BitClub. BitClub has kind of a multi-level marketing approach to Bitcoin. So if you join BitClub, you buy mining contracts, which are cloud mining, and then you have people under you like Mary K. Cosmetics or whatever. If they make sales, you get a little part of their sales. A lot of people have been critical of the MLM structure. There's also the question of whether or not they can keep up with mining technology. They do have a deal with BitFury right now. I think that's very good for them in the short term. But in the long term, if someone else develops a better mining chip and they can't buy them or if they don't raise enough money from new people to cover the new miners, there's a lot of complicated math in there. They've been accused of being a pyramid scheme. I believe this is mainly due to the MLM section of their product, but the jury is really still out. But that's just a little background on BitClub. It could go either way. I don't want to judge people either way. I know. What you said was pretty perfect. Those are the major criticisms. Again, we can save that as a topic for now. I think it's a good topic. Next time, BitClub is in the news. We can talk about it. It's also a pretty good interview on the crypto show where Roger Vare debated Jamie Weeks of BitClub over what they're doing. Again, they're trying to run a legit operation. I'm just not sure what they're doing is sustainable in the long term. Those are the general criticisms. Let's save that as a key. Make a note as a topic for now. Generally, we root for their idea. The idea of a bunch of people investing in mining, not losing their shirts of mining being democratized or spread out to individuals and having everyone invest in mine, it sounds like a good idea. On paper, I think that we agree and have similar goals. But as it turns out, we don't know. We'll just all have to wait and see. An investment is always a risk in a way you're gambling and everyone needs to make their own decision and do their own homework. Exit question. Typo's in amounts. The user's problem or BitCoin's problem. Paul Pooey. It's a little bit of both. I think we need to present a user experience that makes it fairly clear. Also, human element that can take what we think we can learn from human behavior as to what are realistic amounts. At the same time, there's no way you can prevent a complete idiot. The nice thing I like about BitCoin is it actually takes Darwinism to another level. If you're going to be the idiot that really, really can't handle typing in amounts, then you'll lose your shirt. Hopefully, that'll help you not be able to procreate and create more those ideas. Thank you, Council. It's been like this for a long time. If you type in the wrong amount, it sends the wrong amount of money. This is pretty common. I kind of accept that you can kind of cry home to mom or cry home to banker and kind to get the money back. I think banks and custodial ownership have actually created demo people because we've protected the people that can't handle protecting themselves. We've proliferated that gene pool and therefore created an economy and a people that have relied on that. We've relied on getting our ass backed up by this father figure of banking and government and regulations. I agree with Paul and I'll take it one more level up. I think the FDIC insurance is bad. Everyone thinks that their money is secure up to 100,000 and then they raised it to 250,000 during the crisis. It kind of made every bank equal. Oh, it doesn't matter where I put my money, I'd save up to 100,000 dollars. They don't realize that only 2% of that money is actually available to be paid out. What that means is that 2% of Americans want to withdraw their money or every American want to withdraw 2% of their money, that's it. The system is done and there is no backup. I think the fact that you have something like FDIC insurance prevented people from going out and doing any kind of research of what banks are actually safe. What are these banks doing with the money? How are they lending it? What are they doing with it? It kind of made every bank equal and I don't like that. I do think that this property is good and with every mistake like this, the wallet providers will try to put in some fail safes to kind of prevent people from making these mistakes. But ultimately, it's up to the user and I think the user you see more responsible. And judging the banks became even more important after the failure to renew Glass Siegel, removing the wall between investment banks and consumer banks. Now they're intermixed and they're all doing investments. So I agree with that tone. I think it's the user's problem. Users need to become smarter. But this also gives us a great chance to learn. As Paul said, airbits has limits so that this won't happen. I imagine the other wallet software also has limits. Or if they don't, they're adding limits to it right now. This is a learning exercise for everyone and I think we're going to learn from it and do better in the future. While we'll probably see more of these mistakes, I doubt we'll see this exact same style of mistake, hopefully not. Moving on, issue four. Western Union invests in digital currency group and former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers joins the board. Summers is famously not a fan of Bitcoin. While expressing interest in the idea, he claims that Bitcoin needs to shed its libertarian roots and adopt regulation in order to flourish. Market Watch also reports that the digital currency group, like many others, seem to be shying away from Bitcoin and focusing instead on distributed ledger tech technology in the future. Tone Vays, your thoughts on this interesting development? I've met Larry Summers. He was a speaker at one of the events put on by American banker, I believe. I want to get that right, Nate. Let me take that back, he was an American banker. But it was downtown on Wall Street. He was briefly talked about Bitcoin. I don't think he understands it. He doesn't believe in it. I'm personally not a fan of Larry Summers. I don't think he's that great of an economist. I think he's done way more bad than good. He admits he doesn't know how to spot a recession. He admits the government is powerless to stop anything. Yet he's the mastermind that tries to get the government to control everything economically. I find economists like him extremely frustrating. If you admit that the government can't spot or prevent a recession, then why are you doing everything in your power to control the economy, just walk away? At least believe in what you're doing and I don't think he does. I'm not a fan of his economics at all. What's your union? I don't know what they're doing. It looks like I said, I don't think the ledger technology is anything. I think it's a bunch of nonsense. I think it's just another database. And I think there's way more better database developers than whoever they can get from the blockchain world. I think that's all completely silly. All that money should be going to Wallets and maybe some stable exchanges with some backing, maybe help Bitcoin Core develop their liquid product that will help stabilize Bitcoin as it moves from exchange to exchange so they can share liquidity. I know it's a tough project, but if these things help the ecosystem, it has nothing to do with regulation of Bitcoin. Bitcoin will not be regulated by words on paper. It's just not, this is the kind of nonsense that someers is known for in the government. You don't write things on piece of paper and expect some of like Bitcoin to follow it. The best way to regulate Bitcoin is to allow it, is to dump laws. The best way to make Bitcoin irrelevant is to make drugs legal, to make prostitution legal, to make gambling legal, to completely rewrite the tax code so that it's a simple and be there's no reason to hide your money from taxes. Allow pre-transfer of your money, cross-border to any country any time you want. That's how you eliminate Bitcoin. That's what would make Bitcoin useless. These are the kinds of things Bitcoin was meant to do. If someers think that Bitcoin will go to the next level, if it stops doing those things, he's dead wrong. Anyone pitching to investors that they can create a Bitcoin-like product, not to do those things, they're just wasting their time and they're wasting investor money. People just need to live with the fact that Bitcoin does what it does. Yes, Bitcoin can also be used for some really bad things. I think crypto locker is pretty bad. I think if there ever was a provable case of a Bitcoin-sponsored assassination, that would be bad. I don't think that's proven. I'm also a believer that 99.9% of all assassination plots were either government involvement, whether somebody on one side of that transaction as a government agent. To me, most of these things are entrapment. I don't believe there is a big market for that. If Bitcoin is used for those things, that would be bad. I see all these use cases for Bitcoin just because the government doesn't like a voluntary transaction with no victim. The government doesn't like it, so it's illegal. Bitcoin is thriving in that environment and it is what it is. You're not going to change it and trying to change it may actually kill Bitcoin. That's why I don't think it will happen. These investors, Western Union and Larry Summers or whoever else, can invest in these companies only because they want to be cool to invest in latest technology. I don't think they understand what it is. I'm pretty sure Barry Silver understands what it is, but he also needs to make money. He is aligning himself with his blockchain companies to try and give Bitcoin a better image, whatever that means. I think Bitcoin has a great image. It allows you to do whatever you want with the money. I can't think of a better image than that, but I'm the minority opinion in this case. Even within the Bitcoin ecosystem, I'll let Paul, who is more on the non-eneric side, actually runs a Bitcoin company. I'm just the guy talking on a podcast. I think it's a very good point, Tom, that the way to get rid of Bitcoin would be to change the laws, to allow drugs, prostitution, gambling, movement of your money to reduce taxation to a simpler system that is really the only way to get rid of it. That's also what they're incapable of doing. Bitcoin is going to bring about that anyway by allowing it to do us without permission. Paul, go ahead. Actually, it's funny that you see that because I think there is the potential for making the things that are illegal now. We were just talking about this a few days ago, actually, when I was hanging out for a drink, when Mr. Thomas Hunt, and we were talking about how certain we believe that cannabis would become legal in the entire country, starting with California, and should it become legal, there's a strong potential that now suddenly banks will fully allow transactions for cannabis and then accept credit cards and allow these companies to hold dollars in an account. That actually does eliminate one of the key potential uses for Bitcoin, because for cannabis companies. That, even though it's a small slice of the entire global economy, it's an example of, yes, actually making things more illegal is a way to get rid of the digital currency that is not in control of government. They kind of get back to what was even this original topic with Western Union. Larry Summers, Washington Union, that thing in DCG, the digital currency group, and them being excited about it. I always get them, and this will last up holding some cues. I do think that if I were sitting in Western Union and had a basically a stock pile of funds and a company that has been successful for decades, but trying to understand what is the potential of this new technology, it's a drop in the, I'm guessing it is a drop in the bucket that they invested in DCG relative to what the companies work. Why not hedge against a massive shift in the ecosystem, and if your entire business goes to hell, at least you have an investment in the space that's going to disrupt you? It's also an aspect of them being able to understand, but then it's potentially sitting in some of the boardroom meetings and understanding companies. It's kind of like me, and when I, I mean, I wasn't against Bitcoin, but I invested a little bit into Bitcoin early on enough for me to care. And as soon as I did that, I said, I'm going to study. I'm going to watch the podcast, and I'm going to follow the companies, and I'm going to understand how this space works. You know, that first few hundred that I invested, I didn't quite understand. I knew I cared, I knew that this was powerful, but I did not understand. This might be what it takes for Western Union to go, okay, now we're going to care, because that little drop in the bucket, but enough for you to try. And I do think that there is a broader spectrum of usage for Bitcoin than what tone says. It's a currency, and there's your killer app. Having looked at the space and looked at the technology interface with other companies that are building blockchain tech, there's a bunch of blockchain tech that I do think is fairly worthless, and it's in that 90% out of tone would say. But if you craft the idea of the project carefully, keeping the values of decentralization in the blockchain tech project. I think very cool things can happen that use Bitcoin underlying as a currency to pay for what you're trying to do, but leverage the distributed tech in a way that we simply couldn't do today with any of the current database systems. And we're working on some of those projects as well, working with some other companies, and actually, even without the distributed ledger, you throw away the distributed ledger all together. I really like the fact that Bitcoin has motivated people to just understand the power and capacity of cryptography, public private key cryptography, what we can do it, especially when we learn that if we own a private key, there's massive amount of potential for us to enable things like identity and proof of KYC to various institutions. And it can actually improve privacy. And then the project I'm working on even though it's a KYC-related project that actually improves privacy. So I like that we've motivated that. I like that. It's bringing in more resources into this ecosystem to build the same toolkits that we can use for both distributed ledger blockchain as well as decentralized Bitcoin. It's a similar toolkit. And the more resources we get, the more that we can keep people more passionate about this space employed and building things that they care about, and the fascinist ecosystem can grow versus kind of lowering away because no resources go to it. So I've definitely started to migrate into the direction of, sure, let's go ahead and build what makes things more efficient. As long as you keep some of the strong ideals of what made this technology powerful in the first place, and not rip out what makes it powerful. When you rip out the decentralized currency, then yes, you kind of have something that's not all that interesting. But we can do a lot with blockchain tech, as long as we're watching this decentralized. Yeah, let me jump back in here real quick. So I really like what Paul said. I was actually going to mention it, but then he went full explanation mode. Is that you're not really going to take the time to learn something unless you have some kind of skin in the game. So that's what's your union and make sense. Throw some money at it, and now you can dedicate people to it and justify it to your investors, or why your people fully dedicated to try and understand what's going on. And it is kind of competition for you. So it does make sense from that angle. As far as what I've said about the use cases of Bitcoin, look, I'm not against Bitcoin being used for day-to-day things, buying your coffee at a Starbucks, spending them on regular things that we normally use credit card for or debit card for. But Bitcoin doesn't have that much of an advantage in those areas. It has advantages in areas that the government say you can't use money for. Bitcoin has a huge advantage, and that's what I tend to focus on as a prime use case of Bitcoin. For Bitcoin use cases that you have multiple other means of doing without Bitcoin, sometimes one is more advantageous, sometimes another one is, yes, when you use a credit card, your identity is at risk. But as long as you catch somebody else spending any credit card, you're not liable for that. So that is a good thing. Also instant settlement is a terrible thing in 90% of the time, which is why I don't understand why Wall Street, why people think Wall Street used to get rid of their three-day settlement. That is not a bug. Three-day settlement is not a bug. Three-day settlement is a feature. I've been saying this for a long time. Regulation is preventing three-day settlement. It's not technology. They had a technology for 20 years. If your email can get to you 20 years ago, in seconds, there's no reason why anything on Wall Street can't get to another person in seconds. It's not a bug. It takes three days. It's a feature. It's a regulatory feature. They can easily have a technology to do it. That's not the problem. But again, it's the features of Bitcoin that allow it to be used in places where other use cases just didn't exist before. That's what has made Bitcoin thrive until this point. And I don't think we're done. I think Bitcoin will grow based on these features that only Bitcoin has. Another 100 to 1,000 fold before Bitcoin gets wide adoption for things like Amazon and Starbucks and every store accepting it. I think it has a lot more to go in its features. And hopefully, I hope it's going to collapse all these laws. It's going to just wreck havoc on all these laws. The governments have implemented it because they don't like what we do. It has nothing to do with like one person's morals, try to control another person's morals. I think all of these laws are going to be in jeopardy thanks to Bitcoin and I love it. And I do think if Western Union is looking to learn about Bitcoin, they've chosen really well with digital currency group. It's a good team and I think they'll be able to learn a lot. Moving on to the exit question, how long until Western Union stake in digital currency group will be more or more than Western Union itself? Hello up. Yes or no question. Is this Western Union's Yahoo Alibaba investment moment? Paul Puyi. I'll give them probably next five years. I think actually there's some really cool, remittance companies leveraging crypto that could very, very easily disrupt Western Union's model. And there's even one idea that I've been pitching around to a few people of a way to leverage crypto that looks like no company is focusing on. That could solve some of the biggest issues that women's companies have. And it definitely leverages, not distributed ledger. It leverages actual Bitcoin and Bitcoin blockchain to do exactly this. And I'm hoping to enable some company to build it because I'm excited about what its potential is. But I'll give them five, maximum 10, but I think in five years we'll see some really powerful remittance tools that can replace the majority of Western Union's business. And probably no, it's actually Western Union that's going to slurp up some of those ideas and projects and just incorporate them into their business portfolio. And so that could be the reason why they invest. I don't think you answered the question along, right? I heard a lot about the whole lot. No, no, no. How long did they put their investment in this world? Digital in DCG. DCG is worth more than themselves, but we don't know if DCG is going to invest in these companies. I feel like they would. I would guess that this is based on the DCG would invest in the company that I could invest in. It has been one of DCG's main focus in Bitcoin companies are the ones that enable written in. So they definitely invested in quite a few companies that are remote developing country exchanges because they are kind of the endpoint of a lot of remittance tools. So I'm going to guess that they are going to invest in a lot of remittance plays. They have and they continue to. I'll take the other side of that. I think what's in union would have been better off taking that money and actually looking into the remittance plus Bitcoin companies because what's in union might actually make that concept efficient. So I think what's in union would have been better off to focus on the specific element of moving value across borders via Bitcoin than investing in a fund that's going to fund the things that have absolutely nothing to do with this kind of element of Bitcoin and something like distributed ledgers for internal systems. So I think what's in union would have been better off focusing specifically on the sector of value transfer across borders and security stuff which is what Wall Street is very high on. So actually don't think their investment is going to be all that big eventually. I think there's still a chance for Western Union here. I've said before I like the RoboCoin idea of a kiosk in one country and a kiosk in another country. Western Union could replace all of their tellers with automatic machines. The automatic machines you put cash in it converts it to Bitcoin, sends it to another country, converts it back into pesos or whatever local currency you're using and then your friend or your family member can go to that machine withdraw the money. I think that kind of system with Bitcoin as a backbone, eliminating all the tellers, all of the potential wire transfer fees, any of the time that it takes to send these systems, the perhaps the lack of accountability or the ability to edit these systems will all be gone and Western Union could focus on Bitcoin and the blockchain. I'm not sure that they will but. Let me just jump back in there real quick. So again, this is a huge potential if if Western Union does go into that and Western Union is a huge company, I think it's like over a hundred years old, they have some lobbying power. They can then stand up to Congress and say, look, we need to compete. We need to eliminate all KYC and AML for small amounts like 200, 300, maybe 500 dollars. All of the KYC, all of the regulatory environment for amounts under 500 bucks need to be completely eliminated and then Western Union can install these automatic key offs using Bitcoin as the transfer mechanism and completely put all of these companies, they're a Bitcoin remittance completely make them useless and utilize Bitcoin. But again, it requires someone with the power as much as I don't like the government, this is what needs to be done. If Bitcoin forces the elimination of these kinds of silly KYC AML for transactions under say 500 bucks, that's it. Western Union can just take over the whole space using Bitcoin and everybody's happy. I'm happy because some KYC AML got eliminated. I hate AML KYC. This is really their last chance to save their brick and mortar empire to really do something with it. They have all of these locations and they could put kiosks in all of these locations. This is similar to when Blockbuster was dying and people were thinking about Blockbuster Netflix hybrids, how you could bring your movies back to a local Blockbuster, get a new movie, send that movie out in the mail. Maybe there's other services like downloading files or something that you could have done while you were at Blockbuster, reasons to have these physical locations. This is their big chance and if they lobby like you said they could do it. But if they don't, they'll be replaced by something like ABRA, something like local Bitcoins where the traders themselves are the kiosks, the system is decentralized and it's people based and they'll lose all of this advantage. Right. Also, I've never been to a Western Union kiosk but I can only assume that they have currency conversions there as well. They also serve as a money exchange. I'm only guessing, I don't know if they are or not. But if they do serve as a money exchange, the best place to have a Bitcoin ATM, even it has nothing to do with Western Union, they should be lobby and these Bitcoin ATM companies to stick the coins there because people who rush to them, pay them to exchange money just so they can stick the right currency into the ATM or backward. Someone is leaving a country with Bitcoin, they would love to go there because whatever money they get from that ATM in any country, they can immediately turn around, walk three steps and exchange it for other currency they actually need. So Western Union can make money just by having an ATM within a few feet away from them. That's what happened. Banks, I heard a story that when you put out a Bitcoin ATM next to a regular bank ATM, all of a sudden the bank ATM gets way more business because people show up, take the cash out of the bank ATM and put it right into the Bitcoin ATM right next to it. It's certainly an opportunity for Western Union, they need to move quickly though. Time is running out. And now moving on to predictions or story of the week, tone veys are you ready with a prediction or a story of the week? No, Paul's going to go first. This is the part where I usually think of one or the other person's speech. I didn't even know this was part of it. I only knew the different stories that you guys were going to talk about today. We got to come up with predictions or story of the week. I heard there was going to be a fairly major announcement from one of the bigger Bitcoin blockchain companies in the space. I'm going to think Monday or Tuesday. How does that process come? Can we say that? A company, not out of San Francisco. That already eliminates a lot of companies. I can't say exactly who, but apparently they're going to have a talk at consensus and announce something similar major. I know information, but I don't know what's proprietary and what is them. So I don't know what I can and can't say. Yeah, predictions. No, we're so bad at this. You got the wrong people on this. I don't like calling the future. I can't even help you either because I didn't write anything either. I think we're going to just end the show here pretty soon. So you guys have anything you want to say before we end the show. Anyone that's here in New York for consensus comes say hi. We'll both be there. We're going to wander around. Have any questions about Ravencoyne or AirVets? Complaint us. Yeah, come on. I see us at consensus. There'll be some after party. So we'll be over there. Very social. We'll be talking to as many people as we can. Shout out to Zao Tongue and Tatiana Maraudes who are having a party at consensus. I forget when it is, but everyone should go. Unfortunately, I'm not in New York, so I can't join you. Shout out to Zao Tongue. Great new video out this week. Dream. Bitcoin rules. Everything around me. Oh, we're out of time. Until next time. Bye, bye. Thanks much. See you, Tom, and everyone else.