The Bitcoin Group, the American original. For over the last 10 seconds, the sharpest Satoshi's, the best Bitcoins, the hardest cryptocurrency talk. We'd like to welcome our panelists, Gabriel D. Vaughan from Future Rant. I love you, World Crypto Network Audience member. Kyle Torby from Bitcoin Magazine. Hello, we're having this. I'm Ron Veys from Brave New Coin. Hi, everyone. I'm still recouping from three full days of consensus in New York. Theo Goodman from Hasse Online. Evening, everyone. And I'm Thomas Hunt from the World Crypto Network. Moving on to issue one. Issue one, Satoshi, Satoshi, Satoshi. Craig Wright attempted to prove that he was Satoshi Nakamoto again this week, performing a private magic trick fooling both Gavin and Jason and John Matonis. His public proof however differed from his private and was unconvincing using an already published key. Craig claimed that he would then move old coins until suddenly announcing on his website that he lacked courage and was saying goodbye. Gabriel D. Vaughan is Craig Wright Satoshi Nakamoto? I'm going to say he might be. I've got three theories about it. Most of the things that people have been saying back and forth about calling them out and saying it's confusing and stuff. I think it is confusing and that means that there's a story behind it. So my three theories are number one. He could be a large tax scam, some sort of business dealing where he owes the government a lot of money or he owes some party a lot of money and he's trying to do it. He's trying to pull a scam to pretend to link Satoshi's wealth which is $40 million I think, $400 million to him to say, oh, I've got him good for it. Some weird scheme like that. The second theory is that he genuinely is Satoshi and maybe he felt the attention coming in and he wanted to actually distance himself and make it seem totally unbelievable that he's Satoshi. So he can conquer this completely ridiculous, totally unbelievable claim that he was Satoshi. So basically publicly coming out and saying that maybe the truth in this theory and then completely failing to back it up and making it totally unbelievable so as to remove the spotlight from him. That's another theory. I don't think it's that likely. And then my third theory is the one that seems most likely according to my research lately. It seems possible that maybe Climin, his previous partner, could be the main author of the Bitcoin white paper and protocol and he's got the wallet files from Climin but not the private key. And this was all an attempt to scam my tonus and other large Bitcoin holders in order to fund, quote unquote, possibly fund a brute force project on that wallet to use this quote unquote, super computer array in order to crack one of Satoshi's original wallets or maybe just a scam where he didn't know anybody and just wanted to get money. I have a feeling that may tone has got might have gotten had for a lot more than five pounds. Interesting theories gave. I like the second one the best that he purposely proved himself not to be Satoshi as a cover up. That's a really good theory. Kyle Torpey. Yeah, this all seemed like it could be what happened. But I'd say it seems like he's not at this point. He basically had four people come out and claim that they thought he was Satoshi with a JVP e-n-grig tonus and Gavin. Not really sure what to make of a JVP's or e-n-grig's claims. But I talked to John Matonus on Tuesday, I think it was. And he said he doesn't really want to be at the cycle for these claims basically. So he's he it seems like he still would like to see some more proof as far as like the public's going to be convinced. He knows that either rights can have to do some kind of signing and some sort which doesn't seem it's going to happen at this point. It seems like Gavin's back and off of it now, at least on Twitter and saying he could have gotten van Guzalb and everything. And it's kind of sad that this was saying before he started to show us. Sat it covered up everything that happened at consensus. Basically no one talked about anything like Craig right this week. So really, I mean there is some good and some bad at the consensus. But there are also some good announcements like with heaven with 21 announcing their software and hit pay announcement in their debit cards. So really it's just seems like a distraction at this point. It does seem like John Matonus went further than anyone else on his blog saying that he had feelings that he had met Satoshi. And then getting really excited that he had met Satoshi and really detailing the entire event. It seems like he really got taken in. Yeah, I should add that he, when I was talking to him, he didn't want to go into the details of how he was how Craig right proved himself pretty graphically. It does seem the most logical, you know, they had the clean laptop they brought it in, then they installed a lectrum from an unknown source. It seems the most logical attack vector is a cracked version of a lectrum that verified the keys. We don't know this for sure. We're just speculating here, but it does seem most logical. Tones your thoughts on Satoshi. Yeah, no, it's funny how the news came out the morning of consensus and I was there for three days, plastic amutes to Manhattan to get there. So everything I learned about this story was from people of consensus. I'm pretty sure it dominated everything outside of consensus, but inside the event, honestly, this wasn't, I didn't feel like this dominated the event, which maybe it should have. It's honestly, it's more Bitcoin related than most of the things that went on at consensus. It was a really strange event in that like Bitcoin is like, no, let's hurt of it. Everyone is like, hey, what's your next project on Ethereum or any other blockchain? There's like 50 blockchains that everyone's building on. The number one question these days is, yes, so what blockchain stack are you building your project on? Because the answer will definitely not be Bitcoin. But I spoke to Gavin and Jason, and Gavin was pretty convinced that, quite right, is Satoshi. In fact, Gavin was so convinced that he convinced another person who's been in the Bitcoin space since like 2010 and also had communications directly with Satoshi back and forth in those forums. I don't want to name names on this. Gavin was able to get him to be like 98% convinced. So these guys are starting to change my mind a little bit. I was always a hardcore. There's no way, correct right, is Satoshi. Now I'm leaning closer to 50-50 and honestly, it doesn't matter. I, for me personally, I don't care, but everybody else seems to care. As for what I think, I guess to mimic what Gabriel said, I am leaning also close to his number three. And in that number three scenario, I forgot the guy's name, the guy from... Climate. Climate, thank you. So climate is the more likely Satoshi or they worked on it together. It's very possible, like my conspiracy theory, is that they were both almost equally responsible for it. And because it was two of them, they could never come out public because between the two of them, they had trust and they had some kind of consensus. Now that climate is no longer around, it was up to Craig Wright to make the decision whether he wants to come out or not. And another rumor that I heard was he was kind of being extorted from being Satoshi. And all this evidence was going to come out anyway and his name was going to get leaked. And in order to try and set the record straight, he's now coming out. He could be a scammer. I don't know, it shouldn't really matter. Nobody should take their bitcoins out of their cold storage to loan it to anyone, including a real Satoshi. That's all I can tell you guys. That's my only advice. It really... Focus on the Bitcoin. Focus what Bitcoin is doing now. Satoshi should no longer have that much influence. And I'm afraid you will. The block size debate will only become worse now that if he is revealed to be Craig Wright in my opinion. That reminds me of an old George Carlin joke, something like, he's God, but he always needs money. Exactly. Deal, good man. I think it was really interesting and nodded all by random chance how the media machine and the offensive went down in a very meticulous manner, having it leaked to the BBC and then other mainstream media's. And then suddenly the blogs come in, power it up. That's a certain pattern we've seen in Bitcoin. We saw it with XT. We saw it with Classic. It was very similar how it was released. I don't think that's necessarily related. And maybe there were some other things that came out, but I don't think it was a chance that it came out just so happen at the same time as a big conference. I just don't think that was a random event at all. And if we're going to go to super crazy conspiracy theories, then really what it was is that core somehow contacted Craig Wright to come up with this ridiculous story and to congavin so that core can kick Gavin out. That's the real conspiracy theory here. So if you look on RRBTC, I think that read around and you'll get that theory confirmed. That's a good point. It was definitely timed for the consensus conference. And they've also said that the NDA that Gavin signed was mainly to keep this from the press. They didn't want Gavin to leak it early or to mess up their rollout, which very much sounds like a PR focused individual. It was also rumored on Reddit that Wright had signed with a PR agency. That he's now being represented. And this could be a whole second round of Craig Wright stories. This could not be over. So we'll see. Let me jump back in here real quick, because I want to challenge Theo and one of something he said, what proof did Reddit provide that the core did this to revoke Gavin's commit privileges? I'm really curious. Sorry, I'm sorry. It's just total crazy conspiracy theory made it. I just said just to get your guess to get because there's so many other crazy theories going around. Then why not? If you really want to think about how to everyone, if some people think that it's all about getting someone's commit keys out, which doesn't mean that you're out of the project. It just doesn't mean that we have to take your keys away because you don't trust yourself and you're a possible security threat. It doesn't mean that you're kicked out of anything. It is true that this morning of Vladimir, the project lead posted a detailed blog post saying that core was not going to be given Gavin back his security key. Gavin hasn't been contributing to Bitcoin for over a year, and they were very concerned by Gavin's statements that he promised to give commit access to Satoshi. Then if Gavin believes this guy is Satoshi, by Gavin's promise, he's now going to give commit access to Craig Wright, which very much concern the Bitcoin core team who doesn't know Craig Wright and doesn't believe this story. They have removed Gavin's keys. That's interesting. I just want to mention one more thing about core because clearly these insane rumors are flying around on Reddit. I've been over at a blockchain office as I've talked to them. They have a very strict policy. If they even catch one of somebody, one of the blockchain team members, if they catch them having a spoof account, if they create a fake Reddit account to comment not as themselves, they automatically get kicked out of the organization. They'll get fired. They have a very strict policy and things that are way less conspiratorial than that. Trust me, if you think there's some spoof account pretending to be a real core developer, pretending to be somebody else, no, they're not doing that. It's not worth their jobs. They have very, very strict conduct policy there. It's a privilege to be there. I'm positive they don't abuse it. Why would they? Definitely not. Exit question. Satoshi Nakamoto is Gabriel Devon. Correct. That's me and I decided to leave the space in 2010. Your statement is correct. I agree with it. Kyle Torpie. I have no idea but I used to say it wouldn't matter at all who Satoshi was, but now in this very political environment, I think maybe Satoshi could have some sort of impact if he came back, which is unfortunate. Tom Bees. I don't think we'll ever know. I think this will be a debate for the rest of our lifetimes. I don't think anyone will ever be 100% proven or this proven at this point. Theo Goodman. As we talked about it before, I don't know, I guess like a month ago at the first wave of Craig Wright mess, it doesn't really matter and Satoshi is someone in a yacht somewhere in the ocean chillin. Satoshi Nakamoto is Mad Bittcoins. Mad Bittcoins publish the only cryptographically provable keys on April 1st. All you have to do is check them. That's all you have to do. Moving on to issue two. Issue two. Chain Anchor. KYC. And Transantanopolis took to Twitter this week to warn Bittcoinsers about MIT's Chain Anchor project, saying that the MIT Chain Anchor team want to add KYC into Bitcoin money. This is an existential threat to Bitcoin. Resisted. The Chain Anchor team was busy giving an extensive AMA on Reddit. With some redditors attacking the project directly claiming that a leaked draft of the Chain Anchor paper seemed to be planning a slow takeover of Bitcoin mining by rewarding miners who carry blocks of only permission transactions in an attempt to remove permissionless pseudo-anonymous transaction that carry no KYC from the Bitcoin ecosystem entirely. Kyle Torpy. Will their plan work? So I had a piece published about this earlier in the week, which probably nobody saw because of the correct stuff that was going on. But I talked to David from MIT and I talked to Peter Todd for about a week back and forth and I couldn't really get to any real facts on the situation. I will say that when I was talking to David, when he first responded to the story on Reddit, he kept saying that Chain Anchor had never intention to apply it to Bitcoin. He kept saying that over and over again on Reddit. Then he kept saying that to me during our emails and pointing me to his Reddit comments. Then finally, I pointed out at excerpt from the paper that describes how to apply it to Bitcoin. He finally says, yes, we explored it and thought about it and stuff like that. I don't know why he didn't want to admit that they thought about applying to Bitcoin. They didn't want people to know it for the fariest reasons because they didn't want people to think of such a dumb idea. I was disappointed in David's unwillingness to admit that they attempted to apply it to Bitcoin. It's a very interesting project, especially given Lawrence Summers remarks at consensus where he said, Bitcoin will not survive without bowing to the regulatory systems. Bitcoin will not survive without KYC. Here's a project that comes along right at the right time to add KYC to Bitcoin. Tom Vaze. Tom Vaze. No, I think Kyle nailed it when it's common of how stupid of a project this is. I don't know if it's a Bitcoin or it should be upset. It just can't work. You can't apply KYC to mining. Anyone that thinks that you can apply KYC to mining does not understand why there is mining in the Bitcoin space. They just don't. It's not going to work. It doesn't matter. It's irrelevant. Is it the same team that we talked about last week with the MIT or was it two weeks ago? It's the same team we talked about a few weeks ago, but it's gotten bigger with and dress warning about that. Okay. I thought over there that we're talking about KYC transactions which could be done with wallets. Your wallets can know who you are, which is what worries me because that ties us into the whole Mycelium thing. To me, the two most important companies and all of Bitcoin is Mycelium and Airbits and they have no money. That's horrible. If we have bad wallets, the wallets that will get unlimited funding are wallets that can do KYC. Of course, they will have. I want to say they don't have any users, but that's not true because look at Coinbase. There are KYC wallets. There are plenty of users. They have no one has any control over mining. These guys at MIT think that mining isn't picking up and how in the world are they going to reward them more? Are they going to print Bitcoin over there? It's just all concepts is ridiculous. They are going to realize that they will get more for the anonymous Bitcoins than for the KYC Bitcoins and why in the world would you, so they will actually pay them less. So why in the world would they waste energy for that? It's just a dumb project. I wouldn't even give it much thought. It's stupid. It's never going to take off. The people that come up with these things, they're on the wrong side of this battle of crypto currencies. It is unfortunate that the most privacy seeking and privacy protecting projects don't have money. It reminds me of the quote from the poem where he says, the best lack all conviction while the worst are filled with a passionate intensity. Feel good, man. Yeah, nice quote, Thomas. I think that it's not going to work in Bitcoin. I'm not afraid or I don't think that it will get adapted in some pull request or something like that at all. But I do think that probably it will go a step further with the proof of concept and they will try to test it on some funky outchain or ledger thing, whatever they want to call it now. Just do it and say it works. Yeah, like Thomas saying, money plays a big part of it. I'm sure these guys got some good funding and they're allowed to play around and do funny stuff. It's just an academic exercise and proof of concept and somebody wanted to build it. There are some interesting questions on the Reddit AMA that they did about who funds them. They kind of linked to a generic list of names that are listed on the MIT website but wouldn't answer direct questions. What three-letter organization? Have you been approached by a three-letter organization or just like basically is the government funding you? They didn't answer directly. They just said, look at this web page, MIT Trust. There's a list of funders and some of those were banks and other characters that you could see would want something like this in Bitcoin. I just think it's a proof of concept and some people are getting funded to build it. Maybe it's an anagram like C-Tech technology too many secrets. Gabriel, Viva. Yeah, I think this project is a perfect example of the corruption of academia by involvement of state actors and as well as corporate actors like Theo pointed out with the banks. I do think it is also doomed to complete failure or obscurity if they try to apply it to a side chain or something. Then you'll see that pegs are only as strong as people are actually willing to buy those tainted coins that are completely tracked as opposed to more anonymous, fungible Bitcoin on the main chain. This is basically a fruitless exercise that bureaucrats excel at funding. I will say that I saw a picture of David Shryer and he looks uncannily like Eric Wareheim from Tim and Eric Sosper Show, which is very disconcerting. I will also say that this AMA on Reddit was very entertaining to see this academic fidgeting in the face of all of the supporters of a product whose raison d'etre is censorship resistance. To see his supposed surprise that all these fans of censorship resistance are completely up in arms and grilling him about his paper that is specifically meant to target and break censorship resistance. The fact that they were surprised about that is totally disingenuous and idiotic and it is really fun to see Shryer shining in on the butt coin, the R butt coin thread, which is the parody subreddit that specifically exists to make fun so people can spend their time attacking Bitcoin. They are attacking this thing that they want to go away supposedly. To see Shryer go over there and all the sympathetic comments, it was like all chummy chummy over there, it was like the mirror image of the big coin subreddit AMA that was hilarious. These guys are just crooks and they are just trying to create their surveillance state. So this is Shryer is just an empty tool in that authoritarian goal. No more distributed butts. Exit question, chain anchor will fail, but will we see other programs like it? Yes or no? Kyle Torpey. You could say permission blockchains are pretty much what a chain anchor is trying to achieve unless they are going to apply chain anchor to permission blockchains now. I thought it was interesting when Peter Todd first talked about this story. He said we should treat it as an exercise to see if you attack and actually work on Bitcoin. Like Tom said, I don't think it actually would. So I don't think you're able to be thinking about really mischievous but it's always useful to treat these kind of threats as theoretical exercises for attacks on Bitcoin. Tom Vays. Oh yeah, no, we're going to see even more of these things. They're going to be popping out of the woodworks. The first one was what a lipstick and I got on their case because they pivoted. They were originally like a cold storage, save you, well protect your bitcoins kind of company. And then all of a sudden boom, we can find 60% of the users that are using Bitcoin. I think there's plenty of money, plenty of money. Don't have like hundreds of millions of dollars to identify people. Let the privacy ones, well, you do have to resort to token sales. What more can I say? It's almost like there's something wrong with this world. But that's a topic for another day. Theo Goodman. Yes, we'll see other projects like this. Follow the money. Gabriel, divine. Yeah, we're going to see socio-political attacks. We've already seen with the block size debates and obvious sabotage attempts. We're going to see academic attacks like this one where people release white papers to try to influence the technological side. Then we'll see direct technical attacks continuing. Those things like having my current go in and causing a hard for it by accident. Then we're going to see economic attacks where people will try to affect the market price for example, causing great volatility when otherwise there might not be manipulation of markets. We're going to see legal attacks where many countries are already declaring Bitcoin illegal and things like that. Once those fail and the use can't be stopped, we're going to see terrorist attacks. We're going to see extra legal tracking down of users and attempts to destroy mining farms. Then lastly, we're not going to see a whole lot of equal competition on the markets. That's an attack vector that I don't think we're going to see a whole lot of. If we do, that's great for us because that means that something is even better than Bitcoin. So much fighting and so many attacks. I thought we were here to bring peace. Moving on. Talk with Bitcoin on purse.io and save 15% off Amazon. I just got a new portable battery charger for my iPhone and HD switcher for my TV and a box full of granola bars all for 15% off and I paid in Bitcoin. Try it today at purse.io. Issue 3. Delaware to seek legal classification for blockchain shares. Delaware estate famous for both its diminutive size and for being the home of America's corporations is now seeking to be a home for America's blockchains. The state struck out on its own this week announcing a partnership with smart contract startup Symbiant and New York law firm Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw and Pittman. The state plans to launch a new kind of corporate share called Distributed Ledger Shares. The shares would likely be hosted on Delaware's own Delaware chain. Is Delaware on to something here? Is this a good idea? It's another database. There's no innovation here. This is why I try to explain to these people. They were at consensus. They had the big announcement. They had their own panel and I just want to sit there and go and you can't call Oracle. Are too many in Delaware using Excel spreadsheets right now? It's a database. It's not a blockchain. There is nothing blockchain about it. It's not decentralized. It's not secured by work. I like what the IBM guy said at the event. He was like, hey, throw the word blockchain on it and you get funding. I don't know if he realized what he was saying but this is exactly what it is. There will be a lot of companies. They have their corporation in Delaware. Mostly for tax reasons but it's not that private. If you're going to have a private at all see you're not going to do it in Delaware. You're going to do it in Nevada or Wyoming and there's other states. That's where you would do your private at all see. Everyone goes to Delaware for their corporate stuff because that's where the tax advantages are. All this we'll do is I don't know maybe let them fire some middleman data entry people and are they going to do it on the Bitcoin blockchain? Are they going to build their own? It's just quote for what it is. We want to restructure our database and we want to make things faster and that's it. You don't need it anyway. I'll leave it there. You guys go on. There will be more of these things and it's they're getting closer to mild stupid. If anyone saw my tweet from this week that went around like a hundred times. Theo, good. Yeah, I'm going to agree. I'm not really sure what the benefit is and maybe if they fire some data entry people then I guess it's cheaper to register my company. I don't think so. They're probably just pocket that little extra five books they saved. I don't really get it. It's so interesting and if you did do it on the Bitcoin blockchain, okay, well in Delaware you said they're not private. It's not really private anyway but it would be even less private because everyone could figure out when the shares are getting moved around and everything. I don't really see how it's an advantage except that it sounds really cool and maybe they get cool advertising out of it and whoever got Delaware to pay them a bunch of money, good for you. I'm still not sure what they're going to be using it or I have no idea. They still haven't I don't think they said that. I don't think they know. Maybe they don't know. It's just a cool thing. It's just a cool thing. It's a cool thing. It sounds like instead of having a probably illegal token crowd sale, you could have a probably legal Delaware coin crowd sale. That's all I'm seeing. So let me just jump in real quick. It could be like what I just recently heard fact that it's been doing. So basically, Symbi might have come to them and say, hey, we will pay you some money and let us like, let us put you on our blockchain and now Symbi is going to go around telling everybody that Delaware is their client. So I don't know. It could be one of these. Who knows. I have no idea what they're going to be using it for. I would love to know. I hope they call it. Tell me. Gabriel, Devon. So my first question, I mean, that was also my question like, what is this? I don't understand the content of this article, Mr. Stan Higgins. What the hell is a distributed ledger share and what will it be used for? And don't say autonomous record keeping because that just makes it more vague. So that's, that's, I agree. I don't really know what they're using for. That's cool. And I'm going to go and find some use for it. Definitely, you know, once you've got a hammer in your hand, it's easy to find nails. So the second question that I have is, what, how will this be distributed? They're saying distributed ledger shares, but they're talking about the Delaware government functions. So is this going to be distributed, you know, between the screen door factory and Wilmington? And I mean, what, how many different servers are going to be mirroring this supposed blockchain? Why do you need to distribute something that's in principle a centralized endeavor, which is government regulated corporations? I don't understand. And I also doubt that it actually will be distributed in any way. As Tone pointed out, they're just upgrading their database with a little bit of cryptographic proof for movement of some sort of data. And thirdly, I'd just like to point out that by creating a new system, you totally might save a few bucks for transactions, the one pointed out. But you're also creating another centralized attack vector. It's going to be really fun to see the mature phase of the private blockchain trend culminating in massive hacks and huge losses of data and probably money as well. That's going to be a really fun phase in about two and a half years. So we'll revisit the topic, start at 2019. It sounds like they're just using the word distributed to say, we're not going to have backups. It's going to be distributed. So blockchain is database and distributed is backups. So network engineers, they're coming for all your jobs too. Kyle Torpey. Yeah, I agree with pretty much everything everyone else said. I had to add, when I first got excited about Bitcoin, it wasn't about banks and financial institutions having more effective back-ends on their systems. So this kind of stuff doesn't really, I don't really find it pretty boring and just not really that interested in it. I will say if they offer more regulatory clarity in Delaware, that could be a good thing for either Bitcoin or blockchain startups there. I know Jerry Britton recently gave us each at the Kato Institute where he talked about the US has fallen behind in attracting startups because of the unclear regulations in the US. So if they do some improvements there, that could be helpful. But otherwise I'm not really interested in what they're doing. Moving on to issue four. Well, we have an exit question. We're actually running out of time. So we're going to move on to issue four. We're going to go into the lightning round. Issue four, 7-Eleven, the day Bitcoin prices will rocket or the start of a crash. Bitcoiners all over the world are starting to get excited for the happening to the return. The happening is a unique event that ensures Bitcoin will have a deflationary currency by reducing the block reward in half approximately every four years. The last happening was in 2012 when we saw the block reward decreased from 50 to 25. This time we'll go to 25 to 12 and a half. Imagine that 50% of the world's gold mines suddenly shut down. Bitcoin production will decrease dramatically in a single day. Theo Goodman, I ask you. What will happen to the value of Bitcoin? I think it will go up. Probably go up. There should be less selling pressure because there's less produced every day. That makes sense that the price should go up. Now, it might go like we know Bitcoin does go up and down very crazily. In general, I think the happening will make it go up. Gabriel, do you want? I think that miners are planning for the happening. That's one of the great things about Bitcoin. It's got a completely public and known inflation schedule. I think that we're going to see miners preparing for it. They're going to be holding onto their coins a little bit now. That's going to soften the impact of the sudden happening in July. I think we're going to actually, I think we're already, as of a few weeks ago, seeing the impact of the upcoming happening. I think we're going to see that up for pressure on the price over the next year or more. I think year and a half we're going to see it spread out in a very bullish phase for Bitcoin as Theo pointed out. Ballot all drops in between. Kyle Torpady. I don't think it's going to affect the price really at all. I think it's already priced in for speculators and miners. I remember Gavin's recent AMA at Chinese community website. He was talking to them about that potential crisis that could happen. The having happened and then there was blocks are slowing down because miners are turning their equipment off and then whatever that crisis, that theoretical crisis that classic spoilers have been trying to grow out there. You were saying that pretty much all the miners are prepared for having and they're not going to turn off their equipment when having happened. I don't expect much to have it around this event really at all. Tom Bees. Well, I think some miners will turn off their equipment because they will no longer be competitive. The big miners obviously won't. I'm going to the second game on this one as well. I've been saying it for over six months. When I started seeing the difficulty go up about six months ago, I said, okay, here's what I think is happening here. Miners are using all the leverage they can to put as much equipment online as possible now to get every last block of 25 Bitcoins. At the same time, I think that miners have been a little stingier with selling those coins on the market, which could be helping the price go up right now. Also a lot of crazies in the trading world. They will also think that Bitcoin is going to go to the moon after the happening and they will bid the price up, going into the having just by trading. Then what I think will happen after the having is the big miners that have been hoarding some of the extra Bitcoin because they know the rewards will cut in half. They're going to sell right into that bubble. They're going to sell into the bubble going into the having. After the having, I expect the prices to fall. Then six to 12 months later, the effects of the lower supply of Bitcoins will start to have a major effect. Bitcoins should go up two to three X over the following year. That's what I'm looking at. A bubble into the having, a miner crash, and then we go off like six months after that. Theo, good. I think we started with Theo in this one. Yeah. We did. Okay. Well, we're running low on time. So we're going to skip the exit question again. We're going to move on to predictions or a story of the week. So Gabriel, Devon, are you ready with a prediction or a story of the week? Yes. My story of the week is Bitcoin is still cool no matter who Satoshi is. Kyle Torpey. I have a story coming out early next week about Bitcoin core revoking Devon's commit access. For now, I'll just say that doesn't really matter if he has commit access or now it's not really an issue at all. It's not necessarily a janitorial role. So I don't think it'd be a senior matter, but I guess look forward to that piece on Monday. Where can we find that piece, Kyle? It should be up on Bitcoin magazine. All right. Thank you. Tone, Vaze. So my prediction is you're going to hear a lot more talk of the word blockchain simply being used for raising capital. I think people are going to start to be way more skeptical and they're going to actually that word will start to get broken down. You can no longer just say, well, it's a blockchain. I don't know what a blockchain is. I think that word is about to fall under a lot more scrutiny. Theo, good. Getting a black screen looks like Theo's disappeared. Anyone else seeing this? All right. Looks like we've lost Theo. Goodman Theo? No? All right. Looks like he's had a connection issue. We're going to move on to a prediction. Prediction. Bankers and their permissioned blockchains and distributed ledger tech will not defeat Bitcoin in the one true blockchain. Attempts will be made and continue to be made to dethrone Bitcoin as the strongest ledger and most likely store value for the future. But they will fail. Bitcoin is the strongest and it exists in public where all can audit or attack. Private blockchains will never have this strength and will always be a runner up to the defending heavyweight champion of the world. Bitcoin. Up, we're out of time. Until next time. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye.