The Bitcoin Group, the American original. For over the last 10 seconds, the sharpest satosix, the best Bitcoin, the hardest cryptocurrency talk. We'd like to welcome our panelists, tone veys from Brave New Corn. Hey everyone, Thomas here from early morning in Thailand. We're moving around Asia here, but I'd like to be on the show. Hopefully other people join. We'll see. I don't mind. I have a lot of people on public policy right now that are just me, but hey, that's not my fault. You got to convince others that you like seeing on the show to get on more often. And I'm Thomas Hunt from the World Crypto Network. It's the Talman tone show today, unless someone else joins. Moving on to issue one. Issue one. Dow hacked again. The Dow was hacked again this week, but this time by White Hat hackers with a plan that was not too similar from the original Dow hackers. The White Hat's created their own child Dow and split the funds again. Unfortunately, the hacker joined the new Dow as well. tone veys. Will this cat mouse game ever end? Will the Dow token holders ever receive their funds back? Probably not. Look, again, I want to take people back to episode 95 where I specifically said that anyone that puts Ethereum with the Dow will learn a lesson in how you lose your Ethereum. I don't think anyone is getting anything back. I mean, they might get a little bit. Maybe you get your $20% of your Ethereum back. Maybe. Again, it's hard to say where to begin. The whole idea that they can do that is back, right? This opens it up to gaking loopholes. I also want to explain something. This vulnerability that is found in the Dow, this is a vulnerability with Ethereum. It's not a vulnerability with the Dow. I know the comments are about to fly in saying that this is an outlier being the Dow. No. This is a problem with turning complete decentralized smart contracts. If we had smart contracts that were centralized, I would be fine with it. If we have decentralized smart contracts, I would say that it's down in 90 to 95% of the contracts that will be written there. I explained in the last episode when I was debating the professor that decentralizing smart contracts is stupid because they're not being censored. You only be centralized with smart contracts if the content of your smart contracts have the ability to be censored by governments or by corporations or by whoever. Then stop decentralized, let's say, to complete but centralized. There is also stupid because they don't have these situations where someone can just write a better smart contract because they're self-executing and self-written. Then you run into these recursive loopholes where you can't make a difference. Now combine the two incomplete aspects with the decentralized aspects. You have, you just have a complete chishol. It makes no sense. Maybe the world will be ready for something like this in the future, I don't know, 10 years from now, 20 years from now. When everything is way more automated, everything is way more secure. People are learning is we're just scraping the surface of internet security. We don't really know what internet security is yet. We're all learning internet security. And honestly, internet security was not really needed until Bitcoin. I'm learning as well. I'm learning that internet security has been meaningless until recently Bitcoin. But prior to the last few years, let's say four years, your computer gets hacked, something gets hacked, so what? It's an electric grid of a country gets hacked. That's bad, which is what happened in Ukraine a year and a half ago when Russia did it, when they had a little war. That's bad, right? If a hospital gets hacked, that's bad. But unless you are responsible for people's lives, if you get hacked, it's really no big deal. It's absolutely no big deal at all unless you have your Bitcoin estate. You have your Bitcoin on that computer. So the internet security that we know of is changing. We've only had a few years of internet security in the world of Bitcoin. We haven't scripted the surface yet. And these guys think they can build smart contracts around the world. It's terrible. I think that the creators of the Dow should be held liable for this. No different than Garza of Paypoint. No different than Marker Palace. Because it's the same thing. I mean, what the White Hacker should do is, if they think that the original hacker committed to the crime, what they just did, in my opinion, again, in my opinion, and I know I bash either all the time because I think either itself is a scam from the start. And I'm going to develop more on that, maybe on a different topic in the future. Are there means right and article about this to travel again? I'm not sure. It's worth all that effort. So what the curators and the White Hacker team did, I believe, is more illegal and more intrusive than what the original hacker did. Because now the insiders are colluding to take those coins. This is what they all say is the problem with government. But the insiders can collude and the insiders can corrupt. But this is what they are doing right now by draining the doubt. And of course, the hacker, as the article says, joined that doubt. I haven't been keeping up with the story. Because to me, that Ethereum is lost. And I don't understand why Ethereum is still $14, $15. This is the problem with Ethereum itself. And if Ethereum ever becomes something useful, I don't think it ever will. Because the moment it has, even a glimpse of usefulness, if this kind of attack will happen within Ethereum itself, now a layer on top of Ethereum. So any layer you know on top of Ethereum is very prone to be bugs. But Ethereum itself is going to be prone to be bugs. So I'm not surprised by this at all. I think what they're doing is very, very dangerous with their own hack, which, like I said, to me is more of a problem than the original hacker did. And the president that they're setting is just insane. Because with Pollock and his team, or whoever those guys are, have the power to just fork Ethereum and return funds. That is a very dangerous precedent. Because now this means that there are going to be Ethereum foundation or developers themselves like the Pollock. Can now be reliable for every Ethereum transaction into the future. So not only can the government show up with guns and make them do whatever they want, people can now start suing, yes, they're all real courts. I mean, these people don't understand how the real court system is. I mean, in America, there's still this dream of innocent or proven guilty, which is totally not true. You're pretty much guilty and proven innocent. Otherwise, you don't talk to anyone who gets arrested and is in jail for years, waiting for a trial. Or a judge can just put you in contempt of court and keep you in prison almost for life. Because the judge says, well, I think you have so and so asset and you need to give it to me in court. And the defendant says, I don't have it. The judge says, I don't believe you. So you're in prison without a trial for as long as the judge feels like it. I mean, you're not innocent until proven guilty. And this is the case they're going to run into because now anyone can just start suing the Ethereum foundation. Anyone can just start suing the talent. The moment they lose, you know, sure. But if I was a lawyer, I put in cases left and right. Every time I lost $100,000 in either, I just, you know, it's thrown in there and throw the case in there because there are real lawyers who have to deal with it. Allah, He and Jampin, any issue, I see He and Joyne. If I think of anything else, I'll add it. But my overall, my final statement is what the White hackers did. I believe with a collusion on the part of insiders, it's no different than, you know, government knowing what's going on and, you know, doing whatever they want. Wow, Tony. A lot to unpack there. I do agree that Ethereum scripting language opens itself to more bugs. There's definitely more broad, whereas Bitcoin went more tight. I think that's a design decision and Ethereum made the decision for broad. And I think that's going to lead to more bugs. As for the usefulness of Ethereum, clearly it's useful to create DAOs. DAOs maybe aren't the VC funds that everyone hoped they would be, but the DAO worked out for a couple of people, worked out for the hacker, maybe worked out for some of these DAO guys. So maybe they'll create another DAO. It's tough to say. But generally, I just, I've always thought it was too much money. They put $150 million of someone else's money into a test net. If there was any kind of cap, any kind of limit to keep it at a million, keep it at 100,000, and any kind of test they could have done on this project first, that wasn't so large. I don't want the Ethereum holders to lose their funds. I think it's sad. I do think they were full of hubris. They were very much like Icarus. They had wax wings. They flew too close to the sun. And they have no choice about to come down now. But still, to lose $150 million at one throw is just an incredible. We had incredible results. There's just a little cover on that. See that's the thing, right? I am against a lot of the socialism. And again, that's happening right now in these crypto spaces. When you say they should have put a limit, well, then how is that a free market? And how is that a smart contract? It's a test net. It's a test net. Like the guy said, all these altcoins should be called test nets. Right. And a few people are going to let a test net. And that's the thing. Ethereum is a test net. When Ethereum goes to zero, like I expected, well, did anybody lose anything at the first point? Right? I mean, you can say that. And one other note, I wanted to say, I really forgot, I was thinking it. Well, I'll let Ian jump in there. But I like the test net. I mean, comment. And you're right. You're right. But you can. Right? You can't say that, oh, they should have put last money. Because people should be free to do whatever they want. I was just warning them not to do it. But I don't think it should have put a cap. Oh, here's the one. Ian, providing a cap may have provided a speculation bubble where people started selling and reselling their shares. Certainly, you can't stop a free market. But I don't know. They could have had more. They could have been more humble. They could have been more, we're going to try this thing. They had such hubris, such like, not only are we going to make money, we're going to make lots of money. We're going to make companies that make money. Those are going to pay us back. We're going to make more money. They were all the way up. They had done it one way. They were going to do it again. And a way like I said, I'm going to go ahead and I'll come back and ask. Yeah. Apologies to your audience being late. You guys caught me in the middle of burning up my current effigy. So I took me a second to get here. Yeah. Well, Tony is saying that it seems completely backwards to me. And all of a sudden now the white hat hackers are the bad guys and the guy who stole all the money is the good guys. Am I to get that right, Tony? No, no. I'm not saying anyone is good or anyone is bad. I'm just saying by their own definition. Right? I mean, again, the idea is to without corruption, at least to me. To me, the most useful thing in cryptocurrency, to be the most useful thing in this coin, my best use case for Bitcoin is to without corruption. So yes, I want Bitcoin to be anonymous, but you know what? Even if it's not, I want to see all government revenues. I want to see all tax revenue to be on the Bitcoin blockchain so that we can see exactly what the government is doing because I think the biggest problem with this world is government corruption. That's different from what we're talking about with the DAO, whether or not it's an automated government. And when do you talk about corruption and precedent? You're talking about what kind of precedent this sets. We got precedent in Bitcoin and just people constantly getting their money stolen. If we have a chance to stop that from happening this time, we absolutely should do it. It comes down to the kernel rule of all cryptocurrencies, what the miners do. And so if the miners decide to allow this hard for us to go through, then that's really what ultimately comes down to the hackers' whole justification for his actions is that the code allowed him to do it. Well, the code also allows the miners to do whatever they want in cryptocurrency essentially. If they change the blockchain, then that's always been part of the game. We can't just let people continue to take money from this industry. It's a grab bag for people out there. If you go and search just Bitcoin talk or some of the, especially like the all coin form or just go on any IRC thing, you're just going to run into scams constantly. People just constantly lose their money in multi-level marketing schemes and exchange just getting hacked. If we can stop this, then they have a moral imperative to stop this. Right. I think that moral imperative is what's unfortunate here. Like Ton said, Vitalik is now the center of Ethereum. Decentralized currency has been centered and we see now again why Satoshi Nakamoto probably disappeared. No one can go to Satoshi and say, I lost my coins. No matter how many coins they lose, the problem with Vitalik is what's the minimum. One can go to him now. Lawyers, governments, etc. Ton, what do you think? Yeah, I mean Vitalik won't be able to do much about it because like he said, miners have to agree with it. But the whole idea that if miners can just agree in reverse transactions, I don't understand how your block changes and survives it. If this happened in Bitcoin, I don't think Bitcoin would survive. I don't think I would be in Bitcoin. I would totally give it up if the miners can just collude like that in reverse transactions. I mean, that's not why I'm here. I'm here because these transactions are immutable. And it's really hard for me to answer your question Ian, if we can stop the fact we would because I am four rules of regulations, but I am against the government, I am against collusion. That's a dangerous problem. I'm not for the US government. That's the problem. You just pulled against me. That's one thing, but I'm not saying like Congress should pass a law saying you can't steal people's dow tokens. I'm not talking about that. Laws are enforcement. Laws aren't pieces of paper. It doesn't matter what Congress writes. The question is what can Congress achieve? And in the crypto space, Congress can't achieve anything. But the miners can. So if the miners start colluding to reverse transactions, then that is the government. I'm not talking about the US government. I'm talking about a government. I'm talking about an entity that has the power to do whatever they want at their discretion, which is what Ethereum is right now doing. I'm not talking about the US government. I'm talking about the government of Ethereum. So this is the formation of government in Ethereum because if they can do it once, if they can do it forever, it's like when the US government finally decided to tax people, it was going to be 1% of your income taxes as a temporary measure. But I'm still in the slide, I believe, from either mid-sheckonomic law or something. There's nothing more permanent than a government's temporary measure. So Ethereum right now is basically forming a government between the Ethereum foundation and the miners that administer the coins. They're forming their own government and they're saying that we can tax by reversing transactions. We can reverse transactions. There's nothing stopping us in the future from creating an income tax system, just like in America where your paycheck is deducted automatically. There is nothing stopping them from automatically paying themselves. This is what government is. And I don't like tax, to be taxationist, I want to be more voluntary. But you're creating a mandatory system. That's a good point I hadn't considered. But ultimately, there still needs to be people using it besides the miners. So I think doing things like this definitely is not to be taken lightly. I think if you do it too many times, you lose that confidence in the blockchain. So I definitely understand what you're saying. But if they abuse that power, then people will just leave and go to Bitcoin where that kind of inclusions way more difficult to pull off. And probably it's going to be pulled up for any reason. Otherwise, we would have done it in the mountain gocks if you ask. Right. We also think this is a good chance to note the difference between Bitcoin and Ethereum. My basic understanding of Ethereum is that these tokens, the gas, were designed to run smart contracts. So you would buy Ethereum, you would buy gas so that you could use auger or so that you could use the Dow or another system like that. So the tokens are really tokens. There's not an economic thought structure behind them. We see the happening in Bitcoin. We see the limited number of units. We see the complete lack of a pre-mine other than when Satoshi was the only one mining because he couldn't get anyone else to mine. Bitcoin is an economic instrument. Bitcoin is designed to be a currency. It's not designed to be reversed. And I think that's why we see Ethereum falling into these traps of reversing their currency and then not becoming a currency, becoming a token, which is what I thought was. Right. But Thomas, Thomas, yes, that, that. But Ethereum insiders, Ethereum co-founders, they wanted everything. They wanted it to be everything. I mean, they promised everything. And this is what they kept. They can claim it's a gas just to be burned. But then why do they even need it? Why couldn't they just use Bitcoin to create their smart contracts? I mean, they knew what they were doing. They knew that they were scamming people into creating the stockings. This is why I'm against a lot of these tokenization because they have it independently traded. But this is what I was going to say. I understand why the collect and the team are in such a desperate need to separate this hacker from the Ethereum because in their mind, they're still going to the state, which is something I've been saying for over a year is not going to happen. And if it goes to the state, then this person now has way too many Ethereum to control the future of Ethereum. And this is the one of the many, many, many problems with the state. And why I don't think they're ever going to go to the state. But let's remember the example of very coin. Very coin was proof of stake. One of the large exchanges, I think it was Mint Pal, was hacked. All of their very coin was stolen. It was such a large percentage of very coin that they decided to roll back very coin to take the funds back from the hacker because of course, if it was proof of stake, he would basically own the coin. This made people lose faith in very coin. It never returned to the price heights that it once saw. Perhaps a lesson. Yeah, but Ethereum didn't think that. But at the same time, if they didn't roll it back, there wouldn't be any very coin at any price. But it was such a big event that it did, like you're saying, lost confidence now. Ethereum was bigger than very coin ever was. So maybe it can come back from this. So as some big companies, well, they're behind them before this. I don't know what they're feeling about. Ethereum is that. I don't think. I think Ripple at one point was as big as Ethereum was today. And I don't understand how that project is still alive also, but that one is also imminent for. Yeah, and Ripple has some banks behind it too. It's interesting. The more enterprise level companies that are getting into blockchain, they don't have the same idealistic. I shouldn't say idealistic because there's reasons to have those ideas, and they're important. Economically, but there's still ideas that they don't see themselves as constrained by. And it may run into issues when they're trying to build these things, but they're going to try to build them without worrying about having a hard limit on your currency or not worried about centralized control. There's going to be all sorts of different experimentation by banks, people that have control and large tech companies. So we're going to see how important all those things are. And I suspect they're going to find out that they're very important. If we go back to very quick, I think they had the same choice that Ben Franklin said the founding fathers had, either we can all hang together or we can all hang separately. As you can see, either way they hang. I've seen a comment on Twitter that I think is interesting. I think we should discuss. They said that, I forget who said it in apologies, but they said that the smart contract system that succeeds will be the one that's accepted by the government and the one that conforms with the legal system. What do you guys think of that tone? Probably, right? Again, I explain what the usefulness of smart contracts can need. Again, I don't see contracts in general as being censored. So because they're not being censored, there's no reason to decentralize them. There's no reason to make them touring complete. I can definitely see a future in smart contracts. It's just self-executing the whole money in escrow to make sure that nobody can steal funds to make sure that the funds can be delivered. You can have portaling in real time. Again, thanks to smart contracts, but ordering in real time doesn't mean it has to be decentralized. Yes, the smart contracts will have to be in line with the legal system of the jurisdiction. That smart contract is in. Now the regulatory arbitrage with smart contracts is going to be cross-turist diction. You might be able to do something with a smart contract between a person in the US and a person in the UK, let's say. If there's value to be exchanged, that value can be exchanged using Bitcoin because it's a borderless currency. That could be, and again, this smart contract, it would need to be encrypted. The contents of the smart contract are only known to the two people involved in the smart contract. Whoever is executing this contract, whether it's an automated code or a third party, again, let's say you have an organization in Hong Kong or an organization in the seashells or some other jurisdiction that doesn't have portors, that has different laws, you have some kind of a company there that's responsible for executing smart contracts. They don't give a shit what is in that smart contract. Then you write a smart contract here in the US with a counter party in the UK. You put it in the smart contract. You encrypt it so that the contents are unknown. If there is value to be exchanged, that value is to be exchanged in Bitcoin. That's the kind of contract that the government would have very, very difficult time. The other government of censoring. Nothing in the scribe here requires decentralization. There's no reason for this contract to be stored or seen on thousands of nodes over the world. There's no reason for it to be touring complete. Someone can write another contract on top of this contract and steal our escrow money. These are the kind of things that are there. If unnecessary, they'll be there, confoluted. The reason why I personally believe they're unnecessary and confoluted is so that these organizations can sell you their scam coin like Ethereum and like Dow token. If the Dow token doesn't have any remnants of success, I guarantee you, like I said in episode 95, there will be another token on top of the Dow token so that they can take your valuable Dow token. Eventually, this house of cars is going to collapse onto the longest chain. To me, the longest chain is Bitcoin, but there could be another longest chain. Bitcoin is only seven years old and 20, 30 years. Maybe there is a better blockchain than Bitcoin, but right now, there's just one blockchain. It's the Bitcoin blockchain. The only one that has success. I'm assuming you will stay that way, but I could be wrong on that front. There will only be one public blockchain in my opinion. That's the thing about smart contracts. The first smart contracts, the first useful smart contracts, are going to be valid contracts within the jurisdiction that follows the laws of that jurisdiction. You may not agree with the laws, but you have to follow them unless you're being jailed. I don't want to go to jail. I try to follow the laws of the country that I'm in. The interesting thing about laws, I'm here in Thailand, and for anyone that's been to Thailand, how they're a little looser with some of their laws than they are in the US. But guess what? If I break the US laws while in Thailand, I'm technically in violation of US laws. The US laws still apply to me. To drinking law, the sex, age, law, or any other laws. I don't even think I'm legally allowed to smell a Cuban cigar no matter where I am, even in Cuba. I'm in violation of the US law. I'm Cuban cigars, no matter where I am. So again, laws are enforcement. Laws aren't pieces of paper. I don't know how they can prove or smell the Cuban cigar to arrest me when I get back to the US border. But that's laws. You have to write to smart contracts that apply to those laws. Otherwise, you could be liable as one of the two parties in that contract. I also think it's important to identify the two industries that we're attempting to disrupt here. I think that Bitcoin can disrupt the banking and the finance industry, and in many ways, Bitcoin can replace these industries with new systems built on Bitcoin. With smart contracts and the legal industry, I think it's a little different. I think that smart contracts can augment the legal industry. In many ways, they can replace a lot of the basic contracts like wills and trusts and things like this. They can be automated. They can be improved. Perhaps an advisor helps you set up the contract. But once the contract's set up, there's not much use for that advisor, the laws of that contract are down. Like Tone's said, I don't think these contracts need to be decentralized or distributed. They'd probably be centralized at first, working with the existing legal system for a very long time before they attempt to replace that legal system. I would think that you could have it be an unsensorable piece of software that is resistant to government censorship and isn't connected to the legal system, but isn't always on cryptocurrency. I guess I would have to connect to some sort of Bitcoin wallet, but it doesn't have to be its own cryptocurrency like Ethereum. I could see some use cases for an unsensorable contract system. If you're running a drug cartel on the ground website, the current version of the Silk Road, then maybe your mid-level guys want some protection. I have a smart contract making sure they get their money on the same time. Maybe you have some protection. I don't know what it's like to run drug cartel, but I'm sure that there's a lot of distrust and maybe a smart contract could fill that gap. Does that mean that the potential customers for Ethereum are drug runners? Well, I don't think so. Ethereum really seems like a good fit for that. I'll push back on that on a little bit in that where you just described 90% of that problem if you call it a problem has already been resolved with Bitcoin. All you have to do is put Bitcoin in an escrow account. You don't even need a smart contract. Like the additional efficiency for what you just described with a smart contract will maybe be 10 additional percent. Yes, it'll be even better with a smart contract, but 90% of that problem can already be mitigated with Bitcoin and simple tool free escrow. There's some old and lined crypto software. I don't know if this project is even still going on. You guys may remember Bit Halo, slash Black Halo is like a Black coin project. But it had like a double deposit system. And I had a lot of things wrong with the software, but a double deposit system could be something that would work for a shadier transactions. But to be clear, I wouldn't think that if a smart contract system didn't work with the legal system, I wouldn't think it would be the most successful one. Underground contract system is the most successful smart contract system that I would say that the dream of decentralized contracts, smart contract systems was a failure. That could be the first kind of use case kind of on how buying drugs online was one of the first use cases for Bitcoin. Like Tone said, it's not as big of a deal as I think decentralized money is a much bigger deal in decentralized contracts. And I think decentralized communications like the internet did is much bigger than the smart contracts too. This is like a point one, not a whole number of parade to our way of life. Right. I think that's one last comment. Again, the smart contract, I guess believers, pushers, whatever you want to call them, they have to, I don't think they set down and thought about what world problem are they actually solving. I mean, what is your number one reason for having a smart contract? What is the reason for it? Is it to make sure that the contract is executed or is it to make sure that it's not being censored? Again, they have to sit down the me and they're promising you everything. They're promising you to like solve cancer with smart contract. You have to sit down and just think through it. What problem is the smart contract solving and then think about is decentralization necessary to solve this problem. And when you talk to these people, you try to get answers and they just don't have any yet. They can't properly answer the question. What problem they are solving with their version of a decentralized, touring, complete smart contract system with its own internal token, really traded as a currency. You can go on and on. Right. I honestly don't know what problem that they're solving. So you're kind of right about that. But the thing is, I look at it kind of more like a sports game. If they have these big banking industries and they have these big tech companies interested in them, obviously they see something in it that I don't see. And so I kind of just give them a point for that. It's not enough to convince me that Ethereum is going to be the next Bitcoin, but it gives it like a leg up that other altcoins don't have. And so that's interesting, I think. I used to think that way until I really started to understand this and it took me a year to understand this so I can talk about it like this on this show and then I have to deal with a million comments. I think one of the reasons for that Ian is because I know you are a journalist in the space and I think one of the reasons is basically journalism. I mean, there are so many bad articles out there and they're like trying to and Walsh is reading these articles and important people are reading these articles and they're just getting completely misinformed. And that's why they throw money at these projects like R3-7 which I don't believe knows how to have any idea what they're doing, but hey, they signed up 40 banks. Let's see how many of those banks re-signed because I don't understand what R3 can possibly offer down other than a date. Other coins have gotten pressed, you know, counter-party next and all these other attempts, but none of them have really gotten the semi-mainstream adoption. I agree that it's definitely not like NLB all, it's just like a notch on their side. You know, so it's not worth nothing. All right, very good. Before we go to the exit question, I want to strongly recommend that everyone watch this video. It's called Bruce Wanker talks about the DAW attack. There's a link in the description below after the video is done. Just link back, watch this video, very funny. It's just subtitles on a video similar to the Hitler meme that I'm sure you've all seen, but great video. We would play it here, but we don't really have the right rig. Probably don't have rights to the audio, etc., etc. But links in the description below, you're going to love it, you're going to laugh. Send me some nice comments if you laugh. So now let's move on to the exit question and it's about the video. Did everyone watch that video about what really happened to the DAW? It's the greatest thing I've seen since the beginning of the Hitler meme that started with the end. Have you watched the video yet? No, I've not watched the video yet. Oh, you've got to treat later. You're going to enjoy it, tone. I know you've seen the video. Give us just some basic reaction to the amazing hilarious video. Yeah, no, I saw in the video, it's really, really funny. And it explains it all really, really well. And the biggest takeaway from that video is you have no idea if the DAW, the original DAW hack was made by an insider who helped build the DAW. You have no idea. I have no idea. I can suspect that I did say it on Episode 95, two weeks before the hack, that it was going to be, I suggested it was going to be an inside job. I suggested that Steven Turo will take your eater because I saw him and himself as a scammer. It looks like he's patting him or pretending to be patting him, so it might not have been him, but it could have been a contractor. It could have been someone on the scheme. As they mean crypto is, you don't know. You may never know. But guess what? A judge can now throw him and anyone else with lines of code in DAW, into prison and say, we believe you stole these funds. It was something more useful than either this could be the case. But they could do it. It's not whether they're going to do it, it's whether they have the ability to do it and they do. So how do you not blame them for taking it? He's never going to be able to prove a negative. He can suspect someone on his team that took it out of the team. But again, is he going to take that person to court? Is he going to try to convince the judge that this guy programmed for me? And I know he put that vulnerability in there. And then he took the funds. I judged him. He threw him in jail until he returns the funds. And now some Joe Schmoe programmer now needs to prove that he did not have the DAW. I mean, these are insane legal battles. And yes, I know libertarians and anarchists want to live in a world without government, but this is the problem you will run into, which is why I mentioned earlier, the Ethereum Foundation is colluding with the miners in order to form their own government with an Ethereum. They can control the money. But funny how it all boils down to controlling the money. It's like Lenin said, you look for who benefits and that's it. Moving on to issue two, BitFinex. Down. Veteran Bitcoin exchange, BitFinex went down this week, leading to a 10% drop in the Bitcoin price. BitFinex, well known for its leverage short, seems to have exacerbated the problem by first going offline, causing the price to crash, then coming back online, which forced their shorts to sell, further depressing the price. And Demartino has normality been restored. What is going on at BitFinex? Well, I just recently became aware of the issue to tell you truth. I've been wrapped up in an article. It shows the danger of all these shorting sites. You see sites with like 10X leverage, 50X leverage. I remember when I first got into Bitcoin, I thought I was to get away from shady Wall Street practices, but it kind of seems like we just do them here enough. But I think things will probably stay. Why is it not going to be down to the world? They tell me things have gotten better and that there's no more naked, short selling. Historically, I'm always going back to the, I think it was the 1929, I'm like in the year on, stock market crash, where there was so much naked shorting where people were just borrowing more money than they had and they were investing more than they had. And then the calls came in when the market went down and everyone lost everything. So I've always been afraid of leverage of these type of tools, but they tell me it's fine, it's part of the market now. Tone Vades. No, you got the year right, it was 1929. It was people were, I believe you were able to margin like 90%. So basically, remember the recent housing bubble when people were like buying four or $500,000 homes and a $20,000, you know, Vades salary, that was the 1929, but for stocks. That was the 2829. Everyone see everyone talks about the 1929 crash that it was so big. No one ever takes a look at what happened 1927 to 1929 before the crash. I mean, the market like triple the quadruple and most people got it at the top with enormous leverage and most people got killed. But if you remove the runoff, the crash in 1929, what wasn't any different than normal correction. But anyway, let's get back to BISPON X. So oh man, so it was one of the reasons I came to Thailand, that I was deciding where to go after Vietnam and I was so sane who was at BISPON X. And he was like, I was in Vietnam and I was like, oh, yeah, that sounds cool. I'll come down to your part of Thailand and we'll hang out. I can't get in touch with him because he was at BISPON X. That happened right after I got to Thailand, which is interesting. I'm sure he's busy with the whole BISPON X. Well, the disaster. So I did tweet out, I do not the following. This is why I don't trade Bitcoin because it's too dependent on leveraged amateur exchanges. And that's what they are. They're their complete amateur exchanges. I trade on real exchanges. I trade on interactive brokers. It's my current exchange where I trade. I trade it on options of express. I trade it on some of the other ones. And the tools that they offer and the stability that they offer is like years ahead of anything we have in the crypto space. Also the crypto space has challenges, right? Like in the traditional finance world, you have exchanges and you have programs. They're too completely separate entities. The exchange is responsible for maintaining liquidity in the asset. And the broker is responsible for you to enter and exit that asset. In the crypto space, those two are joined because we don't have shared liquidity. This is what the liquid project from blockchain is meant to do. And I like that project to a degree because it creates another honey pot kind of like the Dow. Right? There's a fucking nail there. Now Bitcoin has the Dow problem. But this is one of the problems. This is not the first time that connects has this issue. And it sucks. It sucks for them. And it's a big problem. And leverage in the space is also a bit of an issue. But hey, people have an appetite for risk. I mean, most of outside of Bitcoin that has a few real life use cases where the people want to see as most ability as possible outside of Bitcoin, there is zero need for stability in any other alternative to Bitcoin. It's all speculative trading. The more it's flying, the happier people are. But in Bitcoin, when this happens, the real users of Bitcoin get hurt. And this can, you know, big Bitcoin less useful. To me, Bitcoin has many, many use cases. And those use cases are better off with stability. So I personally don't want to see leverage in the Bitcoin space. And I agree with what you said, Thomas. I mean, we're not supposed to be, you know, this high leverage wall street with 3D contracts. I believe that future contracts and option contracts are very important. And those are leverage instruments. But not to the tune of, you know, you borrow and you just speculate as 10X. Future contracts should really be used to hedge your position. Not to speculate even though most people use them to speculate. And in the traditional finance world, future contracts are very, very liquid. At least contracts like gold and silver and oil. In the Bitcoin world, there's just not that much liquidity out there. And leveraging it, that's because these exchanges, they can't make money. They have to leverage. They have to sucker in the gamblers in order for them to collect keys. And these kinds of things happen. It's unfortunate that 5X is that it was again. They did it to us back in August. And I was very critical of them. And I have to be critical. I'm going to get it, until I have friends working there. But I have to find everyone in the space, so I stop that. It's really unfortunate. And it shows the example of what one exchange going down can do to the entire Bitcoin community. It's not just Bitfinex that's affected. It's the price of Bitcoin entirely. Oh, oh, why do I, in the article, is it going to be in the nose? There's a big mistake in that article, which is pretty bad for a Bitcoin site. They call it Bitfinex a US exchange. Bitfinex is not a US exchange. I think it's either Hong Kong or I think there are some people working in Panama, but I think it's registered in Hong Kong. Yeah, right. So that was a huge mistake. Because it was in another article from like Mark in our next issue. They mentioned it properly as a non-US exchange. Very good. I think this moves well into the exit question, which is, what Bitcoin exchange do you trade on and why in D Martino? To broke the trade for data trading. I don't, I don't day trade. I buy and sell Bitcoin in circle. They, because I'm mostly selling money, Bitcoin that I earn. My tone was saying earlier about everyday users being hurt by this. That's me. I pay my rent in Bitcoin and woke up and lost some money because of this. But it wasn't all bad because a lot of that money was profit from the jump that we had from the happening or whatever. Well, not from the happening. You know what I'm saying. Anyways, yeah, circle gives me a little better price selling than Coinbase generally. So you circle. Toned base. Well, I'm supposed to be like the trader and I use it. I use the right trader columns about trading Bitcoin. I've traded Bitcoin on several exchanges. I've never traded on Bitcoin X because of the KYCA ML issue. I've only traded on exchanges without MLKYC. So there was a few of those and I probably still have some, you know, fractions of Bitcoin on several of them. I'll even mention them like I like BitMax and I like 796. These were the futures ones. DTCE as well. Oh, BitMax got hurt by this. I mean, they had to shut down trading because I don't know. I like BitMax. I like Hardware. But I saw those emails and the index that they were using to price their futures contract. It's terrible. Absolutely terrible. It was through the tendons on BitMax and even if it wasn't, I saw it. Your index can't go down. I have to give a plug to a Brave New Coin. I helped them. I try not to, you know, you see the Brave New Coin logo. I try to never really talk about it without I don't want to pitch anything. I built an index at Brave New Coin, the BLX. It's our liquid index. Built it like maybe six to nine months ago. It's been incredibly stable. I mean, this is the next part of it and I, this does not affect our index at all. I mean, the price went out. Our index obviously went out with the price. But anyone using the BLX index should not have seen any holds. Again, but indexing is also difficult. That's my only pitch right there because it is hard. I mean, this stuff is hard. This is what I did back. This was part of my expertise from working on Wall Street as much as everyone hates it for about 10 years. There's self-grout there. But as far as trading it, I don't trade Bitcoin because this is the kind of nonsense I don't want to deal with. I trade traditional assets. I trade options mostly, some futures, some stocks. I don't like to trade currencies because of the leverage on currencies. I think trading currencies is very, very dangerous. And I think you have to know what you're doing. I mean, you have lucky people like a year or two, but it's going to catch up to you. And I find it very difficult to trade Bitcoin. And one of the biggest difficulties that I personally have with trading Bitcoin is the immaturity of the exchanges flash brokers. So the day my traditional Wall Street brokers begin giving me the option to trade Bitcoin, let's say liquid is a success. Let's say liquid builds their box for five of the bigger Bitcoin exchanges to share liquidity. My broker, like interactive brokers, perhaps into that box of liquidity and offers media opportunity to trade Bitcoin through a professional platform. And then I'd be excited about trading Bitcoin without any leverage. Just trade Bitcoin, maybe on a little leverage of five X-Mats. So that's kind of how I see it. I haven't traded Bitcoin or old coins in probably over nine months, probably over a year. I realized that this is just a level of frustration I don't want to deal with. I'll stick to my Wall Street asset. Personally, I have to agree with Ian, I'm not much of a day trader. I'm mainly selling Bitcoin that I earn, so I mainly use a boring site like Coinbase. Although they have been taking a long time to get my funds back to my bank account, so I might try Circle. I hear they're a little faster, like Ian said. Sometimes the fees on Circle are lower than Coinbase. If you use Coinbase, you can always use that GDAX, the new exchange they have. I hear they have no fees there. I haven't had the time to set it up just too busy, but yeah, not really a day trader. Moving on to next topic. Store your Bitcoin securely with the plug. I know it's the plug. They know what it is. Store your Bitcoin securely with a new Ledger Nano S on preorder now at purse.io. Preorder with confidence, knowing that your Bitcoins are securely escrowed and score a discount on the latest and greatest hardware wallet from Ledger. Now it has a screen. Get yours for Bitcoin at purse.io. Issue 3. Brexit. In a shocking turnaround from the early polling, the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union yesterday. The Bitcoin price which had been going down on the belief that there would be no Brexit suddenly sprang to life with the news. However, the consequences for the future of Europe, the future of globalization and even the future of the world could be staggering. We are witnessing a truly Berlin Wall type event, a game changer. In D Martino, your thoughts on this monumental change? Well, just from a Bitcoin perspective, anytime there's uncertainty or chaos, it's good for the price. So I've seen a lot of people be very, um, congratulate the Tory online, you know, just focus on the price. But I think the larger issue of whether or not Britain should do this, I'll leave that to British people to decide. I don't think any three of us are like that deep into it. But from what I do understand, it seems like a lot of the reason for it is for immigration laws and because the older generation wants to set their own immigration laws and limit immigration, which if that's really the only thing they're getting out of this, then I think that's pretty horrible because I mean, they have a slow and birth rate, they need immigrants. It's, you know, good for their economy. If you don't have young people to keep up with, if you're going to be in a capitalist society with this idea of continuous, never-ending growth, then you need a grow and workforce forever. And if you don't have a positive birth rate, then you need immigration. So immigration, even though it's, you know, on the micro level, it's someone who's took your job and on the macroeconomic level, it's good for GDP and everything like that. But I suppose there could be advantages to be more independent. In general, I'm not in favor for large governments, but, you know, we live in one and the European Union was one, or it still is one, but there could be some advantages to it that I'm not seeing. You know, maybe in a hundred years this will look good, but it's a little worrying for the future. And I hope that there's something that they get out of it besides set their own immigration laws and not let people into their country. It's a good point, Ian. And I'd be interested into looking at the election results further. I know the United States usually, it's the older people who vote, and they have more time. They're signed up. But this may be the case where the older generation is making a choice for the younger generation, and the older generation really isn't going to live to see the results, or the repercussions of this event. We'll have to just wait and see how it goes. Tone Vays. Well, I've always been advocating for the Brexit, so I'm copied that it happens. Again, I haven't had time to read about all the details. I'm actually a little surprised that the older generation was the no vote. I would have expected it to be the other way around. The older generation was going to be disabled, and the younger generation was going to go for the no vote. At least that's how it happened in Scotland when they were trying to break away from the UK. Because over there, the older people were convinced that they would get their pension benefits and stuff like that, which they might lose if they break away. So you want to set your own laws, right? This is different than let's say Texas is sitting from the US. Britain had always had their own current, the UK had had their own currency, but now there is a situation where the European Union is writing their laws in general. I think the biggest driver was more financial laws and regulations for business. They would have to abide by whatever the European Union wants to want. To me, the European Union is probably the most socialist organization we have on the planet. I think I'm very anti-European Union. I also think it was terribly designed because they have the same currency, but they have no different debt, which is another thing that the United States solved. When the states merged in the US, one of the first things they did was they merged everybody's debt into the federal debt, which the European Union didn't do, which is why they're having this insane financial crisis with their sovereign debt just 25-26 years later. Additional benefits of the United States had when it merged the states into a single nation with a common language, which again, the European Union does not have. They don't have a common language. These countries will never fully integrate because they don't really respect each other. So having this kind of union doesn't really help. It creates an am<|tr|>osity because now some countries are making laws for other countries. I'm a bit believer in free trade. I don't believe in free trade agreements. I think the free trade agreement is the opposite of free trade. You want to have free trade, don't make an agreement. That's what free trade is. So hopefully the UK can now write some ad or break down some of the free trade agreements that actually create free trade that would benefit that country. I don't think it has anything to do with the Bitcoin price, honestly. I mean, yes, we also gold rise insanely today because of the Brexit because people still think gold is the safe haven, which I don't think it is anymore. I think Bitcoin has solved that. I think Bitcoin has, I think, Bitcoin volatility. Other issues are more responsive to Bitcoin volatility, between speculation over the happening between the XJ and Bitconnects, halving an outage, and so so these kinds of issues. I think they're more relevant to the Bitcoin volatility than this Brexit. So I don't really want to equate this. Well, I personally was shocked by this turn of events, this Brexit. Part of it is that I believe the early polls that this was going to go 70, 30 and that it was not going to pass. But also in my mind, it always seems like Britain was leading the EU and they were leading this integration, this globalism type movement, and that we were on a path towards things like the TPP. And I forget the name, but there's a TPP for the Atlantic as well, a way to link the United States with the European States. There's different ways to normalize our trade, to get rid of tariffs, to take down the borders, to make the world flat, as I think Thomas Friedman wrote about. We may be in a very shocking sense, seeing a rollback to these events. Certainly, the EU and the UK are now going to have to work out trade agreements. There's possibilities of tariffs. Other things are now on the table that were previously completely off the table. And this may have repercussions in the US as we see Donald Trump running for President. Trump having, he's a negotiator, but he's a bit of an isolationist negotiator. I believe that he would use tariffs and other forms of regressive trade to attempt to get his way, whether it's the wall in Mexico or another deal that he may need leverage on. If he needs to put a tariff on you, if he needs to destroy your exports or your imports, I believe he'd do it. And that's what the UK seems to be trending towards. So it's really, it's a seismic shift. It feels like when the Berlin Wall fell, which I was about nine years old, ten years old. So it was shocking to me. I was very young, but the world really changed there. And it happened very quickly with the event. And then shortly after the collapse of the Soviet Union, everything else that happened, the splitting, are we going to see that again? Are we going to see, and this moves into the exit question. So I just ask you guys, exit question, will the EU collapse or continue? E&D Martino? And of course any other ideas you want to share on this stuff? I think it's like too early to call that. The UK is not even officially out yet. If I had to bet, I'd say no, not in the next five years, ten years. They still got Germany, they still got France. The problem with what they did though, I want to bring up real quick, is when they renegotiate these trade deals with the EU, the EU is not going to be in any mood to give them any favors after this. They're basically trying to destroy the leaders of the EU's life work, whether or not you think it's a good idea or bad idea. That's how they're going to see it. So it's going to be some tough negotiations. I don't know if tariffs are necessarily a bad thing in certain situations. That's how we used to fund the federal government before we had federal income tax. But they come with their own issues. And it would be interesting to see what, I mean we still technically have tariffs, but not with any big country that really matters, not significant ones anyways. And be interested to see how they've worked out in today's society where we've been so globalized for so long. There's a time in college where I used to advocate for tariffs, with certain restrictions. If you paid your workers there, the equivalent to the American minimum wage, then you wouldn't have to pay the tariffs or ideas like that. But I think it would cause too much chaos in today's global market. But UK wants to try it. I guess we get to be here isolated. But yeah. Well, and remember that tariffs will lead to real world consequences. If they put tariffs on, let's say lettuce, the price of lettuce is going to go up. People who can't afford lettuce aren't going to be able to eat it. People who love lettuce are going to have to eat less of it. This is just one example. There's certainly whole industries, whole categories of items, which will be affected by this ending of the seemingly endless free trade that they had been working on establishing all over the world. Toned vase, your thoughts. I'll think the opposite view. I see a complete and utter collapse of the European Union within five years. I don't expect the euro to last another five years. I expect all those borders to go up. The Germany benefits a lot from the euro because if Germany was on its own, its currency would be through the roof and their export industry would greatly suffer. But several later, the people in Germany are going to get sick and tired of what Angela Merkel did by bringing in all those migrants theory. There are just fundamentally different and religiously different. And people are going to get tired of failing out the Greece and the Portugal and the Spain and the Italy. So there's an idea. I'm expecting a complete disaster in Germany as well. They're the most stable economy there. France might be one of the most socialist countries on the entire planet. It's certainly more socialist than the socialist republic of Vietnam where I just came from. And I don't expect much from it. Look, the world is big. If EU wants to stonewall Britain, EU is only going to hurt itself and its country. The UK can get anything they want from China. They can just trade with China. They can trade with Russia. They give off this ideological battle. Just trade. Trade with those countries. They'll be fine. Again, by the way, America, Stonewall, Britain as well because they're in that with the EU, that could be a problem. But again, the world is big. There's plenty of places to get your lettuce. The point is to make sure that the citizens of your country can buy that lettuce as cheaply as possible. And I'm not a fan of tariffs at all. It's so frustrating. I don't see it in America, but anywhere I go, like even in Vietnam and all over Europe, this is the thing is value added tax, VAT. I don't understand how do you convince the population that you're adding value to something by charging everyone an extra 10 or 20 percent. It's completely ridiculous. Let me make an argument for tariffs real quick. The basic principles of economics are at least as far as if you're looking at it from workers' perspective is that when labor is scarce, then the workers get to demand higher wages and more rights and stuff. And then when jobs are scarce, ownership gets pushed back and gets to be more picky about who they choose and pay less for workers. And so that's sort of a dynamic that America grew up with throughout the turn of the century during the industrial revolution. It was a big back and forth for a long time. But without any tariffs and you just have completely free trade, then the labor pool becomes the entire world. And the labor pools the entire world, then there's never going to be shortage of labor. And so it kind of throws that balance out of VAT. All for free trade and situations where it makes sense, I think within Europe you should be able to trade with very little restrictions, because it's country to so close together. American and Canadian trades, you know, that shouldn't have any restrictions put on it. But when you're talking about sweatshop laborers versus the American worker, well then it's not exactly a fair playing ground. I think a lot of these issues aren't going to matter as much as technology robotics and automation come into play. But the immediate future, there are some advantages to giving labor some leverage against ownership, which I now sound like a Marxist, but I mean that's a capitalist principle that the it's supposed to be a back and forth between labor and ownership and there isn't any when the labor pool is the entire world. I mean this leads into a longer discussion. I'll just, you know, throw some badeful commentaries to yell at me. I actually don't have a problem with sweatshops. I personally don't. It's a job where you make 50 cents a day is better than no job where you make zero. So it's, there's a much longer argument and a much longer debate. But again, right, this is why I do believe that until the whole world is on the same page, which is never will be, I do think there needs to be an immigration restriction for a country. But I also don't think that one leader should decide that immigration policy. I think what you're up to by bringing in all those minors, migrants, sorry, by bringing in all those migrants was absolutely terrible. But again, your country should do a better screening of who you immigrate into that country. If you have a shortage of doctors, you know, providing centers for doctors. I mean, there are doctors in Syria that people need to like, take their skill labor, right? Like if a country is, I mean, yeah, the US is probably responsible for destabilizing a lot of that region. But hey, if people are leaving that region, not everyone coming from that region is good. Not everyone coming from that region will give benefit to your society, even with your declining birth rate. And I don't even see a declining birth rate as a huge problem for a nation. It's only a problem because of the social systems that pay as you go retirement. That's why it's a problem. If people are more in control of their own money, if people are more educated about how to save for their retirement, a declining birth rate in the country is not the end of the world. It only feels that way because the young are paying for the old. But it doesn't have to be that way. It's not just about social security and people's retirement. It's about the continuous growth mechanisms of capitalism where companies have to have more profits every single year. More profits every single year is not possible without a growing GDP, which is unless you have a way to make more money with less people. I mean, you need to have more workers and to have more jobs. That's not true. Of course you can make more money with less people. And I mean, what a nation can help you, technology can help you. Japan at one point was the second biggest economy in the world. And it's a little island. Look at the size of Japan. It happened with a volcano. They don't have much natural resources. Birth rate has been affecting their country. No, but that dollar is not like point positive of my point. Right. But the negative birth rate in Japan is the result of their socialist economic policies after the crash. They didn't let the free market recover their system. And now the Japan is in terrible shape. I think it's the other way around. Anyway, I'm not sure how we got onto this topic, but how we got into our state. We're starting to run out of time. So we're going to move on to predictions or a story of the week. Ian, are you ready with a prediction or a story of the week? Just something that you saw this week that was cool. Let me go last. That was enough. All right. One tone will tone go. I have one. So you can go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. I'll punch you. All right. You know what's great to me. All right. So I'm incredibly impressed this week by the House Democrats, illegal filibuster of the House. Now let's put the gun control legislation to this side. You're pro gun, you're anti gun. I don't want to talk about guns. I want to talk about policy and politics. Now as we all know, you can filibuster in the Senate. What does that mean? That means you can get up there and as long as you can stand and as long as you can speak, you can stop the Senate from doing things. This is one of the powers of the Senate. This is a power they don't have in the House. In the House, you can't filibuster. Just not possible. But the Democrats figured out a way to do it this week. And I think it's incredibly important, inventive, and they used periscope. The Democrats had a sit-in on the floor of the House for the gun control legislation. Put that to the side. They're sitting on the floor of the House. Now, normally this isn't a big deal because Speaker Paul Ryan did the same thing that Speaker Nancy Pelosi did. The last time that the Republicans shut down the government, they turned off the C-SPAN cameras. C-SPAN now has nothing to broadcast. Maybe they put on some repeats of book TV or something, right? What happened this time is after Paul Ryan shut off the camera, the Democrats started broadcasting with their phones on periscope and Facebook live video. This then C-SPAN picked up the Democrats broadcast and continued broadcasting it as though it was C-SPAN. This is a new governmental power in the United States. There's no minimal number of House representatives that you need to have to hold one of these illegal filibusters. I'm pretty sure if you had a minimum of five House members with periscope, with cameras, with pizzas, with bathrooms, you could occupy the House until they pull you out of there by force. Now, I think there's going to be changes to the Internet in the House. I think that there's a chance that next time this happens, Speaker Ryan or whoever Speaker would cut off the Internet, perhaps Faraday Cade, some kind of blocking the signals and jammer or something. But this is a brand new power given to the Democrats or anyone in the House who can broadcast with periscope. I think it's really exciting. It's really interesting whether you're pro or anti-gun. I think you just have to look back and look at how technology has changed the ability of the Democrats to filibuster in the House. I just thought it was really fascinating. So that's my story of the week. You guys are ready now? Tony, you can go next. Yeah, I'll go. I'm very pro-gun. I'll just leave it at that. So I'm going to go with the longer term prediction and just from spending time in Vietnam, from spending time in Thailand, these are very cash-based societies that don't trust the banks. They just don't have money in the banks. I didn't bring enough cash with me and I can't use my credit cards anywhere. It's all cash. So I think I have a lot of it's funny because we see Europe in the US as digital societies that are used to the world without cash and everyone is thinking that's going to be where Bitcoin is most adopted. And my answer is no. I think the cash what was the word I'm looking for here? The cash-like aspect of Bitcoin is more critical than the digital technological cashless means to pay with Bitcoin. So to me, Southeast Asia, like Thailand, like Vietnam, once they start developing technology a little more, I think they will be much more open to something like Bitcoin because it represents cash more so than the technologically advanced places like Europe, like the West, where they're used to making cashless payments, but are much bigger believers and have a lot more trust in the banking system and in their currency. So I'm really looking forward into how the digital age is brought to Southeast Asia, like the Vietnam, the Thailand, Indonesia, which I haven't been to yet. But I need to go there next. So I have high hopes for this region, which is why I plan to spend much more time here educating people on Bitcoin than in Europe, which I believe was unobtrusive breaking up. Ian, Dean Martina. Well, that's interesting about the Periscope thing. I heard about the Senate the Democrats sitting on the House floor, but I didn't know about Periscope. I'm surprised anyone in Congress knew what Periscope was. I'm not able to use it. My coolest thing of the week is the majority of your listeners, which probably aren't sports fans, but Cleveland finally went in a championship after all these years, all the old fans that watched them win in like, what was it? 62 or something. Finally getting to see another championship go. It's great. I felt it in my heart, but Buffalo, San Diego, Minneapolis, Minnesota, you're on notice. Very good. Too bad it had to come at the expense of my warriors, but we had a very good season, and I'm only a carpet bagger fan of the warriors. I'm a bandwagon guy anyway. How many want to say something about sports before we close out? No, no, I'm good. I'm good. But your warriors did bring me back to watching basketball. I was a big basketball fan when I was a, when I was younger, high school college, and I stopped watching it the last seven years or so. The warriors brought me back in. Pretty exciting. We'll see. I'm waiting for a college football. That's the only sport I make time for as college football. I think we also have a great potential rivalry here with Cleveland and Golden State. Why not a rematch? Let's go two out of three next year. I'm going to, since we're doing sports, I'm going to plug my Florida State Seminole, so it goes, goes seminole this year, and you have one more title. All right. Ian, you get one more plug for your favorite sports team when they were out of here. I'm going to say instead, look out for my book coming out next month. Bitcoin Guidebook. Be on Amazon and wherever good Bitcoin books are sold. I will definitely be coughing out that more on the World Crypto Network. We'll be linking to it on Twitter just as soon as it's out. Reminder to everybody. Make sure you watch that video about the Dow that's in the link below. You're going to laugh. You're going to laugh. Oh, maybe even if you lost money, you'll be able to get through it with a little laughter. So thanks to everyone for watching. We had about 64 live viewers. That's really great. I wish we had more time for comments and questions, but we're out of time. Until next time. Bye. Bye.