The Bitcoin Group, the American original. For over the last 10 seconds, the sharpest satosics, the best bitcoins, the hardest cryptocurrency talk. We'd like to welcome our panelists, tone veys from Liberty Life Trail. Hi, everyone. I'm Thomas Hunt from the World Crypto Network, moving on to issue one, issue one, central bank Bitcoin. Though it has libertarian anti-bank routes, recently the banks have taken an interest in Bitcoin, creating their own blockchains that allow central banks like the Bank of England and the people's Bank of China to send large amounts of funds without using the traditional banking system. Tone veys, good for banks, good for Bitcoin. Oh, man, once again, we're doing the story. It's a regular. I mean, every three weeks, the same thing comes up, different central banks. Usually it's the Bank of England, and I believe this is once again, referencing the Bank of England, which seems to be driving this bandwagon. Here's the issue, right? They don't really want Bitcoin. What they want is a full-blown digital currency. Bitcoin doesn't really interest them. They just want something fully digital. Central banks hate cash. They all hate cash. All governments hate cash. Cash is creating a huge problem for them, and it's creating a problem on three fronts, those that have watched before, know this very well. Creating a problem on three fronts. One of them is they're scared of a bank run. They're scared of a bank run. People go into an ATM to withdraw money, and the banking system collapses. That gets eliminated if there is no cash, that means there's no ATM, there's nothing to withdraw. It's like everyone's walking around with like, EBT cards, you know, and the bank decides how much they can spend on a monthly basis, in case of a problem. It also allows the central banks to set any kind of monetary policies that they like. They can go as far negative down the interest rate hall as they want. There's absolutely no mechanism for people to opt out of the system. I mean, they can't technically opt out with gold, but that's kind of silly, because you can't use gold in commerce, no one's really accepting it. But if there was no cash, perhaps gold would come back for acceptance, though I highly doubt that in the digital age, no one's gonna walk around with, you know, grams of gold. Bitcoin would be very, very useful. Oh man, I'd love it if all the central banks went hardcore against cash, be beautiful for Bitcoin. And the most important reason is that our governments see us all of us as, you know, tax evaders and money loansers, and from their point of view, they have not created, you know, a utopia, and freedom for all mankind, because we're all evading taxes that would allow them to create this utopia. So because all of us are tax evaders, they think that we would not be able to get around the tax issues if there are no cash. That's kind of their view. I don't think they really care about the black markets all that much, because the existence of these black markets is what employees, like half of these government employees, they make all of these markets legal. I mean, you can like fire half the government agents, right? I mean, if they're not arresting drug dealers, if they're not arresting, people involved in prostitution, if they're, you know, not, if you drop most of the laws then most of the government's kind of useless. So that's their view. They don't want Bitcoin, they can't control Bitcoin. The only thing central banks care about is the currency they can control. Now, it would be nice if they actually adopted Bitcoin. I would love to see some of the accountability that's in Bitcoin happen in government, but I'm not holding my breath. I mean, it would actually take like a small country that is so fed up with corruption. And, you know, some honest person, it has to be someone rich or entrepreneurial. This site, like, I guess similar to Trump, but not like Trump. So someone that's a little more normal than Trump, like another serial entrepreneur that made his own money from day one. Somebody like that, the run for president of a smaller country that is really trying to fight corruption. And if he manages to get elected without getting assassinated and he was serious, he would create a system similar to Bitcoin and not necessarily with a finite money supply. That's debatable, you know, it depends on your economics. I personally like Bitcoin's economics, but I also understand that your economy is to scale. So your currency really does need to inflate and deflate with the economy. So I don't really mind an increase in currency supply as long as it's done in a much different way than the US does. And the US is probably the most responsible of all of the central banks. And I don't even like how they're printing. So it could be done in a more responsible way. But the important part is transparency, right? So if we need some country that embraces the blockchain and my blockchain, I mean, generally Bitcoin or something like it, from a transparency perspective, so that every dollar of tax revenue can be publicly ordered by any developer easily. Like we have a bunch of people like writing block explorers and they can tell you everything. They have all these companies trying to, you know, track all these Bitcoin transactions. I would love for that to happen with our tax revenue. Like any developer can get a team of like three people, they can get, you know, some donations and they can write like the best code. And then, you know, the moment some department is abusing their tax privileges, like the whole country knows about it. So I would love to see that one day, like all the revenue going through a blockchain, absolutely no like black accounts, nothing hidden. Has to be a country that's also not nation building whose military is strictly for defensive purposes. And they will be very open to how much money they're spending on the military. Like we need serious accountability and blockchain can bring that accountability to the government. So that's what I'm kind of hoping for. Now, it's funny that you mentioned accountability tone because when I read the article and I read what the banks are talking about, they're interested in the exact opposite thing. Their main problem with Bitcoin seems to be accountability. The problem for them is that you can see how much is in one account, how much moves to another account. You can track the funds, you could probably do some complicated math, figure out how much reserves a bank has, get an idea for all of their transactions, their volume numbers, all of these things would be exposed if the banks started using Bitcoin. So when I read an article like this and I read about the banks to spell being their own blockchains, they're doing it for private reasons. They're doing it to avoid the very accountability that you see as a benefit to Bitcoin. So what do you think? Will the banks come out of this? Will they accept Bitcoin's accountability or they're just gonna keep creating these own side projects trying to maintain the shadowy qualities that they had in the past that no longer seem compatible with this society? That's a really hard question. Honestly, it's gonna be for the courts to decide. I mean, we don't know if whatever is on the blockchain will or won't be held in court. I think we talked about this when I said, man, this will be one crazy Supreme Court case whether something on the blockchain is actually credible. So it's really, really hard to answer. But again, the central banks do not have control of the Bitcoin blockchain because they don't have control of the Bitcoin blockchain. They're not really going to embrace it. They really need their own. And I don't mind them having their own. They're gonna need a blockchain. They just need a database that is open and just make sure your admins of your database set the database to read only and no one can write into it. And then the whole world can audit your finances in real time even. So we had a question go on this topic in our little channel about how would these banks deal with price fluctuations? And that's a good question, but here's what you have to think about. It can be one of two ways. One, you can have this blockchain, again, it wouldn't be a blockchain. I mean, you need proof of work for a blockchain. So it makes it difficult. If some government does decide to use Bitcoin as a currency, it would be very, very difficult today. I mean, we need to have a lot more value on chain. One Bitcoin is worth like $10, $20,000. Then a country can consider using Bitcoin as an additional, you know, national currency. In addition to their own and their own currency, should probably be pegged to the most stable currency in the world, which is the US dollar, which would be nice. Again, if that country is responsible, they can also have their own currency, as long as they're running it responsibly. But currency stability occurs when things are priced in that currency, right? Like even in the UK, which is going through some crazy currency swings, the things in the UK are priced in pounds. And they have their own internal circular economy. So when things are priced, it would denominator not currency, like the price fluctuations just aren't there. Now, for your import export, there are fluctuations, but UK isn't that small. But if you have a really small country, very dependent on imports, or very dependent on exports, currency fluctuations in your country will greatly affect you. But if your country is big enough that you have an internal circular economy and everything is priced in its own currency, then you're fine. Then these, you know, 10, 20% swings in your currency aren't, I don't know, I mean, they're bad, but they're not that bad. Okay, so that's another way to think about it. So if a country did adopt the Bitcoin blockchain, it's not going to be anytime soon, and you definitely need a lot more value on chain so that, you know, even your rent isn't all that effective month to month by a change in the price. Yeah, it definitely seems like we're nowhere near the kind of stability where you would start pricing items at Bitcoin. I know from trying to do a little Bitcoin retail myself, you really never stick with the Bitcoin price, you're always talking about the dollar price. And I'd like to say this also for people designing wallet apps, especially Coinbase and some others, Bitcoin, Copang. You've got to default into dollars at this point of the scale. Hopefully in the future we'll shift it, the dollar will shift, the Bitcoin will shift, then you can default to Bitcoin, but right now anyone using these apps is saying, well, I owe you 10 bucks for lunch. Let me type in 10 bucks. Nobody wants to accidentally send 10 Bitcoin's. We're really in the dollar phase of the Bitcoin system. But let's look at it. Go to time. Oh, one last week. Yeah, it's really warn you if you do a net. Back when Bitcoin was $800, I'll never forget this. There was a party at the Bitcoin Center. Someone was tipping the bartender who had her QR code on the desk and meant to tip $1 and ended up tipping one Bitcoin at a valuation of $800 a Bitcoin. Now, we all knew each other. He got the money back, but it's not pleasant when you do that. One minor quick comment, I want to give a shout out to Paul Pauy because he's the one Paul, yeah, I say Paul Pauy. Who gave me this idea is that if you are working for Bitcoin or you're working for Bitcoin company and they're paying you a salary, he suggested you should negotiate a fraction of your salary denominated in Bitcoin, and it would kind of force that company to buy some Bitcoin and hold it on reserve if they want a hedge. Of course, they can take a gamble and not hedge, but if more people working in the Bitcoin space, I'm asked for at least a fraction of their salary denominated in Bitcoin, that could help stabilize the price because it will create some extra holding of the Bitcoin in order to create more hedging. Just a talk. That would be nice though, as someone that's worked in Bitcoin, can be quite depressing. You start out making 10 Bitcoins a month pretty soon, it's down to five, then it's down to three. You're making the same amount of money, but you're making less Bitcoins. It's just the way of the thing. The banks will eventually end the system. And yes or no, tone phase. Oh, sorry, I had a little bit of a lag there. I didn't see it earlier. You have to repeat the question. Will the banks abandon their private system and use Bitcoin directly? No, God no. Not anytime soon. Even for a chance of that happening, you'll need another, we're looking at 2020s. I've given it minimal five years, probably 10 years. Bitcoin needs stability. It's like you're saying in the late 90s, I'm trying to think of a big company. All our big companies right now are internet related. So if you think like a non-internet related company, if you think like an AT&T, it's like asking, yeah, so will AT&T drop older folks tomorrow and become Google? It's like, well, they don't trust the internet like that. So Bitcoin needs to have more than a seven years, the more than a seven year history of not crashing. And out of that seven years, the first two, three years shouldn't be in talent because nobody even used it. So we really only have three to four years of Bitcoin protocol stability. And every year, there's people coming out of the woodwork trying to forth the damn thing. So I'm sure we'll talk about that in a minute. Yes, I don't think that the banks will be using Bitcoin anytime soon, but what we might... Bitcoin. And it kind of becomes an official Bitcoin, but of course, this would be the kind of Bitcoin where you attract much closer, you can't send the money to Silk Road or gambling side. It's kind of the coin base of Bitcoin. But I think we're going to see that. And we're going to see Bitcoin running in the background as kind of a real money. Bitcoin is gold. Bitcoin is pirate currency. Bitcoin is something you can use to buy anything, whereas government money is more useful for paying your taxes or buying food, something like that, more simple operations. But let's move on to the next topic. Issue two, Winkle Voss, ETF delayed again. The SEC has delayed the Winkle Vy ETF, seeking additional comment before allowing the Facebook enchanted twins to sell tokens on the stock market that represent Bitcoin. The ETF would be a big deal for Bitcoin as it would allow retirement plans to invest in Bitcoin. But will it ever happen? I guess I'm asking myself, Thomas Hunt, will it ever happen? I think it'll happen. The Winkle Vy put a lot of money into this. They've laid the groundwork presumably filled out the forms and signed them in triplicate, done all of their homework. But I do kind of go and cheat and go into the exit question a little because asking for permission has slowed them down so much. I know that they're trying to interface with the old bank system, and there's no other way of doing it than asking for permission. But we really are seeing a comparison of what you can do with technology and what you can do with bureaucracy. Bureaucracy can slow you down for three years. It can make the Winkle Vy no doubt waste a lot of money in technical analysis and lawyers. God knows what else they had to hire. Whereas other people say Kraken or Coinbase or anyone else just starts an exchange and soon they're a Bitcoin exchange. And then they start to do the regulations, they start to do the work and they do diligence and they're good companies. And I'm not bagging there or anything. But they just started it. They just did it. The technology that so it's so she knock a moto and others have developed gives you the power to just do what you want. And I feel it's very unfortunate for the Winkle Vy loss that they can't just do what they want. And that perhaps they will be unsuccessful because of this delay. Perhaps they're losing the market here. I'm not sure. Ton, what do you think about the Winkle Vy's ETF? I think it's insane. I think it's crazy. I don't think it's gonna happen. I don't think it's gonna get approved. I don't think it should get approved. I know I'm about to get so many here. So what do you think? I'm saying crazy. Come on, it's the simple idea. We've got these retirement plans. They want a whole Bitcoin. They don't want to hold private keys. They want someone to trust. That's the Winkle Vy. You get to invest in Bitcoin in your retirement plan. When, when, right? I like it. It's insanity. Do you trust the Winkle Vy with your private keys? You can give it the number right now, right? I think I can have insurance that covers their butt when things go wrong. And I trust I won't be in the office. So I'm not gonna be technically responsible. Okay, first of all, I have no idea who's gonna insure them. I think that would be insane. Is the comment period still open? I mean, I was like debating somebody with a comment period. I'm just, I've just been like lazy these days, even though I'm really, really busy. I see for my additional commentary. There's additional comments. I don't know, maybe I'll just send them the link to this chat. Okay, so off the top of my head, and some of it, I do attribute to a couple of other people that mentioned it. I know Bitcoin and Sensor talked about this, but it also makes absolute sense that I'm gonna add a few ideas on my own. So off the top of my head, let me tell you why this is completely insane. First of all, you don't need a Bitcoin ETF. You can just go and buy Bitcoin, right? Getting into the ETF. Not with my retirement money that I didn't pay taxes on because the whole tax. One Bitcoin. All right. We're back. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Right. That's true, but again, right? If you just buy Bitcoin, let me not get myself in legal trouble. You also avoid some taxes, right? If you just go out and buy Bitcoin with your cash. But so holding Bitcoin is like an IRA, I guess. Not a 401k, but more like an IRA. But you're right. Okay, so here's why it's insane. Do you trust the Winkle Y with your private keys? That's a huge question. The SEC has to be considering this. Who now holds the liability? Because if someone hacks them and takes the Bitcoin, it's over, right? So now the Winkle Y has to have to be like, I have to be experts in online security. Not just experts. They have to be like as much of an expert in internet security as like an electric grid or a nuclear facility, right? Because that's how it works. But this is simpler than an exchange. Like if we were going to make something like Kraken, we actually have people trading in and out of their accounts all the time. Money is being moved around. Presumably, the only thing they're moving around is these tokens. I don't see them having actually to touch the Bitcoin. If they put them in cold storage, if they had a trustworthy cold storage solution, et cetera, et cetera, I don't see what could happen. What do you think? That's a problem. I mean, Mongoks had a cold storage solution, right? Look how that works. Well, Mongoks was a random guy with a cat. These are trusted Facebook people. I don't know. They're nicer. Look, everyone's trusted until you're sitting on a billion dollars, you can just take and go to China, right? I know they're visible. These guys are tall. They'd stand out. They'd stand out in China. We'd find them. We'd find them. Yeah, right. But they can also get hacked into their cold storage. I mean, cold storage is great. But then, who's doing their IT security, right? Well, maybe this clientele's wife can go ahead and figure this shit out, right? So there are problems, huge problems with this, right? They will be better off going to a big counter party like a Goldman Sachs and getting them to do a swap so they can just pay the difference. But that also means Goldman Sachs is willing to take the downside of the Bitcoin price, which is dangerous because Goldman Sachs has the money to crush the market in their favor anytime they like, kind of like what pirate at 40 was doing, all throughout 2012, where he can guarantee the price of Bitcoin a week from a day because he had enough Bitcoin to sell on the market or buy on the market to make the price whatever the hell he wanted. That's one problem. The other problem is, first of all, it doesn't have a history. This is what I said earlier. You need multiple years of history knowing that this thing is going to last. Here's the big one. If TSC goes ahead and approves the Bitcoin ETF, and all it is is the Wyncom Y trying to make a percent management fee on keeping the pricing of the ETF, the next day the Wyncom Y are going to file for an Ethereum ETF and the day after they're going to file for a Monero ETF and the day after that they're going to file for a Steam ETF, right? Because the Wyncom Y don't care what the underlying asset is. They're just trying to make a 1% management fee on maintaining the price. So they're immediately going to file the rest of them. And now the TSC is going to be scratching their heads going, OK, well, what's our criteria for deciding which old coin is legit, which blockchain is legit, and which is a scam, right? We've got a problem here. The TSC has to do their job. They have to do the determination. And we have brand new asset classes. The Wyncom Y are doing the right thing, filling out the papers. They want to sell them to the greater and open market. The TSC should just sack it up and hire some cryptocurrency experts. Do what Apple's doing. Apple's got some guy in the App Store who's approving coins and disapproving others. We're finding this out through the Jacks wallet. There's like a dozen cryptocurrency experts. And they're all working at block stream, right? And who else is going to have to go? I'm an open block stream. The US government is going to have to sack it up, put some money down, and out bid those guys and get some smart people. I don't see a problem. The government's got to fix. You know, the TSC can go to Cornell. It's going to be a complete chit-chou over there, right? If they hire everyone that's ever come out of a Goonsi Eris class, or God forbid the University of Nicola or whatever that can get filed in there, like Boone and on the gut, that paintbrush. It wears shirt. There's like a dozen of these experts. They're all a block stream, right? They're only like, there's a few other ones that don't understand what blockchain is, but they're not really developers. Other than that, it's going to be insane. They're immediately going to file for it. They're going to use the same logic that will have Bitcoin's and ETF, why not Ethereum? I'm still with them on this. I still think it's possible as an ETF, Ethereum, Monero, Dash. Any of the kind of established ones and by established, I guess, I need six months to a year. I don't know. I mean, it's just, how is that different than a penny stock? How is that different from some brand new company that's selling widgets? I've never heard of them. No one's vetted them before. They're on the stock market, too. You could lose your money there just as easily. You could lose your money in the ETF. Yeah. Okay. Penny Stocks should definitely be better vetted, but again, who the hell is going to vet them? No, there's only five people that know how to vet penny stocks and they all work at penny stream. Again, I am not, it made the good to the Bitcoin price, but also like, I mean, look at Barry Silberts, Bitcoin trust. Barry Silberkews announcing the price of Ethereum classic on his Twitter. It gets more questionable every minute. He's like, it's up 10%. It's up 20%. I'm like, I am ready in the market with your incredible personality and et cetera, et cetera. Well, I've already been critical enough of Barry and his Ethereum classic views, but I recently took a look at his Bitcoin trust. And it makes absolutely no sense to me. I need to look at the prospectus. I should probably contact Barry. I'm not liking what I see from how the price is deviating from the price of Bitcoin. And I don't know, something, I don't want to speculate too much. I should look at the prospectus. If I can't see a reason for this happening in the prospectus, I'm basically waiting for a fund to crash like 50%. It just makes no sense to me. But I don't know. Bitcoin that are blessed by Wall Street are more valuable than Bitcoin that aren't. I mean, we're pretty much talking about what we're talking about. Bitcoin's that come directly from the miners are worth more than other Bitcoin's. Maybe there's a reason for this, the Bitcoin ETF to have greater values. And now that was the ETF that could be invested in by large plans, like large retirement plans, whereas the WincoVi one is more of the individual stock trader ETF, right? Just for clarification, I believe. Yeah, although anybody would be able to purchase it, I don't know, like I said, I'm not trusting WincoVi with my Bitcoin. I don't think anybody should trust the WincoVi with their Bitcoin. You want Bitcoin, suck it up, trust yourself, you lose it, you lose it, go buy Bitcoin. That's my advice to people. And perhaps retiree shouldn't really be investing in Bitcoin. Maybe it's not for them. But if it is, they should learn what Bitcoin's all about by actually buying it directly. That's my advice. Totally disagreeing. They shouldn't have to hassle with the keys. They shouldn't trusting someone else. They're really trusting the SEC in the system. If the WincoVi can get somebody to ensure it, which I think you think is a long shot, I think is possible, they could get the ETF. The only way it would work is if it's a multi-sig, segregated accounts, and the WincoVi have one key. The exchange, I guess I used to say NASDAQ, now I have to say BAT. BAT has a second key, and the SEC holds a third key. And now you have a nice multi-sig, but now you have to trust the BAT exchange with a key. SEC becomes liable for stuff. And then the SEC will actually be okay with it. And this way if the SEC has to free somebody's funds, all they have to do is contact the exchange, and they control the Bitcoin. And they're in control. And then if the WincoVi need to move funds around, I mean, they can just do it without getting the SEC involved, and doing it with the BAT. I mean, that would be the only thing that makes sense, but now is the BATs willing to hold a key, is the SEC willing to hold a key. How many coal storage should they have, right? I mean, is the really good idea to have like one honey pot that's now growing to like $2 billion worth of Bitcoin in one account? I look forward to watching the high-excit movie about that one. That'll be sweet. They break into all three places at the same time, get all the keys together, steal all the money. Higher Tony Gallipi, to be in charge of one of those companies. Just email the money away. Just email the money. So that's one idea. And then you keep a cap, right? So the cap would be like 300 million or something, or 500 million. The moment the value gets like 300 million dollars, and you open up another coal storage, and then you have another set of keys. And these three keys need to be like ordered by a fourth party that makes sure that, you know, those three people know what they're doing with the keys. And that's my only suggestion. So until they get those kinds of security issues worked out, I don't think the ETF should happen. Moving on to the exit question. The Winklevi have been asking for permission since 2013. Given the option, is it better to ask first, or just do tone phase? Ooh, okay, so I'm gonna answer this in two ways. If you're gonna be a public figure, it's definitely better to ask. If you're gonna be a cryptocurrency or alpha bay or some gambling site, it's definitely better to just do it. And, you know, don't pull an oobrach, Ross Oberg, don't pull the CEO of, who just got arrested last week, the CEO of Backstage. No, Pax, so we're just idiots. Don't walk around rooftops with guns and ski masks. Right, so if you're willing to be anonymous, you just do it. Don't ask for permission, don't ask for anything. If you wanna be famous, then you definitely wanna ask for permission. Very few people get to be Cody Wilson that make it so high up the list, or like a Julian Assange or a Snowden. If you're gonna do something that will land you on a list, you better make sure you're doing something that lands you at the top of the list. If you're not at the top of the list, you will go down very, very quickly. So if you wanna, you know, I'm still waiting for that data happens to Vitalik. So if you wanna be a rock star, you wanna be famous, you go and ask for permission. Vitalik should have asked the SEC for permission to create and sell a token, which is why I think he'll be in a lot of trouble in the near future. So Toshi didn't ask for permission, but he chose the invisibility route. So there you go. So that's how you gotta take this space. I would agree and also bring up the example of BTC-E, the incredible Bitcoin exchange that just keeps on going. No one knows who runs it. They haven't had any major technical issues. At one point, they cleared out their log of their old Bitcoin addresses, which a lot of people probably like getting rid of the history. And at this point in Knock on Wood, they seem very stable, very unlikely at this so far to run off with the funds, but that is the difference. The Winkovai would have been sure. They would have these forms. They have, we don't even know who they are. But that is the difference. And you have to look at it. The Winkovai have made no money on their ETF. And BTC-E has made, who knows how much from fees, et cetera, et cetera. So there are different ways of playing. And it also probably depends where you live and what kind of business you wanna run. But we're moving on to issue three, issue three via BTC versus the world. Bitcoin mining pool via BTC launched support for Bitcoin unlimited and its bigger blocks this week. The mining pool once had 10% of total hashing power and was in a position to block the adoption of segregated witness, thus slowing Bitcoin scaling while attempting to accelerate it. The market reacted by punishing via BTC, who saw their hash power drop by 50% after the announcement. Tongue Vays, your thoughts on the continuing quest for bigger blocks. Oh, is there any chance we can take a look at what power of the network they have like now? I do believe it's rebounded. I'm not sure exactly where to live just at this moment. Maybe the chat has a link. I'll check it out while you're talking. But I do believe it rebounded, but I still think they're losing some hash rate. And I'm not sure they're in a position to block segregated witness, which again needs 95% of the market to the miners, et cetera, to agree. And then it'll be adopted. If they had 10%, they could block it. If they're down to five, they can't. But we'll see if people have updated info on that. So this is so frustrating. They can't win. They absolutely can't win. And by win, I mean get their version of the code into the coin core. Even if they win, it would be, they would lose because let's play devil's advocate. Let's say they have 20% of the network, 25% of the network, they completely block segregated witness. And the block's continued to fill up, which I don't have a problem with. And now we're really like a Bitcoin transaction for your cup of coffee is now costing you $1.50. And it's frustrating. And people give in and they win. They throw another huge party. We got our way. All they did was they've just pissed off the 12 to 13 people that really know what they're doing. And if we lose those people, I don't see much confidence in the coin. So all of confidence would be lost. They are playing such a losing battle. They're really frustrating. Oh, cool. Can you share that screen? I do have an update on the hashing power according to blockchain.info using the last 48 hours as a reference via BTC still has 11.1% of the total hashing power. So they are still despite their initial drop. I think they had some other support come from the presumably Bitcoin unlimited forces and they are back at 11%. Hey, what happened to BitClub? What are they in that list? BitClub network is on the right hand side. It's 1.9% of the network right here. Oh, I took the word bigger than that. All right, or I thought they finally, they're MLM kind of imploded. But I'm not sure at all. No comment. Yeah, we should talk about them on another show. They're not a scam yet as our other friends say it. But eventually there is no way they can work. But that's actually a different story. But for now, they look like they are up to 2%. Okay. So via BTC, they're 11%. So right now they're blocking seg with, right? That's correct. I believe they would block it. If everyone else was ready, which I don't think everyone is ready. Okay, so basically, I don't mind them blocking seg with. It will just spend more time on the test net. Maybe our smart people will find more bugs and get those all fixed. In the meantime, Roger and the rest of the big blockers will have to pay more and more and more for their transactions, which they were complaining about because seg with does raise the block size. I believe it raises the two megs or close to it, like 1.75 or something. Well, segregated witness is the idea of storing the signature separately. So they're not included in the block. So maybe you get half a meg of block size just from extra data. And then after segregated witnesses in, which also fixes the transaction malleability problem, then they were just, I think they're going to have a hard fork actually or they might have figured out a way to do a hard fork that's really a soft fork. It's technical. But yeah, they were going to raise the block size to 2 megabytes after that. Yeah. So I don't know what they're doing. Well, I look, I'm sorry, I can't explain this. This makes absolutely no logical sense. They're complaining that transactions are too expensive. They're presented with a solution that makes them cheaper and they say no only because they sound like children, right? Because they want to get their way of doing it and with 11%. They're not going to get squat. And all they're going to do is the latest process. I personally don't mind. I don't care. I know there are people willing to pay $100 for Bitcoin transaction and I don't care. I don't know what else I can say. Third year witness will eventually get pushed through. The last thing I don't think our blockchain has enough money so that and they're not spending it stupidly so that that team can keep programming for a while. And the via BTC is going to lose like the previous two initiatives, Bitcoin Classic, Bitcoin XT. I was worried about those two back then. I was like, oh my God, I was panicking. Well, Bitcoin's going to hard fork is going to split. And now I'm taking the other out Bitcoin unlimited. A year from now, we're going to forget it existed. It seems like less of a problem now that Coinbase is not involved. When Coinbase was heavily pushing for Bitcoin XT or Bitcoin Classic with Brian Armstrong going out there with his medium essays, et cetera, I think it was a bigger problem because they're just a bigger and more important company in the space. Sadly, for whatever reason, Roger Verre, the Bitcoin unlimited companies, they don't really represent in the same way. I don't think they have as much a stake in the actual outcome or results. And I agree with 10% of the market via BTC is not going to do anything but slow down the network, slow down the progress. And eventually they'll lose all their hashing power or go mind their own Bitcoin or something. I mean, they're going to go the same way as a hash.io. Then they hit 51% of the network ones. And now they're even on the board anymore. They might have been going. G hash went down. There was a chart that was circulating recently. I don't have it handy. But it showed how every year in Bitcoin, there's been a different top 10 miners. So it's really not mining centralization that everyone's worried about. It has been changing. New chips have been developed. And new mining locations like China or Iceland are being created and expanded. It's good. It's good for Bitcoin. And it's also good that they're waiting for 95%. And you know what? If we can't get 95% consensus, then we'll just keep it as is and wait for the action to be $5, $10. The miners will get paid. For those, maybe the Bitcoin will go up in value. But if you're going to pay $5 for a transaction, maybe it makes sense for Bitcoin to be $10,000 at that price. And then you won't to pay $5 for a transaction. So you never know what's good. What I know is 80% is not consensus. And when you have 5% of your network voting on an 80%, you get Ethereum. So I'm OK with this. It really doesn't bother me at all. They're eventually going to go down to under 5% and we'll get our segway. I agree, Tony. I do value the 95% of the true consensus. If you look at things like the Supreme Court, where they aren't supposed to decide decisions 5 to 4, but they often do, we see recent disasters like the Citizens United decision, which was decided by merely one vote. When in reality, they're supposed to continue debating, continue arguing, and presumably convince some of the justices on either side to come together so that important issues like this can be decided with a 6 to 3 or a 7 to 2, even a true strong vote, where the decision, the sides, have been discussed, and they've come to a consensus and agreement. Elevated. The point, that'd be discussion. That's what the Court was supposed to do. They've not done it recently. Bush Gore was 5'4", Citizens United was 5'4". There's been some other terrible decisions. And these are not supposed to be precedent-setting decisions that 5'4". Let's move to the exit question. Exit question. Via BTC will retract their support for Bitcoin unlimited or see their hash power drop to zero, tone-based? They'll see their hash power drop to zero. I mean, they're too committed. I mean, they might realize that they're wrong, but they're just too committed. So too committed to proving their point. And because of that, they will just wait for their hash power drop. Agreed. This is not a financial decision that they're making. They're not weighing the odds or anything. This is a political decision. They've made the choice. They are supporting bigger blocks. Other people are not. I don't see them changing their political views on this anytime soon. As we've seen with the election, it's almost impossible to get people to change their political views. Most people think debate is kind of worthless. Even when you have the facts, even when you have the evidence, you can't get people to flip. And I think via BTC is going to learn that. Moving on to issue four. Issue four. Two more Ethereum hard forks. Ethereum, the Dow imbattled world computer, is hard forking two more times to fix issues and prevent denial of service attacks. The hard fork will increase the price of gas to prevent such attacks by making them more costly. The fork is expected to go smoothly and not create a second copy of Ethereum. Tom is hunt, your thoughts on yet another fork in Ethereum's road. Well, I can't say that this is not a part of it. No, I call them you before. Ethereum has a roadmap and it's filled with hard forks. And the end of it is a shocking turn from proof of about the turn first. Someday, Ethereum's going to cut you off and you're going to make nothing. And likely, I don't know, you're going to refashion your machines to mine either classic or some other new altcoin or something or sell them or use them as paper weights. But that's a horrible idea. Going from proof of work to proof of stake, especially starting out on one and going from the other, I think it's very questionable. Changes the whole economic motives of your so-called currency, which I don't know if it's a currency because it doesn't have a hard limit or any limit or any kind of knowledge of how many Ethereum's have been printed or will be printed. Those are a lot of questions that I like about Bitcoin because they're answered questions. As for the recent hard forks that they're going to have to do, the gas limit problem, gas being too inexpensive or too easy to attack, sounds like a good hard fork. I think they're going to have to do it. And then the other hard fork is the cleanup of associated problems with the Ethereum Ethereum classic problem, also a hard fork they have to do. I expect things to go much more smoothly this time. As fun as I think it is to suggest it, I don't think we'll see a third or fourth copy of Ethereum. There's not as much reason to mine the old chains. I think people may mine them as a gas or a joke or an attempt at money making, but I don't think they'll be successful. Tonve is what do you think about Ethereum's exciting new forks? I, this set of forks I'm kind of ignoring. However, you have to agree that when the final fork to create proof of stake comes, we will have a third Ethereum and maybe even a fourth. That would be awesome to see the original Ethereum, which people have pilloried for saving the Dow and being not static to have it suddenly restored as everyone values it over the proof of stake Ethereum, which is unminable and doesn't help the miners. It would be an interesting turn of events. Ethereum is going to die. I mean, it can't survive as proof of work because it directly competes with Bitcoin for electricity and for hardware and for resources. Ethereum as a proof of stake has to die. I mean, like BitShares. I mean, they don't never die. I mean, there's always some guy holding onto it, probably Dan Larimer, but continues to sell it onto more bag holders. But Dan Larimer will probably eventually be in prison like some of the other friends and then he won't even have to be able to spend his BitShares. But proof of stake just can't work. I mean, there's no innovation there. There's no science there. There's no computer science there. You know, it's not a blockchain. It's just like frustrating, listening to these people, thinking that they're going to make it work. It can't work economically. It can't work. Technically, it can't work. It's going to implode. But Tom, more about dying. Think about the hype. We never, I've been a critical of Ethereum since the crowd sale. We never really understood the hype. Think about how much hype there is. I just watched the TechCrunch documentary, The Segment About Ethereum, because they included a Bitcoin group, a seven-second click of a Gabriel Devin. It's good stuff. Check it out. Episode five, it's around six minutes and 15 seconds in. But while I'm watching this, and I'm seeing Vitalik Booter and I've met, is a nice guy. He's rode my car. I'm seeing him lionized as a crypto god, as the second coming of Satoshi. I'm seeing him sign autographs. People are going nuts. Big banks are having him to speak. He's traveling the world. This all means something to me. This means Ethereum must be some kind of huge success. Regardless of the fact that I don't understand it or support it at the time, it must have expanded and must be a success tone. How can this turn? I'm with you on the facts and the theories, but to see someone elevated to such a level, he's in the Fortune 400 or something. 40 under 40. 40 under 40. 30 under 30. All these things, he's all over the world. He's the man. Oh, man. So let me, I don't want to diverge too much. So when I started back in 2007 at Bear's Thurnt, right, one of the guys I started, another guy on my team, there was like a really senior guy that was doing a position. Our CTO, the guy was quitting. The CTO wanted to replace him. I was interviewed for the job, and another guy was interviewed for the job. He couldn't pick between us, so he hired us both, right? So he hired two guys for the same position. So I was sitting right next to this guy. And then he tells me about this great investment opportunity, right? Some guy in Brooklyn has a company that does Bridge Loans. I really wish I remembered what it was. Bridge Loans. So for those that don't know, a bridge loan, it's exactly what it sounds like. It's like a loan for a bridge, but it doesn't have to be a bridge. It's a loan for some kind of a big construction project, in general, that these are short-term loans at very high interest, kind of for them to, while they're getting their major funding, and they have like small gaps in their funding, and a lot of them are even like backed by the government. So you do these bridge loans at very high interest. And he was taking in money. Of course, this was a Ponzi scheme. Straight up. And the guy next to me was investing in it and other people that it's a bare-sterns. I mean, other people were investing in it through the tunes of like, you know, tens, 20, $30,000. And they're making good interest. And it was like reasonable interest. I think it was like even like 13% for like four months, five months. I mean, it's not realistic, but it wasn't like, you know, 1% a day. It wasn't like that. And this thing went on for years. Until it imploded in 2008, like everything else imploded in 2008. And then when it hit the papers and the guy got arrested, technically he made bridge loans. He made like three, right? Over like a three-year span. And they were small. The rest of the time, he was just using that money for his own personal gain. He was like few trading futures. He was doing anything. And he was, and his company was also in like Forbes in like the top-today up-and-coming companies. This shit means absolutely nothing. And he was small time in 2008, like bigger companies collapsed. That were like in the top tens of these insane lists. What's his name? Who's the cocaine guy from Colombia from the 80s? Delorean? No. Li-I-O-Co-K. That's co-bar. That's co-bar. That's co-bar, OK. Pablo Escobar. I think it was Escobar. Yeah, it's a drug kingpin from the South, for sure. Yeah, the drug kingpin. Yeah, he was on a list like his company. He was an import export company. Him and his company were on like, I think he was like the eighth richest man in the world. And he was in those magazines, too. Look, this stuff means absolutely nothing. Ethereum is going to implode. It's really, again, I'm not a developer, but it's to me it's obvious to us. Other people are obvious to other developers. It's obvious. And once they fork, I'm just... I want to forget Ethereum exists until they fork into proof of stake. And then I want to see three Ethereum's, maybe four. I think it will be three. I think Ethereum Classic is using Vitalik as like a guinea pig testing code monkey. And then they decide which of us code they're going to implement. So after ETCH forks in two, proof of work, proof of stake, then Bitcoin Ethereum Classic guys are going to decide whether they're going to adopt the proof of stake code base. And I think that community might split in half if there's anything left in that community. And we might have four theorems, but there'll be a minimum of three Ethereum's. And I think eventually all their prices going to even out, the proof of stake one will implode, and then we'll be down to two theorems again of equal hash rate. It's a nightmare, it just doesn't end. I have a curious question here, Ton. Is Ethereum Classic now all of a sudden in a strong position? Their chain didn't fork for the Dow. They have the philosophical strength. And if what you're saying is true, if they have a couple of strong coders that can review Vitalik's code, and then perhaps with a board member or a decision type committee, make the decision whether or not to include the next update, whether to follow Ethereum down that path. Is Ethereum Classic in a stronger position than real Ethereum? Absolutely, they're in a huge strong position. And the last thing they should do is have a committee. Have it a committee? I'm just saying more than like, if the problem with Vitalik is he's the decider, or if the problem with Vitalik is his committee is bad, a different committee, a different decider, is a different group. No, no, no, it's not that the committee is bad. The committee is insane. It's worse than bad. Have it a committee is what got Ethereum in this, you know, should storm in the first place, right? The best thing Ethereum Classic can do is not have a committee and let the miners decide it all. I want to say miners and users, but there are no users. So just let the miners decide all of it at a 95% consensus. So every time Vitalik releases something, they just put it on their testnet. Vitalik releases something else. They put it on their testnet, right? Everyone's going to see how this crap is working in ETH, and then the miners in Ethereum Classic are going to go with one or the other one. You have a bunch of choices and they will pick one. And if obviously the miners in Ethereum Classic, there's no way in hell they're going to go for a proof of stake system. They're miners. So Ethereum Classic will never go proof of stake and they can just decide what to do. The only unfortunate situation with this development is once Vitalik goes to proof of stake, he will no longer be the code monkey guinea pig for Ethereum Classic. Because from that point on Vitalik is programming on proof of stake. And from that point on Ethereum Classic will need to have its own developers, but perhaps Ethereum, the normal Ethereum will also split into two and they can then use the second split of Ethereum as their guinea pig for which code base actually works. I mean, theoretically from a project management perspective, I love the position of Ethereum Classic. And also, I thought it wasn't about the money. I thought it was about smart contracts and the world computer and gas, right? It's not about the money. So if it's not about the money, then Ethereum Classic has like, if you're an old sign-felt fan, Ethereum Classic has hand. They have a hand. If anyone is old as you and I are Thomas and used to watch sign-felt when they were in high school. That's an obscure reference, even for me. And I'm a pretty big sign-felt fan. But yeah, Ethereum Classic isn't a strong position, I suppose. It would be interesting. I would say if Vitalik goes and starts doing proof of stake Ethereum, there is a chance some of the developers who are working on proof of work Ethereum might just split off at that point anyway. So that could be the time for Bitcoin Classic to hire or essentially acue hire Vitalik's team if he even has a team. I don't know if I'm sure they could get Steven Twall. But yeah, let's move on to the exit question, which we've already kind of answered. Will there be a third or a fourth copy of Ethereum tone? How many Ethereum will there be? I think there'll be three. I think I'm down to three. I have made up my mind that Ethereum Classic will never go proof of stake. So only Ethereum will split into two because Ethereum Classic, they're going to want a guinea pig, so they'll have the other one. I think we're in agreement. Three sounds good, but not until the proof of work stake, the current forks that are going down now seem pretty harmless and should go smoothly. Moving on, we're out of issues. Let's see. We'll check the chat. See if there's any questions if you want to ask a question. That's questions. I don't have a story of the week or a prediction. You better have something soon. Let's see. And we're going to run. Anybody interested this week? That seems to be the theme over the last month and a half. Charlie Shrem still seems like he's doing fine over at Steamit. He's right in the post. I got to say the value of the Steamit post have gone down to about a K, a post, which is still 500 bucks out the door, which is a good deal for a blog post. Still about 1.1 K too much. We'll see. We're seeing some of the comments. People are saying Ethereum's turning into a joke. Vitalik believes the singularity is near. I think he has aspergers or something. That might be true. Not the singularity part. But fork Ethereum, fork Gererium. We've got some good comments here in the chat. I gave him a minute. Let's see. Here we go. Tom's got a question from the chat. He says, how about the coin telegraph pump about Third World adoption? Do you know about, is this Third World adoption of Steam? I don't know about, no, I doubt that. Third World adoption of Bitcoin maybe. A lot of questions will argue. Well, coin telegraph is really more of a collection of writers than a editorial staff in a newsroom. I'm not sure exactly how to take a lot of their stories. I think they're more individual opinions. They are. I used to write there. They're definitely in there. They wore back then. I haven't written there in a long time. Third World adoption of Bitcoin. Again, if it's more stable than the Third World currency than maybe if it's less stable than the Third World currency than probably not in a while. I'll be in Argentina in two weeks. I'll let you guys know what's going on there in the Bitcoin world or whether it may or may not be useful. Then I may be in Russia the week after. That's another one. I probably shouldn't use it over there. I'm still. They're losing their loyalty. But I think it was mainly about Venezuela and how they're interested in Bitcoin. And other collapsing economies are interested in Bitcoin. I think a lot of these articles may be too hopeful. A lot of us when we got into Bitcoin without it would be really easy to get it to mainstream and to get it really popular, but it's taken much, much longer. And I think even with these collapses, like Venezuela, it might be good for maybe a few families to move their money out of the country in a Bitcoin. But I don't think it's going to be enough to have widespread trading on the streets. Venezuela will be a big problem. I say it every time. I mean, maybe you know, hide some money in Bitcoin, but you're not going to have a Bitcoin economy in Venezuela. First of all, I have no idea how good their internet is. I've been in Morocco and they're internet is atrocious. There's no way Bitcoin is taking off there with their internet. Also when you deal with the country like Venezuela, if Bitcoin even has half a leg to move through the country, they're freaking governments going to turn off the internet. I mean, there was a company at one point that lets you send Bitcoin through SMS. They didn't get abstraction. I mean, maybe that would come back. Maybe, I mean, that would resort to self-ful of minutes. They'll go with that. We've also seen this problem in Africa where BitPesa has pretty much been chased from the country. Sorry, for the same reason, if you're a dictator of a small African nation, you don't want a currency that you don't control. Bitcoin, by very definition, is not controlled by you, not controlled by anybody. If you're a dictator, you can't have that. A lot of these ideas went in with good intentions and they want to help the people and they're very optimistic that the reality is that a dictator is a dictator is a dictator. You just can't get past that. Great. All right. Let's move on. Oh, wait, we got a question. We got an actual question. What? Someone started with the word question. That's perfect. Nice. So, the wave succeed as a decentralized exchange so we can get rid of Polonix, etc. No. I think sadly, the main problem is what are they using to counter party the Bitcoin trades in? The problem's always been getting to USD. If you had something like Tether, which was a USD coin, I could see how an exchange could exist, independent using that coin. But then the problem is that coin is pegged to a bunch of stuff and very not independent and may have a breakdown who knows about Tether. But I heard some issues with Polonix lately. It's still your best bet until they exit scam and just take all your coins that cryptocurrency did. But waves can't work because they sold tokens. I mean, they're already telling you that they're a scam, right? By just by some of the things. However, any exchange that's ever sold, fee shares has eventually defaulted on the currency. See, did this bit shares. There's another one that was like a Bitcoin stock market type thing you could print shares on. All of them have sold fee shares and then exit scam. Yeah, they're going to exit because otherwise they'll be in legal trouble. I know they're not in this country. I think they're in Russia. But it's insane. They're going to get out. They're going to leave the blockchain for someone else to run and it's going to disintegrate. I mean, there's a reason why selling parts of your company is regulated so that the founders don't just leave the day after money comes in the door. There's nothing keeping the waves guys they are programming at this point. I think people have forgotten about all these basic reasons for regulation because we've gotten so far away from the easy scams. But you were describing this before time. You described how during a crowd sale, it's going to be a lot of money. If it's completely unregulated, let's say you give me 500,000. I take the 500,000 out, reinvested in the crowd sale and suddenly it looks like a million dollar crowd sale. People keep putting their money in. I keep taking it out, putting it back in. The crowd sale goes up like crazy because it's completely unregulated and you can't tell what I'm doing in the background. It's magic act. What finance and what these regulations have done is they've in many ways demystisized finance. They've performed these kind of scams because of checks and balances and interlocking systems. There is a reason for these regulations. Let's see. We're also going to the chat. They say that mycelium is supporting waves. I don't want to get toned in trouble with mycelium guys. They're nice guys. They did a crowd sale. Oh my god. Why? Oh my god. I didn't even know that. Jesus Christ. I might see Ross on. On Tuesday I'm speaking in Washington. Anyone's in Washington. There's kind of an event of Washington University in DC. Maybe I'll see Ross on the way there, but he doesn't really have a say in those decisions. Oh my god. They're nice folks, but you got to understand mycelium probably sees waves as a similar company to them. They're a decentralized company. They don't want to be a company company. Waves is probably the same kind of thing. They probably have similar ideological issues and they're on the same team. There's a reason for them to support each other. They could be friends. Russian guys. I don't know. You're right. Someone said mycelium has made a lot of like strange decisions lately and I completely agree. We've also got a question about China's appetite for BTC. I think that, well, I mean, culturally and it's horrible to say culturally if you can't discuss any of these things anymore, but culturally there's a large impetus for the Chinese people to like gambling. I think there's a lot of gambling on Bitcoin, a lot of stock trading. I don't think it's ever going to win. I think there's so many people there and it's such a great thing for viral marketing and viral person to person. I'm excited about Bitcoin. I think it would be great if it kind of got into Bitcoin. Tell me what do you think? Are they going to keep trading forever? They'll keep trading for a while. I think gambling is getting a little bigger in China. That's good. I'm going to back to mycelium for one more minute. The reason why mycelium is making all these insane decisions is because they need money. The reason why they need money is because no VCs want to invest in mycelium. I'm sure Arabids is having the same problem. It's very unfortunate because they will throw $100 million down the drain by giving it a coin base, which is going to implode. They've given this money to 21, which is going to implode. They've given this money to R3, which I complete insanity. So many companies have gotten tens to hundreds of millions of dollars and they're going to bring no value. These companies will disappear. They will lose all of your VC money. But while it's privacy conscious wallets like Arabids, like mycelium, they're getting no support from VCs. These are not revenue generating businesses. What they are is they help run the Bitcoin network. It's probably the, I mean, after mining, it's the most important thing we have is these privacy focused wallets. And for the life of me, I don't understand why VC isn't willing to put like $10 million into Bitcoin and $10 million in support of mycelium and Arabids. Because these are the kind of companies that will make that each of those bitcoins be worth $10,000 and you will make all of your returns from the price of Bitcoin. But if once these all... I think it kind of goes back to what we were talking about on the first question where the banks want to own their own Bitcoin. And I completely agree with you. Wallets like Arabids and Mycelium, other wallets, these are the backbone infrastructure of Bitcoin. Without these wallets, I can't use Bitcoin on my phone. I can't send it person to person. It's not as useful to me. But it's not sexy to build the underlying infrastructure of Bitcoin. It may not be incredibly profitable. The money might be in exchange. The money might be in new markets. I don't know. The money somewhere. But the VCs don't seem to think it's in wallets and they don't want to build the infrastructure just like the banks don't want to build anything for a coin or a currency that they don't own. I mean, this is where I give some props to Roger there. Please, Roger Verst in supporting blockchain.info and their wallet for a while, even though I am not a fan of that wallet. Myself for reasons I mentioned earlier, it's failed me in the old days and I don't know. I've moved on to others. But I do like some people that work there and if Arabids on Mycelium, if I can't trust those wallets anymore, if they can't support themselves anymore, I will have to go back to blockchain.info and see how they're doing lately. Block trail is another one. I haven't really used that wallet much. I know someone's about to say bread wallet, but I've never used a bread wallet. I've always been an Android person. They've never had an Android wallet. They finally have an Android wallet. I can't get myself to use that wallet. I've heard interviews with those founders. I tend to trust people in certain in this space and their views on privacy and security, which is why I like Rasa of Mycelium, which is why I like Paul Poehler-Verbids, which is why I like the blockchain team. And I'm not sold on the guys at bread wallet. Yeah, maybe they'll change my mind. I don't know, but from what I heard, I did not use that wallet. I'm not planning to use it anytime soon. I'm hoping Arabids sticks around as long as they can. I think we've got time for the food setting. Go ahead, Tom. Buy Bitcoin, hold Bitcoin, please support privacy conscious walls. I think we've got time for one more question. We had asked earlier, he said, do you think that the GPU miners will ever go away? My answer to this is no. They're left over from when Bitcoin was mined by GPUs, then they moved to Litecoin, then they moved to Darkcoin, Dashcoin, Dogecoin, some other coin. They always seem to be there. There's always seems to be a reason or an interest in these new altcoins. At this point, you can still mine them with GPUs. You got to understand these from their perspective. They have huge farms of these GPUs. Maybe they've been upgrading them. They've been running them for years. I think it continues. What do you think, Tom? I agree. All right. Well, then we're running out of time. Do you have a prediction or a story of the week, Tom? Could be anything? No, I don't. It's been, I don't. It's like my third podcast of the day. Check it out. Oh, you know what? I kind of do out of the story. I was on with Criscellus earlier today and his girlfriend, I did a talk about. Like crowdfunding, investigative reporting. And I think that's a great idea. I'm hoping that would become more of a thing. She described her story of looking into the tour project, put in a lot of work doing so investigative reporting. I did the same thing with Steemit, put in a lot of work investigating that white paper. These are, you know, passion style initiatives. But I wish there was a system built, like some kind of a decentralized journalist site with like pots of value for certain investigative project. And then there has to be some kind of mechanism to pay this out, not necessarily to the first person that breaks the story, but some kind of an aggregate over time, maybe a delayed payout. Like if multiple people are working on an investigation of let's say Z-Cache, right? There's like a pop, you know, people want to know whether Z-Cache is a scam or not. And people would post their articles on that. But you don't want to reward the first guy posting. You want to reward the best person posting. I mean, I'm just brainstorming now. So if there could be some kind of a site that, you know, collects this Bitcoin and then distributes it based on the popularity of the article. And I know these things can be gained. But you have multiple people writing investigative pieces. And then the value gets distributed based on how good those investigative pieces were. And then there's some how they move through the system. And it has to be more advanced than, you know, just likes and retweets. It has to be more like people quoting your article in others. So something like that, like a future project. But the web doesn't have to be decentralized. The content and the value needs to be. So there's just just an idea I'm throwing out there. I wanted to throw it on this podcast as well. Some people to think about. Good stuff. Glad to see Chris back on the network. He's feeling a little better. He's been on well recently. But you guys can check that out right here on the world crypto network or worldcryptoneetwork.com. Please subscribe to our YouTube, all that kind of stuff. I don't really have a story of the week. I was just going to say politically humor wise. I've been very much enjoying sound live recently. Alex Baldwin, Kate McKinnon, have been doing some great Hillary Trump debate parodies. There's a little bit of jokes on both sides. Hopefully everyone can enjoy it. So I'd say go check that out. I was rooting pretty hard for the giants in the A's this year, but they're both out. So it's time to transfer my rooting to the Cubs. Let's go Cubs. Haven't had a World Series since 1908. Haven't been in a series since 1947. Pretty incredible team this year. They beat the giants and that was close. So there we go. Let's go Cubs. People in the crowd say vote, Pepe. So it's all happening. But I think we're about out of time. So until next time, bye, bye.