The Bitcoin Group, the American Original. For over the last 10 seconds, the sharpest Satoshi's, the best Bitcoins, the hardest cryptocurrency talk. We'd like to welcome our panelists, Tone Vays from Liberty Life Trail. Hi, thanks for having me on again. Looks like it's just a tool at this time, and yours will see that I am working on upgrading a footprint. Excellent. And I'm Thomas Hunt from the World Crypto Network, moving on to issue one. Issue one, Gavin versus the core. When a bug in Bitcoin unlimited led to a loss of 13 Bitcoins, more than $13,000 at the time of this show, former Bitcoin lead developer Gavin Andreson took to Twitter to speak out. About the loss, but about the strong reaction of the Bitcoin core team, saying that loses $12,000 from the Bitcoin unlimited bug. Some core dev scream, users paying millions in excessive transaction fees over the last year. Meh, not a priority. Is Andreson right? Has core slow focus on Segwit and refusal to allow bigger blocks, stolen millions from users in excessive transaction fees? Tom Bayes. My bad, I'm not going to share my screen, but I'm actually going to bring up the exact same tweet that you were just focused on, mostly because I read this, I was reading the article, and this tweet made absolutely no sense to me. I'm like, what is Gavin talking about? And then the article, when I had explained that, oh, he's talking about the core wants high fees and there's the fees are too high. This is, I'm going to talk about the 13 Bitcoins that they lost in a minute. But this argument just drives me up the wall. And when these arguments come from people that have been in the Bitcoin space since like 2010, and Gavin and Jason, who literally are pretty much ran the shop early on, this drives me insane because what he's saying is that they just want excessive fees, but they're going to have a lot of money to make money and they're going to have a lot of money to make money. And then the big blockers are going to take the transactions off chain. Because in the beginning, the big blockers were arguing that the core depth team was colluding in order to prevent the miners from getting fees. And now they're on, well, the core team is making fees too high as opposed to their original argument that the core is removing the fees from the miners. So which is it? Because honestly, it's neither of those things, right? This is insane. First you blame core for taking fees off chain. Now you're blaming core for putting fees on chain. And this is driving me off the wall. And with each successive bond in the other, it's like, if it's like you're reading the book 1984, first you're war with East Asia. Then you're war with what is the world of the West? It was in the East Asia. You're Asian. You're Asian. We've always been at war with the East Asia. Right. I mean, that's what it is, right? So first the war with miners not having enough fees, now there is war with miners having to many fees. And then what's going to happen? Then they're going to flip back. Anyway, that's driving me off the wall. Now let's talk about this bond, which basically this is the block. So they're just a little bit over one kilobytes. Sorry, one megabyte, not one kilobytes. And it was rejected by the network. And this came about for my understanding that it was a line of code that was commented out that should have stayed there that prevented it from happening. And this goes to the competency of the development team, which is why I'm a supporter of the core team because that code is fully tested and really well. I don't really have anything else to comment on this or you can stop sharing my screen on that one. All right, well, I'd like to thank our 50 live viewers. And if everyone could just thumbs up this video and share it, that helps us get more viewers. But what I would say is there's two competing visions right now. I believe that the Bitcoin unlimited team has the vision of Bitcoin, the currency, where you could spend money and you could buy Starbucks with Bitcoin. I believe that the core team has a different vision. Bitcoin is the settlement system, lightning network, side chains, etc., etc. Or wherever I would buy my coffee. And I think it's the battle between these two visions that we're seeing. And it is interesting that Gavin took a year to finally speak out about the transaction fees. But the other side of this is that you want to go slow and study with your segregated witness update. You want to have it tested. You want to be sure of it. We're dealing with people's money here. And I think that's the core team's attitude that they should be patient and diligent and prudent. Really take their time with this. And what do you think about that? I mean, I agree with it. I agree with all along. But Gavin's been jumping. First, he was, I think, he was on Bitcoin Classic. It's been so long. And maybe because, you know, a year in Bitcoin is like three years out of your life. I believe Gavin was the Bitcoin Classic guy. And now he's with Bitcoin unlimited. And after Bitcoin unlimited, there'll be something else. Bitcoin unlimited is already having a lot of power right now, mostly because of Roger Beer. And I still think sooner or later, Beer is going to run out of money to fight in this. Well, we're going to talk more about this later on, right? We're going to talk about Segwitz unless you want to. We'll focus. We still got that for later. But let's move on to the exit question. How much is too much to pay for a Bitcoin transaction? $1, $5, $10. There isn't, right? Because it's all about what you need your transaction for. For me, if I'm buying a cup of coffee, paying more than three to five cents is too much. But if I'm transferring my life savings from one cold storage to another, then I'll have $1,000. Well, in my case, it would be too much. But something like 20, 30 bucks, I'll gladly pay that to move a few thousand dollars if I know what's happening safely. So it really depends on your transaction. I've heard one story I heard was someone was trying to knock on some bar because they've already closed and they had a Bitcoin ATM offering the bar $100. If they would let him in to use the ATM. I don't know how true this is, but this is one of the stories I heard. So people will pay $100 just for the right, for the ability to buy Bitcoin, right? Plus whatever the transaction actually costs. I think your first point is the right point. It's all about what the use case is. If you're buying coffee and you have dollars in your wallet and you got credit on your credit card, you don't really need to use Bitcoin. So $1, $5, $10, you could say no. If you're buying something on the internet that maybe you can't buy normally. If you're moving your money around large amounts, if you're doing other things that only Bitcoin can do, then I agree with you, Tony, it's worth anything to pay for that transaction. If you're paying $5, $10 to order an item that's impossible to order any other way or to send money to your friends overseas and they don't have any other form of accepting cash, Bitcoin is the way. But if it's something like coffee that you can do with your normal money, it's never going to be competitive at $5 a transaction fee. Let's move on to the next issue. Issue 2. Issue 2. Bitcoin's privacy. Bitcoin's privacy gets a failing grade. The open Bitcoin privacy project is given Bitcoin a grade and it's not good. They say Bitcoin privacy is virtually non-existent due to the merging of funds, the reuse of Bitcoin addresses and the linking of addresses to identities and the resulting network analysis, which can be surprisingly successful. Thomas Hunt is the OBPP correct? Is Bitcoin privacy failing? I would say again, it's a misnomer. It's difficult to have the thing that you never had. Bitcoin never had true privacy. Bitcoin was always pseudo-anonymous. If you bought your Bitcoins just the right way, if you stored them just the right way and if you sent them to the right person, you could be generally anonymous. But as so many of us find when you start using a system like Coinbase or any other system that links to your identity, it's so difficult to buy those Bitcoins any other way. Your accounts linked, your checking account, you just move the money over by the Bitcoins and then you're set. But you're completely tracked. I think people are starting to learn that and they're recognizing that. That might lead to the next round of Bitcoin development where we see some more obfuscation for these addresses or perhaps confidential amounts if they've spoken out in the past. Greg Maxwell's idea. But there's definitely ways we could go, but right now it's enough to have a decentralized distributed monetary system. It doesn't have to be perfect right out of the gate. We still have chance to improve on this. Tony, your thoughts. Yeah, and I agree with that. And look, it's another one of those Coinbase articles that frustrates me is that it doesn't say anything. And there doesn't be any details. There doesn't be any suggestions. They didn't talk about how they can help you with the privacy. They went to Crystal Fathlas for a close. And I used to be a bigger fan of Crystal Fathlas than I am now. I don't know how long Crystal Fathlas has been with blockchain that in front. It's been there for a while. I'm sure they brought them in to help with their privacy. But one of the reasons why I never used blockchain that in front is because in the early days they were one of the few wallets and they did one of the stupidest things possible for people's privacy. And I'm sure they've eliminated it since then was they sent you your private key into your email address, which is ridiculous. And many people ended up getting their Bitcoin half that way because people don't protect their email addresses. No, there are no candidate protect their email addresses. We learned in the after. So I don't know if he was there in those early days when these decisions were made. If he was there in those early days making those decisions. And I don't remember if he was or not. This would be the last person for comment. I do apologize to Crystal if he wasn't there during those decisions and then he was put in the middle of the window. I believe he came in afterwards. I know blockchain had some early problems and it is still kind of a difficult to use wallet with the strange identifier key. And there's a couple other quirky things about the way you log in and the mobile app sometimes is kind of a clotsy. But I do appreciate that they went to Christoph Atlas for a quote here. He did write the book on Bitcoin privacy. It is available. And I think he would say kind of the same thing that I'm saying that it's available to you but you have to be very diligent and very focused. Because there's many points where you can make a mistake. And I know anyone that's tried to use tour and tried to protect their IP. One time you screw up, you don't turn on tour. You're doomed. It's over. The whole project's done. And we've seen real world examples of this with the Dread Pirate Roberts who famously posted on a message board saying something like, hey guys, can you help me set up a dark neck market? And he used his real name. And of course, there's the tragic detail we learned during the trial. But actual security, actual privacy really takes a dedication and a focus that I'm not sure normal people who aren't CIA, KGB spies really have the discipline to hold up. What do you think Tom? Yeah, no, I agree with that. And how the lot to do with what you're doing, if you are doing something really, really that needs an anonymous coin, you want to take the extra steps to do it. But there were a lot of well put comments. I like that Anderson comment. There were a lot of really well written comments here where people understand that that Bitcoin isn't your best tool for privacy. It's not your best tool for anonymity. But people are realizing that well, not everybody wants anonymity and everybody needs an anonymity. It would be great, but there are problems that come with an anonymity like in the case of Zcash, no one has any idea if it's actually working. And some are speculating the same thing for Monero, but I haven't really seen anything technical on now. A lot of people pitching Monero here, which I don't think is a solution. But they're right. But here's my problem with it. So you have Christopher Fatless, and I'm going to pick on him some more, where he is complaining that there isn't enough fungibility and there isn't enough privacy in Bitcoin. Yet he's under Bitcoin unlimited side, which is basically cheating Bitcoin from advancing, creating this, you know, infighting, where I would have hoped that by now, our Bitcoin core developers would be getting lightning network out because they don't have to worry about segment anymore. Sagnaling is going up to 60, 70%. Okay, good. We're going to have to worry about segment anymore. Let's do lightning. And once we have lightning, that should give us some more anonymity. And then maybe we can focus on that. By now, I think that's the only way to get the information that we can get from the way we have lightning that should give us some more anonymity. And then maybe we can focus on that. By now, I think the fear is that lightning network will actually give them less anonymity. I think people are worried that the way it passes coin from person to person can create a trail. Maybe those trails are still accessible. Maybe it's not that great and up to it. I think that's where the concern is coming. And maybe it's unfounded, but they are afraid. You know what? I may have to double check it. That's not what I've heard. And I'm sure people will have a way out of it. If they're worried any second level solution takes the control out of their hands and perhaps puts it into a company's hands. This is my understanding of their argument. I could be wrong as well, but I'm just trying to. Oh, and that's perfectly fine. It puts it in their company's hands. So it's up to the company whether they want to open source the code of their lightning network channel to show that there is anonymity going on. But Google is accepting Bitcoin. They're going to want to know who you are. That's how it always works. It's hard to force a change into the industry to have to see it for itself. And most things don't require anonymity. We would like it. But yeah. So I didn't like this article. It didn't really present any solutions whatsoever, just complaints. So brings up solutions. You know what? Bitcoin is limited in the solution. Get segred in there. Get lightning network out. And you know what? If people aren't happy with the anonymity of liking networks, then somebody else will build something else. But you still need segred as that backbone to get there. And again, I'm already talking too much segred. That's our last story. We get through it because we already think everything in Bitcoin right now revolves around segred. I'm sorry, guys. If it needs to get into it. It's a good piece of code. At least from my understanding of outsourcing the technology aspect of it to people that I respect and understanding that technology. Let's move on to the exit question. On a scale of one to ten, with ten being absolute, perfect privacy and zero being you'd be better off writing your username and password on a public whiteboard, how private is Bitcoin toned, based? Man, this is tough question. It's as private as you make it. But you know, no more comments I should have said earlier in that permissionless value transfer is way more important than private value transfer. And I realize this more recently. And so what if people know what you're doing, the fact that they can't stop you is way more important than what they know what you did. But so my view of Bitcoin, I give it a five. I give it right down the middle. I give it a five. I give it a five for privacy. You stole my answer. I'm going right there with a five. Not the room to grow, but plenty of room to go backwards as well. Let's move on to the next issue. Issue three, Bitcoin price breaks upward. Is it heading for $2,000 a coin? As you know, Bitcoin does not exist in a vacuum. Bitcoin is affected by larger forces. Some forces so large that they have their own gravity. New President Donald Trump has been talking tough and threatening a trade war with China over their Pacific expansion. Meanwhile, the Chinese have begun savoraddling, saying that war with the US is now, will this newfound uncertainty and the reality of a trade war with China drive the Bitcoin price into the stars, tone days? Oh, I was wrong about price. So this means the main mic. This will also be my prediction or story of the week. Price, China and Trump. It's all in there. So let me briefly touch base on China and Trump. Again, these articles are really stretching. I mean, all these articles are like, if there's really nothing else to write about, it's a slow week. It can't possibly be that slow. It's just that. First of all, no one. And I mean no one. Not even Trump has any idea what kind of how the global economics will be shaped over the first 12 months of Trump's presidency. Nobody knows. No economists, no Fed chairman, no one from the people's bank of China. No one knows how the Trump and Trump can't just make laws on his own. There are still congresses at that. There are still advisors to Trump. He's still trying to get his economic team together as far as I know. So no one knows like speculating on what's going to happen in a month between the US and China as far as economic relationship goes. This is insane exercise to attempt to guess it. And I even hate the idea. I take China week to week, month to month. And I just move on how things develop. China has their own problem. We have our problem. We're dealing with Trump. They're dealing with their own political situation. And like this exercise is insane. I don't even know. I read this article and I'm like, what does the $2,000 price in that headline has to do with anything in this article? I also keep it an eye for the writing this thing. Okay. I'll assume it. Okay. I've been proactive with him before. And it was 100 Huggins that wrote the coin desk article. I haven't been honest. I haven't been a huge fan of it before. I know what I'm going to, this has, this is complete. It has nothing to do with anything. I'm sorry. I have nothing to comment on. As much as I like to know, speculate on economics and trading and things that I think I know everything. And sometimes I think I know everything. And I have no idea. And even if I knew, even if I knew exactly what Trump was going to do in relation with China over trade war. And I knew what the Chinese retaliation was. Even with those pieces of information, I would have no idea what it means for the global economy or specifically for Bitcoin. I wouldn't know anything. And I don't think anyone in the world does. If someone is trying to like sell you this information that they know something, they're going to do. It's complete bullshit. You know what? I'm going to save my price for prediction. I'm going to take the opposite side of tone's views here. And I'm going to tell you everything that Trump's going to do and everything that's going to happen. First of all, Trump is definitely going to start a trade war, probably with China, probably with Mexico, maybe with both. And I know for those of us who have an experience, trade wars, we've only read about them. Having a shortage of goods in the market, not being able to get vegetables, the price is going up 10 times. These things are crazy. They're catastrophic. And basically, they're causing fear, uncertainty and doubt. And as we've said over and over again, Bitcoin is the new gold. In the old days, when you had fear, you're like, I don't know about the stock market. I don't know about the dollar. I don't even know about housing and real estate. Running in gold. Keep it safe and gold. And I think we're seeing that now. Put your money in Bitcoin. Keep it safe. Now, $2,000, $3,000, $10,000. The drapers are still running around saying, maybe so. I think Bitcoin's really valuable for more people that hear about it, the better. And if this fear and uncertainty and doubt, acts as an advertising agent, bringing us more people to Bitcoin. I think the price will go up. Tom Vays, any comment on that? No, I mean, I do that. I mean, the price will go up, but the price will go up anyway. So the question now is, how much effect do China have? And with our last week's show, between the TBOC coming in, to stop the leverage, to put some fees in there, Chinese volume drastically drop. And I think it's a good thing. So that might take some speculative aspect out of it. And also, let's assume. And I've always been, if the end this, let's assume that there was a lot of people, a lot of speculators in China. And they like to borrow the Chinese, like to borrow the money by Bitcoin and then, you know, pay back below. What happened during the crash last month was the offshore borrowing rate went to like a 30 year high. And I think that had a lot to do with it. So again, going back to China, I think one of the biggest factors is how expensive is it to borrow money out there? Because I think a lot of these people want to trade on leverage and they have so much to put it in borrow money. And if the borrow rate's high, then there will be less speculation. The borrowing rate's low. It will be more speculation. But you want them to be valued. And there might be more capital flight. And if you want to appreciate, for those, there might not be capital flight. And we don't know which way it's going to go. Nobody knows until China floats the currency and they're not floating the currency. If they float the currency, nobody knows which direction of a bill. It might appreciate, it might be valued. And again, this is one month, there are you on the one thing, next month, there are you on the other thing. All you heard was, for the last three years, up until six months ago, China needs to float their currency. If they float their currency, the value of the Chinese you want would go up. They wouldn't be able to be valued their currency. So they're artificially dropping the value of the yuan. Then China goes ahead and forcibly increases the value of the yuan and everyone is upset. Like again, they have been buying these Chinese stories, driving up the wall. Because people have no clue what they're talking about. And they assume that they do. If China floated the yuan tomorrow, I have absolutely no idea which direction the free market would take it. There is just as many, and now people are saying China has all these problems. They have laws losing their reserves. They don't have an capital. They're getting into debt. But people are like, okay, which direction will the currency go if it was refloting out there in the world? Some people are saying it's going to go up. Some people are saying it's going to go down. And now because of their government problem, their financial problem. So nobody is picking those. They're speculating on the economics of China, especially from Americans or people in Europe or Africa. It's silly. It's absolutely silly. Nobody knows. I agree. Nobody knows. But suddenly, it's vital to know. You can predict the future if you knew. But nobody does. Let's move on to the next issue. 2. 4. Light coins, Segwit, adoption. Light coins, a copy of Bitcoin that uses the script hashing algorithm rather than Shaw 256, has asked their miners to begin signaling their support for segregated witness on Light coins. Segregated witness, the off-discussed Bitcoin sailing solution, scaling solution, sorry, stores the signatures separately, allowing for more space in the block while at the same time removing transaction malleability and allowing for the creation of side chains needs only 75% adoption to be soft-fort into Light coins. Will Light coin achieve segregated witness before Bitcoin, who incidentally is requiring a higher threshold of 95%, and successful? Will it inspire Bitcoin to adopt Segwit? I ask you, Thomas Hunt. I would say, since I wrote this question, I agree with it. I believe that Light coin will activate segregated witness. I'm going to go out on a limb. I'm going to say it's going to work. That's just a guess. And I'm going to say that because it works on Light coin, Bitcoin will be inspired and they will want to adopt it too. Once again, Light coin and the off-coins are functioning. As we've always said, they were a test net for Bitcoin. This is a chance for us to try out segregated witness. Maybe it blows up in their face and it only ruins Light coin, which would be great because it didn't ruin Bitcoin, apologies to Light coin fans. This is similar to Ethereum. Without a test network, without a way to see what would happen without Hard fork, you could end up with two Ethereum, two Bitcoins, two Light coins. And that would be a disaster. Toned Vays, your thoughts on Light coin, segregated witness. I hope that the Light coin gets adopted by, sorry, I hope, Segwit gets adopted by Light coin. It only needs a 75% threshold. But I don't think there is much danger in Segwit. So if it goes to Light coin, it works there for a little bit. The system is really going to be stressed because no one uses Light coin for any meaningful transactions. But at least it will show a community of Bitcoin that people can come up with some consensus with those only 75%. And I do believe there will help. There will help Bitcoin get it packed together and get Segwit in. That 95% threshold may need to be lowered in the future. Like Light coin gets it packed with 75% and doesn't split it, doesn't score. Might be safe to do 85% with Bitcoins. That's the problem with things. I do like the 95% consensus level because I think it really is consensus. The problem is we're in such a politicized environment that I could see people trying to buy 10, 15% of the hashing rate just to screw over segregated witness not because they actually don't agree with it or there is any kind of signaling problem. So only for that reason I could kind of agree with you for taking down the consensus. The reason the politicized environment. That would be really the only reason. And also them buying that hash rate is going to get expensive and they can't do it forever. Especially if they are buying the wall blocks and they're going to get the rewards for it. So I expect more of those scruops a lot more of them. Eventually it's going to get expensive and they will stop doing it. Now there are, you know, what if SegWit doesn't get approved on Light coin. What if they don't get 75% consensus? Now it creates a bit of problem. Now the Bitcoin speculation might concede the fact that there won't be a block size increase in the wonky second and Bitcoin it is what it is. It just stays that way. I was also going to share a screen really quickly just to show the current support of what's going on. And the article I felt was a little biased towards Bitcoin unlimited. It's just the way things were phrased and again it's Stan Figgins who is not, I don't know, I just, I've been reading some of his work at home. Not a huge fan, I'm sorry. It just seemed, it's one of these things. It's like when I debate certain people, people are like, oh, you're talking all this crap about steam, but how come you don't debate a steamer person? And my answer is, I don't want to debate a steamer person because I don't want to give a scammer who deserves maybe half a percent of the viewing time, 50 percent of the viewing time, right? I don't want to give a scammer a voice and make it even, even acknowledge the fact that he has a reasonable opinion. And my view on Bitcoin unlimited is that it's an attempt at a hard fork splitting the Bitcoin network into two. So to me, the legitimacy is very, very bad for Bitcoin unlimited. So exposing Bitcoin unlimited is like, well, it's a 50, 50 choice, but it's not. I mean, one is thoroughly tested and one is a complete mess. So what I wanted to show was the current state and look, 8 percent of the network is still pushing for 8 megabyte blocks for God's sake, right? This is the reason why that threshold of 95 percent may need to be lower. And the majority is not signaling anything. And I'm not technical when it comes to mining, I've never mined. But I curious the thing, right? So I don't like how this is broken down because the needs are very, very confusing. But if you look at this chart, right, you have the green, which is Bitcoin core. And then you have, sorry, that orange, which is Bitcoin core and the green, which is Bitcoin unlimited and you see Bitcoin unlimited rising as Bitcoin core is dropping. But as Bitcoin core, segue, or as a just Bitcoin core, because these are kind of different things that I'm not even a minor. I could be poorly born a way out of my area of expertise, but you can run Bitcoin core code and not signal for seconds. And you can also run Bitcoin unlimited code. But if you're running Bitcoin unlimited code, you're automatically signaling for Bitcoin unlimited. So I think the way this wattage is structured, I personally believe it's very, very confusing because you want to separate the people that are running Bitcoin core that don't want segwit and don't want Bitcoin unlimited versus people that are running Bitcoin core and segmented, segmented. Right? And again, my knowledge in these matters are very rudimentary. But and one other note, I believe, was in the comments. And I thought this was a very good comment. Wow, these articles like CoinDesk and especially CoinColor graph, they're really lacking comments. Well, like we put a video off, we get 4050 comments. It's not a good sign. You really want to see that interactivity, the people reading your work and then giving a comment back, having a discussion. It's not a good sign when you lose that. Do you do? And you want that discussion to be on topic, not talking about how inaccurate this was or that was. You want to stir a discussion on the topic itself. And this will do the comment just like comparing the two. Maybe I can just zoom in my page a little bit. Just want to get it out there, you know, on video or future reference. Do you want to read the comments? It's pretty small. I don't want to. I don't want to read. It's pretty small. Sure. That's why I just didn't get it. I'll read the comments. Here's the comment. So segwit, developed by some of the best programmers in the world, is designed to fix transaction malleability. Slightly increase transaction capacity and pave the way for lighting network. Which in turn is designed to increase transaction capacity way beyond these networks, scaling, way beyond these networks, scaling issues solved. You get the impression that the coin unlimited would lead to more frustration, technical problems, and while it may lead to an increase in transaction capacity, probably won't fix it to any significant extent, it's likely to end up being an unwindling mess. So and I agree with that, the increased transaction capacity, the block size would stay the same, but the way things are fit into that block is different. So I think it's possible to get it up to like double the amount of transactions in there, but again, this is how segwit puts more transactions into a block is left for the more technical people. I also think the commenter makes a good point on segwit is a very advanced technical solution, whereas doubling the block size from one make to two make is kind of a simple solution and it doesn't really scale in the long term. Sure, you could double it again to four, eight, you know, 16, whatever you want to go. It's not crazy to do that feeling. It's racing the depth ceiling, right? I mean, like again, this goes to the same point. You have all of these, like most of these people's creating for big blocks are these like, you know, anti-fabric libertarian types. And by doubling the block size, okay, you're raising the depth ceiling. You hate it when the government does it, but you do. Yeah, they don't call it kicking the can down the road for nothing. It does seem to work every time we do it. That's a good point. I'm not going to argue that. There is kind of a wish if we had a CEO Bitcoin, I wish that they would choose in kind of a middle way. Like maybe we raise the block size to two make and we do segwit anyway and we kind of have both solutions. Maybe there's technical reasons to that. No, you can't because you raise the block size, it fires the heart for it and we can't have a heart for it. Like, there's a whole other debate, right? So I like, and the unlimited block people, they want the heart for it because they think it will be good for the ecosystem and the chances of two Ethereum to Bitcoin, you know, who cares about that powerability. And maybe you should be more in time, maybe you could see what happens between Ethereum and Classic and Ethereum because Ethereum, Classic, Angle and Go are there. So yeah, so that's not it. That's the thing. I can bothers me and this should not be debateable, but it's the biggest debate Bitcoin has. It drives me up the wall. And for those watching, follow Royal Panda on Twitter if you want to stay up to date Bitcoin on limited versus second. The other thing about this debate that bothers me is it's been going on for years and years with seemingly no end in sight. I thought we had it with SegWit, but now the adoption, getting up to that 95%, hopefully the Litecoin will push us through, but it's just been a long, long run. But that's again, we're developing open source software in public. This is a public process. It's never been done before. This is an open source project that deals with your money. So it's very important if you lose your money, you get upset, you lose your password, you could change it, you know, it's not that bad. But let's move on to the exit question. Favorite early altcoin? Litecoin, Peercoin, Dogecoin or Feathercoin, ToneVase. This is such a loaded question, especially for me, now that my podcast with those cameras that one, I'm going to be talking about every single coin and the Peercoin that that's actually been the top 100 coins in my forever. Very first proof of stake coin ahead of its time in many ways. Oh yeah, that really was ahead of its time. I think that was proof of stake. Proof of stake, and. Well, no, that was then a layer of a stake thing. Right, I'm sharing screen once again. Let's take a look at what we thought. Oh, wow, pick one one off. While we were talking, look at that. So Ethereum is a number two, Ethereum is nonsense. To me, on this entire list, that doesn't count. To me, on this entire list, this list should be one coin and two testnets. One is the coin. My two testnets are Monero and Litecoin. They should be two and three. Everything else should be worth less than a pen. And the market capitalization of Bitcoin, which you can see on the screen, that should be like at 98, 97, 98 percent versus the rest of them with Monero and Litecoin taking the rest. I think Monero and Litecoin are testnets. They'll be good for different reasons. So I would like to get tested on Litecoin. Monero is playing around with an anonymity. And just like Litecoin picking up Segwit, if it's looking good, maybe it will be easier for Bitcoin to adopt it. And the same thing goes for anonymity. Right? If Monero is doing something right with anonymity, then Bitcoin will just adopt it. I don't see a future in Litecoin and Monero either, but I'm still not glad they exist. Well, I wrote the question and I've always been a fan of Feathercoin. So I wanted to just talk about Feathercoin. Feathercoin was before Dogecoin. Feathercoin had the idea of community, the idea of tipping, and the idea of being a really inexpensive coin. It was at the time it was printed. It was called Litecoin's quarter because it had four times as many coins as Litecoin. So they hoped it would be worth a quarter. I'm sure it's not worth it now, but I enjoyed Feathercoin. It's how I met Chris Ellis. Chris Ellis was an early community manager for Feathercoin and helped get Feathercoin going and really helped people learn about the idea of building a community around a coin. And for that, I appreciate Feathercoin. But don't go out and buy anything or anything. It's not an endorsement in that way. It's more of just a celebration of good work and a different time. It's now a long time ago. But let's move on to prediction or story of the week. Tom Vays, are you ready with a prediction or a story of the week? Yes, I'm just going to go with a prediction and I have to make this quick because I'm already late. But so we talked about a $2,000 Bitcoin earlier in the show in a coin Telegraph article. I'm not sure where they got that number. I have an idea of maybe where they got that number. But this was an article published in the Bitcoinist. And they reached out to me on the first day of the year. I think this was written. It was published January 3rd. So literally, I like January 2nd or 1st. I got a request from them. What do I think about Bitcoin in 2017? And I was quoted along with Reggie Metalton and Kim.com. So this was great that it was just a three. And I'll be using my screen at the time. So this is what I wrote. I see a very strong start to the 2017. A lot depends on segway passing. Yes. Confidence and speculation in eventual consensus on segway being passed that should drive the price to as high as $2,000 by end of summer. I don't like the price one out three months prior to the having. Then go back with three months then after. Then sometime in August, I expect a correction so that the year end, we should be around $1,500 to $1,750. So on the first of the year, I made a prediction that the price of Bitcoin would be $2,000 by middle August. So that's my late summer. End of summer is for me. Middle August, the early September. So I'm looking for a $2,000 price tag by that time followed by a correction that should keep us above our current levels and looking at the price charts. Let's take a look here's the weekly chart. We are back to $10,19 on bid stamp. Everything is looking good. I have absolutely no resistance. It's clear to all my highs. Here is the daily we're in this channel right here. Go out of the corner a minute on this panic and now we're going back up a little bit. Here is the hourly. I'm not a big fan of hourly. I just added this other bigger channel. We've already in this channel here. Bringing it up again. Nothing really to worry about. Then I published this on trading view and I can zoom in easier on this chart where this is back at the end of 2015 where we had this line that I have here as resistance. And then we bumped into it once in close. Okay. Yeah. Bounce into it once came close, came close, busted out of it and then we repeated this pattern one more time. We came back up, hit it a couple of times and then we busted out a bit recently and this pattern is starting to repeat and I think we're going to get back to $11.50 and throughout the spring we'll be bouncing up against it and then we break out with a nice break out. Into the summer. I'm still bullish on the price of Bitcoin. I have been ever since this breakout of up 760. I said that your perfect five point would be back at 760 as it comes back and test this line just like it came back and tested this line right here and then we go off. But this took longer than this. This past one to take longer than the current one and just chartle how to be grossly wrong. But will be a good break out. We may go off about it, but I'm bullish. Excellent news. Tone is bullish. And now a prediction. The New England Patriots will win the Super Bowl. That's not some wild crazy prediction. They have the better team, the better defense and not the better offense, but they have the better defense. And as you know, defense wins championships. So I'm not really going out on a limb here, but I am predicting the team that everyone loves to hate except people from New England will win the Super Bowl. The commissioner will have to give the trophy to Tom Brady, the villain of the deflate gate scandal and it will all come back together, all tied up with a nice little bow, another great season for the NFL. So enjoy the Super Bowl this weekend and I think we're about out of time. So until next time. Bye. Bye. Bye.