The Bitcoin Group, the American Original. For over the last 10 seconds, the sharpest Satoshi's, the best Bitcoin's, the hardest cryptocurrency talk. We'd like to welcome our panelists, Blake Anderson, cryptographic economist. Hi, everybody. Thank you for joining us. Happy Friday. Theo Goodman from Hasse online. Good evening, everyone. Happy Friday. Tonedays from Liberty Life Trail. Good evening, everyone. And I'm Thomas Hunt from the World Crypto Network, moving on to issue one. Issue one, China again. The PBOC is back in the news this week after another meeting with Chinese exchanges. This time resulting in the immediate halt of Bitcoin and Litecoin withdrawals. With RMB withdrawals unaffected, the price of Bitcoin reacted negatively to this move, dropping more than $100 from a high of $1070 to allow $910 before recovering to $9.85. Early in the day, the exchanges announced plans for know your customer and anti-mondering laundering policies, but the market failed to react. Blake Anderson, your thoughts on the latest Chinese intervention. Is this good for Bitcoin? China is always good for Bitcoin. We've seen a lot of rollercoaster-esque activity come from China and their announcements and stuff. I guess from the amount of trade volume they have over in China, it seems like they have a specific interest in playing specific swings so they know they can cause because they have so much volume over there. We have things like anti-mondering, no customer laws, the jig is up and move our money around and try to find different ways to trade. There is a visceral pullback when people thought that the main flow was going to be affected and then in the long run people want to buy when blood in the gutter goes down. It bounced really, really hard. Then even the conclusion that markets failed to react to KYC AML, who knows maybe there are some people that are investors that really like the legacy system that reacted positively to that, maybe that drove the price up. Who knows at this point, but I like to see all of the activity and volatility. There was a price chart put out by I believe Pantera Capital, not that long ago and it shows the exponential growth of Bitcoin and then it shows the huge deviation with Gox. But other than that, it's pretty much on point for continuing that huge dramatic growth pattern, which I think a lot of people have been expecting for a long time in terms of we need an immutable medium of exchange. Things are starting to get really, really, really iffy around the world because so many medium of exchange are becoming so thin that the basic operations of companies and stuff and businesses that have been around for a long time are breaking down. I think that as inflation continues to run rampant, I think as the world tends to get worse that we're going to see the factors of a deflationary spiral really, really drive into Bitcoin and people looking for a mutable storage of value. The value proposition that maybe we came obscure for a little while will continue to come back more and more viscerally and more people will understand it. I think that China creating all this turbulence and not creating this attention is really just digging their own grave and I think it's good publicity. Any publicity is good publicity. We've got 50 live viewers just reminder to everyone to thumbs up and share this video. Theo Goodman. If the other question is, is it good for Bitcoin? Sure, yeah, it's extra publicity like Blake said. That part is definitely good for Bitcoin. I guess you could say it's kind of a stress test for Bitcoin, but I mean what you saw on the price selling off like that, it's just kind of an emotional reaction. Put it in the grand scheme of things, that big of a sell off. I don't know the exact compare parents right now, but point out that traders that can't trade due to these new regulations, regardless if they're Chinese or Americans in their basement trading on Chinese exchanges, it doesn't matter. They're going to figure out a way to trade. If you take the leverage away from the Chinese spot exchanges, then people are going to go elsewhere. For example, okcoin.com is not affected by these regulations because they're not in mainland China. Also, a lot of altcoin exchanges are not in mainland China. Trading really volatile markets on high leverage or where they're going to go. They're home and stop. They're going to keep trading somewhere. You might see influx in altcoin. You might see influx in other exchanges that are located in other countries. We could even see other exchanges pop up to meet that demand. We have to wait and see how it all plays out. I hope that people also realized what was going on a few weeks ago where the people's Republic of China Bank is visiting exchanges. Hey, this is happening. Maybe it's a good time to think about getting some of my funds off of that exchange now. Instead of waiting, they say, oh, so they're warning. Actually, that's just something. And these, those right, these meetings were announced in advance. There was a chance to trade on this news and I think a lot of people did assuming that the news would be bad or at least bad in a market way. Tony Vays, your thoughts on the Chinese action? Yeah, and I agree with all that. I mean, Blake had a good point that it is going to bring a little extra publicity to Bitcoin, which is always good. All news is pretty much good news. What DO also said makes sense. I mean, if gamblers want to gamble, they'll find somewhere else to do it. Chances are it will be more like a story we're going to talk about later in this show where your Bitcoin become a little more at risk because they're now less validated companies. Now, to China, back on the specific case, you're right, Thomas. People did take advantage of the news and people panicked on the news initially. That's why we had a double drop. We had the initial drop when China had their currency announcement and then we had the extra drop down to 760 when people found out that the regulators were growing up the Chinese exchanges. I actually, I did like the initial statements coming out of those meetings that eliminated the leverage and that eliminated no fees. We talked about that on this show, but I also said, this is what I would like for the regulation to end. I fully expected that regulation not to end there. It was very obvious where this regulation was going by the initial statements because the initial statement during that week of the panic was KYC and AML. I was spreading my own panic saying that my worst case scenario is that if you're a foreigner trading on a Chinese exchange, your Bitcoin is going to be confiscated and if you're a Chinese national trading on a Chinese exchange, then you're okay because then you will be KYC. It looks like that's exactly what is happening. Again, I don't want to spread more rumors, but the Bitcoin and the Litecoin withdraws have been frozen, but if you want to withdraw a local Chinese currency, then you're okay because that has to go through a bank and you're being KYC. Now I also hear, and this is interesting, that okaycoin.com, which is the US version of the site, was unaffected and people were able to withdraw Bitcoin from there. To me, this is a big, big problem. Look, I don't like rules and regulations as much as the next guy, but you can't have in both ways. If OKcoin is going to comply with Chinese regulations, then they need to comply with them across all of their websites. If they have a US subsidiary, okaycoin.com, which doesn't have to abide by the Chinese regulations that they do on OKcoin, on their Chinese version of OKcoin, then either they're breaking Chinese laws, which is going to end bad not only for OKcoin, but also for anyone that has money on OKcoin, or the Bitcoin.com site of the organization would now need to follow US regulations, because they're trading USD with US customers. You can't have it both ways. It's not that easy to get around laws unless you are Satoshi and you're going to remain invisible unless you're BTC and you're going to remain private. You can't have it both ways. The only other thing I want to point out is people are now complaining about this one holder on OKcoin that apparently always has 40 to 60% of all the contracts or something like that. I don't trade any of these exchanges, so I don't really know. I've always speculated that this is just one big player or one big pool of players that are playing both sides of the futures market. I've explained how you can make money on this because of the socialized losses. You play both sides. You move the underlying market significantly. One of your sides immediately cancels and the other side runs into the money. The side that got cancelled will get socialized and you still make money. People are now speculating that it's OKcoin themselves trading against their users, which totally makes sense because this is an unregulated market. In fact, this is why you libertarians want regulation because OKcoin and BTC China, they know when the regulators are coming in. They have a huge advantage of shorting the hell out of Bitcoin because they're about to put out an announcement saying that regulators are annually probing us over the next two weeks and they know that the price is going to drop. Those of you that are screaming no regulation, no regulation, this is what you are asking for. There has to be some kind of thing, say, if you're going to work for OKcoin, you cannot trade Bitcoin. You have to be hands off Bitcoin. You were the working in security exchange or you are trader because if you do, and this is why I had to deal with this regulation when I was working at Bear Stearns and JP Morgan and I hated it. I hated it. I'm like, this is ridiculous. Now, I'm in the Bitcoin space. I'm like, oh, that made perfect sense why I had to go through an insane amount of hoops to make any kind of a trade, even an ETF for God's sakes, that I have no ability to manipulate. And my job had nothing to do with the market either. But it makes sense why these kinds of regulations are in place. I just also want to make clear that this is essentially a money grab by the Chinese government. Foreign traders were using the Chinese exchanges which had higher prices and now their Bitcoin and Litecoin cannot be withdrawn in the traditional sense. They can only be withdrawn by converting it to RMB, the local currency, which you need a local bank account for, which most of them can't do. Just a reminder to everyone, when you put your Bitcoin into an exchange, they're not really Bitcoin anymore. You can't just withdraw them. You can't just send them. They're not really in a wallet per se. They're in someone else's computer. And now those computers essentially belong to the Chinese government. Let's move on to the exit question. The price of Bitcoin this time next week, higher or lower, Blake Anderson. God, I'm just going to say the same because you know what during this time, I don't know what it's going to be. Theo Goodman. We're going down. Get low, get low. Toned vase. Oh my God. I can't believe this is about to happen. Higher. My technical charts are pointing higher and no matter how bad the news out of China is going to be, let's say the worst case scenario and they confiscate all foreigners Bitcoin and Bitcoin starts to take up. Everyone is going to go frantic feeling that they're missing out and they're going to learn their lesson and they're going to have to go out and pay whatever price they can in order to finally understand that you need to hold on to your own private keys. So it'll just be a good lesson and it'll take forever for the Chinese to sell these things at auction if they do happen to confiscate it. So it'll only constrict the supply. So for me, I think the bad news is over and we go higher. Always higher. The real lesson of Bitcoin is that Bitcoin's have value. That's why the Chinese are seizing them. Moving on to issue two. Issue two. Blockchain for defense. Estonian based software company Guard Time has just been awarded a contract to create a next generation system which will include a blockchain to modernize the NATO cyber-range platform. Cyber-range allows for practice cyber-attacks, testing and training without affecting live systems. Theo Goodman, is this a good move for NATO? Does this project need a blockchain? Of course, all things need a blockchain. We are in the post-mySQL world where you need a blockchain for everything you do because blockchain is the future. If you're not using a blockchain, then you're behind. You're going to be attacked by terrorists and you're going to be slow. You're not going to be using the correct technology. The correct technology. After every thing, everything in the whole world. See what you have in the technical difficulties. Theo, are you with us? Theo has become with us. I'm with us. The reason that I'm having difficulties is because Google Hangouts is not using blockchain technology. Need to embrace blockchain technology in every aspect of our life. We need blockchain for our glasses. We need blockchain for our hats. We need blockchain for our shoes. We need blockchains for our military, for our air force, Marines, and for every aspect of our lives. We need a blockchain. Estonia is showing us the direction in that we can train with NATO in order to fight the bad guys in order to fight terrorism. We need to be the good guys using the blockchain so that every single military action is on a public NB trace so that we know that the military is following the Geneva conventions. We can trace every single military activity that they've done. We can use that data to predict what they're going to do next. This is a good thing. That is how you use blockchain technology in the proper way. You guys use blockchain's bad guys use SQL databases, tone based. I actually found the story incredibly interesting and frustrating at the same time. I'm not sure where to begin. We have a standard audience. It's pretty obvious to anyone watching the show that NATO does not need nor do they want an actual blockchain. I'm not even going to talk about that. I'm wasting every once in a while. What I am going to do is I'm sharing my screen. I'm actually going to be critical of Brave New Coin because I found this article incredibly frustrating. Again, I used to be affiliated with Brave New Coin. I can be as critical as I like. Look usually writes these articles. The editor is always pretty serious. I didn't like the article at all. First of all, you have to click on this link right here. Guard time, guard awarded a contract by the Estonia Ministry. Let's start with Estonia. It's a pretty technologically advanced country. They are trying to digitalize everything. If anyone knows about Internet security and digital security and simplifying government through technology, it's Estonia. Guard time is clearly in the security software realm. I have a feeling that they understand exactly what a blockchain is. My guess is they are... This is either the greatest troll job by a company in history because I highly doubt that they don't know what they're doing. When you click on this link that says award, it takes you to the guard time blog where they discuss this contract with NATO. They just talk about the technology and how they're building it. The only time blockchain is mentioned is right here in the last sentence, which is awesome. Guard time is the world's leading blockchain company founded in 2007. The company develops blockchain-based solutions for defense, healthcare, cybersecurity, and physical supply chains. Fairly, it's one of two things. Either they have no clue what they're doing or they know exactly what they're doing. They just threw the word blockchain in there. You want a blockchain? Fine. We're a blockchain. We'll build you the database that you need. We've been doing blockchain since a year before Bitcoin. This is awesome. Getting back to the article from Brave New Coin and they go on talking about this. Here's the interesting part. It gets down to at the end. They talked about in March 2016, guard time became known as a blockchain provider when it partnered with Estonia's E-health Authority and Agreement 2011 to do blockchain with health records. There's no details on this. It's a partnership. This is the story because over here, here's what it says. This is Brave New Coin writing this. I don't know if this isn't sourced at all. I want to see the source on this. Guard time healthcare blockchain was made to accelerate transparency, auditability, security, and governance. The article talks about how whatever their building is going to have, I can't find it. I really should have highlighted before or I might tweet this out later. It talked about how things are going to be immutable. I'm looking at this. Where's your source? This is the story here. How the hell is guard time going to make anything immutable? How? Are they mining? Are they using Bitcoin? Are they using Ethereum? What are they doing? What is going to make something immutable? The entire story here was totally missed. It's a software company. You put a defense industry grade. You got to test these claims. I don't know if these are the claims from guard time or the claims from Luke writing this article. I don't know where it came from, but there are statements in here where if you know what a blockchain is and you read it going, how the hell are they doing that? Those questions aren't answered. That's journalism. I don't know what this is. All right. I'm done. I'm done criticizing Brave New Coin. Lake Anderson, no doubt going to defend this blockchain company. Well, if it's not criticism, if it's not seven, the people don't want you to hear, then it's not journalism as public relations. I think I've heard that before somewhere. I think somebody, I think Jesus said that. If we follow the teachings of Jesus, we know that anything that's published that isn't something that somebody doesn't want people to know is just public relations. Blockchain for defense. Blockchain for defense. They're going to create a big weapon that's going to defend the homeland with blockchain. I would just like giving them some credit, trying to imagine that they're doing something productive with this money. Let's hope they're looking at like, malleability and making their own blockchains and testing the internal working stuff. But I don't know how anybody would know that they're doing that or not with the money that they've given. They've been given. I mean, how would you know? No, no. The general's problem is a military problem. I mean, they're probably thinking in that direction. Go ahead, Tom. Blake, you know they're building a database, right? You know they're not providing the military with bearer digital transactions. I mean, that's just silly, right? You know they're building a database. The question is, are they calling them blockchain just to say they were blockchain? I mean, it's obvious. It's not. I mean, it's obvious it's not a blockchain. It's a secure database. It's on multiple computers. They're linked together. But as far as the mining and the proof of work, do they have any of that or the proof of stake? But that's the article, right? That's what you write about. I mean, who? That is the story here, not everything that they wrote. It just, it frustrates me. And all the publications are doing this. Everybody's doing this. Yeah, I mean, instead of just hearing that something is going to happen, just like hearing a signal about a certain company doing a certain deal, I would also like to see, you know, further information as far as, you know, what technologies have they utilized, what have they found to be useful, what not, what infrastructural techniques are they going after and stuff like that. That information isn't available, but you know, very well, it might not be. Then I mean, I would maybe tone down the sensationalism of the headline and maybe get a little bit more of a critical tone that have just abandoned Wagon jumping on tone and proliferating it from information that may or may not be, you know, we've been doing this since 2007. It's like, well, that's quite a claim right there. So I had actually missed that when I went through it. So I'm at tone pointing that out. I was kicking myself a little bit, but also laughing. I mean, tone cold takes no prisoners. He caught that at 7. I mean, how can a publication claim to do research about blockchain technology without one single reference to RarePay Pay? It is a very important technology. But let's move on to issue three, issue three, international Bitcoin roundup. Japan, which was once ahead of the rest of the world, the first to legalize Bitcoin as a national currency, seems to be taking a step backwards with a restrictive bit license 2.0, which may hamper Bitcoin businesses, again returning the upper hand to the banks. Meanwhile, in Poland, Bitcoin exchange, BitCurrierX has disappeared, claiming that all assets were lost. And for the users, the loss was total. As we always say, never leave your currency on the exchange. Theo Goodman is Bitcoin moving forward overseas, or are the Japanese BitLicense 2.0 and Polish disappearance just adding to Bitcoins already bad reputation? The reputation is now destroyed. You must move over to Pippa Cash now. There is no choice. I think that this just shows there's more interest in Bitcoin. As far as the Japanese thing, it looks like they want to regulate, they want to make something similar to BitLicense. We do know that MTGox was there, so there is some kind of history going on there. They want to regulate. It doesn't necessarily mean things are going to stop there. It just means that if you want to have a business and you're going to hold people's coins, then you're probably going to have to spend a lot of money on lawyers and getting everything in line for the regulations. So that could make it harder for some startups in Japan, or they just might have to partner with someone that does have such licenses and can do that kind of, that's ready to go as far as that's concerned. The Poland thing, the Chinese approach to the Japanese approach, Japan's democracy has an open government. They float these proposals. They write a formal BitLicense. China just really acts. When they feel like regulating the market, they regulate the market. Theo, what do you think about the different approaches of the two governments? I don't know, I'm not going to really get into that. I don't really have a total comment about that, but I do know something. You want to spot right now. Tell us exactly the differences. I'll tell you the difference. I'll tell you the difference. The difference is that the meme economy in Japan is very developed, and the meme economy in China is somewhat developed. There is currently a bigger potential in the Chinese market for Pepe Cash and Rare Pepe, whereas in China there's more of a long-term play. In Japan there could be a quick explosion, and they could really get into Rare Pepe as there are many counter-party developers. As Thomas, you called on me first. I'm going to have to get back with you. I do have a really cool medium post from the developer of a counter-party app that enables you to drop tokens in places. He wrote a good article about the regulation in Japan and what's going on with that. When you guys are talking, I'm going to try to get that so at least we can link to it. I'll see if I can find any other tidbits. I'm very certain that part of that was metaphor, but I'm not sure which part. I think I have to just quickly correct what Theo said. It actually doesn't matter if you're holding people's Bitcoin or not. If you're even involved in the industry, even if you're not a custodian and a fund, you still have to deal with this regulation. A couple of thoughts. China and Japan, they're clearly tackling this issue very, very differently. Japan looked into the currency itself and they're trying to regulate the currency. China doesn't look like they're even attempting to regulate the currency. They seem to understand that the Bitcoin is unregulatable and they're just trying to regulate the financial side of things for now, which is a much better approach. It also makes sense coming from Japan for two reasons. Japan had the biggest blow up in the history of Bitcoin. Obviously, when that happens on your watch and in your country, you're going to overreact to the other side. Even though things move fairly slowly in Japan, they're eventually coming around to it. Because Japan was responsible for the biggest Bitcoin implosion, they will probably be responsible for the biggest Bitcoin over regulation. It's like a potential swinging a lot from one direction to the other. That totally makes sense. Also, from what I have not been to Japan, I want to go to Japan and I don't, but I will end up in Japan. From what I hear, everything is expensive there and everything is kind of slow there. A car, like an oil changer in your car will cost you $100 and it will take you three to four hours. So when you see the price tag of like 300,000 to 400,000, especially in Tokyo, where I hear it costs like $100 to park your car for an hour or two, this seems like it's probably reasonable price considering the stakes. I know it's going to hurt the little guys and the little investors, but this is what you get coming out of Japan. It is pretty over regulated society. I know the enforcement of that regulation is generally kind of laxed, but the people themselves are, you know, comply with that kind of over regulation. So I'm not surprised by any of it. I got to check with a couple of people that I know half companies out in Japan. I know there's a luck stack as a Bitcoin wallet that's out of Japan. I got to see how they're handling things, but I'm sure they have subsidiaries outside of Japan or they will transfer ownership to a subsidiary outside of Japan. Bitcoin is really a stateless. I mean, it's regulating a company should do nothing. If this kind of regulation makes a difference to your company, you're not using Bitcoin correctly. So it's, you know, we do need accountability. I do want to see regulation on the full consumer protection purposes without the identification of the consumer. And if that comes in a trusted third party or an open source in some form or you get a country that believes KYC AML is not the world's problem and they will let that go, but it's difficult, right? Because if that if such a country exists, they will immediately end up on the US and the EU shit list, right? So it's a Chinese are closest hope because the US can't tell them what to do. Russia is a distant second. If you're thinking that some small island's going to do it, I doubt it. The way I see the Caribbean tax havens is that they're going to start to comply with more KYC AML regulation, which is great for Bitcoin, at least I have holes. And of course, we all know what happened to Iraq when they tried to sell oil in euros. And then there's the famous Japanese expression. Don't be the nail that sticks out. That's the one that gets the hammer. Blake Anderson. Well, Japan is a very interesting area. They famously carry a 120% debt to GDP ratio when a lot of people were thinking that that's the point at which a currency topples over. You can't really come back. They carried it for like 20 years and then kind of had to bring some more free markets operations into try to relieve some of the stress on their environment. But yeah, it's an island with lots and lots and lots of people. They have very, very strong sense of tradition. They're not as gung ho with policy as China is, but still I think that the legacy system in Japan is going to push some kind of a license-esque thing on their businesses. Again, because like I was mentioned before, Mt. Gox happened on their watch. And they're not going to want that to happen again. So Japan is a very, very interesting place. The Dutch and them have a very interesting relationship and the way that they developed and their traditions and stuff are extremely interesting. How will that play out through the future and going over to digital storage of value? I don't know. It's a very, very interesting question that could be actually pondered over for a long, long, long time much longer than you guys want to hear me talk about right now. That reminds me, everyone should watch the very reddit popular video, History of Japan. Excellent video. Let's go back to Theo for an update on the meme situation and peppy cash. Go ahead, Theo. Yeah, as far as related to that, this is an article on the Indie Square blog. So you can go to blog.indie square.me. Now, Indie Square is an app you can get on Android. It is a Bitcoin wallet, but it also is compatible with all kind of counterparty tokens. So that's pretty cool. And you can check it out. So he's written a pretty good article. And that's what I, yeah, sure. Of course, he says just like BitLicense, if you're considered a virtual trading company business, you have to submit to all this stuff. So it could be like, Tony said that it's very broad what they consider a virtual trading business. Also, a lot of this stuff gets translated and so on. But there are a lot of requirements. Three-year business plan, organizational structure, government appointed industry association, KOSC AML, segregated fund management. I mean, basically, if you're a small startup, you don't really have a chance. You do need a little bit of capital, 100,000 USD reserve capital and 5,000 application fee. So maybe they just want to collect some money, the government a little bit. Maybe that's part of the motivation. But I think you should definitely check out Koji wrote this, check it out blog.indie square.me. He also has some other good articles about what's going on in Japan as far as Bitcoin. So definitely check that out. All right. We're moving on to issue four, irrational exuberance. The long-awaited Winkel-Vie ETF is quite possibly nearing approval. The trust, which would allow users of the BATs global market to purchase shares representing Bitcoin held by the trust, if approved, would launch. On March 11th, the ETF could lead to a rational exuberance, causing the price of Bitcoin to rise dramatically. Meanwhile, a Yahoo Finance article claims that the price of Bitcoin could form the mother of all bubbles leading to a price target of a practically unthinkable $25,000 at coin. Tones is the Bitcoin ETF, the rocket fuel, the Bitcoin needs to finally get to the move. No. All right. So I've been very, very consistent on the Bitcoin ETF issue. Not only do I think it shouldn't happen, I think it's dumb for the SEC to approve it. And I will once again talk about my reasons. But let me address the Yahoo article first. It states nothing. It's some writer that was bored, decided to pull a number of 25,000 out of his ass with absolutely no reason to back it up. He threw a graph of Bitcoin's mining emission on there without even explaining how it works. And it's just there. OK, do I think Bitcoin is going to hit $25,000 at coin? I think it will. I mean, I could be totally wrong. I think it will. What is it going to do? I have absolutely no idea. I can barely give a prediction for the end of this year. But which I reluctantly do. OK, so back to the ETF. I mean, maybe this conversation really needs like a full hour because it's just the ETF is so dumb. But the articles hit on a couple of things. So let me explain the two main reasons why the ETF is dumb and the SEC should not have been considering it. First of all, the security of the underlying coins. You really don't want to be responsible for the security of the underlying coins. And the US government and the SEC will now be somewhat responsible for the underlying coins. Or they will be responsible as to why they allowed the winkelvost wins to be responsible for the underlying coins. We have just seen what happened in Poland where the exchange was either hacked or they ran away with them. Am I saying the winkelvost wins are going to run away with the Bitcoin? Probably not, but it's possible. And how about some of one of their employees? My own docs had cold storage. Mark Arpello's apparently didn't even realize that Bitcoin is being drained out of its cold storage. So there's lots of ways that Bitcoin can go missing. Now you have the thing about insurance. Are they going to be insured? Who's going to insure them? All right, outside of that, who's going to hold the private keys? Is it a multi-sec? Okay, it's a multi-sec who's going to hold the private keys. Winkelvost are going to hold one. The bat's exchange is going to hold the other. The SEC can hold the third. One of them could hold one key. One could hold the other key. Kind of wins situation itself. Exactly. And they can't reach others minds so they know what the private key is. But are the keys going to get split up that way find is the SEC's. To be responsible for a key what if the SEC's keys compromise? Are they going to admit to it? Are they going as the SEC's going to admit to the world that they're incompetent, and their private key was compromised? What about the BATS exchange? Are they going to admit that they're incompetent and their key was compromised? Because and they're an exchange for traditional assets. Well, the Wink of Oz twins come out if their key is compromised and say how that they're incompetent with their key. So this is just one of an insane amount of problems. On top of that, you already have like three other companies trying to get an ETF. Very silver is trying to get an official ETF even though he has a quasi ETF. I've talked, I know I've talked a bunch of crap about his current product in the past. I'm not going to get into it here. So he's trying to get an official ETF, solid ex is trying to get an ETF. And I bet you that there was like at least 10 of the companies filed a CTF. What's the precedent here? Why are the Wink of Oz twins getting that ETF? What about the rest of them? Are there going to be 10 or 15 Bitcoin ETFs? Of course, people are going to say, yeah, yeah, let's do it diversification, right? I think it's insane. Also, the Wink of Oz twins are already trading Ethereum on their exchange, right? The moment they and they've already filed paperwork to have an Ethereum ETF. And a lot of us know full well that Ethereum is just a blatant scam. So where is a precedent? Who's going to decide which coin is or isn't valid enough for an ETF? I would love to file a one coin ETF. The moment the Bitcoin ETF is approved, I mean, if I had the money, if I had Roger Vier money, instead of fighting Segwit, I would just make a mockery of the situation and submit paperwork to file a DOG ETF or a one coin ETF and try to get that through, right? Because again, what's the difference? I think the whole thing is absolutely crazy. You want Bitcoin to have at least 20, 30 years of stability and history before even attempting to do something like this. So those are my general thoughts on the situation. I just have one final comment, I know I'm taking up a lot of time, but this is important. And it was only mentioned in the Wall Street Journal article and I hope I can find this really, really quick. There was a good point about a major conflict of interest. There it is. Here, so this is a very good quote. I'm gonna highlight it right here, right? I don't believe there is any ETF that trades in the US where a single entity is the sponsor of the ETF, the provider of reference price of the underlying asset and the custodians of the underlying asset. And that is what the Winkelvoss are proposing, said Mr. Bogart, ordering that the, adding that the Winkelvoss likely use proprietary indices and security for reasons of design rather than proposal, rather than personal gain. So that's a very good point. That is a lot of trust in one entity and that doesn't normally exist. Something, at least one person is pointing out, so that's good. But going back to your earlier point of the DOGE ETF and the one coin ETF, they should all be approved. Let the market decide. And of course, the market will decide for Bitcoin and I just wanna say, despite all of Tony's technical worries, I'm excited about these words, irrational exuberance. These are the most exciting words in the economic language. It means they're really excited. Christmas morning, like a thousand times, irrational exuberance. Blake Anderson, do you have irrational exuberance? Irrational exuberance. I mean, I guess like the first kind of signal that you would think of is there's a lot of trading going on in China, there's not as much trading of Bitcoin per capita going on here, the percentage is lower. So hopefully if we can make like a big high speed bridge to the legacy system, it'll bring lots of money in. Is that what's going to happen? I mean, I guess people don't know for sure if that's going to be the result, if they're gonna boom, doggle, key storage, there's a whole bunch of different things that have to be ironed out as far as implementation, that could be killer criticisms. But if we can make a big robust multi-lane channel highway to the legacy investment system, to Bitcoin, it's start to draw money in. Bitcoin's like a Chinese finger trap. You put your fingers in and then the more you try to struggle and the more activity and stuff that goes on around Bitcoin, the more and more stuck governments and nation states are in terms of trying to be rid of it. And obviously one of the biggest use cases of Bitcoin is to undermine the ability of governments and nation states to just print off whatever they want. That's how wars are funded. It's how the value of work and labor and stuff gets all wonky and messed up. So I think that tone made some points that definitely need to be looked at. But at the same time, having a big bridge to the legacy money systems that maybe wouldn't be super stoked to go and create a coin-based account and buy small investment money, hopefully, there'll be enough of those investors that come in and hit the ETF that will make a difference with the amount of trading that's going on in China that I wouldn't expect it to drive anything to $25,000. That's absolutely insane. So take everything with a grain of salt, try to look at the macro factors and invest based on those. Keep your horizons long. That's a good point, though, Blake. Even if the Winklevi Bitcoin were stolen, their value would still be kept in Bitcoin. The thief would likely keep the Bitcoin or sell the Bitcoin. That value would still be there. Theo Goodman, your thoughts on a Winklevi ETF? My thoughts are along the same lines as some of the things that both Tent tone and Blake brought up. And I think we've mentioned it on the show. So that's why you should always keep your YouTube channel. I'll have to order to secure it historical document on how to understand the thing of the thing, but in the reality of the blockchain. But it's completely unusable. I am back. I am now using the blockchain channel in order to transmit my voice. Crypto-clippin. Excellent. So what I wanted to say is that we've mentioned this on the show before, and that is why you need to always go back to World Crypto Network, YouTube channel. You can also check out thebitcoingroup.com in order to check the past shows if you're new to it. So you can have a full understanding of Bitcoin, Bitcoin, crypto blockchain history and then get the full picture. Just in any case, what's gonna happen is if this thing gets approved, then filing documents for a BAT ETF or actually any ETF will just be the new on Microsoft Deser. The thing, hey, our Altcoin is now on the Amazon Club. Hey, our Altcoin is now added to Microsoft Deser. Now, but what happened is any time an Altcoin exists, one of the things that I need to do is not only get added to Microsoft Deser, they don't have to really get an ETF, they just have to make it look like they're trying to get one. So I don't know how much it costs to file, make it look like you're actually trying to make the effort, but that's what happened. So then every Altcoin will then make the effort to try to look like they're trying to get an ETF too. You can see other trusts like Silver does doing, it's not really an ETF, like we said, it's a trust. So it's kind of a workaround, I guess. But in any case, I think that we are gonna see more for now, it's kind of a trend. There'll probably be more people that try it. I'm not really sure it'll get approved though. There's a lot of mixed signals. Hey, I'm not a lawyer and all that kind of stuff, but this thing about, it's unprecedented that eight are the custodians and they're doing the ETF. There's a lot of weird questions going on. Maybe they'll be able to fix some of them. I don't know, but I have a feeling it will just get delayed again and everyone will just be talking about it again and again. Just be it on, it'll be kind of a joke, kind of like two weeks, you know, developer talk for in two weeks. That's gonna be like, oh yeah, Finkelvoss ETF. Two weeks. It sounds like ETFs are the new blockchain, but let's move on to the exit question. Oh, we got to jump in here. On, on, on, on. I wanna jump in here for a second. Well, we're doing good on time, we're doing good on time. So, again, this is the same problem that I have with Barry Silver's product, which is a cause ETF. It is for high net worth private individuals, but after one year, they are able to sell those shares on the open market to anyone through like each trade or whatever. And when I found this out, kind of recently, and I know I haven't dug into the prospectus of neither Barry Silver's product or the Finkelvoss product, but my understanding of Barry's product is that once a private investor buys into it and Barry purchases the Bitcoin, a custodian zapo holds onto them, but I don't see any mechanism that puts this Bitcoin back into the Bitcoin economy, back into circulation as a Bitcoin. There's no mechanism to turn these shares back to Barry in order to take that Bitcoin back, unless I guess Barry and his company buys them, buys the shares themselves, and then take the Bitcoin out. So there's no actual mechanism to take the Bitcoin out of the system. And I don't care if this is happening with GLD for the gold ETF because gold isn't really used for anything, but Bitcoin is used for things. So if the Finkelvoss ETF does not have a mechanism where a buyer as the ETF creates more shares, they need to go out and buy more Bitcoin in the market, but is there a mechanism that destroys shares to bring this Bitcoin back into the Bitcoin circular economy or through the Bitcoin economy? And if this mechanism doesn't exist, then I am totally against this product. I don't want Bitcoin being locked up forever, creating a bigger, bigger honey pot for a hacker. It's ridiculous. Or a bigger honey pot. What if a government to come to this? What if the price only goes up than the Winkle Viaginians? It doesn't know, but the price might be going up. That's fine, but the amount of Bitcoin taking out of the circulation creates a bigger and bigger pot until a broke government decides to confiscate it or because they're broke. This is no different than 2000. It also takes the Bitcoin out of circulation. The more and more Bitcoin they gather, the less and less Bitcoin there are to use. There's a positive and a negative. He's talking about the positive part. Obviously, if the price goes up and the scarcity becomes more scarce, that's good. But what he's talking about is there is a huge, unmitigatable risk that when there's a big enough honey pot, it's just like those early Satoshi coins where it's like if those early Satoshi coins start moving, that's going to fuck up the price of Bitcoin a lot. And what tone is talking about is that same situation being able to happen again. If they're just constantly taking Bitcoin off the market and putting it into this honey pot storage to go open up in value, eventually it will be worth it to hack that. And then when that happens, that'll be a huge system of a huge sort of instability, which I can see, but hopefully they would have it compartmentalized enough that that wouldn't be. But again, here's my question. Dapo, the question of coin base, the question of these large institutional holdings, can they successfully hold a private key? Tone believes they can. I believe that they can't for two reasons. They might be able to, they might be an honest company and they'll be able to somehow hold it, even preventing some internal employee going rogue or the entire management team being on the same airplane and God knows what could happen there. I mean, I've worked at companies where there were restrictions on this. We were all gonna go skydiving as like a team event. And the company didn't let us, and ironically, it's not because of the parachute problem. It was we were breaking the rule of having six people from the same department on an airplane. They couldn't care unless we were jumping out of the airplane, we were breaking the regulation of being on the airplane itself. But my bigger threat vector is whatever company is holding these bitcoins. So all of you guys are screaming for decentralization and now you wanna centralize a bitcoin under one entity, under one political jurisdiction, right? Very sober is holding his bitcoin in Zappo. Zappo is a Hong Kong company as far as I know. If China decides to take over Hong Kong, what is stopping China from confiscating those bitcoins that are part of very sober ETF, the same way they have just put a freeze under Chinese exchanges. Is anyone even considering this risk factor? We're about here in the US. What if the US does have another, you know, 1930s style depression and a financial crash? This is historically speaking also, like thousands of years ago, when a religion started to become very, very popular and they were making a lot of money from donations, a king would suddenly find the light and be enjoying a new religion because that gave him the go ahead to then pillage the previous religion and their temples and steal all their money. It's always about the money. If the, if the, I believe what we can do though is that it's Wall Street's money. Wall Street loses their money, Bitcoin gains a bunch of value. Maybe some hackers get it. Maybe the Chinese government gets it. Still, the value is changed. It seems like all of our money's becoming digital. Isn't that a good thing? But that's, I mean, yes and no, right? It depends who's in control of the money. And if you're, if all the Bitcoin is sitting under one government's jurisdiction, then that government can't take the Bitcoin. Like let's put it, let's give it an example, right? Would the SEC approve the Winklevoss ETF? If, if in the Winklevoss perspective, they said that a Chinese company will be controlling the private keys of the Bitcoin, right? Would the, the US government approve the ETF? If that is who is securing the private key? And I would love to hear that answer, right? Because if the answer is no, then, okay, then you're being hypocrites, right? That's all right. So you're seeing a situation where like the US is in charge of all the gold and they're like, oh, we'll hold all your gold, don't worry about it. And then Germany comes right up like, hey, if you'd like to come and audit all gold, please, this seems very reasonable. Like, you can get out of here. We're not gonna let you audit the gold. Yeah, I'm not worried about that. That's the kind of thing happening. I mean, I can appreciate that concern. But an ETF doesn't mean that all of the trading is centralized under just that. It just means that a large part of institutional trading is going on. There's still be all the, you know, sub market and the sub economy stuff going on. And what's our multiple ETFs? One for Doge, one for one coin. They'll be trading back and forth amongst each other. A whole crypto currency ETF, fund or exchange perhaps. I also think that as people try to corner the market, I mean, like what you're saying is true. I mean, there could be a stupid government that puts everything in one honey pot and then blah, blah, blah. But if they have multi-sake keys and they have it and individual compartmentalized storage and it's hard to hack into it and stuff like that, taking a lot of Bitcoin out of the market is actually kind of a net good thing. Anybody trying to corner Bitcoin by taking all of it and hoarding it makes the value of everything else go up so much that it's actually one of the more helpful things that you can do is one of the first things is that Toshu was like, because of the limited supply and divisibility, it now has new features that in the past have been extremely problematic. But as we go forward, they actually are anti-fragile more so than damaging. I'm not a fan of artificially constricting the supply. What Bitcoin did was, in the beginning, for the first two years it was worthless. So it had plenty of time to spread. And by the time people were interested in Bitcoin, there was plenty of Bitcoin to go around. Other attempts to replicate some kind of a unique way to construct the supply, one of them was steemit, which was a complete disaster. And the other one was Zcash, which was also a complete disaster. It's, it looked very difficult. And I'm saying, it's not that Toshu was an economic genius. It's not that he designed the perfect emission rate. It's just that the world adjusted to the emission rate that Zcashy happened to create. Zcashy could have created any emission rate that he liked and the world would have adjusted to it. I think it'd be gold instead of using anything that he liked because there was. No, no, no, no, I understand that part. But I mean, like he could have had 20 minute blocks, one hour blocks. He could have said it halves every 10 years, right? So we might still have less than 50% of Bitcoin in circulation today. I think the block propagation time and the size of the planet was used to determine the 10 minute long time. So I'm just saying he could have, I mean, the general idea that he had was, I'm going to have a deflationary currency. Great. At that point, no matter what economic rules to his deflationary currency he applied, the world would have adjusted to it, not that he needed to get that part correct. But now if you have all these companies that are taking Bitcoin out of circulation without a mechanism to put it back, I'm not happy about it. A person can take Bitcoin out of circulation but they can put it back anytime. What about the locked coins of early Satoshi that he mined, may or may not have the keys where I will, I've always thought this was kind of a natural bulwark for Bitcoin that it has a certain value because these coins are locked. Isn't that a plus? Isn't that the ETFs kind of saying, let's do the same thing, but trade little Wall Street shares, have the main bulk of coins locked, isn't this a good thing? It's only a plus because it happened organically. It didn't happen as a pre-planned way. When you try to pre-planned these things, they always blow up in your face and I think we've really learned that from the Fed. I still think it's a Satoshi genius. I think it was a good plan. I think it was pre-planned in a way that it is not pre-planned in the same way that a Fiat pre-planned connotation has brought. You know what I mean? People make economic plans as the state and they're non-voluntary than they go to shit. I think that plans that can work out with voluntary consent are actually really good. Theo Goodman, one more voice. Was it pre-planned? Did Satoshi have a plan? What if I told you there was no plan? No plan, very decisive. Let's move on to the exit question. Exit question, force prediction, on March 11th. They will approve the Winklevi ETF. Yes or no, Blake Anderson. I don't know, the government is terrible, so I'm just gonna go ahead and be barricaded and say no, the government's gonna mess it up. Theo Goodman. No. Tones. No. Curve ball, the answer is yes. The government can't find any more good reasons to disprove the Winklevi. They allow it, the market goes crazy. Hold on to your hats. Moving on to prediction or a story of the week. Blake Anderson, are you ready with a prediction or a story of the week? I guess my story of the week is that I've just been doing some consultation this week regarding various different signals and non-Bulian non-binary computer science, and that's really, really, really exciting and blockchain technology actually helps to do things in that arena where some other arenas are of dubious value. So it's interesting to work with things like auger and then signal producing oracles and then trying to actually get them all to work together and then to see how robust those things can become because that seems like it could be a completely new market, a harvesting signals and having computer science and then he would input work together similarly to now how human emotion and economical foresight and the cryptographic work together to make Bitcoin. So hopefully we can continue to work on that and I can have a little bit more specific updates in the future, but the early on stuff that we're talking about seems pretty exciting in terms of patching together some of those technologies that come out but doesn't necessarily seem ready to go out of the box. Sounds great. Theo, good one. Yeah, my story of the week is that they're going and there's been a huge influx in the telegram group. So you need to check out the telegram, a rare pick, a trader, group, lots of people in there, all international. We've had a big influx of Russian members right now and people are coming in from all over the world. You need to definitely check it out and that is definitely a story of the week. Theo, were you impressed that I correctly predicted the Super Bowl last week? I'm impressed. I was wrong. I had, so I had three predictions. I predicted under 29 and points first half. I got that right. I predicted under 58 points for the whole game. I got that wrong. Supertime Super Bowl, so that was a fail and I also predicted Atlanta, Valkyne's win and as we know, it was a historical comeback from the Patriots. So congratulations, Patriots. And Thomas got it right. Fantastic game. Tones, your prediction or story of the week. Oh boy. Yeah, no, that Super Bowl was great. I couldn't believe the comeback. You know what? You couldn't fault anyone that bet one way or the other. It was one of those things where would've been better to end in a tie for all the gamblers. But that was definitely nerve wracking for those that bet. I did not bet just for the record. Okay, so I'm just gonna spend this time since I don't have anything like crazy to offer. I'm just gonna mention my price view. Here is the daily chart. We are still within this channel. I still believe in this arrow, which I drew during my presentation in Miami about a month ago. So I don't really see much there. There is some confirmation between the lower high and the price and the momentum indicators. But I still think that momentum with Bitcoin is fairly strong. Here's the short term view using one hour candles. I had a couple of channels here. We are creeping back into the channel. This could also act as resistance. And it's possible we go back down. If we go back down 915 remains my support. But since we just briefly touched 915 in some places, if we get back there, we might break down. If we go below 915, that would make me nervous. And this is the daily chart using Brave New Coin. Index and we came down, touched the 50 day. I had this arrow. I'm expecting us to bounce around at 1150, kind of like we did here and up here. And as long as we stay above 915, I'll remain bullish the price of the coin. Excellent. Just up and to the right. Up and to the right. And I didn't really have time to write a prediction today. I just want to say thank you to our 150 live viewers. Thanks to everyone who thumbed up the episode and pushed share. You guys really helped us out. Thanks for commenting on the show. And thanks for watching because we're out of time. Until next time, bye, bye. Bye bye.