No 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, Jimmy Song, Bitcoin developer. Thank you Thomas. Toned Vays from Liberty Life Trail. Hello everyone, it's been a very exciting week. Now I'm Thomas Hunt from the World Crypto Network. I guess the UASF is over. We can all take our hats off now. Yeah, all right, let's do it. Everyone could give us a thumbs up and a share. We're going to go ahead and start the show. My name's Mike. My name's coming off. It was a trick. Moving on to issue one, B Cash launches. As expected, the clone of Bitcoin known as B Cash launched on August 1st. Now at first, the new network struggled to find a block as covered live right here on this channel. The new network now seems to be running smoothly with exchanges beginning to take deposits. However, their lives are the problem. Everyone seems to be selling. Jimmy Song, I ask you, is there any reason to hold B Cash? Does it have any utility? Well, I mean, Bitcoin Cash is almost exactly like Bitcoin except for two or three differences. They have bigger blocks, they have megabyte blocks. They don't have Segwit and they don't have replaced by fee. So I mean, really the utility is that Segwit and replaced by fee haters and big block lovers have a place to go. And that's the utility that it has is that it's a coin marketed towards them. And if you like those features, then you would go on holding your Bitcoin Cash or buy some more. And if you don't think it's sufficiently different than actual Bitcoin, then you would sell. Really the market's going to tell us much more than I could. I can't. So I mean, for me, it's kind of an unknown at this point and I'm going to answer with, I don't know. I don't know. Tony Vaze is the main feature of B Cash marketing to people who want bigger blocks. You know what, the way you phrase that question, I'm not sure how they're going to be marketing. It's going to be weird for them. A lot of the big blockers really think that this coin is viable into the future. And Jimmy mentioned two of their biggest drawbacks, which are obviously segregated witness and also replaced by fee. But the biggest drawback they have is developers. Right? I mean, also mining, which, you know, but the mining could be good for their hash rate. So that's fluid. But their biggest problem is going to be developers because it's one thing having good developers. It's another thing having good developers that the network trusts. So that's going to be a giant hurdle. I will also let the market decide. But by me saying that, I know it's kind of cheating because we are one of the biggest media outlets now. And we're hoping the market decide. And I fully understand that. Like I'm not a fan of this thing. I wish it never came out. So I fully understand the fact that, you know, we could be contributing to some of the selling. But in the other hand, I mean, I've been against Ethereum for years and that clearly hasn't affected the market. So you can't like blame me for killing B cash with all of my videos yet at the same time make fun of me for not killing Ethereum. Right? So you got to pick one or the other. So it's definitely not going to be us. The market will decide whether this is a viable alternative. But I don't think it will be just from the developer perspective. Looking further out, they got a serious problem. It was created as a way for people that hate Segwit but love big blocks. But there's a huge chunk of people that love Segwit and love big blocks. So are they going to go against their core principle, which is, you know, getting the Segwit haters all riled up, getting all of these block stream and core haters all riled up into this coin. But then I was reminded today on Twitter that Bitcoins APC roadmap clearly stated that they wanted to do big blocks first, segregated witness second. But then why did you like cater this thing to block stream and core haters that build Segwit? Right? So they're going to have a big dilemma. And I don't think this movement to create this chain split at this point of time was beneficial at all to the signers of the New York agreement. Because I think those people are now really screwed because if this thing is somewhat successful, then now what? You're going to kill it by trying to get bigger blocks on the actual Bitcoin kind of like Bitcoin getting segregated witness hurts light coin. Now what do you do? If it's remotely viable, then people like us can like tell all of the big blockers that want to make the current Bitcoin chain to go to X. We can tell them, well look, you have a viable alternative. It's number nine on CoinMarketCap right now, but go use it. It's right there. So I don't think they did anybody any favors. I think the biggest winners to come out of it are OG, large Bitcoin holders that just got 10% tacked on to their Bitcoin by selling this thing. And it's unfortunate that I always thought that the safest way to store your big coins was the treasurer, but it was just like bad luck that the people that had them on a treasurer were late to being able to duplicate their tokens. And don't blame treasurer, blame this spur of the moment last minute hard fork where not everybody was prepared to split their coins, not every technology was ready to split the coins. Like being ill-prepared in your storage, like myself for example, turned out to be a dumb benefit by being able to split the coins. So I want to just interject one thing regarding the ABC Roadmap. That Roadmap was made by Bitmain and I believe the way this all played out, it wasn't actually Bitmain that led the charge for Bitcoin Cash. It was actually via BTC, which is sort of like one extreme of that entire movement. So I'm guessing that SegWit is not on their Roadmap. Well, that's the thing. So I will counter that with two things. Bitmain has already made it clear that they are investors in one way or another in via BTC. And when via BTC came out with this plan, they very openly stated that they were going to follow Bitcoin ABC's like plan and Roadmap. So they were basically taking the Bitmain plan that Bitmain was going to do during the user activated software. And when Bitmain wasn't going to do it, via BTC just took the plan and did it. All right. Now, Ton is asking more questions than he's answering. Jimmy, let's get down to it. How many Bitcoin are there going to be? Right now there's Bitcoin, there's Bitcoin Cash. Is there going to be another fork of Bitcoin? And is there going to be another fork of Bitcoin Cash? Are there going to be four Bitcoins? It's entirely possible. I don't really know. But I do want to answer this question by Blue Corp, who just donated on SuperChat. November hard fork, why can't they hard fork B Cash instead of Bitcoin? That is a possibility. And that would be very interesting because they would have to add SegWit back. Well, that wouldn't be a hard fork, though, right? I mean, they can add SegWit with a soft fork. Right. And I guess it could be a soft fork off of Bitcoin Cash, which adds back RBF, adds back SegWit, and reduces from eight megabytes to two megabytes, and then they would have SegWit 2x on B Cash. That's possible. That's something that they can do. Right. I don't think that's the way they're going to go, but that is a possibility. Yes. All right. Well, I'll answer Blue Corp's question directly because I know he's a little bit newer to Bitcoin. Well, there's no reason to hard fork B Cash at this point, right? I mean, the eight megabyte or the 32 megabyte, I think there are 32 megabytes, and the soft fork in it to eight right now. But the hard fork is already done. There's no reason to hard fork B Cash other than for fun. Like if one of those trollish miners that's mining on it right now, they can totally hard fork it for the hell of it. Right. I mean, a good reason for hard fork might be to change the proof of work or to add some other future. Well, they don't need to. They've already lowered the difficulty far enough. Oh, yeah. No, no, but they can get attacked. Right. You're right. So to get all of these trollish miners off of them, they may hard fork, but for the proof of work change agreed. Look, honestly, the people that did this, here's my view on it, right? The people that went about fourth B Cash, the biggest beneficiaries of B Cash were large Bitcoin holders. So these are the kinds of people I put in the proof of stake realm. These are the kinds of people that are more interested in making money for having money than straight up competition. So if there is a hard fork for B Cash in the future, it would be some kind of a proof of stake thing because right now, since all of the real Bitcoiners are selling this thing, they're going to be some monster B Cash whales. And from what I know about the old coin space over this time period, whenever you have a large, you know, not very distributed token, those that hold the token now have a disproportionate advantage in announcing the rules. And they tend to come up with some bullshit reason as to why the token should go proof of stake or quasi proof of stake. You know, this happened with Dash. This is happening with the theory. Um, uh, steemit was was a proof of work for a month and then it went proof of stake. So a lot of these people have so much incentive to just get richer for without putting any work in. And, um, if there is anything that's going to be done with B Cash going forward, um, I can see that a proof of work change becoming some kind of a POS quasi thing. And now while we're going down the idea of potential futures for B Cash, I have heard a pretty much a conspiracy theory, but I want you guys to go and address this. What if the supporters of B Cash who allegedly are burning at least $100,000 in potential Bitcoin and energy a day? What if they have some kind of master plan to take hundreds of thousands of dollars of real Bitcoin, dump them at the same time they're buying up B Cash, then making B Cash more profitable to mine, having the rest of the miners switch over and then leaving Bitcoin in the dust with a difficulty problem. We'll go to Jimmy first and then tone. Yeah, I mean, that could work, but I mean, there's a third party here that that you really need to think about and those are the users and they're the ones that are trading between them. If somebody is dumping Bitcoin for cheap, there's a lot of people that are willing to pick it up. So, I mean, market manipulation is a thing, but you do it at your own peril and it might cost you a lot more money than you think. And, you know, you're kind of acting like a cartel at that point. And if you do it wrong, you can risk a lot, but that's certainly something that they can attempt. That is a bullet in their arsenal and there's nothing stopping them from trying it. Not necessarily going to hit the target, though. It's my, well, let's go to tone. Are they angry group players willing to do anything? I don't think so. I don't see that because in order to do that, they would have to dump their Bitcoin and unlike B Cash, Bitcoin is a little hard to mine. So I just, I can't, I don't see that conspiracy theory. I can probably be a more credible conspiracy theory at you in a minute, but I just don't see it because these big players would have to take a giant risk in selling, you know, all of that B Cash, dropping the price real low, then they would have to sell their Bitcoin at the high dumping the Bitcoin price, but they don't have necessarily control of the mining. I just don't see it. And also, I mean, considering how many people are dumping B Cash, the price is being resilient. If anything, these whales on B Cash are supporting the price instead of dumping it because if people like Roger and some of the other, you know, big whales that would be supporting B Cash, if they were dumping the B Cash, I mean, that thing really would be like a few pennies right now. So I don't see that conspiracy theory. The more credible conspiracy theory, but still in the conspiracy theory realm, is that like China would consider using B Cash as like their currency and try to get the Chinese people on it. And a company like Bitmain would all of a sudden have like a giant contract with the Chinese government cutting off the spigot of Bitcoin mining equipment, like basically Bitmain would become Chinese nationalized and they would switch over to B Cash. They would kind of screw the Bitcoin network not only by leaving the hash rate, you know, like 20, 30% of Bitcoin hash rates suddenly is gone, but also 70% of all mining equipment being created in the Bitcoin space also suddenly gone because the Chinese government can basically cover this expense for Bitmain if they are simply a for-profit entity. Jihon would be a very rich man and his company would basically become the biggest miner of B Cash creating security for B Cash from other, you know, national, like for example, this hash power on B Cash would prevent B Cash from being, you know, 51% attack from the Bitcoin network or other countries attacking B Cash as a Chinese national currency. It would also be quasi-centralized where you have one giant miner and one giant chip manufacturer. They could also distribute their mining equipment for B Cash. They would need a proof of work change, right? They would simply be able to secure it. I think you see where I'm headed with this, right? A lot like Bitmain and the subsidiaries switch to B Cash and it becomes a quasi-Chinese and perhaps all of Asian digital currency. I can see that as a more credible conspiracy theory, but still in the conspiracy theory realm. See now that's a good conspiracy theory. Anything that leads to governments buying Bitcoin or even B Cash could change the entire game instantly. And we've just got about a thousand viewers, so thanks so much for everyone giving us a thumbs up and a share. Make sure to subscribe if it's your first time here. Thanks so much. We're going to move on to issue two shortly, but first we have the exit question, force prediction, the price of B Cash, three months from now on the eve of the scheduled 2x hard fork, Jimmy Song. Still muted. Whoops, sorry about that guys. I'm going to say 0.1 BTC, which is roughly what it's trading for because that's the best guess I have. But in dollar terms, I think it's going to be closer to $400 to $500 by the tone vase. I'm just going to divide that number by 10. So I'm going to say 0.01 BTC, which would put it around. I might be going away from my $5 prediction. I mean, it's going to be low. It's going to be low guys. Probably 0.01 BTC or lower. So that would put it somewhere about 50 bucks and under. Hopefully it will be below my $5 mark. I'm terrible predicting things about it. I think there'll be more interest around the time of the hard fork. I'm going to go with $500 to get there with Jimmy. Issue 2, BTC-E claims. While the US government claims to have captured the operator of BTC-E, allegedly Alexander Vinik, a Russian national arrested in Greece, the rest of the site operators continue to claim that they are in control of the site and that they will go back online or even begin issuing refunds soon. Who do you believe will BTC Tashis former anonymous customers ever receive their funds? I honestly cannot speculate on that. I mean, I have no idea. I mean, we don't even know. There's still a debate. You know, the authorities are saying that the guy that they arrested was involved in the creation of BTC-E, like a co-founder. BTC-E founders that have fled, they're saying he was never involved in the creation of BTC-E. It was just a very convenient platform for him to launder the money. Now you guys know my views. I believe that the crime of money laundering is despicable. I think that money should be a person's property and money laundering. The crime of money laundering is a made-up crime. It should not exist. Once you have the money, you should be able to do whatever you want with it. If you don't want someone catching the money, then you've got to stop them from getting the money. That's always been my view on regulation. We don't even know that part. All we can do is hope that the founders of BTC-E returned the money. This goes completely to their moral compass. These guys are totally anonymous. If they ran away with this money, there is absolutely nothing stopping them. If I was someone that lost money in BTC-E, I would not be in a rush to criticize the BTC founders or to a shit or piss them off in any way, shape or form. Because the more angry you make those guys, the less likely you are of getting your money back. If the community is fairly nice to them, it is somewhat possible they can get the money back. There's also a serious question of jurisdiction. No one knows if the FBI has the right to seize these pitcoins. They could be held by someone in another country with different rights. Of course, you could say they were held for laundering. It's not as clear cut as the Silk Road where the FBI said, okay, all of these pitcoins are drugbed coins, so we're seizing them all. Some of these BTC-E were just trading pitcoins. Of course, questionable trading, perhaps. Let's go to Jimmy's song. Yeah, I'm going to go with the US government and they're seizing of BTC-E on this one. When the US government sees this something, you are going to have a very hard time getting anything back. They say possession is 9-10ths of the law. It's 10-10ths of the blockchain. If you don't possess it, you don't possess it. This is why I've been telling everybody, don't leave your coins on an exchange or whatever. You should have learned with Mt. Cox. You should have learned with a lot of these other exchanges. If you have them on exchanges, they are at risk. That's kind of what happened here, right? The domain's been seized. I really doubt that anyone gets anything for a long time. I see a Mt. Cox style dragging out of this for many, many years. If you get something, it won't be in Bitcoin. It'll be in US dollars or whatever currency equivalent that you have in your jurisdiction. I really can't see. It's going away. Jimmy, Jimmy. We don't know how much Bitcoin was actually seized by the US government. They might have only seized the hot wallet with like 5% or 10% of the deposits. That $160 million, whatever it was, like 60,000 Bitcoin or 20,000 Bitcoin, whatever that was. That Bitcoin being moved, we still don't know if those are the founders fleeing or those were the US government seizure. From my understanding is those were the founders fleeing and they're promising to eventually return it when they get their shit together, get some more op sack, maybe go to Antarctica or something where they can do this from. We don't know how much money the government has seized. Sooner or later, the government will have an auction on it or maybe the government has learned from the Silk Road seizure that perhaps he should hold on to the Bitcoin instead of auction to get off. Yeah, I mean, that might be true, but I think the odds are very low that you're going to get anything back if you have how money there. Just the legal component. The money trails. I don't think there's enough op sack in the world for them to get away with this fund. Yeah. The US government has a lot of ways to get you to give you stuff, including your private keys. I'm sure everyone seems like it's KCD with the $5 wrench. That's essentially what it comes back to. Right, but they need to catch the people. It sounds like the guy they caught, my best guess is, my best guess is, this is just pure speculation. The guy they caught was probably financed. He probably financed. He was probably the initial capital to launch BTCE with hacked Bitcoin, but he was not involved in the day-to-day operation of BTCE, but he had some access. So when he got arrested, there was some access to the domain and to some of the other internal workings. His arrest coincided with the shutout of BTCE, but I bet you there are at least two to three people that were way more important to BTCE at this point in time that were actually running the peer to peer exchange. Those people I believe are not caught by the US government. My best guess is, they are still in possession of the Bitcoin. It's up to them to decide what they are going to do. Are they interested in launching another version of the exchange and I'm sure they have the login file with everyone's logins and passwords. So if they launch another website under a different name, they can just tell people, your login is still active. You have your login, you have your password, you can log back in, we will credit your balance again, you can continue to trade with us or you can get it out. Now if they come back online, I think people are just going to stay with them and trade with them because going somewhere else isn't any better. Another thing I will comment on is people are saying that, well, I was the smart one. I put my Bitcoin into BitTracks before the forks split so I didn't have to wait for 20 confirmations. But the answer to that, and I guess I'll credit Adam Meister for answering it in my Twitter feed. He said, well, people, the BTC, BitTracks could have been BTCE and it was the same way. Oh, you get your Bitcoin on the exchange before the split so they would do it for you and then all of a sudden the fed show up a few days before the hard fork and boom, now all your Bitcoin is gone. So you never know, it's all basically luck of where your Bitcoin is. Well, so I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. I really doubt you're going to see any Bitcoins if you had them on the exchange. Even if those two people have the money and have the Bitcoins and are on the run from the US government, what I think is going to happen is they're not going to open a new exchange. Why would they? There's so many ways in which you can dox yourself by setting up a business and if the US government knows where you are, they're going to come and get your money. Why would you do that? You could either, I mean, there aren't very good options for these guys, right? They can turn themselves in in which case the US government gets some money. They could try to start a business in which case they're taking an enormous risk, just like getting caught or being arrested or having people dox them or I mean, there's so many ways in which you could lose all the Bitcoins that other people have deposited with you or you could just run away and do whatever you want. All of those options are not very good, right? Because, you know, like any way you slice it, either the US government is going to get it or someone's going to open yourself up to be trailed. There's just so many ways. No, Jimmy, Jimmy, I'm with you there and I'm not saying people are more likely to get their Bitcoin than not. What I'm saying is this is not exactly my own Gox because my own Gox, you knew you weren't going to get it because there wasn't any Bitcoin to get because it got hacked, right? And in this case, you're saying, well, what's their motivation? Okay, well, why do we still have WikiLeaks, right? I mean, it's literally a public service. If these guys feel that they are the rebels that they are and they want to stick it to the US government, they will relaunch the operation again and they will say, see, they can't get us. So we are, again, providing a service over anonymous, trusted Bitcoin exchange and as long as you have us, maybe you don't need a decentralized exchange. We have good, cold storage and if ours should get shut down again, we will just relaunch a few months later. So there is some motivation from people that want to show that they're better than... There's always someone that wants to hack the NSA to say that they could and there's always someone that wants to spend 10 years with the government not able to get them. So people's motivations are different. But yeah, unlike WikiLeaks, you have 160 million reasons to walk away. Perhaps it could be like the pirate bay where the website keeps running, although the administrators keep going to jail. So it's not that great. And I also want to say with a lot of these early Bitcoin businesses, they're a lot like bars and saloons during pro-ohibition. They had to get the liquor from somewhere. So it's not going to be a surprise if we see more and more of them with ties to Silk Road or ties to BTC-E or early Bitcoin funding these businesses. It was the Wild West and a lot of things happened. Oh, oh, and here's one more. If BTC does come back and they do prove that they are like the WikiLeaks and the pirate bay that you can trust their anonymity, they can jack up the freaking fees to anything they want because hackers and the Wanna Cry people and all of the hack and anonymous activity, they will know this is where they should go to wander that money. And I think that goes well into the exit question. BTC-E will be back online and serving refunds within six days, six weeks or never. Jimmy Song. Never. I may be as a part of an asset sale in six years or something like that. They can hand out the domain to somebody that might relaunch and exchange there, but I really can't see anybody getting anything out of this. And I would be shocked if they came back online. And if they did, I take everything back. And I would be very impressed with their dedication to their customers. Maybe I would be very impressed. Let's just say that. All right. I think tone is going to say never and I'm going to say never and we're moving on to issue three. Issue three, cloning Bitcoin. Well we still can't say if BTC's is a success or not, we can certainly say that there was a great deal of interest with many Bitcoins going to extreme lengths to access their private keys and sell their BCH. The question is now obvious. Will BCASH-style Bitcoin forks become the altcoin and perhaps the ICO of the future utilizing the built-in mailing list of Bitcoins UTXOs to hasten their viral spread? Jimmy Song. Well, I certainly hope not. I mean, it's a lot of work for the entire ecosystem. There's a lot of socialized costs there which I personally don't like. It sucks to be a Bitcoin company right now because you have to deal with this stuff and you're constantly fighting fires to figure out what to do with the Bitcoin cash. And if there are more of them then you're going to have to fight fires every time there are one. There is one. But I mean, that said there's a lot of incentives to do it if it's successful because free money, right? And we do know that there will always be a lot of altcoins and this does socialize a lot of the costs of the launch. You're essentially air dropping to every Bitcoin owner which can be seen as somewhat fair or something like that. I imagine going forward exchanges and merchants will have to learn how to deal with more forks and things like that. But I imagine as these all asymptotically go to zero, you can't just keep having these launches. But then again, there's always like the possibility of moral altcoins coming. I mean, I really wish we would go to the dry chain side chains model instead of launching altcoins. There's too much economic incentive for this to not happen. In the meantime, I would encourage everybody to enjoy sort of the percentage increase in your BTC holdings. I know like a lot of people got in at like 0.12 or so they sold their Bitcoin cash for 0.12 so they increased their holdings by 12%. That's great. I think we all enjoy having more Bitcoin. But yeah, I mean, this is the sort of thing that cost is like you didn't get that 12% for free. People at exchanges, people at merchant and like that work at merchants and things like that they all pay for it, which is unfortunate. It's never a good idea to socialize the cost and have it benefit just a few people. But at least this is benefiting most Bitcoin holders. Jimmy, is this a problem with Bitcoin's open source nature that everyone can look at this transaction set? And right now it seems pretty good because we got Bitcoin cash. But if we get 50 or 60 or 100,000 of these and it becomes spam and you just can't stand how many there are, is it a problem with Bitcoin? Is it something that needs to be fixed or even could be fixed? I don't think it could be fixed. I mean, it's part of the nature of it is that anyone can fork at any time. You can of course, hard fork to a different proof of work so you're not attacked and things like that. But you still need a community, you need developers, all this other stuff. Yeah, I mean, it's kind of hard to deal with. But yeah, the market sort of needs to learn that lesson and it hasn't been learned yet because this is our first one. So, Vaze, are we going to see more of these coins in the future? All right. I was answering people in the group chat. Oh, thank you for the donations. Some people have been very generous throughout the show. So thank you very much for that. Okay, so we are talking about this specific type of launch of an old coin, right? As the main, so I got distracted there earlier. As the topic began and the last topic ended. So we're talking specifically about this style launch of allowing current Bitcoin holders as the airdrop to kick it off. Look, the first mover advantage. So if this is going to be a new way to start your old coin, it will never be as big as this one. So if another one of these does happen, it will be nowhere near to the kind of, you know, I'm missing a word here to the kind of hype that this one had. So there's no way you're getting 10 to 12% on your Bitcoin again. And that was a very good point that Jimmy made that this cost will be socialized, right? I mean, when people sue Coinbase, I mean, there's going to be a lot, there's going to be fallout from this, right? I mean, Trasor might be in a little bit of trouble, right? I mean, I can see their numbers of sales of Trasors, perhaps fall behind ledgers because of this incident. And it's not the fault of Trasor. I mean, they just, you know, they weren't technologically ready to deal with it. And that's unfortunate. So I thought this was a bit problematic to deal with it in this way. Some people did better than others. Some people got 14, 15% of their Bitcoin, but the big question I have for those people, did you hold on to your own private keys and separated on your own without putting your Bitcoin's at risk, or did you send those Bitcoins into the exchange ahead of time? If you send your Bitcoins into the exchange ahead of time, then the 5% extra that you made on your Bitcoin, that came out of significant risk and perhaps that risk wasn't worth it. And if you didn't send them in ahead of time, where were your private keys? If you, they were in something like AirBits, you could have immediately split them. If they were in something like Trasor, which is a better-called storage, you weren't so lucky and you couldn't immediately split them and you had to wait and get a lower price. So it all does even out. Everything is like, is risk. And even those of us that were separating keys using electron cash, I mean, something could have gotten horribly wrong there. I mean, we have at least one report of a guy sending me his Bitcoin instead of while trying to split it. I mean, there were so much risk involved in this. And the next time this will not be such a hype machine and I had no intention of splitting these coins. I mean, even on the first of the month, on the second of the month, I had no intention of splitting these coins. I thought this thing was just going to die out. And next time, everyone is going to be trying to split their coins and this is going to, it's going to be a complete dud. Now, in a way, it is, if there is a new old coin model that's going to come out of it, I would say that the model is going to be to have bitcoins get into your coin without actually dumping the coin to do it. I can get very creative here. Like, for example, you can split your Bitcoin, but there are some kind of metrics where you can't sell the old coin because of some kind of a weird mining structure. So basically, using the distributed nature of Bitcoin and the fact that Bitcoin isn't the security, get the bitcoins to have access to this old coin, but not have the ability to actually profit from it for even, let's say, a year, something like Bitcoin, right? Like, I'm just brainstorming here and someone smarter will have to actually put it to paper. But what gave Bitcoin the advantage is the fact that Bitcoin spread around the world for free because Bitcoin was free, right? Like, yeah, you have to spend money to mine it, but bitcoins themselves had no value that are allowed to be distributed. Now the challenge is, how do you distribute a digital asset without a value assigned to it? Because the moment there is value assigned to it, there is all these economic incentives. So if someone is creative enough to use the bitcoins distribution to get them into a token that will not have a monetary value for years. And I don't know how to do that. And I haven't thought about it enough. That could be some kind of a viable model to create actual global distribution of your token, but it needs to be done before the token has any value. Otherwise, bitcoins will immediately sell it to get more Bitcoin and this model will not work. So that's probably the best I can do. Maybe Jimmy has some thoughts or I'm just like spewing out nonsense. All right, let's go with one more hypothetical. Jimmy, could they do something like steam with a lock-in where you couldn't sell your coins all at once? Probably. That's easy enough to code in. It could change the confirmation times or something like that to many blocks. Right now, mining rewards still have to wait 100 blocks before they can move them and sell them or do transact them. You can extend that. There's a lot of different ways. Almost anything is possible, especially since it would presumably be a hard fork. But yeah, I mean, this is kind of what it's come to is that when you have a lot of all coins, remember back in like 2014, you would have like a story every week about how China banned Bitcoin and that would move the price. And eventually it got to the point where we just heard that so often that it ceased to move the price. I think that's going to have that sort of thing is going to have to happen with hard forks of Bitcoin. This is just the first time and obviously the market's reacting a lot, but I imagine the reaction will asymptotically go to zero as more and more of these come up. All right. Let's move on to the exit question. The number of Bitcoin clones expected in the next three months, tone veys. Probably not many. Honestly, I don't think there will be any in the next three months. I mean, it took the world about a year to absorb Ethereum and see if it was going to stick around before everyone started to clone it. And then those and some decided to clone it and some decided to clone it on top of Ethereum, at least the same model that Ethereum brought to the table, selling usostokens before they even exist. But I don't think anyone is going to put together a plan and an advertising within the next three months. But for next year, I think there will be better and better plans to do this. So maybe going into December, going into the holidays. In the next three months, I don't see it because people aren't going to be paying attention to it. They're probably still going to be arguing over B Cash and the 2X. And there's just not going to be enough room. I'll tell you who probably hates this the most. People at like other crazy projects like EOS and some of the other ones because the hype is now back in the Bitcoin. Everyone's talking about Bitcoin. Everyone's talking about this B Cash. And everyone moved their old coins in order to get more Bitcoin so that they can get this particular old coin. So a lot of these like ICOs that were planning on launching like around this time or over the next few weeks, I mean, they're just not getting any attention. So the attention to B Cash has to completely die before someone is going to start a pump. And then you need at least like a few weeks to a month to pump your coin before you launch it as another Bitcoin clone. So I really don't see anything going down in the next three months. All right. Let's go to Jimmy's song. How many Bitcoin clones in the next three months? Well, Tom brings up a really good point. And this is a conspiracy theory that I've heard, which is that maybe Bitcoin splitting is good because you just sort of crowd out all the yaw coins. And if this becomes a new model, then all these all coins that are trying to hype themselves up, that kind of goes away. And this becomes sort of the model to do instead of all these ICOs. I don't know. I'm just going to say two. And that's a complete guess. And I'm going to guess that one of them is going to be named Bitcoin lights. The answer is more than three, but less than seven. Well, all right. I think I want to issue four. No. Wait, wait. I changed my answer real quick. It's possible that there could be one. I just have a feeling like because of the BTC eating and all the tracking from the Mound Gox coins, I still think someone is going to coin Bitcoin anonymous and try to somehow clone that out of Bitcoin. Maybe Bitcoin Monero. I don't know. Bitcoin era. Bitcoin era. Bitcoin era. Bitcoin era. All right. Moving on to issue four, the future. According to estimates provided by xbt.eu, segregated witness will lock in Tuesday, August 8th, giving the Bitcoin network a long awaited series of bug fixes, including an end to transaction and malleability, separated signatures providing a smaller block size, a small block size increase, and the potential for new innovations such as snore signatures, confidential transactions, and of course, the long awaited Bitcoin micropayments platform Lightning network. Jimmy Song, how soon will we see this future? And what are you most excited about? Well, we're locking in probably on August 8th, but the actual activation won't happen until August 21st or 22nd. I'm looking forward to seeing a lot of stuff. I'm interested in whether this has any effect on the fees, whether there will be more Lightning network channels. But yeah, I mean, the big thing to sort of worry about a little bit is that not much of the infrastructure is really there yet. Not many wallets support Lightning network transactions or even payment channels. And that sort of needs to be there before all of this stuff becomes more useful. So I'll be watching closely to see whether or not this makes the fees go down because there's less demand or something like that. But I think it's going to take some time and it's going to take a few months or maybe years for all that infrastructure to be built and be useful and have a good user experience and all that stuff. So I want to sort of tone down the hype a little bit around SegWit because people are sort of expecting it to be this magical thing and it's not a magical thing. It's going to make it a little better, but it's not going to instantly make everything come to life. It's going to take some time for everyone to build things and for the ecosystem to catch up. But yeah, that's what I'm looking forward to. This in years, I want it now. Don't waste. Can we get it now? I mean, I honestly think we'll get stuff sooner than the big blockers were screaming. We're going to get it. I mean, one of their biggest arguments was, well, after segregated witness, it'll take like a year to get lightning, but then they delayed segregated witness by six months. I mean, and this came so true. Eric Lombroso was talking about this nine months ago. And I didn't even see it then, but I totally see it now. Eric Lombroso was like, well, the moment the Hong Kong agreement was signed and we started doing research on hard forking because we weren't tending on doing it as Bitcoin core. He said, all of a sudden, within weeks, there was this push for Bitcoin XT or Bitcoin Classic. I forgot. I think one of them came or both of them came after. He's like, so the big blockers never even gave core a chance to fully investigate hard forking. And they were already fighting for the big blocks. And look at what happened with the New York agreement. The New York agreement clearly stated, you know, the hard forks will come later in October. But these guys didn't even wait. They didn't even wait. They launched it immediately. So Eric was like telling us back then that these guys never even give us a chance. They were immediately started attacking the chain with hard forking. And I like witnessed it and they pulled it off. They're super hard for it. So like nothing is ever enough for them. They didn't even give you a chance to do it. So I do think I don't know if lightning network is going to be a savior. I don't know how good it's going to be. But I think it is coming and they'll probably be some tests of lightning channels here and there by end of here. You know, they'll be glitches. They'll be some issues. It'll be in testnet for a while. They'll probably be a long time because before these channels are trusted and before these channels give you more anonymity than transacting on chain. But I am looking forward to it and I'm not, you know, my tech skills, my developer skills aren't good enough to really answer. Once this B-cash nonsense goes away, I will start reading and listening to the people with, you know, more advanced abilities to read code. And I'm going to see what they say. And to some other haters out there, I don't blindly follow core developers. I mean, I was following Luke Dash Jr. on this one with the user activated software over Gregory Maxwell. Next time there is one of these debates, I may be following Gregory Maxwell more than I'm following Luke Dash Jr. And I'm talking to some other people these days, tech people that are very good programmers that are in this space that have very legit criticisms of people like Gregory Maxwell. And I'm listening to these people. So I don't blindly follow core devs. I just like, but I will listen to a doctor's and decide which group of doctors I'm going to believe on what needs to be done. I will trust the experts and who knows in the future. I might go against some of the core developers based on the research that I'm doing. I just have to, my skill is to try and trust the right developer. This is what I did while working in finance. I have to know which developer to trust because there were millions of dollars on the line that I was responsible as a project manager to get coded. So I will be getting back to this. And when we have in these debates over second layer scaling, I will need to listen to multiple people to see which developers I will get behind. And hopefully I need the right decision. Let's throw this question to Jimmy Song as well. Jimmy, do you think they wanted a hard fork the whole time? Are the miners going to be happy on their own fork without all of these updates and new ideas from the core team? Why I think the big blocker side was itself divided. I mean, we tend to sort of view the world in a binary way and say, okay, there's one side and then the other. But I mean, even within each side, there's a lot of different factions. And it looks to me like the faction that went with the Bitcoin cash hard fork was just that. It was a faction of the big block side. And there was a portion of the big block side that didn't mind seg with. There was another portion that thought it was really terrible. So I think this clearly comes from the side that thought it was really terrible. And I don't know. It's possible there are more factions out there than we know. So, yeah, I mean, I don't think we can sort of lump them all in a group. I think there are way too many viewpoints to really say that safely. I mean, there was enough of them that this thing got launched and that's all we can really say about it. We're always in trouble when there's too many factions. And we've got around 1,256 live viewers. Thanks to everyone for giving us a thumbs up and a share. If it's your first time here, be sure to subscribe. We're going to go to questions and answers with the audience very shortly. But first, a couple of exit questions. Pluses and minuses. What's the one thing that could speed up the path to the future? What's one thing that could slow it down? Tones. Sorry. Then realize I was going to be first on this one. Okay, so I guess let's do slow it down. I mean, slow it down if a B cache actually gets sufficient hash power and the hash power starts to split. That was always my vision for Ethereum versus Ethereum Classic that the hash power would literally split and it would be 50, 50 and there would be full equilibrium in both the price and the hash power until Ethereum tries to go proof of stake, which would have even been difficult under that model. It's even more difficult under the current model where Ethereum has all the hash power between the two. So the worst case scenario is B cache picking up mining power to make it 50, 50 with Bitcoin. And then once again, there's this power struggle of which one is Bitcoin. But I don't see this happening. I'm 99.9% certain that is not going to happen, but that is the worst case scenario. It's really hard for me to think of bad things coming out of this B cache. In hindsight, as much as all the hate I was spewing on this thing and hoping that it never happened, I think in the long run, this hard fork will potentially do more good than harm to the Bitcoin network. First of all, it took some of the, like if Ethereum didn't take enough stupid off of the Bitcoin realm, B cache has taken a lot of the rest of the stupid that remained with Bitcoin and didn't go to Ethereum. So they got some of that on their chain. I think this B cache chain, no matter where the B chain goes, again, unless it starts to pick up significant hash rate, which I do not believe that it will. So as long as it's a viable, actually, whether it is or isn't a living, breathing chain come November, I think it will make our argument as to why the 2X of the segment 2X agreement should be totally ignored. People are happy that they just increased their Bitcoin network by 10 to 15%. I feel that for the people that couldn't split their coins. So I think at the end, it's going to do more good than harm. So that's my current view on it. And if you asked me three days ago, I would not have said this. All right, let's go to Jimmy's song, Plusses and Minuses. What could slow it down? What could speed it up? Well, I gave a lot of, you know, Minuses earlier. I gave the bad news about how Segwit's going to be kind of slow to adopt and everything's going to take a lot longer than people think. Well, I want to give... That's unrelated, right? But that's unrelated to this B cache nonsense. Other than the B cache nonsense has probably kept our core developers from working and dealing with bullshit. Well, I think the topic currently is about Segwit, no? I thought we were sort of past talking about B cache. Or did I misunderstand the question? I think everything's about B cache right now. So let me talk about Segwit, because I do want to talk about Segwit. And the bad news is that it's going to take a while. The good news is that, you know, there's a lot of opportunity, right? The infrastructure is very lacking. And that means that there is a lot of opportunity for entrepreneurs to make this infrastructure happen. And that means that we're going to need a lot more developers, a lot more entrepreneurs, a lot more people that are interested in this stuff to find new applications for all of these, you know, new technologies that we're getting. And that, to me, is really the engine that makes Bitcoin go is the individual and the entrepreneur in this community. You know, they're the ones that create new things and make it more useful and make it more interesting. And that's, I think, what will ultimately help speed things towards the future where we're all using Bitcoin. But in order to get there, it's going to have to be people that are willing to invest their blood sweat and tears. Maybe some of you are in the audience today. If you're watching this video and thinking about it, go study this stuff. See if there is something that a business that you can create. The beauty of Bitcoin is that if you make the ecosystem more useful, it's not only good for you, you know, obviously with your business, but it's good for everybody else because we're all holders here. And we're going to, you know, get more utility out of our Bitcoin through a higher price. And my plus would be adoption. What we need is more adoption. We need more people using Bitcoin, learning how to use Bitcoin and even just practicing sending Bitcoin around. The more you use it, the more comfortable you are with it and the more ready you are to use it in the future. All right, well, this ends the normal part of the show. We're now going to do some questions from the audience. They've been scrolling by very fast. Let's see, we've got one from Dunster. He says, how many coins are based on the 2009 Genesis block? We'd have to say Bitcoin, maybe it's a name coin. And now we would say this Bitcoin cash. No, plan plans. Don't put your plans. Plan plans. Plan plans. You can go get your clams, man. You can, that was a Bitcoin hard for. That was a, the plan. No, no, no, no, no. They, they, they, they utilize the blockchains from Bitcoin, like when in Dogecoin to do an airdrop. And it's based on how many addresses that you had that were a non-trivial amount on all of those chains combined. So it's not really a hard work of Bitcoin per se. It was just a way to distribute clams in a, I guess, semi-fair way. I think there's something new, like Electrum or Electron or something. So what you're saying is so, so clams was ahead of its time. No, there's been a lot of airdrops on all coins. I mean, it started, I remember when Ripple started, they were just like giving out 10,000 Ripple to anyone that had a Bitcoin talk account. And yeah, I took my, I took my, I took my, I took my, I took my, I took my, I took my, I took my, I took my, I took my, I took my, I took my, I took my, I took my, I took my, chain. Come on. You can't give out things based on that. That's what they did. Now there were a lot of others like that too. Hey Thomas, can I answer, can I, I, I, I, while it's in my head, there was another audience question. Go ahead. So someone asked, Jimmy, you talked about the big blockers that hate segwit versus the big blockers that like segwit. So someone asked, what is it specific about the big blockers that hate segwit? And my answer to that is a lot of the big blockers that hate segwit. It's not that they hate segwit is that they hate the people that were responsible for writing the segwit code, whether they've been convinced into a conspiracy theory that block, block stream is responsible for like all core development and block stream is somehow, you know, controlled by the powers that be in the banking sector. These are complete ridiculous theories for starters, block stream, maybe contributes 5 to 10% of core development. Second, one of the, the money, one, one block stream raised funds. One of the companies that helped contribute funds is AXA, which is an insurance company out of Europe. And just because one insurance company gave some money to a company that does some core development, people see that as, you know, evil Wall Street complete takeover of Bitcoin, which is completely ridiculous. So yeah, I think the biggest hate for segwit comes from the fact that people were convinced that there was these overlord programming. Well, I think even that was like separated into two factions. There were people that questioned the motivations of the people that were writing segwit, like you said. And then there were some others that were saying, hey, this is a little too complicated and we could do it more cleanly with a hard work. And then even among those, there were other ways in which you can do the, do a hard work segwit and things like that. So I mean, like their factions with infections with infections with infections. And I don't, like it's really hard to tell though. And this is why governance can be very, very difficult. Okay, we're seeing lots of questions in the chat. Is Bitcoin in a bubble? Go to tone and then Jimmy. I don't think so. I don't think Bitcoin is in a bubble at all. I mean, old coins are in a bubble. I think Ethereum bubble is deflating. I just don't see Bitcoin out of bubble on several factors. One, using the logarithmic chart, which is what everyone uses when it comes to Bitcoin. The recent price rise was not a bigger and percentage terms than the previous rises. Of course, the big drops. Second, bubbles don't end the way we are now. You usually only get like one day or a few hours to exit at the top. And not only did we make it back to the top of 2,900, we're flirting with it for like a week now. So bubbles do not give you this many chances to exit. So I think a big pump and Bitcoin is way more likely than a big drop. But blacks ones. And this is, by the way, I am excluding a black swan technological bug. Like that's, I'm just talking about a natural bubble. Like there wasn't a bug that caused the dot com crisis. There wasn't a bug that caused the 2008 financial crisis in real estate. So without ignoring the fact that there could be like a Bitcoin bug that makes people lose confidence in Bitcoin just from a natural progression, like a 2013 style progression. And even that one had a bit of a bug because my own docs going down Bitcoin price was a bit of a black swan event that caused the popping of that bubble. So some bubbles end on a black swan and some bubbles just end because they end. If the, right now if the Bitcoin crashes, it's going to be a black swan. It's not going to be like a normal 2002 style. Everyone just bought and no one left to buy and people realized the stupidity in it. All right, Jimmy, are we in a bubble? Well, I wish I knew more about economics so I can answer that more intelligently. I mean, bubbles are the result of boom and bust cycles. Are we in a boom cycle right now? I don't know, probably, maybe, possibly, maybe not. I don't know. It really depends on how you define things. And most of the, most of the time I found that you can only really know in retrospect and not during. So I mean, if I were a prophet, I could tell you except I'm not one. So I don't know. That's, yeah, it's an unsatisfying answer, but that's the best one I can get. All right, we've got another question for Jimmy. If the miners wanted eight megabyte blocks, why are they not mining BCH? And is it possible that they'll change their mind in the near future? Maybe BTC will swap places with BCH? Should we be holding both just in case? That's entirely up to you, man. But yeah, I mean, miners are going to mine what's profitable for the most part. And most of them remember are locked into the segment two X agreement, and that requires them to stay on the main chain. And they, I think, DABTC is the one pool, one miner that sort of violated that agreement. And I think everyone sort of realizes that they're not really going to follow through on site with two X. But I mean, they're sort of holding to their agreement, but it helps that it's also in their financial interest to do so. It would have been really interesting if we had another six difficulty adjustments downward, where it would have been about 14 and a half times easier to mine on Bitcoin cash. And then it would have been, you know, and assuming that the price stayed at around 0.1 Bitcoin, then you would have had some miners that would have been waffling because it would have been more profitable to mine on Bitcoin cash. I actually have a story on why that probably won't happen on CoinDust that I published a few hours ago if you want to take a look at why a miner might want to mine on Bitcoin cash, even if they don't like it. And it's to prevent that sort of scenario. All right, we've got a question for tone. Well, I can't get any distance. I just answered real quick. So Jimmy, I have to disagree with you on the fact that the miners are locked in into the New York agreement. They're not locked into anything. I mean, clearly some of the people that signed that agreement were very eager to do this hard work. So I'm not going to go that far. I will mention Asick Boost. The miners wanted the hard forks that they can remain doing Asick Boost, which they could do over on the BCH side. But just because of Bitcoin's resiliency and being so high in price is keeping it more profitable for them to just stay on the real chain without the Asick Boost advantage of going to BCH. All right. We've got another question from the chat. They just want to know generally, why does it feel like it's everyone against China? Is this just a false belief or is China maybe causing this belief? What do you guys think will go to tone and then Jimmy? I just think it's not China per se, but when you have a combination of having the cheapest world electricity and the biggest mining manufacturer, I mean, it's not that it's China. This could have been Mongolia for all we know, right? I mean, it just so happens that China happens to be the biggest mining manufacturer of Asicks and having some of the biggest mining farms due to electricity. Those two things could have been in different countries and it would have made life so much better for us. But unfortunately, this is the reality of it. All right. Jimmy, is it all China's fault? Well, I think it's kind of, again, binary thinking, thinking it's like China versus the Western world or something like that. First of all, a lot of trading, Bitcoin trading is going on in like Korean, Japan, for instance. Not many people know where a lot of that Bitcoin ownership where they stand on things. We just happen to be in sort of an English driven bubble because we're all on Twitter and things like that and Reddit's obviously in English or whatever. I don't know. I think even within China, there are factions with infections as we saw with VWBTC. They broke off from the other miners because they thought the other miners were being too soft by signing Segwit 2X and things like that. I think it's too binary to think that it's just an us versus them mentality. There's factions with infections. Even among core developers, there's a lot of differences. They don't all agree on the same thing. They're not all like thinking X, Y, or Z. Just go to the GitHub or IRC and just talk to them and you'll find the variety of opinions. That's normal. We should expect in society and in any community. I think they do come up with China, around table agreements and things like that. I don't think it's that clear cut or black and white as we tend to make it out to be. We've got a couple of quick technical questions but we're running out of time. Jimmy, what could go wrong between now and Tuesday's lock-in of segregated witness? If you're talking pathological scenarios, I guess there could be a bunch of miners. The Murphy's law possibilities. I guess all the miners could decide to stop signaling for Segwit and abandon the softwork or something like that. I see that as a very, very low possibility. If they wanted to betray the Bitcoin network, they would have done it a lot earlier with a lot less risk. As it is, it looks like Segwit is going to lock in. I guess if you want to go with Doomsday scenarios, we could talk about a nuclear war where China is wiped out by North Korea or something. All the A6s. That would significantly lower the hash rate. Something like that. Those scenarios seem likely to me but who knows? I don't think that scenario would stop it. It would just delay the activation of Segwit by a few months to a year. All the cockroaches could trade Bitcoin. We also need to know, Jimmy, will there ever be another beat cash block? Of course. I mean, I haven't checked in a while. My God. If someone asks that question. It's been a while but I imagine people are still waiting for their 20 confirmations or whatever it is. It's been about three hours in the last block. It was blocked between 999 kilobytes, which tells me that whoever that minor was, they set a soft cap on their own software saying, we won't mind anything bigger than two megabases, which is something that you can do. I imagine there's going to be some blocks mind. If anything, just to prevent the difficulty adjustment. Hey, Jimmy, this thing is the last block only cleared like a third of the transactions. It was 1.999 kilobytes or just less than two megabytes. They kept it. Wow. They can totally screw with this thing if they start lowering their block size. That's the right of any minor. They can all mine empty blocks if they wanted to. Yeah. No. This is going to get interesting. I don't even think like the civil attacking has even started yet. People still want to get older, fucking either freaking coins out to turn them into Bitcoin before they really start attacking it. Because you also got to remember. If anyone really wanted to attack this thing, they have to make sure they at least sell it first to get the Bitcoin. I don't think we've seen the brunt of everyone is like, oh, you should be nice. We haven't even seen the brunt of people being mean to this altcoin. There's a lot of attacks that you can do against such a low hash rate. And this is where a lot of the game theory stuff comes in. And as I said in my article earlier, that block 478617, that said something nasty about Bitcoin cash. They probably mind it so that there would not be a difficulty adjustment downward. And game theoretically, it's actually the rational thing to do. Because if they do have another difficulty adjustment and the price stays the same, then it might get to the point where it's economically rational for a minor to go on Bitcoin cash and set. So they're sort of preventing that by mining a block every once in a while. That pool supernova by the way, they also kept their block size at two megabytes. And it's something that they chose to do. We're running out of time, but we still have time for a prediction or a story of the week. Tone Vays prediction or a story of the week. I'm going to go with the Bitcoin price. I think the Bitcoin price is getting ready to pop. I mean, we've hung around this 2850. I'm not even sure where the price is right now. I took a little break from looking at it. It looks like we're pulling back down a little bit to 2825. We're back at the line where on a long term level, I called a buy trade. We're at 2832 on stamp. And I think if we hang around this price, they're just the rest of the week into the weekend. I think Bitcoin is getting ready for a big pop and it's going to come at the expense of V cash. People are keep telling us to stop talking about V cash and to talk more about Bitcoin. But they are totally connected. And the more people lose confidence in V cash, the more confidence they will gain in Bitcoin and just buy it up. And if there are miners that want to lower the confidence of V cash and want to raise the confidence of Bitcoin, just start mining empty blocks there. Put like three or four, it just only take like the top 10% of fees and just, you know, mine it, get that V cash reward. Don't really process all that money transactions unless they have an absorbently high fees. If there are any additional trolling ideas are needed, they're all sure they all know this by now. All right, Jimmy Song, prediction or story of the week. Well, I was thinking that I would make the story of the week our eight hour telephon on Tuesday. But I, instead of like sort of pumping this network and talking about all the wonderful things that happened during that, including your donations, by the way, we are very appreciative of all your donations. I was kind of astounded by that, but my story of the week is Coinbase released the press release the other day. Doing a complete 180 on Bitcoin cash. They decided that they needed to make their customers whole, which I applaud. I think they should do that because it's a big legal liability. But I think they were resistant in part because the back end upgrades required to make that happen are rather expensive. And I suspect that they might need to hire better personnel in order to be able to handle all of that because to my knowledge, you know, they've had a lot of problems in that area of handling the traffic that they've been getting. So in a way, I'm encouraged because they are going to have to upgrade their back end. And if they don't, they're just not going to survive. And if they do survive, it's going to be a much better experience. So that's, you know, Coinbase sort of being forced to improve their back end infrastructure is my story of the week. Yeah. Hey, Jimmy, they're doing exactly what I said they should do. But I said it like three weeks ago before the hard one. My suggestion to them was tell the people create some metrics. Tell them you're not going to get your B cash initially because of the technological, you know, a process involved. But tell them they will be working on it. And they say you will get your B cash like a month or two after the hard fork when we know that it's safe. And I told them to do this. And they should have said this statement before the hard fork saying that they have no intention to immediately put anybody's Bitcoins or their company at risk. They could have said that this was a bad idea. But being a responsible company, they will split the Bitcoins at a future point in time when they're technologically ready. I thought they took a terrible stance. And if I was involved in that company, I probably would have gotten the hell out of there before this split. What they're doing right now was my advice to them. I think going out to 2018 is a little too far. I think they should be able to get it done before that. But I mean, it's very difficult to set all that stuff up. I can tell you from first. But again, they could have made things much easier and lowered the Exodus of everyone leaving their service. If a week or two before the hard fork, they would have said, we'll do it. We're just not going to do it on the first of the month. Yeah. And I would also point out that according to some blockchain analysis tweeters, I don't take this with a grain of salt. They think that Coinbase has had to move about a billion dollars worth of Bitcoins from cold storage from all the people that were taking Bitcoins out of their service as a result of not making the statement that you said. Because they were afraid of not getting their big face. This was a disastrous decision which caused their customers to withdraw their funds, lose their faith, and line up for a class action lawsuit. Not giving these people their funds was a guaranteed class action lawsuit, even still with the delay to January and the general tone of incompetence. You have to say there's a potential class action lawsuit on the lost value of these funds for all the time it took to give them to them. So all around bad moves, it's penny wise and pound foolish. Absolutely. And at the least they could have informed the world that they're moving Bitcoins out of cold storage. Like I had to guess that that's what was happening. It might be very careful that cold storage. You know, just keep it under the cat and tell everybody about it. There's a lot of potential problems. Yeah, I mean, I think your guess was correct. And I think there's a Twitter account block here that sort of analyzes these things. Again, I don't I don't know if it's true or not, but that's the rumor is that they moved like a billion dollars worth of Bitcoins from cold storage because there were enough people that were asking for their Bitcoins come out of Coinbase. Largely because of Bitcoin cash. They were afraid they weren't going to get it. It also once again hurts their recommend ability. When you say to your friend, oh, you have your Bitcoin and Coinbase and you have to say sad face. You don't get me free money this week. And nobody's happy about this. This was a bad decision. But that said, I mean, they they do seem to be improving and they made the right decision with with Bitcoin cash and hopefully that means that they're back end servers and everything else that that's connected to that improve. Right. And they'll get some cyber liability engineers and all this other stuff to make sure this this works properly. And that's hopefully the I mean, that's good for the ecosystem. Frankly, if they if they do a good job because that'll bring me more people that are make the price rise and everything else. I will say that. I mean, this probably goes to an earlier question. In confidence also really worked out this week. And I'm hoping that is not going to continue to be the norm. Like the worst you treated your Bitcoin before the hard fork, the more Bitcoin you have now. Like if you did the stupid move of sending it to via BTC before the hard fork, which was like scary and dangerous as hell, you were financially rewarded. If you did not have proper safety of your Bitcoins, like even you know, you're truly right here by not having them by not having most of them inside of a treasure, you also benefited a lot like incompetence really won. And meanwhile, Coinbase, which has been amazingly secure in storing your Bitcoin, got absolutely cloud-bird by this, right? Like so I would say that yeah, way I mean, I would expect nothing less from the Bitcoin ecosystem. And what I mean, what you call incompetence, I think for a lot of people, it was just sort of a calculator risk. Yeah, I shouldn't I shouldn't I shouldn't say incompetence, maybe laziness. I probably used the bad word, but but yeah, a lot like like risk definitely, the risk was worth the reward over the last couple of weeks. All right, and my story of the week is most definitely you, the audience is the story of the week. Thanks so much for joining us for the live stream the other day where we went eight hours. It was so much fun. We had all the super chats and the donations. And just thanks for giving us a thumbs up and a share. Thanks for subscribing. We've been doing the daily news for about a month now and we're getting an incredible response. We're back here every morning around 8 a.m. Pacific time doing the daily news even on the weekends because as you know Bitcoin never sleeps, takes no holidays and takes no time off. But we're running out of time. I have, we've nothing left but time but to show the QR code one more time. If you'd like to send us a small donation, you can pause the video and send us a donation. Otherwise, we have 1,331 live viewers. That's very cool. Almost 1337. But thank you so much for watching. We're out of time. Until next time. Bye. Bye.