The Bitcoin Group, the American Original. For over the last 10 seconds, the sharpest Satoshi, the best Bitcoin, the hardest cryptocurrency talk. We'd like to welcome our panelists, Jimmy Song, Bitcoin Developer. Hey everybody, good to be here again. Tom Vays from Liberty Life Trail. Hey everyone, still coming to you from Milan, Italy here at the Blockchain Lab, where there's really cool stuff going on here. If you guys are over in Milan, Italy, this is where you want to be. Jeffrey Jones from the Bitcoin News Show. Hello guys, welcome and thanks for joining. And I'm Thomas Hunt from the World Crypto Network, moving on to issue one. Issio Bans. South Korea followed in the footsteps of China today banning all ICOs, aka initial coin offerings. Well unlike China, South Korea has not banned Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies, instead taking aim at the unregulated ICO market and regulating it. Additionally, the head of the Securities and Exchange Commission in the United States has taken an interest in ICOs, saying that he's concerned about the effects that ICO pumps and dumps could have on retail investors. Jimmy Song is South Korea and China's approach correct should countries ban ICOs to protect their citizens from potential fog fraud. Well, Korea apparently did this just now starting to get into the Western hemisphere. I personally don't think that governments should ban stuff. I think the market should play it out. Now, that's going to cause some harm. A lot of stupid people are going to lose a lot of money. But I hate in general just in principle protecting people from themselves. I'd rather have them learn the hard way. That's good for Bitcoin because that gives why Bitcoin has such a good value versus all these other things. Instead of social signals to figure out what to invest in, they can actually figure out the technological underpinnings and come into Bitcoin from that perspective rather than, hey, everyone else is doing a while I'm not. I'd rather have them learn it that way. I think that's better for Bitcoin because that gives a more intelligent community that understands what's going on instead of just people that are yelling or says the whole out of their stuff. I mean, that for me is the bigger, they're not have government expanded, but that is sort of the reality and I'm okay with that too. All right, just like to ask everyone to give us a thumbs up and a share. It'll help more people find the show. And if it's your first time here, please subscribe down below. Tone Vays. All right, so I'm going to go the other way and tell you what Jimmy, man, if only I can hear myself from like a year and a half ago or something like that. It's like keep government out, keep government out, but that's what that was because I was dealing with true innovation, something like legitimate and Bitcoin. Now that the concept of Bitcoin has been taken by the free market and completely being used to sell outright scams, I'm on the other side here. Now again, it's a delicate balance. It's always a delicate balance. How do you explain to a regulator that Bitcoin is not a scam, but almost everything else is? The only way you can't regulate things are the ones that begin like Bitcoin. If someone wants to launch computer code with mining and fairly created tokens, that's fine. But when you have a guy standing on stage, because a bunch of people think he's a genius when in reality he's not and he's selling you snake oil in a form of blockchain, who's the free market ain't going to do anything about it. It's not. What's going to happen is everyone's going to lose their money and then all of them are going to run screaming to the government, wanting the government to do something and they're going to do some stupid. So I am fully in support of this. I think there is a hundred years of laws that have been passed specifically for people soliciting money from other people for their own personal usage and investment. This is all an ICO is. An ICO is just a way for one guy or ex-co-founders to simply get money for something that they're doing, whether something that they're doing is legit or is not legit, is pretty much irrelevant when it comes to the laws on soliciting money from others. You don't get around, you may not like those laws and you can try and change those laws, but the laws are there. So the moment you're selling something physical or something digital, the same laws apply and going around those laws just because you have the Ethereum scam to build on top of, it doesn't change the fact that you're doing something wrong. So I am doubling down on my hatred for ICOs at this point and the faster government's ban on the better because Luba are terribly assured how long they're doing anything about it. Jeffrey Jones. Well, so, and I guess I'll take maybe the other side as well then I'll go flip it back around here. You know, I do believe that this news was a little bit off because I do believe that the only ICOs that were actually banned in South Korea were the South Korea based ICOs. So I don't believe that ICOs in totality were banned there, specifically the ones that were just out of South Korea, but whether that's true or whether it's completely banned, it's an overreaction, right? It's clearly an overreaction to what's happening in the space. People have discovered the ability to print money. And so of course that's going to easily get completely overwhelmed and completely out of control until we have some kind of rule sets, until the market matures and this type of thing. So, you know, a lot of smart people are saying that of course right now ICOs are 99% scams, but that this is pretty much how things will work in the future 10 to 15 years from now because why not open up the liquidity to the whole world, right? Obviously there's a case to be made for accredited investors and stuff like that, but in a market where we have a mature market where we have a set of rules that does our best to make sure that scams don't run rampant. Why not allow an ICO to somebody from across the world to be able to invest in your company? What if they believe in your company? You know, we're talking about borderless technologies here. We're talking about freedom. We're talking about this is what Bitcoin, this is the idea, the ideology and beliefs of Bitcoin is that we need to go borderless, right? We don't want third party counter-risk. We don't want a centralized authority saying what we can and can't do, but at the same time, these ICOs are not going to go anywhere. They are here to stay, whether we like them or not, you know, and whether a single country like South Korea or China bands it, they're going to run rampant in another country. So the whole world is not going to be able to ban ICOs. They are going to get crazier and eventually I believe that the market will mature and we will have responsible actual ICOs where anybody in the planet, just like they can buy Bitcoin, can invest in somebody's company. And I do like that idea, but just understand that this explosion of ICOs, this is early days, right? So it's going to eventually get a little bit better. But as it stands right now, I was talking on Twitter with some people talking about making some kind of scammy award, right, for ICOs, but I'm like, there's just no way, it's impossible. All of them are almost scams. So there's no point in making a dam a wardrobe show. So give it a couple years to settle down to mature and on these types of technologies that allow and empower people across the planet to have access to global liquidity, to have access to a global financial system that only 1% of the planet used to have access to, I'm off for that. I'm going to take tone side on this and I'm going to say that, yeah, the ICOs, it does allow everyone across the planet access to this and it allows them the ability to lose their money. There's a reason that they don't let on accredited investors invest in these early-stage startups because a lot of them really do go to zero. And when you buy Bitcoin, you're actually getting the product you buy. You're getting Bitcoin. When you buy an ICO, you're getting a promissary node or a stock or a security or some kind of thing that says that this company is going to try to build this thing and maybe it's going to be popular or maybe it won't. And to me, it just seems like you're selling people a car without seat belts, without airbags, without a steering wheel and it's heading right into the wall. And all these people are going to lose their money, become victims, get mad at the government who's going to take it out, not just on the ICOs, which are again, just IPOs without any paperwork and they're going to get mad at Bitcoin. So I think you're just interacting responsibly here. What you're describing is the .com bubble, right? So what came out of that is what? Amazon, Google and everything else. So you know, I lost their money. And even the .com bubble was accredited IPOs. They had done the paperwork. So again, if you do the paperwork and they run away with your money, at least you have someone to sue. The problem with investing from another country into an ICO is that you have no one to sue. You have no redress for your grievances. It's like the galactic government. There's too many. Is that not a free market? No, Thomas. Is that not the dream of a free market? I don't think that the free market is a dream. I think the free markets, what we had in the 1920s, where the rich were taking advantage of people, children were dying in factories and stock swindles and other scams were running rampant, essentially stealing people's money. The reason that the regulation got in was to create a fair market, not a free market. But I think it is because of regulation that we have the best stock market in the world. It's true. It'll out us to create companies that actually create products that actually create wealth that actually have value. Whereas if you look at the ICO so far, the most important event in ICOs is when Ethereum rolls their blockchain to get the $50 million from the Dow hacker back and all those people don't lose their money. When they should have lost their money, they should have learned their lesson. It should have dampened the whole thing, but instead they just kept spending and they just kept investing. Yeah, well, I mean, just back in here real quick, you write Wartax. I mean, South Korea is going to ban South Korean ICOs and China is going to ban the Chinese ICOs, right? Like you can't ban other countries ICOs, but ICOs can easily be banned because ICOs still depend on one guy standing in front of the room selling his bullshit. This is the difference between ICOs and Bitcoin. So the funniest thing is I have all these people trying to educate me on Twitter and they're basically like, here's a funny one. He's like, people are calling me an idiot because I call waves in ICO and their argument is waves is not an ICO. It was an ICO, but it's no longer an ICO, right? So this is the IQ level of these people, right? This is who you're dealing with here, right? These are the investors that the government says, okay. So this moron says that waves is no longer an ICO. That's like saying, Amazon is no longer an IPO, correct, but it was an IPO at one point. It doesn't, you can't change history saying, oh, well, Amazon was never IPO'd. If it started out, Ethereum isn't ICO. It's not a current thing. It's whether it is or it isn't. I mean, again, this is the stupidity level of a lot of these people and it's really, really sad. My most recent argument to it is, I don't recall people taking responsibility for buying an overpriced house 10 years ago, right? This is what happens, right? Everyone blamed the banks. You know what? I almost blamed the banks too. Like my entire bank went down. I lost my job. I mean, I immediately went to JP Morgan. I didn't actually lose my job, but a lot of people around me lost our jobs. And we got blamed. Like we all got fired. We all went broke and we were blamed. Meanwhile, these guys that went in overpriced house went to court trying to get their house for free because the paperwork was filed incorrectly, okay? I've had these arguments back then. It's completely crazy. This is why I'm like, no, this ICO thing is completely ridiculous. It's also worth noting that at the time of the Ethereum ICO, they didn't have any software. They didn't have a test net. You were essentially buying vaporware, hoping that they did write their project, which as it turns out, they did write their project. But we had no indication of what you're saying. That's what I hope will go away as the market matures is. It's just investing on a white paper, right? That's just ridiculous. It's just like the dot com where they were just investing on a blank website almost. But again, it's up to cons were researched and they had business plans and they were much more thought out. I mean, the idea that pets dot com was such a bad idea. It wasn't such a bad idea. It was just too early. If you look at it right now, I think a lot of people order their pet food online. It's not unreasonable. You ordered every month. It's a subscription type product. Pets dot com was just too early. And speaking of it, you could say that about pets dot com, but boo dot com was, wasn't is and ever will always be a stupid idea. It was supposed to be a fashion portal where they burned through like $150 million. And all they did was like show people like wearing clothes like a virtual avatar wearing clothes. And that was supposed to somehow make money. I don't understand how that was supposed to be. I got butter. Echo look that looks at your clothes and suggest you close. Cosmo dot com was a bicycle delivery service. We now have host mates. We have Uber Eats. A lot of these things are just too early. I got I got even better examples than those two. I started doing research comparing ICOs to the dot com boom. And what I can't even believe the shit that I'm reading. It's absolutely amazing. There was a one stock that IPO'd at $30 a share. By the end of the day, it was $240 a share on the first day. And I still say the reason why the dot com boom got out of control is because companies like E-Trade and Scott Trade created traders out of people that had no business being traders. And the dot com itself opened up trading. You no longer have laws on these. I mean, look, Jordan Belford from Wolf of Wall Street. They weren't even breaking the rules. They were selling garbage. But they still had a list of credited investors that they were selling these penny stocks to. They were not really selling them to these shoe salesmen or these taxi drivers. But when Scott Trade and E-Trade came out, now your taxi driver, all of a sudden became a trader. He would drive the cab at night and he would trade stocks during the day with Scott Trade and E-Trade. I had my friends in college, 18 years old. We were in college during this time. And this guy is a finance major. He's like sitting there instead of going to class, sitting there trading on E-Trade. Mostly like penny stocks because we didn't have much money back then. So this is what it took. They did not. They did not have long horizons that would allow these companies to develop. And you wonder with the ICOs, if they don't develop a product in the year, is everyone going to sell? Is it over for that ICO? Right. But here's the analogy. Oh, yeah, it's going to be totally over for the ICO. But here's the analogy. The dot com brokerages opened up to non-accredited investors. But they still had to be 18 years old. They still had to be American. And they still needed at least $25,000 in an account to be day traders, the three day rule, basically. But if you have less than $25,000, you can hold for three days and then you resell. That's a feature. That's not a bug. That's a regulatory feature three days. People are crazy that want to remove that. So it opened up to this new group of people that had no business trading. But now after the dot com crash and after the 2008 crash, the average guy is no longer trading. The volume on trading has decreased because all of those people have learned their lessons. Okay. But here comes the crypto world. Unlike the previous tag boom that opened it up to not very sophisticated investors, now you have no age restriction. Now you have no geographical restriction because no matter how you slice it, an 18-19 year old in the first world is pretty damn smart compared to someone in the third world, right? In general, on average. All right. So now you have any kind of barriers completely out the window. So you have even like less sophisticated traders coming in and all of these guys are on Twitter making fun of me for not knowing finance and trading because they are expert traders because they're trading ICOs and making money. This is going to get so freaking ugly, but we're not even close to the levels of the dot com bubble as far as valuations go. I pray we don't get to those levels because it's going to be bad. Because look, it made sound fun. But when you have this 17-year-old, 18-year-old that thinks he has made $8 million from $300 dollars and he doesn't cash that out and it goes to zero, I'd be happy. Let's just put it that way because this is how suicide happens. It's also worth noting that the age restrictions go the other way. I've heard that a lot of Chinese old ladies were investing in Ethereum and other ICOs and they have no idea what they're buying. They have no idea the kind of risk they're getting into and maybe someone else is making the investments for them. But that's why regulations happen. They're trying to protect the population and has no idea what they're buying. Again, I completely disagree with this line of thinking that we need to protect people from themselves. I think that eventually this leads to a frustrated populist that's like why aren't you letting me do stuff that I want to do? Why are you restricting my freedom? I want to point out that there was a poker bubble like 15 years ago or something like that. A lot of people that did try to play online poker, they lost a lot of money and they left. You need those suckers to lose. You need all this. That's part of the whole thing. If you don't have the suckers lose, what you're going to end up happening is those suckers are going to invest in some other scam. No, that's not the same thing, man. Look, of course, I'm on your side here if you're going to talk poker because no one is scamming you in poker. But if half of these poker sites, which by the way, most of them are, what if they were colluding? What if people were losing money because the poker sites were not regulated and they can cheat if they were literally taking people's money? Now what are you going to say? Well, then, first of all, that would be fraud. If you represent one, I would prosecute those people because if you're going to be a cop, that's the case. If that's the case, then don't ban them, go prosecute them. I'd rather people run their lesson that way. But that costs money. It costs the government way more to go prosecute every one of these things. What is the government going to do? I personally think that every co-founder of Ethereum should be arrested for what they've done. That's my opinion. I think what they did was break security laws. Now, unless they can go back and change those laws, there is a reason why I never touched the theory from the beginning because it was obvious to me that they broke security laws. When you saw the podcast with me and Jason Cyber, who is a securities lawyer, and he says the same thing, they broke security laws. There is a reason why smart people that knew what the hell was going on didn't touch Ethereum. Now, all the dumb people have millions for buying an unwise and so on. Now they have millions. I think the market will play out. I believe in the market. I'd rather have the market figure this out rather than governments sort of dictating what is and isn't allowed. We were talking about housing bubble before and you were saying, you bought, because of asset inflation, because of normal inflation with the dollar. I would say with these bands, be very careful what you wish for. As soon as the government bans it, people are going to want it more. That's just sort of the reality. You can't just be like, hey, let's ban this class of stuff and think that that's the end of it. It's never the end of it. There's a black market. There's all kinds of other things. It gets even riskier and dumb money finds their way to getting those things anyway. I'd rather have them lose straight up. If you have stoppers, they're going to try to lose their money as much as they can. The only way they really learn is by getting burned once or twice. I'm fine with that. Just to sum it up, like Jimmy says, it is a slippery slope once we start bringing regulations. Ton and Thomas says, look, we're going to have these eventually. I think that we can let the market mature. I think we should let the market mature instead of just swiping it off and banning it. We have to see how this is going to play out. Yeah, a lot of stupid people are going to get hurt. Just like the dot com bubble, like Ton says, people learn. People have to get burned to learn. You have to burn your hand on the stove before you understand that the thing is hot. That's just humans, that's the way humans work. That's what I wanted to sum it up with. All right, let's move on to the exit question. Will the United States ban ICOs? Yes or no? Jimmy's song? Yes, eventually, only because there will be a lot of people burned and that's how the US government acts is when people get burned, then they make regulations. It's going to take a couple of years, I think, a lot of these ICOs have raised a lot of money, but it will come. I don't want it to come, but I think that's what's going to happen when people get burned. Ton, they... Yeah, no. I mean, they're going to have to. They're going to just say, hey, you are an IPO. You have to follow the same losses and IPO. Now, there could be a big discussion to lower barriers to go IPO, but we saw what happened when barriers were lower to go IPO. We have the late 1990s, right? So they might loosen some restrictions on IPO. They might loosen some restrictions on investing, but yeah, they're going to take it out. Jeffrey Jones. Yeah, I don't think that we're going to go straight out, band it like that. Just like we didn't straight up ban Bitcoin. I don't think that the US is going to make that type of decision. I think they're going to wait and play it out. It's like they did with Ethereum and the Dow. They're going to see how it goes and they're going to make regulations accordingly. And look, some people in the chatter are saying, oh, no, the WCN is just full on government now, full on regulation. And look, it's not like that. Bitcoin is going to disrupt regulation. It is going to disrupt government. Yes, but this is going to take time. And in the meantime, we try to help people. We try to protect people. We don't want a full on anarchy society yet. We simply don't have the tools to sustain a global anarchy society yet, people. There would be too much craziness. So we will get there. It's going to be a slow path. But now we have the internet and Bitcoin. And we will get to the point to where we all are self-suffering. The answer is yes. And it will happen soon. The United States will not allow China and South Korea to protect their citizens more than they protect their own citizens. Moving on to issue two, Bitcoin hard forks. We'll go over there. Bitcoin cash suffered a major setback this week. Zappo announced their plans to sell their customers money, even if they don't want to. Zappo announced their plan to sell their customers imitation cryptocurrency for Bitcoin. Let me see if I can switch back to the other window. Sorry. There we go. That works. All right. For Bitcoin, which would automatically deposit it in their accounts. Designed simultaneously local Bitcoins announced that they would compensate their customers for the cash, but they would not support future forks. Also in potential fork news, the No2X movement, which features users joining with the core developers taking sides against the corporations who signed the New York agreement, is starting to receive coverage in the Bitcoin media yet, with bits online writing a blowing or celebrating movement, and Charlie Lee, the creator of Litecoin joining the No2X movement, even changing his Twitter handle to include the hashtag. Is this the end of Bitcoin hard forks? Tom Vays will be cashed, be the first, and also the last of the successful Bitcoin hard forks. Who? You have to sneak in the word successful in there. What are we to find success, right? Because people think Ethereum is successful. I don't. I think it's atrocious. What success, having a token of value, well, NAMM has value, Ripple has value, and these tokens shouldn't even exist. It's hard to define success. So I'm going to switch the word success to the word buzz. Will there be hard forks that cause buzz that take up time on channels like this? Yes. The answer is yes. They're not going to be successful. They're all going to end in another form of taking money from the uneducated to clever scammers, basically. The B cash thing is good, I guess. This is a problem. This is a big problem. This is a big problem for me, actually. As much as I hate B cash, this is the tone-based perpetual contrarian position, right? As much as I hate B cash and everything it stands for, I think Zappo is wrong. I think if you're going to be the custodian and you have a hard fork and it has a significant market value, you need to now support it for your users. Same thing with Coinbase. I called out Coinbase for not giving people their B cash. I'm for letting the market decide. Your custodian people are giving you their Bitcoin on their behalf. If it splits, this is the business you entered or get the hell out of this business and let people use Bitcoin peer to peer the way it was designed. I'm against these companies in general. I'm against Coinbase, I'm against Zappo. I don't think these companies are doing the ecosystem any good. I disagree with their decision to sell people's B cash even if it helps B cash die faster. This is the tone-based contrarian position. Are we going to talk about the two X or is that a different topic? We're talking about a little bit. We'll have it as the exit question as well. I would say our definition of success is similar to what Stephen Colbert, the character, said about how a course book can move the inconvenient truth. He said that the inconvenient truth made money. Therefore, global warming is real. That way, B cash made money. Therefore, it's real. On the other end, when B cash loses all of its money, it'll stop being real. Jeffrey Jones. Yeah. We can definitely touch on the two X for the exit question. I really think that the two X is going to be the end of the hard fork fund. I think there's going to be many forks. I think we got B gold coming up on October 25th. I think we got already another fork that's way worth a couple of dollars. I thought the B gold crop was October 1st. They changed it. They put it back to allow people to have more time. Is that? Oh, it's hilarious. This is Joe, right? I mean, they did. I'm all for a bunch of forks before two X, right? Because then we can just completely rub it in as there's no reason whatsoever for two X. I mean, the good news is I'll be home. I'm not going to be on the road. So I can actually, I guess, get my dividend. Some people like to call it, but they just changed it. It's not a big deal. It's a cares. It's clearly not important. I'm too bad. No, no, no. I know it's all the software has been written and tested. Amazing. Multiple times. I'm not sure that we're ready. Okay. Now, come on, Tony, for real. The reason behind it really was to allow more people to prepare, to allow exchanges to prepare, to allow the ecosystem itself to prepare to get more excited about it, to get more preparation for it. It wasn't just like an arbitrary thing. There was purpose behind it, Tony. It's not like, oh, let's go ahead. We can so do it. Yeah. But it's not the thing, right? It's the proverbial we. It's not we. It's one guy. It's one freaking guy. I don't recall the user activated software changing his date. Absolutely. And that was a pretty huge movement compared to just this little one guy doing a big hole for it. But I think that there's going to be a lot of these forks. Again, we forget the name of it already. But it's worth like $2 or $3 right now on CoinMarketCap is what it says. So I mean, we're going to have a lot of these forks and they will eventually just dilute themselves down to nothing, all bringing attention and value returning back to the original chain. The more forks, the more people are going to wonder why the original chain is so expensive, which is going to force people to look into it more, which is going to force the world to learn about why Bitcoin is valuable. And to me, that's a good thing. So these forks are also going to put pressure on exchanges, right? Because now these exchanges have to be prepared for a new freaking fork every week or day. Because in 2018 is going to be the year of the Bitcoin fork. There's going to be a ton of them. And these exchanges are going to have to. But here's the thing. These exchanges better have changed their terms and conditions. And they better have it in their terms and conditions. Something that says, we will not have a heart. But then it goes to a slippery slope. What if there is a bargain Bitcoin and it needs a heart for it? Now what? This is why this is why it's great. It can be. This is why there shouldn't be Bitcoin banks. Yeah, you can't really argue for that. And at the same time, people are begging for the ETF. This is amazing. Well, some people are begging for the ETF, not everybody. But the Bitcoin is a pretty diverse group at this point. And it's still early days. So there's millions more people that will come into Bitcoin and try to define it what they think it is. But this is my opinion. What I hope this does is it allows us to explore decentralized exchanges more. Because decentralized exchanges, when you're just talking about crypto to crypto, not having to deal with Fiat or anything, they can potentially better prepare for this in the software. They don't have to please a bazillion board members, a bunch of VCs or anything like that. They can just freely work on the software and make it how they believe it should be so I hope that this actually puts enough pressure on exchanges possibly even might bring an exchange or two down at some point from the sheer amount of forks that are going to be coming out so that the ecosystem learns that we cannot be storing our coins on these centralized exchanges. So we'll see what happens. But I love it because this is everything in Bitcoin every day is unprecedented because this is one big experiment and nothing like this has ever happened before. So it is extremely exciting to see how this is going to play out. But as always, you know, Bitcoin will survive just like the B Cash fork ended up being a non-event for Bitcoin, the original chain. You know, I do believe that the 2X is going to come and go as an altcoin as well and Bitcoin will keep producing blocks every 10 minutes. Going back to what Ton said about the ETF, well I'm not going to beg for it. I do think that Bitcoin would benefit greatly by having access so that people could put it in their retirement accounts without holding it. There's a whole whole pool of money that all protects me. You understand how it's worth it, but that gives me a bunch to sell Bitcoin. And going back to Zappo and local Bitcoins, I do support their decision not to support future forks. As Jimmy said, well, I may have gotten a free laptop for B Cash and I liked it. The exchanges had to work overtime and overnight and very quickly to add these new forks. And if Jeff is right, if there's going to be a fork every week, if there's going to be a million forks in 2018, these exchanges, they can't handle it. They can't handle it safely. One of my chief complaints and concerns about cryptocurrency the entire time, isn't they had so many coins? And I just didn't believe that they had as many developers as they had coins. And according to what they said, the Lucky Seven Wallet had a flaw or a Trojan horse or a hack or whatever in it and it stole their coins. I don't know if that's true, the cryptocurrency thing is a mystery to us, but it seems pretty true and it seems pretty likely if you're going to be adding hundreds of forks, you're going to make a mistake. Maybe you're going to allow extra code that you didn't bet and it's going to lead to more problems. But let's go to Jimmy Salon for more on that. I forgot to unmute myself. Yeah, so I did talk about this quite a bit in my, you know, breaking Bitcoin conference talk. I think there's going to be a lot more of hard forks coming. And that's just sort of a reality given how relatively six-pil-bit coin cash was. You got to remember, view Bitcoin cash as an all-point, it did fantastic. It got to number three on the CoinMarket cap charts, you know, like on its first day, pretty much, which is incredible. For an all-point, you usually start way down at the bottom and you work your way up slowly, it takes years. And even Ethereum, it took them like two years to build their software and then when they finally launched, they were like at number four or five and then they had to work their way up. So from an all-coin launch perspective, they were fantastically successful. They're like, they're about, you know, worth about 11% of what Bitcoin is worth. It's one Bitcoin is about 0.11 or one Bitcoin cash is 0.11 Bitcoin. So, and, you know, this is something that I talked about in my talk. There's this whole fiduciary duty thing to consider. They get to hack the fiduciary duty of every exchange and every merchant and payment processor and wallet. They have an obligation to go and make their users whole with whatever forks that come out of it. And that presents kind of a problem. I think we mentioned Bitcoin gold coming out in a month. Well, if you don't give them the Bitcoin gold, if you are local Bitcoins or if you are, you know, want to zap or whatever and you don't give them, compensate them for this, users are going to sue them. They're going to have an excellent case because a lot of other exchanges are going to give it to them and it's clearly something that they only, they control because they have possession of the keys. So it gets to be this very, very tricky situation and, you know, these Bitcoin hard forks get to take advantage of this fiduciary duty, which is why I think, you know, there's going to be a lot more of them, right? Like, you know, there's going to be, you know, Bitcoin gold coming out and all these other things. Eventually, I think what will happen is I think what Vortex talked about a little bit, which is that we're going to have decentralized exchanges. And we talked about this on my show, Atomic Swaps are coming, right? Not just Lightning based instant Atomic Swaps, but on chain swaps too. And as long as you have a script capable coin, which most coins are except a few, you can do Atomic Swaps on chain and that's going to become more of a reality. Exchanges will sort of be these order books and, you know, you match and things like that. But you actually still have possession of your coins. I think that's what's going to happen. That's what's going to cause people to swap things and that will sort of take out the liability for exchanges to like have to compensate for all these hard forks. And that's when these hard forks are going to stop because, you know, you're not going to get listed on these exchanges necessarily because they don't have fiduciary duty anymore. I, and, you know, just to point out like, you know, Bitcoin gold is coming up in a month, two X is coming in two months. I think there will be a lot more coming after that, depending on how well those do. So, you know, I, you got this a reality. I really can't see it not happening. Hey, Jimmy, you know, you know, we can, you know, we can help these exchanges for not getting sued. Not to sign dumb contracts supporting hard forks. What contracts did they sign to? Oh, then you're not agreement. I mean, I, I, I, I think they still have to like, if they possess something and, you know, the customer would have gotten it had they possessed themselves. They're obligated to give. So I, I mean, this is almost an orthogonal in my mind in the sense that if, like, I'm kind of astounded that no one thought of this earlier or think thought of launching offcoins in this way, by having a hard fork, I mean, you, you, you get so many properties of, you know, so many properties. They've thought of it. Clams tried to do it. They didn't do it as a hard forks though. They just tried to do this. They used it as a distribution mechanism and not as a physical hard for it. And you know, that's kind of what Bitcoin gold is doing. They're using, you know, they're using utilizing the current user base. They're going to have strong replay protection. One other thing that they're doing is they're obviously aiming at people that think minor centralization is a problem because they're going to go to proof of work that's called equihash. It's, it's going to be GPU mindable. They want people to be involved in the mining. They're aiming at a certain audience. And, you know, they're saying what they're doing, right? They don't like, you know, two or three players in China having all the hash power. So they're trying to do something else. I actually think that's a good thing. I also think it's worth noting here that ZAPO is a unique position. ZAPO is essentially cold storage or a vault for incredibly rich people, holders who don't want to know about Bitcoin. So as Tone said, it might be questionable for them to sell the B cash, but essentially these people don't want to move their money around and they don't know how. And I think it's also worth identifying and accepting the odd position, the exchanges you're in here. They can't seem to do the right thing. If you look at the Ethereum classic, the Ethereum split, the exchanges all didn't list eth classic, the original chain because Vitalik told them no one would mine it. It turned out people didn't mine it and one by one the exchanges broke that agreement and began listing it. Whereas B cash, a bunch of the exchanges lined up to list it. And now we're looking at a questionable listing because it's confusing with Bitcoin, it's confusing with the logo and it's made their products harder to use. So the exchanges just can't seem to get it right and it will find out if this new idea of not listing is the right move, it might not be. Any more on that issue? All right, let's move on to the exit question. Will there be a 2x hard fork in November, Tone Vays? Yeah, I think there will be. I think Jeff Garzik is totally out of his mind and they got to do it, right? I mean, if they don't do it, then all of their credibility is lost. So they're doing it either way. But the price of Bitcoin is going to ignore it based on two things. One, how many nodes say this is dumb? And the more important one, how many people download and update their full nodes to 0.15? Jeffrey Jones. Yeah, there's absolutely definitely going to be the 2x hard fork. Like Tone said, there's just too much ego, too many people said that they would already. So too much credibility to be lost and people want free money. And now the number one reason for doing it literally is simply because they said they signed it. That's the number one reason for launching it now at this point. It's not science, it's not logic, it's nothing except for, hey guys, we signed an agreement, so we have to do it and it's impossible to have logical debate with something like that. Jimmy, saw him. Yes, I think there will be a hard fork, but for a different reason than people's egos or something like that. I actually think it really only takes one minor. I actually think a lot of people will end up backing out. There's already a fall Toro and a few others that have already backed out of the agreement. I mean, I don't think it's going to be as big of a deal. The big thing is, with a hard fork, you only need some mining hash power and some software and you can do it anytime you want. That's part of what makes Bitcoin Bitcoin. There's no central authority, anyone can fork and that probably means that there's economic incentive or at least ideological incentive for one minor to do that. That's going to cause a fork, but I've said this before, bring it on. I want it to happen. I think it's great for Bitcoin. I think what people will end up saying is, okay, this made Bitcoin more anti-fragile as a result. It's going to secure. It's going to be a better secure store of value because it has more security. I look forward to it. I want it to happen. I want there to be a hard fork fight. I don't really care about replay protection. I know a lot of people are up in arms about that, but to me, if you're a soccer and you don't know how to move forward. I have come around to your way of thinking that hard forks are good. You've come around to my way of thinking that replay protection is not necessary because we had the opposite debate in the beginning. Indeed, we have. It's good because we're converging. I think that means that we're thinking along the right lines. One more comment. You view it from a minor perspective and I view it from the developer perspective. It's the military developing all these weapons. They're not going to just throw them into the junkyard. They're going to want to use them. They want to test them. If Jeff Garzick and one other clown spent a bunch of time developing code for the 2x hard fork, even if it's three lines of code, they're not going to be able to do it. They're going to put it in the junkyard. They're going to go and use it. I agree. While there's no user support, there is a very little minor support. They'll have to do it anyway because they said they would. Even if it fails in the future and everyone makes one of them, they just can't walk away from that edge. They're like lemmings. They can't say no. Moving on to issue three, mainstream finance. They run the banks whose ATMs you use. They allow you to invest in the stock market. Now they're here to tell you about Bitcoin. The mainstream finance industry weighed into Bitcoin recently with Jamie Dimon saying that from Chase Man Hatton Bay calling Bitcoin a fraud, the head of the ECB in Europe reminding us that it reminded him as tulips and tulip mania and the Dutch. Well, an early investor in Bitcoin said that nobody could stop Bitcoin. While others agree with him saying that the tulip comparison ignored all the work made by Bitcoin and all the technology of Bitcoin, and others still saying that the banks are afraid of Bitcoin. Jeffrey Jones, I ask you, is Diamond correct? Is Bitcoin a bubble a fraud? Nothing but tulips all over again. Or are the banks simply speaking out against a new technology that could completely wreck their industry as the MP3 wrecked the music business and piracy wrecked the movie studios? Is the financial industry facing an existential crisis? Well, it's kind of funny that these people like Jamie Dimon and stuff are even allowed to comment on Bitcoin because obviously they're on the complete opposite side of Bitcoin. Anything that they're going to say is going to be in favor of their business model, which of course is to control all money. So they're going to not like it. There's already been people like CEO of JP Morgan coming out or Morgan Stanley or one of those, you came out and definitely defended Bitcoin as saying that it's something more than just a fad. You guys covered that great on the today in Bitcoin show. You have to people understand, you have to learn who to trust, you have to learn who to follow and this is a trial and error. You cannot be listening to these freaking billion dollar CEO's of banks and thinking that they have your best interests in mind. That is just absolutely insane. So no, it's Bitcoin is going to and another thing about, you know, these people keep saying Bitcoin's in a bubble, it's in a bubble or comparing it to tulips. Look, tulip price never came back. It never came back to thousands of dollars anymore. It's still only like a dollar to buy a tulip and Bitcoin continues to go up and fall back down to previous highs over and over again. And this is a measurable amount. Anybody can go on and look at this public data and see that Bitcoin does not go down. It goes up and crashes to previous highs and on and on and on. And you know, despite, you know, people saying that people don't use Bitcoin because the mempool is empty, I use Bitcoin every single day to store value. Jimmy Song. Well, I mean, these guys don't know anything. I don't understand why we pay attention to them, right? Like, I mean, they're talking about stuff as if they know anything and they don't know anything about Bitcoin. They probably don't know how it works. They certainly don't know the technology behind it or, you know, have looked at any of the code. So I don't know why you've listened to them. I mean, in a sense, it's sort of this old thing in, you know, I guess media, I guess it's an appeal to authority and they see themselves as authorities on this stuff. Doesn't really work. I mean, there are policies that the people that caused the financial crises in the past 20 years or past 100 years. There are all people that are critical. They're the type of people that are criticizing Bitcoin, right? They're the ones that are saying, you know, you need to have banks and all this other stuff. And I mean, it just doesn't make any sense to me that anyone in Bitcoin, at least, would pay attention to them. And if you know what Bitcoin is and you know how little experience or if they haven't stuff, then you wouldn't pay any attention. Would you like, you know, talk to, would you listen to somebody, you know, that's not an expert, like, that's not a doctor, like tell you like what to, you know, what you need to do to fix your broken bone or something like that. It doesn't make any sense, right? Like it's like asking a plumber about your health. It doesn't make any sense to me. I see Bitcoin largely as a store of value and it's, you know, people are going to see it as a bubble and save all kinds of things. Generally, you know, we have time on our side. That's the beauty of Bitcoin. As long as it's a good store of value and we keep security and all this stuff, other stuff, it's going to keep going up because there's only a limited amount. And this is, you know, kind of why people say invest in real estate. They're not making any more of it, right? Like it's the same with Bitcoin. They're not going to make any more of it. There's a fixed amount. So there's increasing demand and a fixed supply. What's going to happen to the price? A DAW? It's going to go up, right? Like in that, and as long as you believe in that and as long as that's true, you know, you can just wait out all these idiots and just keep going with it and you'll be okay. Another metaphor to bring forward on this is it's similar to DEA agents who made their career on marijuana busts and now they can't understand marijuana legalization. The times have changed and you have to change your views. You can't keep going back to the same sources because they don't understand the new times. Tom Bayes. Yeah, this is a weird story. Like I'm not going to say that these old financial guys don't understand what's going on. They generally understand. Like the way, again, this is a hard one, right? Like the way all of us make fun of Jamie Diamond is the way all of these old coiners are making fun of us about the old coins. Like, oh, you don't understand, you don't understand Z-Cash, oh, you don't understand Dash. And the answer is yes, we do. No, yes, we actually do. So you're right. When it comes to Jamie Diamond, and I've said this before on this show, he did not study Bitcoin. He did not look into Bitcoin. But he's not some guy sitting in front of a computer watching shows. The man's busy. And if the man starts asking, you know, people like low level people at his company to explain this to him, it can get real ugly, right? Because then the confidence in the CEO could be shaken, right? Well, like when you're at a certain stature, you're not supposed to show weakness. That's bad. That's bad for the price of your company to begin with. OK. Also, you don't know whether he doesn't understand it. That's a political position to him. He might understand Bitcoin perfectly, but it's not to his advantage to support it because he has customers and he needs to keep them at his bank. He doesn't want to send them to Bitcoin. He needs to keep confidence in the financial system. And he's probably auditioning for the job as the Treasury Secretary or the Chair of the Federal Reserve. So it's not in his personal best interest. It's not in his corporate best interest to support Bitcoin. And you guys have to understand that. That it's not in his best interest, right? It wasn't in blockbusters best interest to support Netflix, right? I mean, yeah, they should have merged with them. They should have tried to do what they're doing. And to be honest, there are, I mean, JP Morgan is almost doing it. I mean, if JP Morgan wants to compete with Bitcoin, start lobbying the government to lower regulation on money laundering. And they'll do, they will be better than Bitcoin. OK. If JP, if JB Diamond becomes Treasury Secretary and he wants to eliminate Bitcoin, what he has to do is convince Donald Trump that money laundering laws should be abolished. If money laundering laws get abolished, Bitcoin is down to one use case, just one. OK. And that use case is deflationary money. And we don't know if that's better. We really don't. We really don't. People say how terrible inflationary money is. But look at all of the innovation and technological innovation we've had in the last 100 years since the creation of the Federal Reserve. You don't know if we'd have the internet today if we were still on the gold standard. You don't know. You don't know what would have happened if we had the inflationary money. You don't know if we'd still all be farming. You know? You also don't know if we'd be on the moon with colonies. I mean, that's kind of speculation, right? Like, you don't know if it was good or bad in that way. OK. That's exactly what I'm saying, right? So we don't know if deflationary money is better than inflationary money because we kind of keep going with both. So we don't know what would have happened if the Fed wasn't created. So if the US government can easily compete with Bitcoin, all they have to do is eliminate money-on-train laws. And if Jamie Darwin wants to do that, if he goes to the government with high stature, then Bitcoin becomes in serious jeopardy with the elimination of money-on-train laws. Fortunately, I think Bitcoin is incredibly safe because there's no way the government will eliminate money-logging laws if anything, they'll make them more draconian. Let's move on to the exit question. No bankers call for an all-out ban of cryptocurrencies in the near future. Yes or no, Jeffrey Jones. No, not even close. That'd be like banning the internet, not going to happen. Jimmy's song. I don't think they will. I think the direction they're going to go is they're going to try to become Bitcoin banks. I mean, I think the SEC chairman said something about that. Like, if a Bitcoin company wants to apply for banking license, we're all year or something like that. And I can see them do that. I think what they will do, though, is once they have a lot of Bitcoin, they're going to start lending it out fractionally and try to print Bitcoin. But that's a game that's going to be very interesting to see how it plays out. Tom Vadez. I think so. I think they'll try. I think they'll try. I think they'll try and ban it, but we'll see. The answer is yes. Much like the movie piracy and the MP3s, the banks will try to ban their opponents using the political forces that they control. Unfortunately, Bitcoin is on the internet and the internet is flexible. It sees censorship as damage and routes around it. They will be unsuccessful. But they'll try. Moving on to issue four, Russia ban. While China banned ICOs and closed their Bitcoin exchanges in South Korea only banned ICOs, Russia is now looking at a complete ban on payments in cryptocurrency. The bill will still need to be debated in the Duma, but it is said that no regulator doubts that the payments will be banned. Meanwhile, in China, while the ban may be law, it's not stopping traders from trading cryptocurrencies with users trading directly. Even some saying that ICOs are still being marketed to Chinese investors. Jimmy Song will rush ban cryptocurrencies and more importantly, will the ban be successful? Well, I hadn't actually read that story, but it's very interesting that it says that it's only banning payments. So you can still use it as a store of value or buy it directly. You just don't use it for payments. I don't see how that hurts Bitcoin at all because I don't think the medium of exchange part is that important component. I think so, you. So even if it passes, I don't know if it really does anything. There aren't that many people going and buying things with Bitcoin, despite all the hype, doesn't happen that much. Almost all of the traffic on Bitcoin blocks and stuff are too and from exchanges or to wallet services and things of that nature. So I mean, in my past, I think it's just sort of like a, it seems like a bigger deal than it is because I don't think people actually will use it for that reason. And maybe international remittances, but then I'm not sure if Russia has jurisdiction over that, right? Like it's only within Russia that you'd want to pay in which case you'd probably use some other payment method. If you're paying somebody in the United States for some good that you know, you're getting shipped to Russia, that might, that might, Russia might be fine with that. I don't know. Anyway, they're not, they will actually be the band of the payments, but I have no doubt that nobody can stop this crypto stuff because there's all sorts of ways to connect to the Bitcoin blockchain. There's not only the internet with VPN and all this other stuff, but there's also the blockchain satellite. And that's, that's a way that you can receive transactions. You can send transactions via SMS. Probably other ways people figure out some radio signal or something like that. If you try to ban it, you know, there's so many ways around it. I mean, you could, I mean, technically you could probably use a carrier pigeon to like carry a USB stick all the way over to, you know, some other country and then like have it plugged in or something. There's so many ways in which this can work that I really can't see any sort of band being at all successful. And I actually want a band to happen because I believe that it will make Bitcoin stronger because it will force people to make these other solutions like our carrier pigeon or whatever. You know, people will figure out other ways to connect and that actually makes Bitcoin more secure. And this is why we say that Bitcoin is antithragile because anytime you do something to add this order to the system, well, people come around it and make the system even stronger than it was before. It gains from this order. And that's a good thing. So I say, try banning me. Try banning me, you know, right? Like it's, it's okay. Like go bring it on. I dare you. Like Russia, go ahead and ban Bitcoin in whatever way you think will, will happen. And I think Bitcoin will survive, not just survive, but thrive in that sort of situation. Let's go on a tone base. All right. So this is where you and I differ a little bit, Jimmy. So you said that you kind of want the band to happen. I don't want the band to happen. I just think that it's inevitable. And I think it's going to happen even though I don't want it to happen. And people in the chat seem to be, you know, very upset at me, but I'm the one that's being realistic here. You guys are making fun of the banks. You're making fun of Jamie Diamond, the biggest bank in the world. You're slapping the government, the US government in the face with these ICOs and talking about how Bitcoin is going to bring you down. Like picture, you know, you go to like some bike bar, you find the biggest biker you have, and you start smacking them in the face, saying how you're going to take over. What the hell do you think is going to happen to you? Do you think they're not going to fight back? Come on. Come on. Like this is silly, right? It's like, oh, I'm being negative. I'm not the one that's, you know, smacking the government in the face, telling them how Bitcoin is going to eat his lunch, right? It's like you come up to a bully and what do you think is going to happen? The bully is going to punch you in the face. So that's kind of my view on it. So yeah, it's coming. It's coming. And also, sorry, the more you bait them, the faster it's going to come. It's also worth noting going back to Jimmy's points as Andreas is comment of saying, we could sneak our transactions into an image of kittens. You could post the image on some board somewhere, you could get your transactions that way. And I also think it's worth saying that the ban would be an incredibly great for Bitcoin advertising. Everyone who hasn't heard about it would hear about it, the minutes it's banned, and a lot of people, especially in other countries, they don't trust their governments. And when the government banned something, they know that's the time to get into it. A gold was banned in the United States. Other things have been banned, and they only became more popular. Let's go to Jeffrey Jones. Yeah, I mean, tone is, I mean, we definitely need your point of view, tone, for people to remain vigilant, to remain skeptical and things like that. But look, at the bottom, at the end of the day, money is now information. Okay, when money is information, you cannot stop that. You can put that in a meme. You can put that in an image. You can put that in a radio wave. You cannot stop at the Pandora's Box has been opened. Now, remember, tone, the phone companies fought the internet too. And they turned into ISPs. Similar, this is similar to how it's going to play out here, because they saw the opportunity. They saw the business opportunity. They saw what's going to happen. They saw everything, and I mean, freaking everything is going to go over the internet. Your telephone companies, your media, everything, they saw that. They eventually saw it. They didn't see it at first, obviously, hence the fighting. But eventually, they saw it and turned into ISPs. Same thing will happen here. When you see opportunity, that is much greater than anything that you've ever seen in your life. You're going to change your mind about a few things. And so this is my view. And remember also that one country's ban is another country's game. If one country bans it, some other country is going to freaking accept it wholeheartedly and build a huge economic global model out of it. And so there's just at this point, no way of putting anything back in the box. We are here. This is the age of crypto. This is the new global financial renaissance, and it's not going anywhere. It's also worth noting going back through history that the copyright industry was created because of player pianos. Player pianos were going to destroy live performances. If you go again, we could say cassette tapes are killing the music industry. You could go to VCRs, which are going to destroy the movie industry with their ability to record and film. And then on to piracy, which they actually found, the pirates are the ones who buy all the music. The pirates are the ones who go to all the concerts. The pirates go to more movies per year than anyone else. It happens again and again. But let's move on. Let's move on to the exit question. The indomitable Gandhi quote once again comes to mind with describing Bitcoin. First, they will ignore you. Then they will laugh at you. Then they will fight you. Then you will win. Jimmy Song, force prediction. Will the government be successful in banning Bitcoin? Yes or no? Yes. No, I'm just kidding. Of course not. Of course not. I mean, it will be used somewhere at some point, like even if every government in the world bans it. It's just too useful for it not to be usable. I don't know. FDR tried this with gold where he just sort of confiscated every gold, gold ounce that he can find and then inflated the US dollar against it. I mean, that's sort of the thing that I think governments will try to do, but that's it's completely impractical just given how easy it is to store Bitcoin like and have no trace of it anywhere, right? Like you can just leave it in your brain if you wanted to. You could put it into like an image of a kitten like you were saying, like there's so many ways to hide your Bitcoin that there's no way that anyone's going to be able to successfully be able to ban it. Tone base. I think we're entering out of the laughing stage and starting to get into the fighting stage. I think once we get out of our own way with these damn hard forks and once, honestly, I think $10,000 per Bitcoin is the make or break level. I think it has a lot to do with pricing notation. I think I've said it on this show. I think we've all pretty much agreed that once a Bitcoin is consistently above $10,000, it might be time to go to a bit notation where one bit is worth one to two pennies. At that point, you are directly competing with the US dollar when you're pricing Bitcoin and pennies, right? When you're pricing bits and pennies, it becomes a very user-friendly pricing notation. I think at that point, the fighting against Bitcoin is really going to ramp up. That's my official war on Bitcoin by governments gets declared. Once Bitcoin goes to bit notation and bit notation is coming, once we break $10,000. Jeffrey Jones. Yeah, I also agree with Tone that $10,000 really is the magical number because at that point, that gets really difficult for governments to even start attacking Bitcoin. That kills all sorts of attack factors just being that high, physically. A government almost very few governments can afford to attack Bitcoin at that type of price levels. To answer your question, Thomas, what happens when Gold got banned? What happens when marijuana got banned? What happens when they put up the Great Firewall of China? Utility, if something has utility, it will find a way. Just like Q the Jeff Goldblum, but it will find a way. It will find a way, but it's going to be a struggle, man. Look at the marijuana laws. Look how many people have been sitting in prison for smoking marijuana and no offense, man. I don't smoke marijuana. I've tried it once or twice, but I'm not a smoker. I wouldn't want to sit in the prison over smoking a freaking plant. It's a 40-year struggle. No one cared about Gold after it became banned. It finds a way, but it takes a generation or two, and a lot of people just say, you know what? It's just not worth it. Yeah, banning Bitcoin is going to have an effect. Now it's going to fight through it and it's going to win, but it might be up to our kids to get it done and potentially not us. We'll see how it goes. That's okay, too. I think a lot of people are okay with that. A lot of people know that we are up against the most powerful people in the world. A lot of people know that this is going to play out over decades. Right. People in China are still fighting for free internet. People in North Korea haven't even started fighting for free internet. So banning something can't work pretty well from the eyes of the government that is banning it. And banning marijuana for 40 years, this creates a lot of jobs for the government. I mean granted they were wasting taxpayer money. I'm not saying this was a good use of the money, but yeah, there was a lot of people making good money from the ban of marijuana. And a lot of people do not want to see marijuana illegal because their job becomes irrelevant. Well, look at it from the other point of view. Right. Right. But I mean, you also have to look at it from a global point of view. You can't just say, well, okay, it's going to take a generation. If the other economies that are using Bitcoin do much better, there is going to be some motive to relook at things. I mean, I think people are saying with respect to marijuana or whatever. I mean, nothing that terrible happened to answer, Damas, a result of legalizing it. I know. I realized all drugs. Portugal legalized all drugs. They saw a reduction across the board. Right. And guess what? Nobody cares. Like the other governments don't really care. Right. Right. So with that stuff, it's such a small impact on the economy. It's a government aren't going to look at it as much. With Bitcoin, I think it's a much larger. I hope so. I hope so. But again, like I'm here to make people think. And America was booming throughout the 70s and 80s and 90s. And Russia and China were still communist. Right. So it's not always that simple. Because once you empower, your job is to maintain that power at whatever cost. And government, if anyone doesn't want to admit a mistake, it's government. Like, you know, I think Roger Vier will admit a mistake before the government admits a mistake, right? Also, those anti-money laundering laws that you always speak out against, Tom, were initiated in the 70s to fight the drug cartels. I also want to take a new account that we are on crypto time so you can multiply that by four. So I'd say instead of 10 years, maybe 200 years. And going back to the marijuana issue, John Lennon did sing a song once about a man who was sent to jail for two joints for 10 years. However, after he sang that song, they let him free. Let's go to Jimmy Song. Do we cover you on the exit question? Oh, yeah, yeah. I think it's a no. Yeah, I think it's a no. And I'm going to go with yes, the government will attempt to ban Bitcoin, but much like trying to ban the internet, trying to ban MP3s, trying to ban video piracy, it will be unsuccessful. So let's move on to predictions or story of the week. Jimmy Song, you're ready with the story of the week. Sure. I got my block stream satellite. I started assembling it a little bit better. Yeah, that's awesome. All right, so this came off. I'm going to put this back and have this thing. It's got everything. I got to hook it up and then I got to install some software. I think everything worked. But that was an interesting adventure trying to put that together live on air on Tuesday. Hey, Jimmy, I missed that part. And I also like, I had to like say something. So I missed where you started. Are you talking about you're getting direct TV or this has to do with the Bitcoin nodes in space? And this is getting on the internet super highways. Yeah, this is the block stream satellite. This is something that they sent me. They sent me a direct TV dish and all the parts that I need to hook it up to a computer. This makes so much more sense because when I went back to the TV, I'm like, is Jimmy so excited? He finally has TV NS house? I know you don't like TV based on how much work you do. So I know you haven't got thing out in like three years. They finally got satellite TV in Texas. He's also. No, no. I do need to mount it. It has to be like completely level. And then I have to like hook it into a, you know, a computer. I have to install a bunch of software on there. People are asking me like, why don't you just use like a live CD and then like install that way? So the reason I can't do that is I need to compile this stuff from source. So it's going to take like several hours to compile everything. And if at any point I mess up and I need to start over and I turn off the computer, then I have to start all over again. So that's going to, you know, I'm probably, I'm leading towards just dual booting one of my laptops and adding Linux to it and then like doing all that stuff. But yeah, it requires Bitcoin fiber. It requires new radio. It requires software that like hooks up the GNU radio to satellite. And then I need the blockchain software. It's a lot of work. So I need to get some sort of, I was thinking about just buying a Linux laptop, but I don't know, there aren't that many for sale used. And if I want to get one new, then yeah, I mean, I think the only one that's really there that comes installed with Ubuntu is like Dell and I don't know, they're kind of expensive. So anyway, so that's one story of the week. The other one is programming blockchain. We have a scholarship available for the Santa Monica location. Please, please apply. We're going to announce the winner on Tuesday on my show. And I recently announced earlier today that we have dates for the London one. It's going to be January 22nd and 23rd. It's going to be in this within London proper. I'll send you the address once you apply and get in and you pay. Then I send you the address. So yeah, it's very, very, very interesting. It already and I've sent that one batch of acceptance letters. I'd love to send out more. There may be scholarship opportunities going forward, besides Santa Monica. So stay tuned for that. So yeah, that's all I have for this week. All right, let's go to tone Vaze. Yes, everyone wants me to do price. So we'll do price. But I'm having a great time here in Milan. Huge shout out to the blockchain lab and the scam coin bot. So it's been a lot of fun. We had the Meetup yesterday. It was like an outdoor meetup. You guys should have seen pictures. Check out my Twitter. It's actually funny. I got to meet Lawrence, the core developer and creator of Green Address wallet. So that was really cool. So I'm meeting a lot of great people here. Shout out to Meer. Shout out to Jaco Muzuko. It's been great. And now it's time to talk price. All right, let me do my screen share. All right. So we covered it this morning a little bit. The weekly chart is neutral. It remains neutral. I'm waiting for prices to flip. It'll probably flip around $5,000. So here's what you have to realize. The last time I called a buy in Bitcoin on a weekly chart was at $2,825. So this was the last condition right here. This was the week of July 31st was the last time the weekly chart went bullish. And the weekly chart went neutral with the recent crash and prices from $5,000 to $3,000. And it remains neutral. So the weekly chart was never on a short play, but it's setting up for a new long play. The daily chart, I drew all of these arrows on my show the other day. We have broken out about $4,100. That was my level. At the time, I totally missed the Fibonacci resistance at $4,200. I covered it this morning. We have now stayed at this resistance point for three days straight. The market isn't accommodating. This is now a double top. We're going higher. I don't consider $4,600. A major top. That's it. It's open air. Open air. I don't care about the regulatory environment. I don't care about political environment and Bitcoin. Who cares? The technical chart is on a by-point daily. I see no more serious resistance going up to $5,000. And once we get to $5,000, I'm expecting a big breakout. Zooming into the four-hour chart, I drew these arrows in the other day. Once we fell a little lower, I drew another arrow. I mean, I was always bullish. Here is that Fibonacci. It's a pretty much the same Fibonacci 4,200. This one is at the high of 4,260. We're going to break above it. Again, I'm fully bullish on the hourly chart. There was a 13-right here at Calon UWC cautious. There was a prior 13 here at Calon UWC cautious. We have now exhausted both of these bullish momentum. So if we flip around and make a new high, we will start a brand new count. Just bullish across the board. But yes, where I'm bearish, here's your B-trash, your B-trash. Just wait till we go below 0.1. Might have to start calling it C-trash. It's not good. Not good, guys. You got to do something. I don't know what you're going to do. We got to do something. Spend more money. Burn more money. Burn more Bitcoin. Come on. Sell it. Sell it. Support your B-trash. Sell the Bitcoin. That's pretty much it. There were some really funny tweets going around, but check them out. Go to the tweets that I got tagged in from the event. Some cool stuff there. All right, guys. I'll leave it at that. All right. Thanks, Tom. Let's go to Jeffrey Jones. What do you have for Story of the Week? Yeah, I think I agree with Tom. They're going to have to make more signs that says Bitcoin cash has more users and developers than Bitcoin. I don't think they're making enough signs for Roger to stand in front of you. So they got to try that. But yeah, I got a couple stories of the week real quick to close out the show. So the first one is that Charlie Lee, of course, creator of Litecoin, did join the No2X movement on Twitter and through his weight of 150K followers behind it. And it's been absolutely great. A lot of feedback. A lot of people talking about it and a lot more people joining in the movement. So I mean, people were criticizing it a little bit saying like, OK, look, we want decentralized governments and all we got were hats and no 2x stickers, right? But look, this is how we're trying. This is how decentralized systems work. This is how fast works. It is no one single person is in control. So what the users do is they've we voice our concern. We let the CEOs know how we feel. We let people know, let the miners know how we feel. And this is what's going on. And so it is it's actually fascinating to watch this movement unfold. And I really think it's going absolutely great. It just continues to grow. More and more people leaving the New York agreement and things like that. So very great. We just want to quick last story. This is interesting, because it's actually about Bruce Fenton, who I unfollowed many months ago. But yet has come back into my Twitter sphere with this pretty amazing thing called Space Suit X, which is an open source analysis method for digital assets. So we spoke a lot about ICOs today and about how we can maybe we hope that one day in the future, the people will be able to evaluate them better and have less scams. And this might be one of the paths to that end. So I encourage everybody to check out Space Suit X. Bruce Fenton has a medium post about it. And it is really cool. If just Google Space Suit X. And I really highly recommend people check that out. It's going to be thought provoking and really make you think like what how can we evaluate the these freaking ICOs that are just popping up every second of every day. And so that's about it for me. Okay, one last thing, one more shout out. There you go. One more shout out. That's what you got. How long did you get that? I need to put together my satellite. And then I think Samson will send me one of those. Samson needs to sell more hats in the European theater. Because I haven't seen it. Unfortunately, it's not mine. So Samson, if you're watching, I want my own. I don't want to get arrested for stealing this. All right. They are available now to buy by the way. They are available to buy. Well, they're traveling. You need to have a study address if you want to receive mail. Send it to the conference in Prague. Have you? No, I'm going to I mean, we should be at the scaling event. No. Oh, yeah, yeah, that's it. Yeah, so there's a lot of ways in which you can get get this hat. But yeah, I've been wanting that hat for a while. I think that's like the most beautiful one that he's produced so far. And we all know that Samson is a hat marketing genius. So, you know, it would be nice to get my hands on one of those hats. And as Jeff mentioned, Bruce Benton originally had kind of disagreed with him about the kind of elitist attitude of Satoshi Roundtable. But I think he dialed that back in the other years. And it just kind of became a CEO's hanging out, talking high level. So actually Bruce has been really cool to me on Twitter. And yeah, he's definitely back in my good graces, too. So shout out to the to this like how loud that everybody goes to them. Oh, that's what that's what that's how I always saw it. That's how I all I was never I'm critical of Bruce Benton for many things. But Satoshi Roundtable was not one of them because that's exactly how I saw it from the beginning. Yeah, it just ran me wrong in the beginning. I had a lot of nights of the Roundtable, strange limits on the numbers. But nah, he's cool now. It's cool. I'm not mad at him at all. So I just want to give a shout out to my friends Justin and Paloma for hosting me here in Berlin. We had a great time today. We went around to some of the sites. I saw the Brandon Bergate and I saw the Reichstag, which apparently had a small fire, but didn't burn down completely. It's still a very large stone building, a very nice in Germany here. We're going to try to have a Bitcoin meetup next week here in Berlin. I am aware that the meetups on Thursday, but I won't be in town on Thursday. So we might try to meet up at a bar or something, maybe on Tuesday. It's kind of a good day for meetups. And I won't be in town Thursday because I'm traveling to Prague, where Tony will be to go to the Hacker Congress at Paralympanese, Polis. And that's going to be really exciting. The third Bitcoin event that I'll be attending in Europe. I had a great time at the blockchain hotel conference in Essen. And as Jimmy and Tony both know, we had a great time in Paris at Breaking Bitcoin. So I think that that Prague conference is going to be fantastic as well. I just want to thank people for supporting me on Twitter. I did get a couple of donations to my send mad bitcoins to Berlin, QR code today. So thank you so much for your support. If you do like my pictures on Twitter, please donate to my travel fund. And if you like this show, go ahead and donate right here to our donation button. If you want to send us a super chat or anything else, that'd be cool. And we do these shows for free. And we try to do our best to give to you every week apologies for missing the last couple of weeks. As you know, we're traveling in Europe. And the time zones are all wacky. I don't even know what time it is on the West Coast right now. And usually that's a very important thing to me. So thanks so much to our 674 viewers or so for joining us live, giving us those thumbs up in the share. If it's your first time here, please subscribe down below. Because we do these updates almost every day. And one more thing, you should check out the Bitcoin News show on Sunday. You should check out Jimmy Song's new off-chain show. Just had another episode recently. And of course, the today in Bitcoin show, which Tony and I have been doing almost every day. So thanks so much for watching. And we'll be back again soon. Bye, bye.