The Bitcoin Group, the American Original. For over the last 10 seconds, the sharpest Satoshi's, the best Bitcoin, the hardest cryptocurrency talk. We'd like to welcome our panelists, Gabriel D. Vine from Future Rant. Thank you very much for having me, Thomas. It's wonderful to be here. Hello, audience. And I'm Thomas Hunt from the World Crypto Network, moving on to issue one. Issue one, Bitcoin is useless. A new article in the economist, one of the major newspapers of economic interest of our day, says that Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are useless. As usual, for blockchains, the so-called jury is still out. During a picture of the Bitcoin store in Vienna, Austria, the article goes on to bring up all of the greatest hits against Bitcoin, saying that it's useless. Not a currency has no value, but at the same time. Gosh, those blockchains are awful neat. The author says, just because blockchains are overhyped does not mean they're worthless. It seems like they want to have their cake and eat it too. Gabriel D. Vine, your Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies useless and the blockchain, the only valuable thing they've ever created. Well, first of all, before I answer that, I'd like to give a shout out. Since you brought up Vienna, I'd like to say hi to all my Austrian fans out there and all the Austrian viewers. Hello, and you should next time you're in Vienna, go buy Marie Hinfestrasse and check out the Bitcoin Embassy. I'm looking forward to going there next time I'm in town. So this is just amazing. In the pre-show chat, we were talking about how this article, so other than the Bitcoin mention, all the quote-unquote arguments which are completely species and vacuous are precisely the same thing that we've been reading from the mainstream media for about seven years, certainly for the last five. The blockchain thing for the last four, it's the same worthless crap from these idiots. It's hilarious to see them try to trot out these old conards and pretend like they have some sort of relevance in the world that they're in. The point is they're scared. They have no legitimate arguments or they would have come up with them by now. Whereas the Bitcoin side, we've just refined already existing arguments and that's why the network is worth a thousand times more than it was, seven years ago. And yet they somehow can't explain it other than saying it's just empty speculation. Now of course, it's very difficult if you're an ignoramus, you know, journalists, useless journalists, to distinguish between a scam that constantly gains in value, something like Ethereum, versus a genuinely valuable project like Bitcoin. So I understand that it is difficult to see just from looking at the brain, go through and call through these quote unquote arguments and try to refute them. They're just so ridiculous. And it's very funny to see them saying once again, the Bitcoin obituaries, there's been so many of them. And here's yet another one, right? It's basically like this project hasn't reached its goal, so that means it's a failure. And it's over. But yet they still recognize that it could go up in value again. So they're trying to leave themselves and out there while also naysay. It's totally ridiculous. This is basically useless clickbait. But unfortunately, it's also damaging. The people can be freed with this sound hard money by putting their savings into it over the years long scale. And articles like this are preventing people from seizing their economic sovereignty. So that's a real problem. These publications are to blame for less adoption than Bitcoin could have. And so they'll always have to answer to that. Just like they have to answer to all the other things that they're wrong for. Luckily for them, the memory of the public is still pretty short. I'd like to say to the chat that just because I didn't greet posterity, which hello posterity, I'll say it now. And I don't have a lava lamp. Doesn't mean that my ideas aren't very valuable. Okay, guys, just stop. It might be a clone. It's possible that he is a clone. I agree with Gabriel's argument that just because the project isn't finished, we can't say that it's a failure. They bring out the old Bitcoin's a not a currency argument. And of course, I say, yes, Bitcoin's not a currency yet. Give it a chance. You need to be looking at here is the trajectory. And that's the job of a magazine like the economist. There's supposed to be forecasting the future for you. These are the people you go to and you say, where the dog should I buy? Should I invest in gold mines? Is anything happening in Argentina? That's what I want to read about in the economist. And instead, like Gabriel said, we're getting the same old tired arguments. And especially this argument that the blockchain is somehow useful that Bitcoin is not useful. To go over it once again for everyone that's not paying attention, the most useful thing you can do with a blockchain is Bitcoin. When Bitcoin tells you truth, the truth that Bitcoin tells you is useful. You have one Bitcoin. You have 0.1 Bitcoin. That is absolute truth. When I put diamonds in the blockchain and I say they're good or I put lettuce in the blockchain and I say it's organic, it's only as good as my word. My word has been stored in the blockchain. Yes, but if I lied to you in the beginning, you've only frozen a lie forever. So not very impressive article. Unfortunate, lack of foresight from the economist. Gabe, more on that? Yeah, I just want to make a quick side note. And that is I really enjoy the distinction between money and currency that was laid out by a guy who's into precious metals and he's very confused about digital technology. I don't think he's very knowledgeable or informed about crypto monies. But I'm trying to remember his name, Mike Muloney. Mike Muloney. And I really love his precious metals commentary, even though I think it's totally out of the date and none of the metals will actually survive this transition into the digital age as money. But they could be very valuable commodities and will certainly hold their value better than worthless government script. But in any case, he has a good grasp of monetary theory in general, like a lot of metalists. And one of the distinctions that he makes that I find so useful is once again between money and currency. Our word currency, as you can tell, is related to current. So in other words, this script is currently valued. It's currently something that we're using, but it's not really for posterity. In other words, it's not a store of value. In Spanish, they call it Effektivo, which gives it the feeling of a medium of exchange. It's effective for now as this sort of vehicle, but it's not really money. It's not dinero, actually. So in Germany, it's the same thing. They have all versus Gelt. Gelt is very similar to gold. It's like a goal. It's actually money. Vailong is something that you are sort of sending back and forth or giving back and forth. And it's this sort of this exchange thing, but it's not really something you want to hold. And that idea of currency being something that's issued by an authority and money being something that's chosen by the market is a really important distinction that is so valid for exactly articles like this. Oh, thanks, Spartacus. He says my pronunciation is good. So oh, and thank you, Molotov cocktail for your super chat. Appreciate that. Let us know if you have a specific question. Hola. So it's a great distinction, especially for articles like this, because this author obviously knows nothing at all about money, which is not surprising since the West and most of the world hasn't had any money for a century. And so basically you've got to go back to like our great-grandparents to find a generation or maybe more my great-grandparents for younger people, great-great, to find anybody that actually knew what money was and that's why the great depression people were still saving and stuff, even though it didn't do any good because there wasn't money anymore. Well, in afterwards, they just saved everything. They saved every piece of metal. They could get their hands on. They had a complete saving mentality because they knew what it meant when people say winter is coming, certainly. But I agree with you that currency is that which is moving. It's flowing. It's from the current. And don't you think that there's a chance now that maybe Bitcoin has both of these? Maybe the lightning network is the currency, the flowing part of Bitcoin, and that actual Bitcoin would be the gelt or the gold, the heavy money that you keep at home and that central banks use and large people use. You use it when you buy a house or a lambo. What do you think about that idea? And why do you think the author doesn't mention that at all? Why doesn't an author of the economist piece have a better, a more nuanced understanding of Bitcoin at this state of the game? I'll answer the second question first. I believe that I'm the resident conspiracy theorist. So my view plan is the economist, right? I mean, we really are like, I would read the economist. If you're in an airport right now, pick up the economist. It's like a little encyclopedia in a book. Like it's usually great articles, smart people. Conspiracies all aside, this is a business article for business people for the business magazine. It's usually good. You know, I don't agree with that because of what I was just about to say, which is the Austrian economics, real economics has been excised from education and the media and in general from public discussion, specifically because it's true and it undermines the narrative of the government monopoly on issuance of currency and the massive theft and destruction of the wealth of the populace that it causes. The thing is you can't really fight it unless you've got an alternative that can't be shut down and that's something Hayek saw an Austrian economist saw in the early 80s and wrote, you know, we're going to have to find some, there's only the only way to do it is to find some weird roundabout thing that they can't shut down. That's exactly what was done, but it took 25 years. So after that was written. So I believe that it's been an intentional censoring of the truth in order to maintain the existing paradigm of theft, institutionalized theft. So your first question, well, I mean that explains it, right? I didn't, he talked about that. Oh no, what was your first question? About the currency and the lightning network. Do you think the lightning network could be the currency half? Yeah, maybe. I mean, it's kind of like, when I say Mike Maloney talks about this distinction and I'm kind of simplifying it a little bit because it's not like a black and white thing. There is overlap and stuff. So yeah, I mean, certainly you could say that. I think, like I said before, I think of currencies as being issued by an authority. And that's totally not at all what the lightning network is. So I'd like to just make sure that our audience knows that. Lightning network, there's been a lot of fun about it. There's been a lot of, once again, rhetoric that's completely false. It's similar attempt to excise the truth about the lightning network because it's a direct threat to a lot of useless crypto currencies. These are much more like currencies because they're issued by centralized companies. These are these shake co-ins, this is the scientific term. These, a lot of them launched with the marketing angle that they were great currencies for spending and sending back and forth cheaply that they were excellent media of exchange. And they weren't trying to cut into Bitcoin's store of value use case, but that they're better media of exchange. But actually, they're just completely useless. And that's something Bitcoiners have been saying for a long time. And the lightning network proves that. It's not IOUs. It has nothing to do with debt. It is slightly less secure than sending Bitcoin on the blockchain. But, no, this is great. We've got a little... Interesting aside, the word currency, at least according to the dictionary, means a system of money in general use in a particular country. So, like you said, it does have a country-type origin to it. It also means money, legal tender cash, bank notes, bills, notes, coins, coinage, specie. I thought specie was different, but it's not foreign currency. And what I like too is there's a second definition, the fact or quality of being generally accepted or in use, such as the term gained currency during the second half of the 20th century. So, what's interesting is my definition is more kind of a combination of these two. I would say Bitcoin can become currency if it's generally accepted and in use. For me, it's that usage, the flowing nature that makes it currency. But you write the official dictionary definition is slanted towards a particular country. I think that's right. And I think specie is something specific, actually. That's more like a coinage, yeah, coinage, right? Yeah, it's coins not notes. And also historically it refers to like precious metal coinage too, obviously. And I do love this now. They show you the old Latin root for the word and all the goodness. And the usage over time, I mean, they've gotten really great at Google. Yeah, you can see a little uptick there after Bitcoin was invented very good. I would not look as fiat man, fiat is the one. If there's a boost in fiat, nah, it's pretty, pretty little bit. A little bit, maybe. A little bit. So, yeah, that's great. We had a little linguistic session. It's one of my deep interests. I love linguistics. Let's move on to the exit question. Exit question, how much longer will this blockchain madness go on? We had a previous blockchain madness in maybe 2014. It lasted about a year. Do you think these projects will fail when we look back on this era like a dot com boom. A bunch of great ideas that went nowhere. Will it be two years, five years, ten years, longer, sooner, Gabriel D. Vaughn? I wanted to, so you said 2014, what were you referring to there? Because for me, it's been like something that started around 2014. It's been like five years of it. It felt like it went big and then it went away. We went crazy blockchains, then we went altcoins, then we went ICOs, then suddenly the blockchain is back again. Blockchain is a database. Is the current fad or phenomenon that we're suffering through? Interesting. I didn't even know that. It's probably because I tend to block anybody on Twitter that has the word blockchain in their bio. So I'm not up on it and didn't realize that there was some sort of resurgence. So the blockchain is a database thing is an old concept. Vinigup to actually talked about that as the blockchain structure as the emerging of networks and databases, which totally on an abstract level, there's a lot of validity to that. Regarding a prediction, I'm assuming I'm forced here. I can feel the boot on my neck forcing the prediction. Okay, so as we've been saying for four years, blockchain can only retain the blockchain its immutability if miners or IE, the people producing these blocks are incentivized in some way. The way that Bitcoin incentivizes the block producers, choosers, the block creators, which is miners in Bitcoin, is by rewarding them with the block reward, which consists of the block subsidy, which is the monetary inflation rate of Bitcoin and Bitcoin fees. Now the miners are incentivized because the Bitcoin is worth more than the energy that they put in. One of these quote unquote blockchain projects have an incentivization scheme at all. Private blockchains are just hash lock databases. This is an early 90s technology invented in the 80s and used in the 90s a bit. People who needed to make sure that changes in a database were easily trackable, used hashed functions in order to track the changes from one version to the next. That's exactly what a blockchain is doing. But in the case of a centralized database, that just provides you a little bit of a layer of security. It's not something like Bitcoin where it is practically impossible. I mean, literally it's mathematically possible, but in the real world, you would need so much energy you would never be able to actually change the transaction history. Therefore we can make a money out of it because the history is completely solid. It's something everybody can agree upon and no group or cabal can easily change it. One of 51% of the chat can't change the history of Bitcoin. It's too easy to catch. It'll just disrupt things for a little while, but you can just catch up. You can come back in. It's extremely difficult and it's only happened very much on the edges with tiny, tiny, technical edge cases and bugs and stuff. The audience is growing, but no one here is a year. Will there be a prediction? So in any case, basically here's my prediction. Private blockchains or even alternative blockchains are going to be like a thing that people try and that suckers fall for for a lot of years still. None of them will get even close to his bigs Bitcoin. They'll all be way less than 1%. So there are going to be these experiments and people will use them occasionally for little, where they call them, federated security systems and stuff. But those are very limited use cases. There might be a few little use cases that really nobody at all cares about that saves the participants a few percent a year. Whether cryptographic systems can definitely be invented someday. I'm not saying that that's impossible, but the blockchains specifically, you know, the answer is five more years. Five more years will have to suffer through this blockchain nonsense until Bitcoin ascends and becomes very popular and everyone will say, I get all kinds of benefits from the Bitcoin blockchain. What do we get from running this corporate in-house blockchain? Because someone will come along and they'll say, I can sell you a database that's more efficient than your blockchain and you could use less servers. So your bank would save money every year and everyone's going to turn off all of their blockchain projects and all of these engineers are going to have to work for a living or figure out how to program on Bitcoin in the real market. Your little itty bitty markets just weren't going to last. Moving on to issue two, Bitmain. Bitmain announced an IPO a few weeks ago and we got the first taste inside their books. Bitmain sold more than 50,000 Bitcoin in order to buy 1 million Bitcoin cash. According to Bitmex Research, the company lost 328 million dollars buying Bitcoin cash. They've also had trouble with their new chips. While competitors are releasing 10 nanometer chips, smaller and faster than anything that Bitmain can produce, Bitmain has had several failures in their new chips and has not deployed a new chip since 2016. They also failed to release their IPO in their IPO data from the second quarter of this year, instead looking to hide the losses from Bitcoin cash and their failure to compete. The IPO is now partially in question. I'll guess I'll ask myself, will the Bitmain IPO succeed? The problem is there's so much dumb money in Wall Street. We're going to sit here on our high horse and we're going to say, we're Bitcoiners. We figured it all out. They've got 10 nanometer chips. They're smaller. The competition's racing circles around them. The chip designer left. The CEO might have mental problems after investing so much money into Bitcoin cash. All of this are huge red flags. Any smart investor will stay away, but the problem is the market is not made up of smart investors. The markets made up of dumb investors. We're going to see this as a chance to invest in one of the biggest miners, maybe the biggest miner, Bitcoin, and ever seen a huge track record for billion dollars in profit at one point, so on and so forth. Maybe they can get it back. Maybe they can turn it around. They just need a good management team. They need to start selling that B cash. We're going to Wall Street this thing. We're going to turn it around. Gabriel D. Vine does the IPO succeed. Boy, that is another very much tougher prediction than the blockchain thing. You look at it, it's fucking useless. It's not going to become anything. IPO's, like you said, there's a lot of dumb money out there and that's not only dumb money. It's also just funny money. It's not money at all. We talked about it already. It's currency. It's useless script that is constantly inflating value. You have this great term, the cantaloupe effect, or contignon effect. I believe it's a French economist, maybe 17th century economist, who talked about the issuance of script and how the parties nearest to the issuance authority get the most value and they're basically able to steal and suck the wealth of the users of the currency while the later you go, the less you get out of it. There's this point where it's neutral. You might as well be borrowing money that was already created and then everybody after that is actually getting less value out of the currency that's being issued. The cantillon effect means that there's endemic malinvestment. That's why we had two world wars. That's why we had constant warfare. That's why the 20th century saw such a collapse of traditional cultures. Everybody's time preference went through the roof because you can't trust that tomorrow your value is going to be there anymore. Everyone, YOLO's. This is the YOLO is the final and point where it's like, well you only live once, meaning I don't have to plan for 40 years even though this is part of my same lifetime. I need to plan for now because tomorrow the world could be blown up and somebody could throw a Molotov cocktail through my face. So through my window, let's say a little bit too graphic there maybe. So yeah, I mean, this IPO, malinvestment in FIA, I mean it's a FIA at IPO, right? They're trying to raise yuan or I guess Hong Kong dollars or dollars. And basically what happens is all the buddies of the issuing authorities have way too much of it. And so they're just throwing it at everything hoping that something sticks kind of like VCs in Silicon Valley where it's like, well, you know, all we need to do is blank it because we're going to invest in 63 of these. But even if we lose on 62, one of them is going to go 1000X. And so we're 936 times up. So it's great. It's all worth it to just throw this money out there. Meanwhile, all the human labor is being lost. It's a terrible cost to society. So yeah, I also wouldn't be surprised if the IPO does succeed if the people are stupid enough. But there's also smart money out there. And there's also done money that like watches what smart money does and just kind of follows them their coattails, which is often a terrible idea because you know, given investment might not be able to handle, you know, an additional input, for example. So it could be a different calculation where you say, well, they've already raised half. So now it's not as good of an investment, et cetera. But I wouldn't be surprised if these revelations, I mean, if you do the math, I did the math earlier from this data that you're talking about that came out. And they had, oh, I love you too, Radvlady. But also platonically, so no homo, I guess, is the term for it. So this is the homophobic term for it. Yeah, you know, the bit main had Bitcoin before the fork. And after the fork, the amount of Bitcoin of V trash that they had after the fork before they started accumulating and pumping essentially, a B trash was, they bought 93% of their current stash. In other words, they did, what is that? 14 times, they bought 15 times their bags of B trash after the fork. They've just been absolutely crushed on that. And this sort of obviously misguided attempt to take over the development process. People think that they were heuristic and that they wanted to try to take over Bitcoin. And I just, it's hard for me to believe that that's true. I think this was possibly, that Bitcoin is maybe like a PBOC, you know, a Chinese communist company that's been funded. And they were like, hey, don't worry about it, guys. We'll just, we'll we'll buy your fru-ion in next year. Oh, go bail. What are you going to do? Gabriel, Gabriel of all conspiracy theories doesn't believe the conspiracy theory. They wanted to take over Bitcoin. They made a big bet. They could have gotten everything. He did. They got nothing. They got nothing. I think that Gavin Bell or whatever's named Gavin Anderson and Craig and Roger, they all got together after they met with SCIA and we're like, hey, you guys, we need to trick the CIA. So we'll tell them that we're going to crush Bitcoin for them. But let's do a really bad job and make it so transparent that everybody sees through it and then we can discredit the discreditor ourselves and just take it for the team. And Bitcoin on the other hand is like the producers. We're trying to make a bad play. We're making the worst possible play so we lose money. So all these guys are in on from the, this is sounding more and more plausible. I agree with you. The whole like taking, but again, just the simplest explanation they wanted the money. But no, so they're making a bad play. Yeah, so for Bitmain, it's, it's a communist party is like, we got to attack this Chinese, or we got to attack this Bitcoin thing because it's like going to threaten our monetary authority or currency issuance authority. And so they said, you guys got a fork. I don't care if the 2x failed or I don't care if there's going to be a whatever, if software just freaking fork it, you got to reduce the, the, the, even if it's only temporary, it's worth it to us. And then you know, in G-HON's like, but it'll bankrupt my company. Nobody's going to buy this trash. What are you talking about? It's Bitcoin, man. I've been mining this for three years. There are, you know, six, six, four or five years, whatever. And, and they're like, do just do it. We'll bail you out. It doesn't matter. We're going to buy all your Bitcoin back and just write, you write an IPO next year. And then the media will buy in. We'll, we'll spend the rest through all of our shadow corpse and we'll fund it. So that's my theory. Gabriel, it's like you're reading from the screenplay. It's like you're just re-out from the future and you know, G-HON upset. You can't do this. This is my company. I've been mining Bitcoin for five years. You know, C-I-A-M-N. We don't care. You're going to try to take over Bitcoin anyway. Like, yes, I think that's what happened. I think we're going to move on to the exit question. Is there a worse decision in all of business than BitMain's decision to sell their Bitcoin and buy their Bitcoin cash? The percentages are so out of whack. They spend so much on it that get so little. I guess I have to ask myself. No, I don't think there's a worse decision. This is a terrible decision. The main thing problem here is what Blake says all the time. It's a fiduciary responsibility. It made had a responsibility to their shareholders. The easy decision, even if you're running the fork. Let's say all of this is true. They're running the fork. They know they're going to do it. All this. They need to support their own project. It's so safe to go 50-50. They could have held all their Bitcoin, held all of their B-Cash and just seen which way the win will. This way, you're not betting it all on your own project. But what they did is they said, it's all or nothing. We're going to win. We're going to be the winners. Or we're going to lose. Now we're looking at the lose situation. I do think they're going to get the IPO. But Gabriel, what do you think? Is there a worse business decision, quality of this decision? I'm sure there's worse decisions in history. Some Nord ever circus that had some animals that infected everybody with anthrax or some shit. They did lose what, $328 million worth of value from pumping these bags. It's pretty serious. But I'm sure there are some whatever examples that I wouldn't know about in business history that are just so much stupider. But you're going to be a good buy manhattan for a handful of beads. That's a good deal. That's actually very relevant because they talk of Saif, Saif, and Michael Goldstein always talk about why gold became the worldwide monetary standard in the 1870s and the countries that were hawk and silver that had the big silver mines, Mexico, China. They got crushed when gold took over because money tends toward monopoly, real money, sound money tends to monopoly. I think I'm going to take issue with what you said there. The whole plan of the Communist Party with this shit fork was to, it depended on the capital reserves that Bitmain had at the ready in order to pump the bags. If they hadn't been there, Roger didn't have, wasn't that big enough of a whale to have given this illusion of value to useless, whatever, betrash tokens. That was not like a choice. It was either we're going to do this thing and we're going to put all our eggs in the basket and put our money where our mouth is. You got to respect that. At least they went out on a limb to that extent. I don't respect the project, which is, like you said, a fail-takeover. We stay all the time. We never get anything out of Bitmain and I certainly couldn't invest early in all these kind of things. It turned out, if you sold your beat cash no matter when you sold it, Bitmain bought it from you. You got a little Bitmain dividend there. You got a little free laptops worth or some people got cars, some people got airplanes or houses or whatever. You got a little dividend from Bitmain there. Thank you, Bitmain. I really appreciate that. I think it was over like 30 bucks. It's unbelievable. It's a good deal. All you had to do is split off your beat cash and you could claim your Bitmain dividend. A lot of people on IPO, you're an early investor, you're an early adopter. Did you know the World Crypto Network has its own audio podcast on iTunes? That's right. Subscribe for free on iTunes and we've got 53 ratings. Thanks so much to everybody for rating the World Crypto Network on iTunes and for listening to the podcasts. We'll be a podcast soon. Moving on to issue three. A fight is breaking out over beat cash and it just might split the code. Bitcoin cash developers are at each other's throats. It looks like Jehan and maybe Roger Versticking behind are splitting off against Craig Wright. Craig Wright believes that Bitcoin SV or Bitcoin Satoshi's vision is going to have a block parameter size of 128 megabytes. Whereas the current beat cash blocks are only 32 megs. I think the Bitcoin blocks are still two megs, something like that. But Bitcoin SV is now digging at Bitcoin ABC developers, which is another name for Bitcoin cash. It's all about fake Satoshi as Vitalik Booterin called him a fraud, calling out against Bitcoin SV, presumably supporting Bitcoin cash original. Gabriel Devon, when will this end? How many versions of Bitcoin cash are there going to be and which one will win? This is the natural consequence of forkers. The idea of Bitcoin, and this is why Satoshi was so against shithorks, somebody falling out of consensus and causing a break in the block of a new token. Because the consensus between all the users is what creates the strong network effect of Bitcoin and prevents it from being changed easily, prevents the issuance from being changed easily, very important variables. That will keep Bitcoin money hard. So when you leave consensus, when you specifically say to the user base, hi, I don't agree with you. I'm going to go off and do my own thing. Being is I can't compromise and add the things I want. I just want to do my thing. What that does and what it did here, and this was something that has been said for years since 2009, right in the beginning. It's been great to see it actually play out in reality. This is the natural consequence that we've all said exactly what happened, which is all of the people that had trouble coming to consensus and going through the process of Bitcoin core development, which is basically you make proposals, you talk, you use the mailing list, you discuss changes for a long time, anything that could possibly break things you discuss them for a long time, you develop them early. Those people that can't follow that process of free to them figuring out what works best. They all this clown car, the fork, the people that couldn't come to consensus with the rest of the group, were stuck on the other side of this, lost a lot of value unless they really were very clever with their trading and were just like Roger, he didn't do a bit, he still kept a lot of his Bitcoin. He's trying to hedge his bets while still slinging out at Bitcoin. All these people that have trouble finding consensus and getting and playing nice with the rest of the toddlers in class, they were all together and we said specifically how many hard forks are you guys going to have? Well they have hard forks but they weren't contentious yet until now. Only a year later, the divisions and the true nature of these people is coming out where they can't come to consensus so they're just going to splinter further. This is the weakness, the less of the hash power your chain commands, the less securities. Even now, the cash could be 51% percent attack pretty easily. It's because they don't see it as a threat but it could easily happen. If it's when it forks again, it's going to be that much easier. All these shakowins out there are getting attacked too. There's been a number of 51% attacks in the last couple of years on these low hash rate chains. This is the natural consequence that we all predicted. It's not a surprise. I agree Gabriel, it is like a clown car and we got to the first fork in the road and we turned right and they just went off the cliff and they're gone. They just kept driving. I'm surprised to say it's the best thing that ever could have happened to Bitcoin. Like you're saying, these were the difficult to get along with. These are the people that wouldn't look at the other side and they wouldn't think about cooperation and empathy, what it's like to be in the other person's shoes. They lacked all that. They went straight on their own and now they've got the same problem that they've all had is that they're gone and their project is failing because you can't trust a bunch of thieves. They went out and made compacts and deals with a bunch of people who aren't capable of making compacts and deals. If there's one constant about this fake Satoshi, Craig Wright, a leisurely Satoshi, it seems to be deception. You keep coming back to him. It's like one of those logic puzzles. You have a person that always lies. Why do you keep trusting this person who always lies? Every time you go back to them, they lie. That's what we're seeing here. They are the breakers of consensus. They are oath breakers. They are splitters. This happens in all kinds of other groups. It happened in Bitcoin. It seems like really fast. It seems like just yesterday we were saying, don't split off. Don't fork off. Don't do this. Roger is waving his banner right over the side. Dehawn, maybe the worst businessman in history, selling 50,000 Bitcoin. I don't know if we talked enough about that, but that's a world changing amount of Bitcoin. There was a point in the 90s where people were looking at Apple and they're like, yeah, Apple made all these clones and they're not a very good computer company. But that brand, the Apple brand, you slap that on a soda. People will buy that. It doesn't matter that Steve Jobs isn't in charge and it's not a computer company. You're selling Apple juice. Apple brand on a soda will sell. That's the thing is that these brands can continue. But when they get split off and they crumble apart, there's nothing there. So I think they made a mistake by splitting. We're not going to see the end of that. But exit question. Will they split off? Will there be a Bitcoin cash Satoshi's vision? Is this it? Which one are you going to pick? Gabriel, if you had to pick Jehan and Roger, old B cash or fake Satoshi Craig Wright and new B cash, one must walk out. I'm not sure what you're asking me to choose one for what? I suppose which one will survive longer. If I would say one of them is still being mined, maybe one of them is not being mined or which one will be used more that just general arguments. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, I'm going to go with Bitmain for sure. They do have millions and millions of dollars. They have a bunch of real capacity, even though they apparently have lost a lot of their staff. So they're not really able to compete in the marketplace for mining hardware anymore. They have a very tough road ahead. I don't think they're going to be able to attract the talent that they need. But Craig Wright, on the other hand, is just pure vapor. He's just 100% hot air. So he doesn't have anything. He's just got lies. So I think that the Bitmain, that chart going down, they're going to go like that, but I think maybe the fake Satoshi one will go even steeper down. The chat seems to be all about none of the above. They think none of the B cash clones will survive. They seem to think that SV is the funniest one. So I think they're rooting for it like a comic failure. We expect to see the worst fail out of that 128-meg block. And the only thing they could top is maybe if they do a 256-meg block next, just keep cranking it up. They're completely empty, but we need more space. We need Libas Trom. We need Breeding Room. But let's move on to issue four. Hydroelectric Dam in New York to be restored to a crypto mining operation. That's right, maybe Bitcoin isn't so bad for the environment after all. This hydroelectric dam was worthless because it would need thousands of dollars in battery technology to store the power created by the free and abundant falling water. Instead, they're going to store that power in Bitcoin, which is just like money, but also like energy and electricity. In this way, the falling water can be properly utilized, and many places where previously it was too expensive to build a dam or too difficult to expensive battery technology. You can now just install cryptocurrency miners and mine that power, whether it be windmills, falling water or even solar. Gabriel Devine is Bitcoin so bad for the environment after all. Bitcoin is good for the environment because it's the first dependable energy store that it's basically, well, it's not a literal energy storage technology like a battery, right? But it can be used to capture the value by contributing to the hardness in the security of Bitcoin. You're able to leverage your access to electrical power. It's a fantastic tool because this can be done anywhere that you've got an internet connection and an expensive power source. It's just an amazing, totally new way to leverage power that the naysayers are looking at the energy industry from this extremely simplistic perspective that wasn't even really correct anyways because it's looking in aggregate. There's all these FUD articles that are full of lies about how the world's energy production and they're straight up lying about how much power Bitcoin is using. It's like 0.033% or something, or something, or 0.003%. It never includes an estimate of how much power the banks use. They're always like, they're not as much power as they are. It's Ireland. That's great. The banks use as much power as Germany, a huge company. They never had a comparison. There's all sorts of issues with it. So on a less straight up fraud and lie level, they also don't understand this amazing paradigm shift where it's similar to what Tesla is trying to do with their wall batteries, basically is in order to commoditize the storage of energy. Energy storage has traditionally been extraordinarily expensive. That's why energy producers just turn their equipment off in the middle of the night, even though the water is going over the waterfall, even though they could keep going and producing energy. It's not like access capacity. They just burn that energy off. They have the machinery there. They have the water there. The dam was built 100 years ago. Access capacity just waste that energy. Yeah, it's wasted. They just ground it and just goes back into the earth for whatever they do with it. It's just gone. That was just part of the energy equation. If you were a private company that wanted to build a solar farm, wind farm, coal, power plant, what it is, hydroelectric geothermal title, that's just a loss leader. They're not a loss leader, but that's just a negative part of your balance sheet that you're going to have to deal with. It's wasted power. That's there that you can't sell. Bitcoin is a way for energy production to become far more efficient because you're contributing to this incredible service that you're providing to all these sound money, digital sound money users. For the first time, these companies can radically change their profit margins. It's a fantastic thing. That means that everybody else can get their power cheaper because now the energy producing the concern is far more efficient. That means that everybody's prices will go down and nobody is using any more power than before. They're using the power rather than wasting it. They're not producing any more power than the current. I want to follow up on something Gabriel said here. He said, they talked about what Tesla is doing and what I think Bitcoin provides here is that it's cheaper than a smart grid. We still need to build out a smart power grid where you can send power to directions and you can get paid for that power. Right now, by placing Bitcoin miners at the hydro plants, at the windmails, we can convert that power into Bitcoin and send it through the normal internet. You don't need an advanced smart grid to send Bitcoin. In this way, Bitcoin is like the Prius. It's a hybrid solution. It's a part gas. It's part electric. It gets us through the point where later we'll have a good smart grid. We'll be able to utilize this energy in a more efficient manner. We might even be able to build a few extra turbines with the money that we're making in Bitcoin in the meantime. Whereas right now, they're just wasting that energy. They're not even putting on a light show or anything. They're just turning the machines off or running the cranks for no reason. Bitcoin is good for the environment. Moving on to the exit question, when will they stop saying that Bitcoin is bad for the environment? How many more of these? It uses as much energy as Ireland's stories. We have to go through. Or is this just a permanent, complete, Gabriel D. Vyn? I think it's going to take a long time. I've been talking about 2023 as a bit of a... I don't know if I want to call it an inflection point, but a bit of a mass market breakout or a rival point where there's swaths of the population and economic cycles happening all in Bitcoin, where do you want to call it? What do they call those? It's the economic delivery. It's like a delivery. What's that? I got stochastic. That's all I got. Stochastic is randomness. No, it's like these cycles where all the value accrues to Bitcoin because the goods are sold in Bitcoin and then the producers are paying their workers in Bitcoin and so it becomes a virtuous cycle. I think that's going to start happening in the 20s. The flailing, dying empires are still going to be fighting Bitcoin. This is a relatively... What we just talked about where energy needs to be considered on a local level and the efficiency stuff is not widely known. I think it's going to take a lot of years and I think it's going to be when most people are using Bitcoin, then that's when people will start to understand this a bit better. It's just because it's part of everyday life and everyone will just understand that. I agree. I was going to first say that this is going to go on forever, but then while we were talking about it, I started to think about it and I think there's a graph out there and that you could say that people are going to complain about Bitcoin energy usage until the point that Bitcoin is useful in people's lives and that once it goes over the point, people say, oh, it's worth it to spend as much energy as Ireland to run Bitcoin because I use that everyday and it's really valuable. Then they're going to start to get it. Then they're going to stop using this disadvantage that Bitcoin takes too much energy. We do have a definition update. Stochastic does mean randomly determined part of the stochastic process and I think you got it there. Gabriel, it was a virtuous circle, also part of a vicious circle, the comparison of the two. It's a complex chain of events that reinforce themselves through a feedback loop. A virtuous circle has favorable results while a vicious circle has detrimental ones. We're in a virtuous circle. A well-known example of a vicious circle in economics is hyperinflation. A lesser-known example of a virtuous circle in economics is sound money, economic cycles and hyperbiccoinization in this case. We also have a special bonus issue, issue five, bullish sign, Bitcoin Reddit traffic rises for the first time since 2017. Just a very simple issue. The traffic's going up. We did see Google's thirst go down. It's always rough for shows like this. Be sure to give us a thumbs up and a share. I see we have 198 viewers. Very exciting, very close to 200. But I guess I'll go to myself first on this one. Do I think it's a bullish sign? Of course I think it's a bullish sign. It's always good when more people are searching for Bitcoin. It doesn't hurt when the price goes up a little bit. That always makes people feel good, makes people search more, feeds into that fomo. A lot of the people we have in a Bitcoin hour just speculators. They don't care very much about snores, signatures or confidential transactions or what the heck a segwit is or was. They just want Bitcoin to buy at this price and sell at that price. Reddit traffic's a good monitor of that. Google searches are a good monitor that people signing up for coin base or blockchain.info wallets. All of these are basic resources that you can use to presumably chart the interest in Bitcoin, or interest more buyers. Price goes up. Good for Bitcoin. What do you think Gabriel Zivhan? Yeah, I'm under the impression that searches for Bitcoin on Google as well as Bitcoin Reddit traffic tend to be leading indicators as opposed to say mining hash rate, which is a classic trailing indicator because they have to order it. That takes a long time. They have to save up for it. Then it takes a long time to set it up and get the tech to upgrade the mining software and all that stuff. It's like months. There's been such a huge increase in hash rate during a bear market after a massive price spike in December. It sounds bullish. That's cool. Reddit has never been great as far as signals and noise, but it was pretty good in 2013-14, even 15, but it's definitely fallen off quite a bit and Twitter has completely taken over the information flow in Bitcoin. It's also nice to see the way that the wind is blowing by Reddit to have an article like this, just talk about our Bitcoin, not have to mention RBTC, which has become overwhelmed with censorship as they have one of these interesting conflicts. It's a bit like the Russians and the Poltboro. We've got G-Hon and Roger Veer. They're going to clean out that Reddit, get rid of all the Craig Wright Satoshi's vision people. There must be some kind of new RBTC's Satoshi vision sub-reddit coming up. I don't know if Craig Wright has the same astroturfing skills that we usually associate with, perhaps G-Hon, maybe Roger, is Craig Wright going to be able to create one of the great things I learned recently. Astroturf means fake grass roots. Isn't that the coolest little turn of phrase? Fake grass roots. Are they going to have fake grass roots? I mean, you always think sure it's something fake and it's fraudulent. It's not real. But to say, grass roots are the real organization. Here we have grass roots. There they have astroturf. They have fake grass roots. What do you think? Do you think it's going to go back up? Do you think that the RBTC Reddit can be free of this Satoshi's vision and all this? Yeah. That's kind of like a continued good effect of people creating shithorks. There are communities are segmented off and nobody talks to those people. I mean, I certainly, when I'm on Twitter, I'm always muting any VCH shills that are trying to do their astroturfing. So anytime there's a thread about V-Trash on Twitter, when I see it, it's like ride the lightning at medium squeeze, great, and like a couple other people that like Dan Darkpill and whatever shith me, that are like just from my perspective, they're like talking to each other and I'm like, I don't even know what's going on because I can't see any of the shills anymore. So that, it's great. It makes it really easy to find fraudsters and prevent simple attacks on your personal echo chamber. Well, and I hope that someday this war will be over and we'll be able to look at a couple of those Twitter accounts and they're still fighting the war and they're still fighting it, but everyone else has moved on and it's already starting to feel that way. They're influenced their effectiveness, their ability to affect the main chain of Bitcoin seems like it's constantly decreasing. And even if they do pull out the IPO, they are significantly weakened and it's unlikely they're going to try to take over Bitcoin again. We got some weird hashtag on our show today about eBang. So maybe these eBang miners are going to take over the world. They're a big deal because they're 10 nanometers. Just basic chip knowledge. If a chip is smaller, it's faster and it gets more stuff done with less heat. These are better chips. There's been quite a number of announcements of mining hardware concerns, but a lot of them, you know, it's a pretty time consuming process, I think, to perfect. Application specific integrated circuits or A-Sticks as they're known. So, you know, it's kind of a long thing. I got to take it with the grain of salt a little bit. And I think we did it. We made it to the end of the show. That means it's time for predictions or a story of the week. Gabriel D. Vaughn, are you ready with a prediction or a story of the week? I got a story of the week. Just kind of referring back to a tweet of mine that I threw out. I think yesterday, the day before. By the way, we can't put our names on the screen anymore on YouTube. So, you know, my Twitter handles at Gabriel D. Vaughn. So, the tweet basically said, like, you know, we've finally reached like fever pitch. I feel in society with the amount of like butt hurt and crazy, extreme, you know, like, what I don't want to say, conflict between different political factions. And I don't think it's only because of just like them coming together on the internet and finding each other all of a sudden. I think it's really like a historical contour, let's say. And it's something that I did predict five years ago when I kind of got into Bitcoin and I was like, wait a minute, this thing's going to go. I think we're going to have a few quiet years of development and some amazing, you know, great things in Bitcoin before the hipsters pick it up in 2017. And then I was thinking we're going to break out into the mainstream this year. And it could still happen. But in any case, I was also thinking about sort of like crazy political stuff really ramping up this decade and kind of a new paradigm emerging into in about two years. And I think we're right on track for that. And this is what I had sort of predicted to be the eye of the storm. Next, say, two years or 18 months where I thought this is really where there's going to be so many new information leaks lots of, because we've had a little bit of a slower time with the leaks since the election, maybe there's been some leaks. But I think we're going to start to get some real intense stuff. You saw the Pope got to turn under the bus this week. You know, the Mueller investigation with Trump that whole all that stuff, there's basically two factions in Washington fighting it out. You know, it's like a soft military coup. And I think that this is going to be a two year process where one of those, the deep states, I think, are going to retake control or the soft military coup is going to come out on top. And I think we've really we've been ramping up and up and up. And I think now we've hit a peak that's going to last for a little while here. So it's very exciting. Keep your ear to the ground. I think the QAnon, like gamified, like semi-leak marketing thing is like a genius political marketing ploy. And I'm assuming that it's probably a mixture of true things and just pure propaganda in order to like mobilize one side of the populace. It's an amazing new technique that's been trotted out in the age of social media that's some really anthropologically fascinating. So keep your ear to the ground. There's a lot of stuff going on. Well, I do think that our politics is starting to fall apart. And I do agree with some of what Gabriel said. I think it's actually a specific structural reason. It's something you can go back and look at in 2008, the Republicans lost. They were depressed. In 2010, they came up with this plan called red map. It's a redistricting plan. And they planned to put a lot of money into strategic races at state houses. They won state houses and governors races that no one's cared about. They came in. They won the census of 2010. They redistricted the country so that the districts were either close ones they could win or all the Democrats in one district. So they always win. What this did is it made it so you could only have a challenge from the left or from the right. So while it did maintain a Republican majority, despite the Obama presidency, it created a more violent political landscape where compromise is seen as weakness. And if anyone comes together, they are weak and they can get a challenge from the left or a challenge from the right. So I think this red map cannot be understated. Even if you're on the right wing side, you have to look at what they actually did, what they actually did with these lines and the way that they were willing to win. Like they wanted to win and they won. But now I think there's been unintended consequences from their victory. Gabriel Brown. Right. Because the gerrymandering doesn't affect primaries. Right. So they had an outside or candidate that wasn't part of the Republican establishment in this whole plan come and just jump in right at the top. And that's the danger with hierarchies. Right. Where if you set up, you know, you have your guy in office and you're like, oh, cool. There is more executive order. So now my guy that my chiefton is more powerful. This is fantastic. Well, the next chiefton could come along whom you disagree with and he just inherited all those powers of the office. And in a lot of ways, you're just grabbing Trump there. Trump's not really part of the Republican party. He was previously a Democrat so on and so forth. He comes in. Yeah. And he absolutely benefits from all this setup work, all of the Fox news, all of the gerrymander, everything that they did. And now like Gabriel said, we are crumbling apart. So it's yet to be seen whether we do split apart into multiple nations or if we come back together. It's not. And it's not just a state. You know, you know, Vlad is on here saying, you know, shut up about Republicans, Democrats, but you know, this is all through Europe. This is really all through the West. And even emerging markets right now, the currencies are obviously just getting destroyed. And now finally, the contagion has caught up with the the the Italian banks, which has been an ongoing crisis, but they they were depending on emerging market debt. So this is, you know, once again, the contagion along with everything else is also heating up, of course. And I do think you can look at it from either side and see that the gerrymander turned out to be bad. People really have to analyze this. Republicans did win, but not the same type of Republicans. And that you just have to see where that goes. But my story of the week, just want to thank everyone for watching, giving us a thumbs up and a share. We're still doing Bitcoin Las Vegas. So if you're in the Las Vegas area, you can join us at BitcoinLasVegas.org. We've got a little meetup page. And tonight we're going down to Fremont Street to hand out flyers and spread the word about Bitcoin. We've had a pretty good luck talking to the people who are busking on the street, the people who live in Las Vegas and are trying to make money selling little things or taking pictures. Not so much luck with the tourists. They're pretty well trained not to take flyers here in Las Vegas. They get a lot of strip club flyers, a lot of nasty pictures that they get handed. They don't, not interested. But we've had a couple who will stop and talk and get shooting a video and we're just trying to spread the word about Bitcoin. And also to remind people that you can hand out Bitcoin flyers in your own neighborhood. It doesn't have to be all fancy like Las Vegas. It could be at the mall. It could be at the local shops or at the downtown. It doesn't have to be a flyer. You could make a business card. Or just tell your friends about Bitcoin and that the way we're going to spread the word about Bitcoin. And also the way we're going to try to spread the word about Bitcoin to the right people. Certainly like we're saying the ETF people are going to hear about it. The Wall Street people are going to hear about it. But if you want your friends, the normal people and your family to hear about Bitcoin, there's still a chance to tell them they can get less than a whole Bitcoin. They can get a dollar cost averaging strategy and try to get on board this thing. So I think that's about it for this episode. Gabriel D. Vine, where can people check you out? Get more information about your work. Once again, on Twitter at Gabriel D. Vine. All right. And you can support the World Crypto Network by donating Bitcoin or any of the crazy altcoins accepted by Trezzor to the QR codes on your screen right now. Until next time. Bye. Bye.