The Bitcoin Group, the American original. For over the last 10 seconds, the sharpest Satoshi's the best Bitcoin's, the hardest cryptocurrency talk. We'd like to welcome our panelists, Ben from Wales. Theroy. Dan Eve, the crypto raptor. Army mages. Max Hillebrand from towardliberty.com. Oh no, the Bitcoin will destroy the US dollar. Kill it! Kill it with fire! And I'm Thomas Hunt from the World Crypto Network, moving on to issue one. Issue one, forty million dollars. Hacked. The Binance, the little ICO that could, was hacked this week for more than 7,000 Bitcoin, leaving Coinbase as the only major exchange without a penetration. The company said a variety of methods were used to carry out the large-scale security breach and that they would cover the incident in full with no user funds affected. However, it's not just the hack, but Binance's response that is making waves throughout the cryptocurrency industry. For a brief moment after the hack, Binance actually proposed rolling back the Bitcoin chain to recover the stolen funds. Ben from Wales, I ask you, did Binance make a minor error, racked with grief over the loss of forty million dollars, or did they show their true colors as yet another group of profiteers, carpet baggers, who care nothing for the values of Bitcoin and only care about making money? Yeah, well, I mean, they're a company. They're an exchange, so the reason for their being is to make money. So yeah, so that is their primary interest, but obviously if your exchange gets hacked and then you lose all your customers and you don't make any money, so one of the benefits on the upsides of all these exchanges being hacked is that exchange is hopefully will then pay more attention to development time and securing their Bitcoins. I think the most concerning part was not the suggestion of the rollback access just ridiculous and absurd. It was Binance saying that there were sort of multiple ways, so breaching to FAA in blah, blah, blah, in which the hackers got access to people's accounts. So clearly wasn't one attack vector, it's the whole ship's leaky. And then yeah, of course, the ridiculous statement of suggesting to rollback the blockchain kind of either shows sort of just, I don't know, just complete an ivity on how Bitcoin works. Or I mean, that was part of me which thought that maybe they're trying to show the customers that they're willing to do anything, you know, they're willing to even risk Bitcoin, the Bitcoin blockchain just to just save their funds. That was part of me which kind of thought that and it was more of a virtue signal to their customers. But I think I saw a post by Greg Maxwell on Brad Pitt and that was pretty good. And in here he said that he wondered why when empty goth was hacked, that that wasn't one of the things they suggested was to rollback the blockchain. And although it's absurd, obviously these things do need to be talked about so people can be certain. Obviously, you know, it can't possibly happen. But I personally don't think that they were trying to give confidence to their customers. I think it was more that they just don't know what they're talking about. And they thought that it was feasible to be able to rollback the blockchain. Another good thing Greg Maxwell says in his post, actually, it's a really good Reddit post, it's well worth a read, is that if they did offer to pay the miners to rollback the blockchain, because they would be able to make money on the money which they saved, then the hackers could just do a counteroffer and it would cost them a hell of a lot less and they've got more funds because their counteroffer would be just to not rollback the blockchain and they're giving like 10 million for just sitting idle. So even if all the miners were to collude to break and destroy Bitcoin, which wouldn't happen, so it's all a bunch of hypothetical wouldn't happen. But even if it were to happen and the hackers just turn around and bribe them anyway, so there's a mechanism there. In that same post as well, he spoke about a looped-ass junior, he's got some sort of countermeasures, a BFG miner, which is a way in which miners can automatically switch to if they're going to prevent them rolling back, they automatically get the miners to switch to other pools or something. I need to look into a little bit more. It's called BFG miners, well worth a research. And Greg Maxwell says that it's a countermeasure which we don't need because it's never going to happen, but to have those some countermeasures just to make the debate or the topic even more absurd is probably a good thing. So yeah, so hopefully there will be encouraged to hire some developers and secure Binance more and it will encourage other exchanges to do the same. But yeah, it's a shame. It's a shame, but yeah. It's an excellent point that they could have brought this up when Mt. Gox was hacked. There was less people involved in Bitcoin. We hadn't seen the Ethereum rollback yet. People might have even gone for it. Unlike the Binance hack, the Mt. Gox hack did cause the price of Bitcoin to go down. I want to say at least 30 to 50 percent. It seemed like it was a major move. The kind of thing that people were expecting after this Binance hack, but didn't happen. Dan Eave, the crypto raptor. You're muted. Go ahead. Got to unmute yourself. I'm a dog submission around in the background. Yeah, I don't know. I think although I've had a bit of a jive about, you know, could have changed the laws of physics, but I decided not to. I really respect Binance. He's like, you know, he's come from a long way in a couple of years. He's trying to be respectable. And I think he's trying to look good. Whether you believe that he's absolutely good at the end of the day, at least it looks like they're trying. And I think that it could have almost been not not cry for help, but just almost, you know, wanting to show everyone that he, you know, that they'll do whatever it takes. And I think that the difference between season Binance is, you know, managing Binance as a company in say, you know, someone else in the real world, you know, the CEO of another big company is that they don't actually have to pander. But it's easy by now. I don't know. Pandace to share, because the network effect is from their coin and the people using it and the people using their exchange. So yeah, I think that he probably was just panicking. Didn't know what to do. He was trying to say the right thing. And obviously he came across as something really quite silly. And remember for all these hacks, the simplest explanation is that they rob themselves. We have no information about that, but no one can really prove that the coins weren't sent to a hacker or they were sent to an inside job or the CEO knew about it or someone else knew about it. All these exchanges are black boxes. So when they get hacked, we don't know if they were hacked or if they were hacked. Max Hillabrand. Wait, not your keys, not your Bitcoin is more than just an empty slogan. Oh no, if just someone would have told me to not put my money on third party exchanges. Oh, they're what a tragedy. I mean, that's nothing new, right? And the chain rollback, although it's kind of hilarious that he proposes it like three days after it happens with so much accumulated proof of work that as Dan has said, he would literally have to change the laws of the universe just to get his money back. Well, his customer's money back. So yeah, that's just not going to happen. But in general, a reorganization or just a rollback can happen. And you can have several market mechanisms here. And I think it's quite interesting to explain. So what we have here, right, on block 100. The coins are still in the UTXO off Binance. And then block 101, they, or let's say block 105, then a attacker makes the transaction, right, and sends it to his own funds. This is one transaction in block 105. So what if immediately afterwards where we are exactly at 105? So almost no proof of work. If Binance would just say, okay, here I propose a transaction with a, and that isn't a block time. That is, what is the other? I forget it. There's one, one command where the transaction has to be included in a block before that number. So they could say it has to be, the transaction has to be in a block before 105. So for example, then a miner would have to build a block 104 that includes the transaction from Binance sending their hot wallets funds back to themselves with a different secure or cold storage wallet, right. And that transaction can only be in there at block 104. So miners have to mine on top of 103 to actually get that value block. And of course, miners wouldn't just do that for no reason. But actually they would have to, or ZZ would have to give them some type of reward, right. And preferably not just one miner, but all of the miners. So what I was thinking, what might be interesting idea would, to put in block 104, a transaction with and lock time of let's say a thousand blocks, right, a week worth or something. And then you spend that or you give that money to the addresses of the like 10 of the largest mining pools. So you tell the miners, you have to include this transaction before the hacked transaction. And if you do so, I will give you each 10,000 Bitcoin or 1000 Bitcoin or something, but you can only spend it on that chain after 1000 blocks. And I think that will be somewhat decent to incentivize miners to reorg the chain from 104, 105 to 103 to then build a new 104 block with the Binance transaction, not the hacked one. So that they then get paid a week later. That might be something. Of course, on the other hand, we are talking about 7,000 Bitcoin. That's right, the attacker can do the exact same thing. He can also say that, okay, this is block 105 and I include in the transaction that pays back me, I include a transaction to the 10 largest mining pools with and lock time of 1000. And he can for example go up to like 6,500 Bitcoin and bring that much on fees. You would still get back 500 Bitcoin, pretty profitable. So he has much more way to lose money because well, it's not his money in the first place. And with a stone boot, even if you give up 99% of your loot, you're still profitable, or well, probably because you still have some marginal return. And so I guess it could both happen in the eyes of Bitcoin doesn't matter because well, that's the point of accumulated proof of work. Actually, the most accumulated proof of work is the valid chain. Regardless if it has ethical transactions or not, right? It's just cryptography. Then the question is where are the incentives? And I think here it would be pretty difficult for Bintens to defend that and especially three days after the fact. And Max, what would happen if they put that new block 104 on there? What would happen to all the other transactions from block 105? Well on the large scale, nothing much. Because they would just be emptied out and every note would build a new candidate or a new mempool. And this mempool now includes all the transaction from previously that were in block 105. But because they are valid transaction, they will be included in one of the next blocks. However, there is one nuance point of view. Let's say we have a reorganization of 10 blocks. So these are a lot of transactions. And of course, then if we throw them all out into the separate mempool and then for the first block of the new chain, the miners will of course select the most profitable transactions, the ones that pay the highest fees. So over all those 10 blocks, maybe the top 1% have paid a lot of fees. Or let's say the top 10% have paid the most fees. And then for the very first block, the mempool is again restructured with highest fees first. And then the top 10% of all these 10 different blocks might be included in the one block that will then just have a giant fee, transaction fee coinbase reward. And I think that also might be a incentive for miners to start mining on a short reorganized fork. Because they did not get that huge bulk of transaction fees. But they only got the top 10% each of them. So in this one huge re-orc, we will get a giant block or not a regular block with a lot of transaction fees. And that would incentivize the first miner to actually start the re-orc. Of course, with the huge cost and reputation that comes along with it. So essentially, thanks to replace by fee, if I had bought a Lamborghini on Craigslist, then my transaction was pushed back to the mempool, then I used replace by fee to increase the fees to send my money back to one of my wallets instead of the guy I bought the Lambo from. Then I get to keep the Lambo and I get to keep the Bitcoin. Well, you cannot change the inputs off replaced by fee. You can only decrease them. Could I stall it? I could make it never come through? I could reduce the fees? Or in some way I could screw it up, but I don't get a free Lambo anymore. No, no, no. I mean, you can reduce, like you can shift the value of that you send to the merchant, to the Lambo dealer, and you can give all that value to the miner. You can do that. But you're probably still, like I don't know if you can put it back into your UTXO. I'm not sure if replace by fee allows that, maybe. So I could screw over the guy who sold me the Lambo, but I could only send the money to the miner. So unless I was also the miner, I wouldn't end up with both the money and the car. So in the argument against you, the pain, the miners to collude. Surely it's against their interests to do so anyway, because doing so would mean that Bitcoin's pillars are shaky and why would they collude to ruin the investment of all their hardware and stuff. All this stuff, it's just a thought experiment, isn't it? Yes, it's not possible. It's game theory. If they do this, then they'll do this. It's like chess. If you move there, I'll move there. There's this tree of moves that are possible, and some of them good, some of them bad. Some people benefit, some people lose. But we have to play it out. Right. We have to see what happens. But I think it's probably an unrealistic game of chess off the board. Not played by the bulk of chess. Three dimensionals, lots of games. Three dimensionals. Yeah, too many pawns. That's a big mess. Let's move on to the exit question. Which hurts Binance's reputation more? The hack or the PR debacle? Ben. The hack. I can imagine going under from this, no matter what they say, the hack and the PR both both equally. No, the hack more, but yeah, both awful. Both awful. The hack more. Dan Eve. I'm actually going to say, I think that his reputation more is someone, you know, that the inter-trust, you know, because obviously, immutability is one of the pillars of Bitcoin. So, but I would say that it actually may make them better off because 40 million in the grand scheme of things is actually a tiny amount considering quadriger and everything else has happened over the last couple of years. So if they, and they obviously do huge volumes, you know, billions daily. So it's actually probably good for them that they've had a small issue that's made them shit the pants. And, you know, now they think, right, we've got to ace this. It's got to be completely airtight and it could, yeah, play into their advantage because they completely beef up security. They must do an incredible amount of volume to have 40 million dollars in their hot wallet max hila brand. Yeah, I actually think that the hack showed that they have a pretty decent setup because 98% of their customer funds were in cold storage separated out, right? And only 2% that's not too much was in hot wallets. So I guess that really shows that they have at least done good care of separating different wallets. I did not have everything in one giant tiny pop. But of course, it clearly shows that they still have a lot of issues and that they are especially social attacks. So hopefully they will learn and improve. But yeah, I think the most funny thing with the reputation was that just like, yeah, we decided not to. This time we granted to Bitcoin next time we will get it. I agree. I think the answer is it was the PR debacle more than the hack. Everybody gets hacked, but not everybody looks stupid. Previously, CZ from Binance, he was unstoppable. He had this ICO, he had the largest exchange, hungry, messed with them. And the next minute they moved to Malta. These people had everything going for them. They were untouchable. Now not only have they been hacked, but they look ignorant about Bitcoin. They look ignorant about the community. It doesn't seem like the CEO understands Bitcoin or understands the community or he got bad advice. He made a bad decision. That kind of thing. Whatever it was, there was a mistake that led to them getting hacked. But I think there was a bigger mistake that led to them looking stupid in public, which a big company like that with all their resources should never do. Someone needs to tell the boss that he's wrong, even if it gets you fired. But there was no one there to tell the boss he was wrong. Moving on to issue two, Bitcoin 6000. The price of Bitcoin has risen dramatically in the past few weeks, reaching 6000 and hitting a new 6 month high. Some Bitcoiners like Max Kaiser are seeing this as the end, beginning of the end for Fiat currency, claiming that the banks have already made large purchases and we could see the price skyrocket to $100,000 per coin and beyond. Meanwhile, others believe that the hyper wave is still out there, that the price of Bitcoin must inevitably decline to 1500 because hyper wave. And is the bear market over? Is Bitcoin cool again? Well, I'd love it to be, but I've predicted markets to me like Coruscopes really and astrology and stuff. It just kind of funneled away. It took way above me. But the fact is that it's kind of looking pretty resistant at the moment now. If we can creep around this area for a bit longer and hold, preferably up until at least a couple of months and I think there won't be a big dip before, everything starts to kick off again for the halfening. But then as I mentioned before, although the halfening is only happened twice, we've only got two data points to say that the price definitely rises up. Now I know it's two out of two, but there could be, are the dynamics different nowadays? Nobody knows. Who knows? But I just want to see another 20k or 19.5k Bitcoin and then 20k. And I'll put some cells in it like under 20k rather than not at all before it went back down to about 3000. It's not over yet. We could go. We were talking about holding on to 5200 now, 6200 happened fast. Max, Hilla brand. Well, as Max says, but I would disagree here with him. He says that this is the beginning of the end of Fiat currencies. But I would say the beginning of the end was 2008. And that was really what rattled the system to its core and what emerged then Bitcoin out of this. And what we are seeing now is I hope the last death rattles of this ancient and horrible system. So hopefully this is the end of Fiat and of aggression. Well, let's hope so. Is it the beginning of the next bear moon market? Well, yeah, for sure, buy Bitcoin now. You should have bought Bitcoin the week before and the week before and also the week before. So continue buying every single Monday and the other cost average all the way down and all the way up. Doesn't really matter. It doesn't really matter at what price you buy Bitcoin. It's just how fast can you dump your Fiat racons and the faster the better. So yeah, get rid of all the nonsense. A little peaceful life and hardly a Bitcoin. Also I want to take credit for this rally. I did have to sell some to live last week. So you guys enjoy it. Enjoy that there. Ben from Wales. Yeah, I mean, it's I said in the little show and be doing in the mornings that I was amazed at the buy on stuff. I didn't seem to have any sort of negative effect on the price because it's six months ago that would have brought us to our knees. I swear from all the burden or the bad press. So and particularly the issues over the reorg thing. So I mean, no, we crossed the it's Wall Street. We've had a fidelity. They're now able to buy it. Wall Street able to buy and sell Bitcoin to fidelity. And it's across the 200 day moving average in February and it stayed there, you know, above it long enough to be able to pull up the 200 day moving average. When that happened last was like what was 2015 when we're up 250 dollars and then we had a 76 times rise to $19,000. So people are looking historically and they're saying what has Bitcoin done before. No, it's cost the 200 day moving average and then they have a ball market. It goes up like, you know, 70 times or something is probably going to do the same incidentally so you know, in February, it was at 3,500. And if it goes up 76 from there and that's caught for a million dollars. But to me, that's not absurd. And I think it's it's a. Of those was actually 2,000, 266,000. So it's so it's it's above it's above quarter of a million. And they're all very conservative figures like looking historically. So you know, you get these people to try and encourage people. This is not trading with vice-bending means. But you get these people to try and encourage them to do daily trading, which is which is awful. And as Dan was saying, it's like horoscope reading. But if you're looking historically just to have the way Bitcoin's behaved, then where we are at the moment is insanely bullish. And it could go power-bollically high. And now we've got Wall Street flooding in. The futures are up. The futures have gone up. So in 2000, in December, they're at $3,000 and now they're at 6,200 and something. So yeah, Wall Street is confident. Wall Street money's pouring in. So the crap going on in the regular normal stock markets. So it's I wouldn't be I wouldn't be surprised if it goes if it goes if it goes potty. And then ultimately, you know, all these people who are buying Bitcoin, you know, think, oh, these are coins we can buy and that'll pull up all the altcoins too. So yeah, so expect, expect, you know, mad games, but not investment. It's like we're weather forecast. So expect mad games. Shows mad games. Shows of mad games over here. Going back to what Dan said earlier, two out of two for the happening. Another way of saying that is 100%. Let's move on to the exit question. Exit question, is this the end for the altcoins or will they follow Bitcoin's rally? Dan Eve. I think they'll probably they'll probably duck is when Bitcoin was it August 2017 before when Bitcoin pumped a bit and then dump, where dumped a bit and then went before it when it went on its massive run, all the oats like collapsed a bit. So I think it made you a bit of that before also collapse a bit Bitcoin will begin its run. Oats will pick up off the back of it and then we'll see mad games all over here. And here and here and some clouds there and it's coming in from the north max hila brand. What about the altcoins? Well, the beauty of energy and money is that it is unrelenting freedom and you have the freedom to shake coin all on your own and that is a beautiful freedom to have. And so altcoins will hopefully never leave Bitcoin. Hopefully Bitcoin will not be the only provider or the only option for a monetary network. For sure, it's the best option at least I believe so. So I really care too much about shake coins as long as they are not better than Bitcoin. That's why they are shake coins. So all the coins will be here forever. Most of them will be shake coins and hopefully we find something better than Bitcoin. That will be that will be awesome. But yeah, let's keep looking so far. It's shit. Ben from Wales. Yeah, I mean, I've already said that Bitcoin is the main event. We've got Wall Street flooding in. Everyone's excited about it. It's bullish and you have the altcoins world will surf the, you know, on its, on its ground on to its heels as it goes up. And I actually like a group of Adam Bakery. We a while back when he said that altcoins will shift over to be side chains on Bitcoin. Because why not use the best, most secure blockchain on earth if you're going to, you know, and obviously side chains are a lot more scalable than using something like Ethereum. So if you need corporate transactions on the main chain, you can't get them. I have to see how it goes. Moving on, did you know the World Crypto Network has its own podcast on Apple podcasts and other places where podcasts are listened to? Subscribe to the World Crypto Network podcast today and give us a rating. We've got 57 ratings with an average of 3.9 stars. Thanks so much for your support. Moving on to issue three. Issue three. Congress versus Bitcoin. Representative Brad Sherman from California rose to speak at the House of Representatives this week saying, and I quote, I look for colleagues to join me in introducing a bill to outlaw cryptocurrency purchases by Americans so that we can nip this in the bud. An awful lot of our international power comes from the fact that the US dollar is the standard unit of international finance and transactions. Clearing through the New York Fed is critical for major oil and other transactions. It is the announced purpose of the supporters of cryptocurrency to take that power away from us to put us in a position where the most significant sanctions we have against Iran, for example, would become irrelevant. So whether it is to disempower our foreign policy, our tax collection enforcement, or traditional law enforcement, the advantage of crypto over sovereign currency is solely to aid in the disempowerment of the United States and the rule of law. Max Hillebrand, I asked you, is Mr. Sherman right? Is Bitcoin a serious threat to the power of the United States, tax collection, and the rule of law? And perhaps more importantly, should Bitcoin purchases by Americans be banned immediately? This guy gets it. He will be out of a job pretty soon. And hopefully so because he's a bureaucrat that is not productive and only stealing from others. So, fucks like him, we don't need him. It's funny that he initially said he was stumbling across his own words, because apparently it doesn't know how to speak. But anyhow, he says we want to combat the ownership of Bitcoin. He actually set that under his breath. I was like, oh, the ownership of Bitcoin, you also want to steal it now. So, I mean, their at least is some justification in their man-made written rule book that they wrote there on their pieces of paper, that they can't let just lay banks. So, yes, the exchanges under their own theater gameplay over there, yeah, they might perceive to have the authority to kill others and see if they are banks. Right? Because why not? But now he just says no, like regular people, ownership in general, slaves don't have property. You don't need it. You don't need them, but coins give them to me. So, of course, right, just another bureaucrat doing his own thing. He's going to steal from you. He's going to make it sound pretty. And he's going to tell you that he's actually giving it for you. This is for the greater good. And you need to have the protection, for sure. Well, come and get it. I mean, try it. Cold card pretty secure. Come and get it. Novel, I'm not going to change my rules. I'm sorry. So, yeah, come and get it. I'm going to agree with Max, but I'm going to be a little less strident about it. I think this is an existential threat for Congress. And that Mr. Sherman is completely correct. And that he's one of the first Congress people to really understand the full nature of the Bitcoin threat. However, I think this threat is a little more like Pandora's Box. The box is open and the threat's out. You now need to react to a world with the threat. Change your values. Change what you did in the past. Change what you do in the future. Or get out of the way because the threat's going to run you over like a runaway snowball. So I think he's making a good speech here. He's trying to warn his people. It's a bit like someone from this old world. And they're about to go through like a tunnel to the matrix. And when they get out on the other side, they'll be in the matrix. And they'll have no way back to the old world. And he's like, no, what about the old world? What about chicken? What does chicken taste like? Maybe steak tastes like chicken. He's cipher in this situation. He wants to stay in the old world. And he's going to have no choice. He'll be pulled into the new world like the rest of us. Ben from Wales. Aha, you're muted. It's we have to do it because otherwise there's like little noise. No, it's Bitcoin doing its job. That's what Bitcoin's there for. That's why we like Bitcoin. It's that their grip on power is loosening. And like you're right. He's saying to his people that our grip on power is loosening. And we need to stop this try and stop this thing from happening. But obviously, even no coiners are going to, unless you're like a nationalist. You're going to see through his rhetoric. The concept of having like a political money, which people can use to control other people through things like sanctions. And I mean, that's a bad thing. All economic theories are fairly unified on the idea of having an apolitical money, which nation states don't control. Even Cain's, with inflation and quantitative easing and all that nonsense. In Bretton Woods, his proposal was for the bank call, which was an apolitical decentralized federated currency, which countries, no one country would have complete control over. It's too much of a burden for a country to bear. And the Austrians, I'm sure, they agree that I'll let Max speak on that. But with their financial self sovereignty, they don't want a country to have political power over money. Marx himself, you know, he thought fear wasn't even money. He thought it was more of a token and money has to be a commodity. So we're all in agreement. Apolitical money is good. Not good for the US because they lose their grip on power. Just as, you know, after Bretton Woods and pre-Wall-1, when the British didn't want to lose their grip on the pound being the World Reserve currency and then look what they did across the world trying to keep the pounds of World Reserve currency. Look what the US did post-Wall-2 trying to keep the dollars of World Reserve currency. Look at all the conflicts, which have happened. Look at all the thing behind their motivation for them to act on anything is to keep the dollars of World Reserve currencies too much of a burden to bear. And the other thing he spoke on, which was interesting, was tax collection that Bitcoin is going to prevent the ability for governments to be able to collect tax. Maybe ultimately, you know, long term, that will happen. In the medium term, there's points of contact. You know, there's people buy stuff. You can tax that. There's wages. You can tax that. There's corporations working in your country. You can tax those. All it does is empowers normal people with the same tools. Incredibly rich people have had for a very long time of just being able to hide their wealth. It just levels the playing field. Which they don't like because then they have, you know, they don't want to share that power with people. So, yeah, tax collection will be hard, but by making it very hard, it then probably becomes a little bit more honest. And that's a good thing. And then it's like Dan said with the side chain thing, you know, about altcoins becoming side chains. I could imagine some form of a fear currency being a side chain, which they could have some control over. But then in that same respect, we as the users would probably demand that everything's completely transparent. We can see exactly where funds are moving from to and fro. So, yeah, it's what Bitcoin is designed to do. And it's going to make the world a better place. Yeah, yeah, it's a good thing. I think they're just doubling down on the waste of resources on the prohibition of money. It's Gresham's law, Bitcoin will smash through. It's an excellent point. It almost seems like you're reading off my notes here that A, political money levels the playing field, but they don't want a level playing field. It would be more fair for everyone, but they would lose power. So, obviously, they can't do that. Dan Eve. Yeah, I've kind of joked around for a while that is one of my little conspiracy theories. I'm not a conspiracy theory person in any way. If there was one that I could kind of make me think who would have the reason to build Bitcoin and how could it consequently help them? And actually, I thought, well, the US government would be a good candidate for creating Bitcoin. And that million Bitcoin storing that for an insurance policy. So, Ben, Ben, Brad Sherman doesn't, I can't say Ben Sherman is a designer. Brad Sherman, he doesn't quite, he hasn't got the memo yet. So, they're like, try and fucking double. Don't say Bitcoin's bad. I don't want to, but my conspiracy was that, yeah, the US built Bitcoin and let it out into the world. And that one million Bitcoin is going to be released when the dollar power is diminished because of any other world of S. Because I think that the dollar would have diminished. The power would have slowly reached out anywhere. I think, you know, from a couple of years ago, I've tried 10 years ago when the oil started to be in the dollar and the the one in the euro dollar as well. I believe so there's sort of slowly diminishing power. And I think that it is, you're right. They're very much, I've realized now that it's going to take power away from government to, you know, to take funds away from people. It's going to take the power away to control the money, you know, the money power. Because you can't, you know, they wouldn't be able to change Bitcoin's inflation schedule. So, yeah, I think that it is a bit of a running scared thing. And what's got interesting is the characters that are always calling out calling people out about nefariousness. The crypto dog pointed out that he got funding, Brad Shomeg got funding from Allied Wallet, who had to pay four-fit, 13.3 million to US government for facilitating illegal gambling. So they really should get their house in order before they start, you know, saying that something else is nefarious and only used by terrorists. It's just, it's a bit of a fast really when there's so many fines dished out to the banking, cutting out the content. If underground or a secretive elements of the US government somehow had the foresight to create Bitcoin as a potential solution if the US should lose their monetary power, I got to take off my hat and give it to them, you know, they deserve all the credit, all the money they're going to get. If the CIA or whoever is holding the million Bitcoin and Satoshi was working at a cubicle down the way, you know, what can we say? We have to take our hat and give it up to them. I mean, they win. I mean, you win. I think that's it. So we are talking about, you know, if that were the possibility, if that were to happen, then it would have been John Nash who had a hand in it and he did invent games theory. So it makes sense as a move. And then he also wrote extensively on how Bitcoin would happen essentially with ideal money. So if that were what was going to happen, then the right move to do in a game would be to preempt it and then create the thing. So yeah, look into John Nash and you can well, that tin fall hat for hours. It's great. Definitely check out that documentary by Adam Curtis about John Nash. I think it's his second or third one. I forget the name. It's that angry one about the 80s. And I don't know, but it's really good. It's all about game theory and a potential thing. But Adam Curtis, a really good BBC documentary guy, check that out. That trap. Yeah, the trap. Yeah, he's got all the footage. He's amazing. It felt like a kiss is still one of my favorites. Like I could just watch it over and over and over. Again, it's really good. Let's move on to the exit question. Max. Max. We did Max. He was first. Oh, sorry. I'm on this. Attempts to ban the purchasing of cryptocurrencies by Americans will be successful or unsuccessful. And we're starting off with Max. So if he has more Austrian stuff, he can put it in. How do you not respect the authority of Matt Bickhart's? Come on. What is that? Well, I mean, no, so regulation that like that stuff never works. I mean, it can work with enough mind control and coercion applied. Like, for example, the gold standard, right? Where there were actually quite a lot like widespread gold. And then Nixon just took it away from everyone, made it illegal to hold it. Like stuff like this happens. And if the people are too much brainwashed and do not care about their own liberty and freedom, then they will hand it over volunteer or voluntarily so. So it's a difficult question. And we don't know. We kind of predict that. But well, the good thing is that it's really, really difficult to identify those that have Bitcoin and to coerce them into revealing their secrets. Right? It's much easier to do that with gold, right? Metal detectors, for example, the easiest pie. And then it's really easy to get the gold and rip it out of their hands. Right? So that as well. With Bitcoin, we have more tools to defend ourselves from thieves. So well, they're not going to get my Bitcoin. That's for sure. But I don't know what others will do. So maybe Americans will give up their rights like they have done previously. And it looks like you're giving up the right to own guns here as well, voluntary. So again, trade offs, let's see how it goes. But after all, I don't really care what politicians say. They are really, yeah, not important. All right. Well, point of fact there, while Nixon did take the country off the gold standard, he actually allowed for the private citizens to hold gold. FDR had taken the gold away from the American people in the 30s. It was illegal again until the 70s when Anthem Hayak, his father went in there and lobbied for the gold to people to be allowed to hold gold again. So it's an interesting ironic point that the government officially stopped holding gold, but the people were then given that power. Ben from Wales. Yeah, no, it's, it was just again, it's what Bitcoin is designed to do, isn't it? And you know, they clamped down on Bitcoin as much as they want and they're just going to give themselves a disadvantage because the rest of the world is going to, you know, be in Bitcoin and then the US isn't so, nothing's going to happen. One thing I did forget to mention as well on the tax issue is that actually something like Bitcoin, so I got this, I watched it into a car, I forgot, and I said, but the idea, the concept of direct tax, so if you're a point of sale terminal, buying something, for example, then rather than that company take, you know, X amount for the tax, like the tax with something like Bitcoin and you know, Lightning Network, whatever, then the amount in which, which is tax could be sent directly as opposed to going through the company and then their company having to call it the Clare Tax. So in some ways, it may even make tax collection more efficient. But now back to the point, yeah, no, it's impossible to stop people from holding Bitcoin. That's the point. That's why we're here. Well, that's like that crazy thing where the IRS knows how much you have, but they can't just send you a bill for your taxes. You have to pay it. Then they have to check it against how much they know that you have because of some kind of financial privacy right or something, but it really seems like an unfair system where they could just send you a bill and you could just pay it and taxes would be a straightforward thing and you'd be like, okay, I pay them and I'm done and the rest of the debate we could have. But as far as the actual billing of taxes, we wouldn't need all these tax professionals and these tax websites and these other websites that are stopping Congress from providing free tax preparation websites. The IRS could just send you a bill and you could just pay it. But that's a whole nother bag of bag of worms there. So Dan, do you think they'll be successful banning cryptocurrency purchases by Americans? Never, never. It's a ridiculous idea. It's just so stupid to even, yeah, it's like saying cut, just like shut the internet down. But going back on the tax theme, what really bugs me about when you see people in positions of seniority, criticizing Bitcoin and saying it's only used for the various purposes is you look at, especially if you've been taking taxes, an example, it's a ridiculous thing to pick on that people will pay less tax because we have like the double iris rule in the UK where the big US companies pay sawd all tax like, you know, Starbucks has continuously made a loss and probably paid less tax than, you know, than that idea is for a couple of years. I think what's his name? Rupert Murdoch paid himself one pound a year so that he didn't have to pay tax. The situation is insane. It's not even just like, it's not even laughable. It's disgusting that that is allowed to happen. And a block that's being put up for Bitcoin is that people are going to act nefariously. All it does exactly is we've discussed here is it takes the power away from the people that can hide their money that have got enough money to invest in schemes in order to pass their money on without, you know, being penalized. And it's about taking that power away and that's what they're pissed off like. So screw it, fuck them. It's also worth noting that a Sherman's declaration here might be a lot like Senator Schumer's declaration from a few years ago when he warned everyone that you could buy drugs with Bitcoin on the Silk Road. And I don't know 70% of the populist suddenly said, wait a minute, I could buy drugs with Bitcoin on the Silk Road. You can't sometimes, and you know, what can they do? They have to mention it. They have to discuss it. But sometimes mentioning it is not in your benefit, especially to see this Sherman clip go around Twitter. And Kyle Torpe said this, but everyone else pretty much echoed it. They're like, that's the best ad for Bitcoin I've ever seen. He really sums it up. He's tightens it up. He's like, it's going to destroy taxes. It's going to destroy the government's going to destroy sanctions. It's going to, you know, destroy our ability to have power over the world. Like, I just for the fun of it, I mean, we should do that just to see what happens just out of curiosity. But we'll have to see how it goes. Moving on to issue four, the dark side of sunlight. A new article in four and affairs co-authored by Bitcoin Blackboard series creator and friend of the show James DiAngelo claims that transparency reforms initiated by the United States Congress in the 1970s have actually created the opposite of their intended effect. The reforms made vote counting and committee meetings public, hoping to allow more input and interaction for the people on legislation instead backfired, allowing lobbyists more action more access and the new ability to verify the results of their work and punish those who dare vote against them. The fix is simple. Make votes and committee meetings private again, but it can't be initiated in a world that believes hook line in sinker and what justice brand I said when referring to banks, not Congress, that sunlight is the best disinfection. Ben from Wales, two questions are the authors paradoxically correct and will the American people triumph over their ignorance and reform the reforms? Oh, we've lost Ben. Let's go to Dan. Oh, Dan, we lost Ben. I was hoping to pick up on some stuff that he said first. He might be back here. Sorry. All right, Ben, go ahead. Will they reform the reforms? Who me? Yeah, you're first. Okay. So we're still going to someone else go before. So everyone else gone already? No, you might have gone a second. And then Dan said he wasn't ready. So we'll skip to Max. All right, Max, it's up to you. Will they reform the reforms? What do you think about this transparency issue? That's a really interesting question. To be honest, I'm not quite certain what the libertarian take will the nonaggression take would be on public or private votes. I'm not curious. Well, voting in general is the tyranny of the majority. So the majority can force their beliefs on the minority. That's why voting is fundamentally evil and should not be done by any moral individual. But then the question of if you vote, if you are so low, I would say you should have the courage to at least have some skin in the game and be like, yes, I voted to steal from Alice because I don't like Alice. That is much better than to say, I voted to steal from either Alice or Bob, but I'm not going to tell you that there's no skin in the game. There's no reputation to lose. So I would say that if we want to vote, if you want to have a tyranny of the majority, it would be better to know exactly what the majority is and who they vote for. And I think doing that on an individual basis is good. Again, I don't want to have privacy for thieves. I don't want to have privacy from murderers. They do not deserve privacy. So at least putting their vote, aka aggression on public boards, I think makes more sense than hiding the fact from whom they are stealing. Now, there still would be a vote at the end of the legislative process when they vote for or against the bill. This is mainly talking about the committee process and the drafting of legislation. Previously, the legislation was drafted in private. You could have a discussion or a debate with your fellow congressmen. You could say this or that. You wouldn't get punished for it. As soon as they put that all public, any kind of debate or discussion that your constituents don't agree with or a powerful lobbying firm with lots of money to make attack ads against you doesn't agree with. So it just clamps everything down. It puts less of a debate. It limits the debate. All right, let's go to Ben from Wales. Sorry, sorry, I'm ready now. You're trying to treat a symptom as opposed to treating the problem. The problem is centralized. Power of the problem is centralized. People making decision-having decision-making. We want kind of a more direct democracy. We don't want people setting private rooms discussing voters' futures. And then we don't also, there are issues because in the US, I mean, obviously in the other parts of the world, they have different systems. So in the UK, we don't have the same lobbying problems with lobbying as you do in the US. There's this caps on how much support politicians can receive. And we also have a whip system which tries to keep that sort of stuff in line. So people kind of tell the party line with their political party. But now, ultimately, it comes to representative democracy. And maybe, you know, it's not the best way to do things. We've got this new technology, the internet. We've got the ability to be able to make decisions daily and then broadcast them daily to each other. So maybe in the future, we don't need the sort of representative democracy now. We can have a more profound version of democracy. So yeah, I think the system's broken and then often, and I know James Daniel is doing a good job and he's good that he's doing research in this, but the worry would be that then the politicians would use that to empower themselves with privacy, which they shouldn't have when they're making decisions about other people. So any excuse to remove people's rights, they'll take that up and any independent research, which can help remove people's rights, they'll take that up. And it's the US lobbying system. So I can't speak too much on it, but I'm more for decentralisation and decision-making should be decentralised too, and I think humans are more than capable of making very good decisions. Even people who may see a migrant now, the human mind is data hungry, it seeks out good data. There's a phenomenon on YouTube now of people seeking out good data, people finding intellectuals and watching talks by intellectuals. Man, some of the kids I used to teach, I worked with some profoundly difficult young people. A few years ago, we just don't stop on football statistics, but every night they'd be going home, and they'd be going on YouTube, and there'd be some stuff I'd mentioned in a lesson, and they would have researched it, and they'd have an opinion on it, which would rival any academics. So I think that the information revolution, which comes from having the internet, will eventually bring about a more direct form of democracy, where we don't have a representative democracy, a more decentralised form of democracy, where we're more focused on, maybe our local region. And we've just got to let that information revolution happen, but we can't get rid of the public nature of representative democracy now. Even if the lobbying groups have taken advantage of it, then there's a problem with the lobbying groups, and the system of having lobbying groups. Look at a country where they don't have such problems with lobbying groups. It sounds so terrible when you say private rooms, you can almost see the smoke filled adjective added to the front of it. But just using WCN as an example, we used to have these meetings where we would meet first in private, and in a private meeting you could throw out any idea you want, even maybe an idea that would destroy the whole project you're working on. What about that? Oh, well, don't tell anybody that. That's going to destroy the whole project. But we can discuss that, we can discuss solutions for that. Then we can go public, and we can tell people, hey, we had a discussion. These are the results of the discussion, but we don't have to mention all the nitty-gritty details where we broke the project, or we said something that goes against our values, or we just, because you have to look at all your options. We aren't looking at enough options. Well, look at bring it home to Bitcoin, and look at Segwit2X. The reaction, when people could have a say, the reaction of people knowing that there were meetings going on, discussing their future, in a position where we have got to say we are informed, we don't like that. Why should it be different in the rest of the world? Well, going back to the article when they did the Constitutional Convention, they locked the doors, and their official mission was to redraft the articles of Confederation and to improve them. Instead, they threw them out and made a whole new Constitution, and they had all these rip-roaring debates about this and this and that and that. As John Adams, I think it was quoted in the article, said, if we had had those debates in public, we never would have gotten that Constitution. States would have gone home. People would have been up in arms. They would have been upset when it actually came down with this document full of compromise, some good, some bad, and it's lasted for 200 years, so it's been pretty interesting. Dan Eave, are you ready now? Yeah, well, I think, doing a bit of research in between Jerry Mandering, which is redistricting, and the transparency reform. Sometimes the smallest channel, sorry, I don't think it was reading something from you. I think politics is something that needs a huge reform overall. Why do we run businesses in one way and then politics in another way? So in the UK, they get scientific advisors in, and I mean, this was 10 years ago now, but then the politicians get a scientific advisor in, who says that alcohol on a whole is bad as heroin, because it will affect the effects and then the other. And then they sack it. Because it's a science advisor, he's meant to give the bad facts whether they're science or not. So what's the point in these agencies having advisors if they're not going to take their advice? And so I think that one of the biggest problems is the ability to lobby governments and for money to equate to political power. And I've never understood that. The more money you throw at someone, the more they can do and go on their campaigns and do whatever. I think in actual fact, it should be a fair way of doing it. It would be that they have debates, for example, and no one is allowed to use a figure unless it's been ratified first to take people, stop being put in figures out the racist, because that's just absurd. And you can't, you know, it's difficult to roll back the chain, you know, if you want to. If you roll back the chain of people's memory and get them to forget about a figure that has been banded about that they've remembered, you know, for Brexit, it was the £360 million a day goes to, you know, and there was a lot of, there's a lot more to it than that. And you know, it was completely misconstrued that sort of figure and mischraping. But there's not, it doesn't seem like there's enough, what's the word, regulation really on the words of political figures. And in the UK, they're advertising standards agency and trading standards. And if you say something and you're bullshitting, they'll call you out and you, you know, you have to pay, you know, pay up or whatever. Yeah, that's how it works. Politicians don't have to, they're not like, it's, it's, their information is ratified. We don't go back like a project to review at the end and say, right, you didn't achieve any of your tasks. So never a vote for this person and they get what these people again. It doesn't work like that. And I think there's a lot that from normal businesses and reviews and that structure that could really help, you know, in light and politics. Let alone the fact that most of them are not being funny. Not the same there. It's a problem. But, you know, it's clearly like a age gap as it were. So whether they, these politicians, well, obviously, need diversity, diversity is good. So why don't we have a lot more younger people making these decisions as well? And, but, you know, in these votes. And why, why, is it this kind of, why we in the mindset that the politics should be top of the old people, the elderly. I mean, you get some of the leaders we've got now, I mean, like, you know, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's pretty, pretty crazy, I think, I think that young people can build systems that change the world and have a curfew gym back. And they're not as considered as good as someone who's just lived a bit longer and is crap at their job. Well, living in a country where the Washington post claims the president has told more than 10,000 lies. And the New York Times claims that he's lost more than a billion dollars. It sounds great to have some kind of rules over what politicians can say. But I'm not going to hold my breath. Dan also brings up a good example with the CEOs and the businesses. They have their business meetings in private. They discuss what kind of product they're going to make. They make a press release. They release the product. Imagine if instead, they had their business meetings in public and all of their competitors could then spy on what they're doing, maybe even add in their two cents on the meeting, try to convince them to go down the wrong path, buy off their people, find out what their people said, all those kind of thing. You have to imagine Amazon doesn't operate transparently in public, neither does the government. Go ahead, Dan, you say? I know what you're saying. That's what's with Bitcoin. That's what's happening. You have all the discussions that they're very transparent. I mean, there's closed doors of events. But in some ways, it's good in some ways it's bad. You go and take the hours on this example. If the design team had a fork essentially, I'm going to take this design of that design. And even if they really were pissed off about one decision over the other, none of that hostility would echo out into the rest of the world, whereas obviously it does in Bitcoin. And it's good that we have these open discussions, but also negatively because people from the outside kind of ignorantly say, Bitcoin doesn't know what it wants. When in actual fact, it's like a democracy of ideas. That is. The in-fighting really does leak out. What's nice about Bitcoin, though, is that we have the code in the center that we all have in common. It's kind of like a constitution, and that we're all debating over what should be put in or what should be put out. But at the end of the day, the code runs or the code doesn't run, it's much more exact than say the world of politics. Let's move on to the exit. Go ahead, Max. I just wanted to say that that is the biggest power of Bitcoin, that it is open source and that all the conversations and discussions and forms will not all but the vast majority of them are public. And that is great for innovation. But we want to have people copying our knowledge and to use what we have already accumulated and understood, then to solve their own problems and to build a more delightful word. Again, copying information is copying, not taking. And as long as it's mutual beneficial, which copying is per definition, then yeah, for sure, copy as much as you can. Now, but that of course, we need to take into account here selective revealing of sensitive and private information. So if you, for example, talk about, I don't know, the salary that you pay your workers, for example, that probably should not be discussed in the public forum, right? Because this is more sensitive information. So here, yeah, use GPG encryption or stuff like that for sure. But for other more general public meetings, why not have a RSC chat where everyone can join and see every the locks afterwards or the mailing list. That is a great strength to have such an open source community and not a bug whatsoever. I think that's a good example on places where you need transparency, employee salaries, and places where you wouldn't like a public meeting, things like that. So I think that we can still have both. I mean, you're comparing, sorry, you compare, you're comparing private individuals with particular representatives of individuals. And that's, that's their, they're too separate things, aren't they? So like, when people are publicly run as representing other people, then they try and make decisions on their behalf, like the people that make decisions on, they should, they should know what they're saying, you know, they should, they should have, they should have some sort of input into it. It's important. That's why we like Bitcoin, you know, it's a, we say, there's the code which you'll focus around, but you know, politics, you code's just a set of rules. That's all it is, you know, an algorithm, just a set of rules. This is, this happens, this happens, and this happens. The way a political system and the way a government is when it's exactly the same, it's a bunch of rules and then the users who, who those rules engage, they should most definitely have as much say as possible and as there should be as much transparency as possible. You know, we've been, we've been encouraged to be dumbed down. But you know, if you give, if you give people autonomy, they do rise to the challenge. I mean, we, back, so mean, damn, we've got the Brexit stuff going on at the moment, you know, and there's these people going into these private meetings and they're trying to reach, reach agreement on these problems and they're trying to speak on the behalf of the people, whereas the people should be engaged in that, in, in, in having those meetings, themselves, like we as a nation, we should be making those decisions daily, like, you know, hour by hour, and we should be, we should be in those meetings as well. And it would, it would alleviate some of the, the burden of having one person trying to make those decisions on some, on other people's behalf, you know, it's, it's, yeah. It is an interesting distinction, the public versus private, the difference between being a citizen or being a stockholder. I'd say the stockholders get the reports, they get to vote, but they don't necessarily get to sit in on the meeting with Jeff Bezos. Is being the citizen the same way? I don't know, it's tough to say. We'll have to move on to the exit question now, between Jerry Mandering, aka redistricting and the transparency reforms, sometimes the smallest changes have the largest effects, but despite the availability of volumous information on the internet, the populace remains uninformed and ill-equipped to vote. Max Hilabrand, is this the end of democracy? Has putting our trust in the people truly failed? Yeah, hopefully it is the end of democracy, the king that failed, great book by Hanserman Hoppe, voting on whom to steal from and murder is not right. It just isn't a live pieceful. And as long as it's mutually beneficial, then great. If you have a 100% majority, consensus, right, then it's no longer a vote. Then we actually claim our consensus and we approve of all single set of rules in this proposed change. And then, yeah, perfect, everything is peaceful. That is how Bitcoin functions. As soon as you just change one line in consensus critical code, you fork the network and you are no longer in consensus. You are in the minority now, but this does not give the majority the right to trample over you. It just means that you go your own path and you go to the pkbcach row to moon-sized blocks, right? Perfect, do that. But the majority cannot stop you from doing this, right? Exiting is always an option and you cannot force your ideals on the majority. That is how I would think humans should interact voluntarily and not by aggression. Ben from Wales. I mean, so we advocate decentralization, we advertise things like Anarchy. When you say something like Anarchy, you think it's complete lawlessness and there is an structure and there is a democracy. There is no democracy, but it's true democracy. It's on a base, it's on the bottom up democracy as opposed to top down democracy. At the moment, we've got representative democracy and they're like kind of sucks, but there's little flare-ups of true democracy. Look at the Spanish Revolution in 1936. Look at what's happening in Rajab, with democratic confederalism and decision-making being decentralized. Look at Switzerland, where decision-making is decentralized. Decentralization is good and Anarchism is good and it flares up, but just as democracy fled up during feudalism and it seemed like impossible. There was a technology which made it possible then it happened. Now we've got technology which makes true democracy possible and decentralized societies possible, true anarchism possible and it can happen. So, yeah, that's... Yeah. Dan, Eve. I think that the whole way we choose our leaders and what they're, how they run the government needs to be completely re-evaluated. I just see money hemorrhaging every left-rightened centre and maybe if we ran this stuff more like a business, it would help. But I think democracy is going to meet its end soon because I think that soon enough, they're going to... One set of people is going to be pushed enough to end up voting for someone like really crazy. He's going to do some crazy stuff and then there's going to be like, wow, maybe we shouldn't let people vote for people because they could vote this crazy guy in. But who says who says maybe we shouldn't let people vote for people? This is the thing, isn't it? Because I've been no crazy actually. Get rid of them. Maybe the people. I don't know. I've got no idea. I'm not really good with politics, is he? Well, we certainly haven't actually any crazy people over here. Everything's very sane and normal in my country. All right, let's move on to issue five bonus issue, Bitcoin and politics. A new article by Amir Tauke, legendary creator of LibBitcoin and contributor to Dark Wallet and other early Bitcoin projects, has weighed in on Binance's response to the hack. For Tauke, even though the transaction rollback was not undertaken, the fact that it was brought up as an option and seriously discussed is bad and perhaps fatal news for Bitcoin. Tauke believes that Bitcoin, the code, must be fortified against all attacks, political and otherwise, alleging that as long as a majority of the hash power can be organized by phone call, Bitcoin will never be safe. Max Hillibrand is a mere right. It's difficult to say I wouldn't say yes and no because on the one hand, of course, people will bring this up. People always bring up nonsense and it's good that they do in the court of public opinion. That is very important. What I think is much more important and interesting is how fast the Bitcoin community, the Bitcoin community, whatever that is, react to it. I didn't how fast we called him out on the bullshit. We're like, well, first of all, it's nonsense. It doesn't work. Second of all, what it suggests is you fucked up, you lost money, so live with the consequences. He pays it out of his own pocket, the Safu fund. In that sense, I would say Bitcoin is still working. That was similar as the what was it? Sack with 2x proposal or the New York agreement or other nonsense like this? People will continue doing that. But I see great hope that we have well-educated peers amongst us who actually know why we are doing this and then who come to the defense of the, let's say, ethos of Bitcoin, of the peaceful way of things. I guess yes and no. Bitcoin will chug on and we will hopefully have enough peers to understand the value proposition of Bitcoin. Of course, that is why the World Cryptonatory is so important to teach others. The article was missing perhaps a line at the end that Amir Taki is working on a new version of Bitcoin. I'm not sure that he is, but he sure sounds like he is. Ben from Wales. Yeah, I mean, I love Amir. I think I've got the deepest of respect for him. I think he's wrong on this subject, but he has an incredible mind. I think that he's one of, there's a few people in Bitcoin who are kind of like the protocol has sucked in their soul almost. So I'm like half-inni and I think Amir Taki is in there as well. You know, he wrote BitOne. You got to give him infinite respect. It was that exact same sense of paranoia and trying to do things properly, which pushed him towards organizing Bitcoin to be structured better so you could write Bips and have Bitcoin improvement proposals. So we need Amir. We need the way he thinks. But I think on this particular topic he's wrong because it wasn't discussed seriously. It was scientists, like Max, they, you know, computer scientists, they love thought experiments and they love to have thought experiments. So we like discussing these things as if, well, you could do this with a block. You could do that with a block, but none of us took it seriously as if it was something going to happen, which was going to happen. And again, returning to Greg Maxwell, you know, him saying that we probably need provisions in place to stop these sorts of discussions being taken seriously, even though we're having them amongst ourselves as a community because we've got these, we've got these things we can shift blame on to and say, well, oh, we can't, we've got, you know, all the miners have this thing called BFG- so I did actually write a little note of what I've researched it in between. So it's a it won't mind a substantial fork, but switched to another pool to avoid it. So it's kind of like a blame show. We can say, well, we can't, you know, this couldn't pass. We couldn't possibly roll back the blockchain because, you know, it's BFG- so it's another sort of safety, you know, I met my, my, I've got a pretty poor example of that. I think that was off the Greg Maxwell post. But yeah, I mean, like, yeah, I mean, discuss it. It's a thought experiment, but it wasn't taken seriously. But I mean, it's continuing what he's doing because, you know, he's, he's brilliant. Dan, you. Yeah, well, I don't think that Bitcoin is never going to be safe. But, these discussions are inevitable. You know, you can have people in a prominent, someone in a prominent position, or you know, kind of like it's CZ level saying something silly, but we know internally that it's that's not to be taken seriously, you know, that specific comment. Although the person obviously is very influential within the space, you know, they may have got the wrong end of the stick. It's a, you know, with mishap etc. may have misunderstood something. But obviously, from the out externally, it does look like it's a bit of a, you know, a vector attack vector from people that think that, you know, that's one of the security holds is the 51% attack. And it does sound like it could be easier to get to that, you know, this infamous attack that would be so expensive to do, but you could technically do it by rolling back. I mean, you know, so I think that it does obviously poke a bit of a hole in Bitcoin. But I also think that it just shows also the resilience. Like the fact is that that CZ did say it. It could have dumped, but we're at 64 something. So, you know, I think that Bitcoin is big old honey badger. The people, I think, you know, who would have taken that seriously from the external world, probably aren't the ones that are sat holding Bitcoin right now that would have actually dumped it. So the people that are holding it, they know very well that, you know, that it's sound money and a long term, it's, you know, it's going to be big, big dog, big, big dog. Moving on to the exit question. Yes or no, will Bitcoin fortify itself in time for the next attack? Is Bitcoin strong enough to survive? Max Hillebren. Yes, of course. Honey, better don't give it to them. Ben from Wales. Yeah, you ain't taking you ain't taking Bitcoin down. We need these sparring partners every now and then, but you're not taking it down. 10 Eve. Strong like crumb. And the honey badger doesn't care. Moving on to predictions or a story of the week. Ben, are you ready with a prediction or a story of the week? Well, it is not of the week, but it's of in a couple of weeks time, there's the the Munich Lightning Hack Day, which is going to be absolutely phenomenal. Really excited about it. Got some great speakers. Some really interesting people going. It's at all the hack days have been fun. All the hack days have been to all of them, but one, and they're all absolutely fantastic. So if you're anywhere near Munich, it costs nothing. It's like five euros to get there to get in. And there's still tickets available. I'm going to be working on the hack table. So there's some people who've ordered Raspberry Blitzes. We're going to be helping them build those and then we're going to have a couple of other hacks going on at the same time. So I'm I've dedicated myself to the hack table for the whole experience so that should be fantastic. Really looking forward to it. So that's that's in a few weeks. So yeah, so it's if you're in Munich or able to get some Munich, it's the place to be. Very cool. Dan Eve. So, and oh, okay, so first of all, blockchain hotel. It's going to be pretty banging. And I think are all the crew here. They're on the show. Max, you booked blockchain hotel, yeah? For sure. Oh, yeah. Yeah. So everyone you've got to make your way to blockchain hotel. Which means that you've seen like the 30th of May and 30th of May. And I may have said this on the show the other day. But if if you've seen the song the cover song I did the Fudfighters about a particular recent social thing has happened. Probably can't say much about all the way. Anyway, check it out. It's like a cover of the Fudfighters Pretender, but called Fudfighters the Pretenders. And that'll be the first time I perform that live. Which I need to literally like blow into balloons. I've been reading about it because Dave Grohl's breath like doing that all in one go. It's just like, so I'm going to practice with balloons and stuff. And yeah, it's going to be quite a show. So get yourself to blockchain hotel and then hang out with us guys. And I'm going to bring a green screen with me. So I've got a green screen. And then we're going to do like we're going to do interviews with people in different places in the world, maybe from a different central bank in front of it, you know, as the background. Just crazy stuff. Each of them on a different yard. Or perfect. Oh, yeah. We can literally be interviewing people on super yachts. There you go. Exactly. So we've got all sorts of treats that are going to be planned for blockchain hotel. And if I haven't shielded it enough, trick key with trippk.com, which accepts Bitcoin Lightning and some other shit coins, that went live about a week or so ago. So if you need a hotel, check it out. And be sure to go to blockchain.info in Essen, Germany. You can use code madbitcoins25 if you want to get a discount on your ticket. And I know I've been saying this a lot, but if you guys are in near Essen near Amsterdam or near Berlin or Munich for the Lightning Hack day, you really need to get out there and go. Even if it's $5 a ticket or $300 or maybe even $500 on, I don't know how much it costs. But everyone needs to get out there and support these Bitcoin conferences. We're in a really neat time right now where we have dedicated Bitcoin conferences. That's about a topic that you're interested in. We don't just have to go to the ICO scam fest and wait for there to be maybe one panel that's about Bitcoin. We have our own conferences right now. If we go to them, if we buy tickets, even if you just buy tickets and don't attend, whatever it is, we need to support these conferences. Blockchain hotel in Essen, breaking Bitcoin in Amsterdam, unchain conference in Berlin and the Lightning Hack day in Munich. So please support those conferences if you're anywhere near there. Or if you just want to be near there, get a hotel room, get an Airbnb, get an airplane, come on down. I'll be there. Max, do you have a story of the week or a prediction? Go ahead. Yes, a lot of magic stuff has happened this week. And I would say especially in the terms of Schnorr and Taproot because Peter Woolly has published a couple of really, really cool bips, the Schnorrbib, the Taprootbib and the Tap Scriptbib. A very awesome stuff happening here in Bitcoin. And we've done 19 videos about that already with more videos to come just about Schnorr. So this is advanced software that will be on your full note hopefully soon. So can't educate it about what this actually means. And we've already shared it, of course, the upcoming events that we will be covering here at the Warcrypto Network. Many of them, I will be as the others unfortunately will not join me at the Bitcoin Hackathon in Parallel, not police in Bratislava. That's going to be nice. Blockchain hotel Essen, Lightning Hack day in Munich, value of Bitcoin conference, that's an economics conference, right after the Lightning Hack day in Munich. Then Amsterdam because why not? And Berlin. And that is just everything in May and June. Crazy stuff. And if you like that we bring you high quality content from there, you can chip in and increase the sound quality of the videos that we give to you for free. Here the new microphone, a tally coin with a goal of 10 million Satoshi's to get some high quality microphones for the road. If you want these show to continue with the high quality that they are so far, here is the place to support it. So yeah, get educated about Schnorr, come to Bitcoin family gatherings and buy Bitcoin. That's about it. Pretty much just want to echo what Max said. If you guys want to donate, I have my own tally coin here. I'm trying to go to Germany so I can record more interviews and then release them here for free. I've been editing interviews all week. I finally got through all the Manchester interviews and I'm about halfway through the Malta interviews. I have these all queued up and scheduled. They'll be coming out one week on Wednesdays right here on the world crypto network. We've got the proof of work interviews. We've got some other interviews scheduled. Dan did some interviews. We've got special crypto Raptor interviews coming out soon. And of course, check out Ben's work this week. He's been doing some Bitcoin IoT tutorials working on trying to wire up all of the town he lives in in Wales with the Wi-Fi mesh and the ability to use Bitcoin. And of course, Max has been interviewing people from breaking Bitcoin getting you ready for the conference even before you go and reading that great Bitcoin mailing list with all the updates. So you can check that out all right here on the world crypto network. Be sure to subscribe down below. Give us a thumbs up and a share. Go and donate to the QR code. You can rewind. You can pause it. It'll be there. But thank you so much for your donations. Thanks for watching. I'm going to check out the chat. See what you guys were talking about later. I got to see what's going on there. But pretty much that's it for this show. We'll be back soon. Hopefully next week. Until next time. Bye. Bye.