#230 — The Bitcoin Group #230 - Fed Inflation - $500,000 Bitcoin - Fidelity - Satoshi Nakamoto?

The Bitcoin Group, the American original. For over the last 10 seconds, the sharpest Satoshi's, the best bitcoins, the hardest crypto currency talk. We'd like to welcome our panelists, Ben Arck from BTC IoT. I'm Tomas Hunt from the World Crypto Network, moving on to issue one. Federal Reserve says inflation should rise dramatically. Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell finally had their meeting on Thursday, virtually gathering in Jackson Hole, whole Wyoming, unable to enjoy any golf this year because the conference is being conducted virtually because of the coronavirus. The Federal Reserve is hoping to boost inflation. There is an infinite amount of cash at the Federal Reserve. And is going to print more money. They hope that higher inflation will boost wage growth, which has been anemic for over a decade. You could just try having laws on wages. Let's go to Ben Arck. Will the Federal Reserve be successful? Will they raise inflation? And as all the Bitcoiners are hoping, will the rise in inflation make people realize that you can just print endless amounts of dollars while there are only 21 million Bitcoin? Yes. But I think it's really a question of what tools do they have to use at this point in the economic crisis which we're in? They have a focus on trying to create a strong labour force. In order to have a strong labour force, you've got to have high wages. In order to have high wages, you have to have a labour force who demands high wages because that real world earnings and what they can actually afford to buy is decreasing. So that's why they're hoping for inflation to go up. So there's, I mean, it's just what can they do? There's two directions they can go in, really. And they don't want negative interest rates. They don't want to have a similar circumstance to somewhere like Japan. And with America, I think America's accepted that it really can't compete in the world stage when it comes to exports. So why try and keep it a competitive advantage by keeping wages low? So the two directions it can go in is something like UBI where you don't have many people in work and you just give them money, which is there's lots of good arguments for. Or, I mean, I'm just saying there's two directions it can go in in the... There's lots of directions it can go in but when you're trying it, when you're trying... You can't do that. Unless you're FDR, you can't do any kind of... Or when you're... Well, when you're trying to stimulate centrally physical stimulus, so you're trying to steer the economy, which arguably they shouldn't do, but they are doing because that's the position they're in. There are two ways in which they can go. They can go to the UBI route or they can go to the route where they're trying to increase labor force in create more jobs. And then letting inflation do what it does. I mean, it's not a case of they'll actively encourage inflation. They're just going to not stop inflation from happening and capital 2%. Which, you know, if the Kenzans would say would increase aggregate demand and then you would have more money flowing through the system and then you would have more jobs and although prices of products would probably increase, but there are also a whole bunch of... Obviously, of course, some obvious negative effects, such as, you know, if you've got a mortgage, then suddenly you'll... Which you can't really afford then. When it comes to really negotiate your mortgage, you'll be in a position which you really can't afford and you'll default and then you'll have some sort of housing crisis. But I think one of the most interesting parts of announcing something like this is that companies will assume that their products will cost more in the future so they'll increase production so they can profit more from when price of products goes up. So you end up with lots of companies ramping up production now, while labor's cheap and also trying to secure funding now for investment because, you know, interest rates are low. In speculation that obviously they'll get higher and that gives the economy like a massive... like a defibrillating the economy, which is kind of what they want because they've got huge unemployment and a lot of negative side effects to the coronavirus, which is only going to increase. It's really a question of what can they do. They weren't... There's a bar of financial crisis, so this is what we had in the Great War. The US is... And most of the world's in a... There's a bar of financial crisis, so what we had in the Great Depression and it's just a case of what... What can they do to try and keep the whole thing moving and not have things like food shortages and defripping the economy and trying to keep people in work. There's something they can do now. It may all just be, you know, propaganda to encourage companies to do that just to start producing more and to start employing more people to beg stuff and taking investment now while interest rates are low. Because they know they won't be able to invest so easily when... get customer to get loans and so forth. So, yeah, I mean, it's kind of a clutch and a straw thing, you know, like... We all know what's coming and that's large-scale economic crisis and we've talked about it for years. Most people have talked about it for years and it's been expecting it, but with this coronavirus, it's suddenly on a doorstep and it's going to get an Arley man, but I mean, they're just trying to... They're just trying to buffer its best. They can, but probably they're kicking the can down the road and when you have kind of a high inflation, trying to stimulate economy and cause boom, then the bust which you will get after the boom, which could be very short, is going to be that much deeper. So kicking the can down the road very sadly. I agree with Ben here, it's the only tool they have. There's nothing else they can do. This is what they have to do. And I think what's important to look at here is that this is the most the federal reserve can do to fight the coronavirus. They don't have any other powers. They only have the power of money printing or the power of not money printing really generally. And they've chosen the power of money printing. There is an infinite amount of cash at the Federal Reserve, but I don't think that the amount's quite infinite. I see a lot of Bitcoiners. Whenever they hear the word inflation, whenever even 2% is mentioned, they think that it's YMAR Republic hyperinflation. Money is raiding from the sky. Get a wheelbarrow, catch some. You can wallpaper your room, who cares? It's just paper money. It's not quite that bad. Certainly they've still overprinted. There's still lots more money. The reserve requirements for banks are gone, removed during the coronavirus crisis, although there were very little to begin with. I think it's going to have its effect. I think they'll get the 2% inflation. I don't think we're going to see major world collapsing events for this. I don't think it's the beginning of the end. And we should all, penny on Twitter. But that's what Twitter seems to say. And the price of Bitcoin went up to 1.5%. Today, I haven't checked it in the last 10 minutes. But yeah, I think that's about it. We're going to see a short term news bump. It'll go away. There'll be a second story, six months down the line when they'll give this the result. They'll say, hey, it worked. They increased inflation. Maybe they over increased it. But I don't think we're going 20%, 30%. I don't think we're going hyperinflation here. And I don't think that they're going to underinflate. I think they'll hit the... I mean, they'll put up. They'll print some more money. That I mean, it's not so much that they're trying actively to cause high rate inflation. They're just not going to prevent high rate inflation. So they're just going to let it do what it does. So with a low rate of inflation, arguably, you get more competitiveness, low wages, less jobs, leaner companies who can easily borrow. But then the borrowing power of a big company is so much more that with low rates of inflation, you tend to have a lot of money gravitating upward. And then so all businesses kind of suffer, whereas with a higher rate of inflation, I think you get in top with smaller businesses, actually can benefit from that. So it's interesting to talk about a stronger labor force after decades of crushing unions and the rest of it. By and I think people are starting to come to the terms of the fact that you actually need to produce shit in order for economy to be worthwhile. But also, we shouldn't be looking to the central bank to help us with our union problems. We shouldn't look for the central bank to help us with job problems. And the problem that I think Robert Reich was referring to on Twitter that actually got a lot of retweets, even on my account, just kind of showed how I think to sum it up quickly in the 50s, I think that the CEO to worker rate was around 20 to one. So you'd make a lot more money if you're CEO, but wasn't crazy. I'm pretty sure the rate now is 320 to one. So the inequality has grown and the Federal Reserve affecting interest rates. Sure, it's the only one of the only levers they have, but it's not going to affect that inequality. If we want to affect that inequality, we're going to have to probably go back to horror of horrors. A Denmark-like tax rates of the 1950s where the wealthy were taxed at 80 or 90%. I know it's horrifying, but I just read this fantastic article by this anthropologist, and he really summed up the whole thing and he had the entire structure up and down. And he basically explained when the wealthier taxed a lot, it creates less inequality than there's less rioting. When the wealthier taxed a little, it creates more inequality and more rioting. So it's basically a structure of a slider of how much rioting do you like? And as of recently, the cleptography, whatever it is, cleptocracy, the cleptocracy has gotten really good, and they're taking a lot more than ever before, and the rate is great, right? They're just raking it in, but this is leading to massive inequality and rioting in the streets. So maybe... Have you ever been to Denmark? No, imagine it's not. I spent a lot of time in Denmark, and it is noticeable the lack of class. So you'll have on the same street, I mean, quite key for better or for worse. I'm not arguing that the apparatus of tax control to kind of keep rich poor and poor richers is good, but I'm just saying that... I think they were, I'm sorry. Like system here, like one of the main things here... From my own experience of being in Denmark, you'll have a cleaner and they'll live a few doors down from a doctor. And you end up with a very... I mean, so you'll just go set on a train in Denmark, and you'll notice everyone talks to each other, like there's no snootyness, you know? Like the crazy, Trumpy guy will sit down next to the swanky, you know, Yoppy business guy, and I'll just start chatting away. Like there's this really the lack of class divide, so I mean, and that is from... But that's... I mean, they've had that as a policy for... Still have a lot of... We have to have goals, we have to have something to... It's hard to do. And it's funny because the article said the exact same thing. It described how you wouldn't be rude to a checkout person in Denmark, because that checkout person has the same health care as you, has the same social safety net, and probably lives in your neighborhood. Their kid goes to your school, they're probably friends, whereas if you're going to a checkout here at like Whole Foods or something, there's a huge divide between the checkout staff and the people who have the money to shop there. And if you have the money to shop at a place like Whole Foods or not to pick on them, but organic food is better and is more expensive. But if you have money to shop at a nicer place, you probably put your kids in a private school, you might have driven in from out of town, you might live in the suburbs, you might be heading by the market on your way home from the downtown office, at least in the pre-COVID. So... I suppose for the softly clear question becomes which is synthetic, is it synthetic that there is a huge sort of wealth divide and inequality, or is it synthetic that there is less of a wealth divide between people? I mean, in the case of the Danes, I suppose there's a lot of taxes and things in place. Certainly, so there's a lot of rich... However, in meddling. Yeah, however, in the system... Yeah, but the US is just the opposite. So it's not a case of the US is free. It's actually geared to make those rich people, much richer and then the poor people much poorer and then you end up with a widening gap. So in both circumstances, I suppose there's meddling. And maybe the argument is from the fact is they're going to try a medal less and then see if maybe it can go somewhere in the mid, I don't know. I don't know. I'm not really wondering in a quite a large scale, but I do think that philosophically we can discuss over hundreds of years here the failed US experiments and that the failed United States experiment, it starts out with this compromise, the three fifths compromise on slavery, that African-American slaves will be counted as three fifths of a person for the points of representation. This becomes a big deal in the South. They need this population is pushing up their numbers, getting the representations. If you took that away, they would lose representation even worse. If you give those people rights, you're creating a class to vote against the people in power. So that comes to ahead in the Civil War. In the Civil War, we replace the system of enforced labor, forced slavery with wage slavery. Wage slavery is a superior system of slavery. You have a factory and the workers are now interchangeable cogs. If a worker loses a hand, you just get a new worker. Whereas in the South with the owned slavery, which is certainly immoral and inhuman in all of those things, but it's also a failure economically. Economically, it's not as good. If you set up a factory in the South, given slavery, if you're a slave loses a hand, you've just lost thousands of dollars in that person because unfortunately you own them. They are part of the factory, et cetera. So the wage slavery system, allowing for interchangeable cogs of human beings, allowed to bring these numbers down. Then we had this system where the capitalist went all over the world looking for lower and lower labor. They kept gutting out the inside of the US, and now there's nothing left. So I have to decide. I mean, certainly there's meddling. Certainly, but it's... You got to think of it. They got a medal, I mean, this is... This is Continent. This is exactly why the euro exists. So before the euro, Germans, the Germans have always been the factory of Europe. They've always produced all the things, but it got to the point where the... Oh, see, Christ, what was it called? Oh, the German... The Dutch mark was... It could arrive at the US dollar for its purchasing power, which would mean that the cost of wages would be so high in Germany that, yes, they're really going to make in stuff, but you wouldn't be able to afford to get anyone to make, and I think the wages would be too high. So that's why they really pushed the idea of the euro to kind of stop the currency competitions from happening where they would be out-competed in the market, the wall marketplace for labor. So it's all hacky meddling, man. And like... I don't know. Well, I don't know. You'd screw it either way. Well, we've got to look at the results. And we've got to say, it was a successful experiment. In a lot of ways. I mean, the E-MT is. The US has been at war almost all the time. That was also mentioned in the article. We should probably bring this article up at some point, but there's a Rolling Stone article. I tweeted it several times. But it was fantastic. And one of the things that they said about the US in Germany, I've lost it. God, Ben. They were talking about the economy. They lost what they were saying. I mean, kind of... So much, man. I'm very much... I mean, there's some great statistics on... I mean, Crikey, Europe is a powder keg. And our ability to go to war in ourselves with hard borders and nationalism is profoundly dangerous as we had in the quick succession with two world wars. So the fairly quick... The fairly quick establishment of the Euro after that, there's some great statistics on countries not going to war when they share a currency. Yeah, or they share a media. We have a big change. All but 14 of its years. So the US is the most warlike country. Yes, but that's... But that's because... But that's because you've got to have domestic... The world is so... So I think this domestic piece is the product of all of the currency manipulation and all of the societal manipulations. So the question is, what is the value of this domestic piece? And in a lot of ways, this comes back to something that I learned when I was visiting Germany and I was talking to a friend of mine there and he explained to me how modern art worked. Because I looked at modern art and I was like, that is some silly stuff, right? You were fooling rich people into buying that. You were making nonsense. And I didn't want to insult my friend, but he was in like a modern art dance troupe and they had done modern art dance performances at a very high level, which is just as good as doing them at a low level because it's random stuff. He said they did kicks on stage while someone shot tennis balls at them. I mean, it's stuff like that and the lights are flashing but it represented Jesus and the guy's lifestyle and him growing up. And it was very textural. It's a very complex art piece. But still that art piece was a product of this piece that this great, what the artist said when my friend asked him and we talked to him about it, he said that because of this great piece that I've had, I've been able to make this meaningless art. And in normal times, you have to make at least aesthetically pleasing art, if you want to sell a portrait of account or whatever, you paint him traditional style. You don't paint him like Picasso with two eyes on one side. Account's not going to buy it, right? You don't go all-mero, you don't blast at him, right? You can't create that kind of art under that kind of system, but the system that we had has allowed for this art. And let's go bigger, let's say, David Bowie, Bob Dylan, all the commercial, all the movies, all the television shows, the sopranos, everything that so-called Western civilization, Western culture, whatever you want to call it, has created is a product of this piece, is a product of this manipulation, this meddling, the Federal Reserve, the currency, the American system, the two wars, the Marshall Project, rebuilding Europe, rebuilding Japan, all of this, like has it been a success? I mean, I think it didn't last forever, right? That's certainly one point that is very clear when you're in the decline of the thing and that everything's getting tighter, right? And you're worried. So certainly for us in the vice, it's not so great right now. But it made a really nice culture. It made a general relative peace, depending on your economic level, if you were forced to be drafted, if you chose to fight a war, if you chose to travel to an unsafe location, if bad things happened, whatever. But generally, you could have been safe, you could have lived your life, you could have made some art, you could have had some kids, whatever you wanted to do, the American system, about 200 years of that. Now again, not so great for minorities until recently, and even then not so great. So that's another negative strike on the system, but not again, not necessarily because of the economic creation, although I do think, and again, everyone's gonna be shocked because they're so conservative, but there is a strikingly strong argument for reparations. Freak out, light fires. But no, the fact that they stole the economic wealth of these people at a certain point, then they made the bad deal with the 100 acres in the mule, they didn't give them the mule of 40 acres in a mule. Well, I mean, you want, you want, you want, you want, you want, you want, you want, you get, you get, you get, you get, it's how they're like they can see. So I mean, Keynes was all about, you, there's no point having a debt, so he can't pay the debt. So when it comes to reparations, like, you know, I just think they've been different, different type of reparations. You know, the reparations, generational value that other people were able to, because of, but, but, you know, structural decisions like the GI bill, like the Red Line. The meddling, so, and so, it's a, it's a, yeah. Keynes believes that by now, we would be a lesser society that we would work a couple of days a week, most, and then people after working a couple of days a week would have enough money to sustain themselves. Because if you looked at the trajectory of just production, that that kind of made sense, you know, like, that would be possible, from where he was standing. Of course, he was wrong, because, you know, what all happens is, I do work for, a smaller workforce who work harder. But I think the main point is that all of this stuff's gray, like nothing's good, nothing's bad, nothing's binary, hovering a sovereign currency. Like, if you look at the modern monetary theory, see them, having a sovereign currency, which you control, and you can print yourself, has tremendous economic advantage, because you can't go broke, you can always just print more shit if you want it. Which you can't do if you're in a monetary union, like the Euro, for example. However, for Europe's sake, having a monetary union means you don't have, like, war, you know, currency, war, and then followed shortly after by a real world war. So, you can't, there's no argument, you know, you can't say one is good, one is bad, but it's just a series of trade-offs and trying to find the best solution at the time, I suppose. But I think, I knew that. I think bringing it back to Bitcoin, which I think that's always very important, before people didn't have that choice, you know, we were very much in the hands of the government, you know, whatever they want to, however, whichever one direction they want to medal, you're, you know, got their whim, whereas now we can very easily opt out, and there's easy on ramps for opting out and choosing other ways to transact, and other ways to solve value. And I think that competitive edge will, in fact, be good for currency, sovereign currencies, because I'll have to compete with, you know, a non-propriety version of their controlled proprietary currency. So, just by trying to bring it back to Bitcoin, and because we could, I'm sure we could run some hours about this. I know, but I've got more, I do think the future is gonna be a hybrid. Right now I'm expanding my definitions. I used to be going more 100% Bitcoin, but I do think you're right. They're gonna put some kind of a currency or something on top of there, so that they do have the ability to inflate it in an emergency to print more money, either a crisis like coronavirus or a hurricane, or an economic collapse or a world war, or space aliens, or whatever. They're gonna put some borrowing debt utility vehicle thing that they're gonna park on top of Bitcoin and make their own version. Certainly, it'll never inflate the 21 million, but it might become popular enough to the point where it has its own economy and its own forces and things. But going back to Kane, our two-day workweek, I want my two-day workweek, and I think we were there, I think we could have had it, but I think that we would have had to suffer under what Henry Ford said. You could have a car in any color you want so long as it's black. At the time, they were making products and they were selling them based on their quality. These shoes will last longer. This tires are more durable. Then they said, hey, the tires are hot pink. You could get hot pink tires on your car. You could get a car in any color you want. You can get, you close every three months. You can have this fast fashion, all these consumerism and Bernays, especially watch Adam Curse is a fantastic film, The Century of the Self. But I think that they might have derailed our two-day work. He was Freud's, he was Freud's, he was Freud's, he wasn't there. He was Freud's, he wrote the book. Topaganda, he was a major creator of things like advertising and focus groups and shaping people. And even he merged and flexed with the time. And he was able to continue his power and his control and testing his ideas. And a lot of these ideas are like push-pulling. If you test them, they have some effect anyway. So just the act of testing them creates a result and creates an effect. So it's interesting to see. I think psychologically, there are market manipulations such as like brand shit and whatever else. I think people are tired of it, man. I got a, the new Pine Book for my mom. One of the great things about the new, the laptops, right? And one of the great things about new laptops. I don't think the one with the Pine Book is though, or I will. So Pine Book is like a fully free and open source, like hardware, software, laptop is rad. And actually the price point is pretty sweet, man. I think it was like 200 quid or something. It's a functional little. And they make them in batches. So you can't just buy Pine Book, you have to kind of invest. And then when you're a little while, they're going to make like two, you're at a time or whatever, you know, it has to wait. I thought that was, it's kind of, it's very cool, but it's very co-op, kind of hippie for a person. It's very, it's very, it's very cool. It's not going to work, but actually, that was quite cool. Like when you, when we got the box for it, you open it up and there's just like a crappy printed out a four piece of paper saying, thanks for buying this Pine Book. But then the Pine Book itself, there was no branding on it. There was no logo. It was just, you open it up, it was just a functional laptop running Manjora, like Linux, which is a great de-stroits for my favorite de-stroits. And it was refreshing. It was like, I'm not being sold to through brand awareness. Like it's just a functional thing. I know, maybe it's the lefty inside of me or something, but I liked it, my mom liked it too. But you, you going back to another point, so with the Keynesian stuff, since we were able to farm and have, you know, surplus time where people could build things like Stonehenge, contemplate our place in the universe, develop society through engineering, like you'd have people you could sit around and come with ideas of making a better plow, whatever else, and a better aluminum, et cetera, et cetera. You can make a new thing. As soon as you're not being killed all the time, it's amazing. Yeah, well, yeah. And also that you've got the time to, you know, just starving or on the brink of starvation and having to work every hour of God's hands. So this is why the Greeks, relying upon this lay population, just they didn't work, you know, they slaves did all the work. Where they were so pivotal in world history and they're able to come with so much stuff. And I do think that the concept of a lesser society through something like UBI, whatever, it is possible. Of course, it's possible. Like we can, as technology advances, we can produce enough stuff to keep everyone fed and, you know, you have an amazing, like fabricating 3D printing thing in your house or you can build whatever you want and, you know, print potatoes out of soil and water. Oh, I know. Like so the nature of production will change. In the mean, in the short term though, like where there's so much, it's a bit like a really crappy legacy banking app which keeps breaking. And you're like, how come this thing hasn't advanced yet? And we aren't in the actual, you know, period in history, which we should be in considering the amount of technology which is out there. And a lot of this banking stuff is like that. It's almost like why, you know, why aren't we in a better place? And it's just hang ups, you know, it's all these institutions and apparatus which have existed for centuries. And having them adapt and change is hard, but they're going to be urged and pushed forward by Bitcoin, you know, by these opt out mechanisms. That's the John Nash idea on money scenario. The ideal money being not Bitcoin, but in fact the fear which has to compete with the Bitcoin. So yeah, so it's all part of a process towards great liberty and great amount of money and everyone being happier, but expect depression and recession is going to happen. Of course it's going to happen for food shortages. Like it says on the Georgia guide sounds there's too many people in not enough trees. There's enough for everybody, but not enough for everyone wants with Gandhi. I don't want the world, I just want your half. But it's interesting about that computer. It didn't have branding and they just put a piece of paper in. That could become a marketing choice. Everything in marketing like Bill Hicks said, it's always seditious, it's always evil. And there's someone out there that's taking notes and he's like, oh, the customer enjoyed the low fire, the logo list piece of paper. Try including a, you know, Polaroid of the guy who shipped it or something next time and it's like make it more low fire. Oh, when I got my computer, it wasn't even wrapped in little holders. It was just brown paper wrapping, you know? I thought that was really low fire and I was very impressed by the low fire. But yeah, they'll get you with the marketing stuff. Like Bill Hicks said, but I always referred to player piano and it's this old Vonnegut book and it's his very first book. And I don't even think it's his most artfully written or easiest to read or anything like that. It's actually the most engineering kind of feeling book that he wrote because he was working for his brother and for this big companies. I forget I was like AT&T or one of the big industrial type companies at the time. And he could see the whole future. He could see everything getting plugged in. He could see television. He could see all the different things they're working on. And his idea is that they would pay people to stay home and watch television so that they wouldn't go out and smash the machines. Because you'd have these mobs of luttites and the only way you could satisfy the luds was to pay them to stay home and watch TV. And I think we're right there. We're right on the precipice of it, but it's gonna be VR. And it's the kind of thing where it's very dystopian. You would have to probably keep your VR goggles for on for eight hours a day, something like that. Like your unemployment benefits would be linked to your VR usage so that you're in VR more so that you're not breaking things in the real world. And maybe even not enjoying the real world if you wanna go to the Philip K. Dick book where they trick everyone to work underground in factories while the rich rule in giant parks. The other interesting thing. I don't know, man. I think we do tend to watch great celebrity. I would just say that humans just get wiser. So the branding tricks and marketing installations which companies could enjoy before, like Philip K. anymore. Like most people like my son, for example, years ago he wanted an iPhone, no, he's okay. Which is what's an Android cheap phone off any brand, whatever. As long as it does this rectangle which has apps on whatever. So this idea of like brand awareness, I think people have a kind of second bite. I don't care. And it's been a subject of abuse. It's almost like the piracy thing where you're abused for so long. You overpay for a product like a DVD or a film for so long or a VHS. But by the time that you say you're able just to download videos, there's no like emotional guilt for ripping off a video off the internet. Cause you're like back that I paid 20 quid a DVD for years. I'm getting that for free now. And it has had no negative impact on the industry. So I think I do think that a lot of the commercial consumer mechanisms which could be employed using, we've been programmed against it now. And we just, it doesn't phase as an it goes over our heads. And we're getting better. We can produce enough good stuff that it doesn't have to be branded in that way. So I really like the Pine Book. Honestly, people out there, it's a great, it's a great product. You can probably get a cheaper like notebook, you type laptop, but the very fact that it's free and open source and the producers are getting much of the money there. And it's just stable. Like it's a stable, nice product. I'm obviously about getting more for myself. So yeah, great, great machine support, support Pine Book. They're producing stuff for such as free and open source, smart watches, which is pretty good. It's a program. That's another thing where yeah, right now you want the Apple Watch, because it's the best, but eventually like you're saying, the free and open source, the Android type of Apple Watch will probably take over. But like Bill Hicks said, it's the, you're talking about that anti-marketing dollar. That's a very big dollar. A lot of money there. A lot of people into the anti-marketing. And then later on, you get into the righteous indignation dollar. Ooh, that's a big dollar. Ooh, that's a lot of money there. So yeah, that's a great old Bill Hicks bit. I also wanted to talk about it. There's a great, Amazon will play it after the show. It's so good. There's a great Amazon show out right now called Upload. It's not the best show, but it talks about a digital afterlife and it's such a rich idea that just thinking about it gives you more ideas. And one of the neat things in there is that they talked about printed food. And there's kind of a really wealthy family, I think, very much modeled after the Trumps. They snipe and stab after each other. One of the characters even says, why are you so mean to each other? You're a family. And they're like, we don't get it. We just, we're always mean. But they make fun of her because she's not used to non-printed food. There's a bone in her chicken and she's completely foreign to this idea. So it's very, very quick how something can be fun. We can print potatoes at home. And then the next day, it's like, no one remembers what a real potato tastes like and no one can afford them. So it's interesting to see the sci-fi shift happen there. It's a great, that's a great show, man. I mean, it's such a cute little series. It's like, severed episodes or so the right episodes. It's got a little bit of a... It's almost like someone's... Took a black mirror and they're just throwing it out. And it's so hard as well. I really enjoyed watching that. It's great. It's good show. I watched it twice, and yeah, it's on the Amazon Prime. It's on the... I think the movies have kind of hurt themselves with the non-standard pricing. There's something great about a movie theater. It's always age myself, but it's always, let's go high. It's always 15 bucks. It's not eight bucks for a movie that's so cheap. But yeah, it's 15 bucks no matter what the movie is. I don't really like the way they've done it with the online where all the movies have different prices and then the new movie has a certain price and it goes on sale. They've created a whole false choice there. Whereas I know Amazon pushed this early with the books and there was a big monopoly lawsuit and all that, but just pricing the books at 10 bucks or pricing the books at 15 bucks. And it just no matter what the book is, it seems like it makes it more of a product, makes it easier to buy and sell. But I think we're way off course here. Let's get back to the show. Well, I mean, no, no, no, no, because you can bring it back. So you can say so, monopoly exists. Unless you strung on the monopoly into behaving itself through an alternative. And in the movie experience, it was just being able to get it for free off the internet, you know, you know, you're an upstero, you're part of it, or you know, you're streaming it or whatever you use. And that's strong arms. That's why you can now enjoy a cheap cinema ticket. And similarly, when it comes to something like software, you have your proprietary and then you have your free and open source, which then forces proprietary software to behave itself a little bit more and actually take on some of the attributes of, you know, Microsoft now is I think it's the biggest free and open source, control open source contributor. So it's a, it has to take on some of the attributes of the thing which is strong arms and into behaving. And actually, there is, if you want direct action and you want a better world, you should pirate. You should use a free and open source alternative. You should vote with your feet, take your money out of fear, and put it into Bitcoin, because that will force the fear then to behave itself in a way where people will be happy to keep their money in fear. So it that by opting out, you are in fact morally, even if you're just pirating stuff for free, you are in fact strong arming the proprietary monopoly into behaving itself. So there is, I think there's a moral argument to pirating. I think, you know, if I can watch something, I've got everyone's got Netflix account everywhere, but I'll just watch it on PirateBake to start a pure spite for that reason. So if I can get out of it, let's draw it themselves with the streaming services. There are so many streaming services. My favorite streaming service is this website called JustWatch.com. It's actually a meta search engine that searches all the streaming sources. So you can find out if the movie's on Amazon or if the movie's on Hulu or IMDB TV or HBO Max or Netflix or I'm sure I'm leaving one out. Disney Plus, ESPN, I don't know, there's so many more. But yes, they've overdone it. And when you really go back to it, like you're saying, the PirateBake has everything. Wow, they have things from too. That's everything. And HBO, it's amazing. It's like a superior service like Netflix used to be when the studios were working together. But it's so funny these human things. The studios come together, work on Netflix. There's too much money in the pie. And they're like, no, no, take back the Marvel movies, take back the friends, like separate everything. They, you know, hurt Netflix, Netflix becomes yet another movie studio basically making its own movies. And then now we're back to separate. And later on, someone will come along with a new idea. They'll be like, all the streaming services together. And it'll be seen as a new idea, but really it's a return to where we used to be. It's a bit like Bitcoin podcasts. It's a, through a rocky hit, a Bitcoin podcast. It used to be like that anymore. But I don't have to move on to the exit question. There's been inflation news. We have the magical Bitcoin predictor ball. It's time to face off against it, Ben. The price of Bitcoin this time next week, higher or lower. Hi, baby. Hi, I'll go with higher, too. I always go with higher, but we have to ask the ball, will the price of Bitcoin be higher next week? Of course, we shake the ball. It says on Wikipedia, you're not supposed to shake magic eight balls. It causes bubbles, but it is friction. It makes the magic happen. Where does the air come from? Where does the air come from? The shaking. I don't understand them at the science behind it. How hard are you shaking that bubble? You're splitting the hydrogen and the oxygen. The back. But since you never have to fill over water, interesting side note about you, you never have to fill the water in here. My friend just got this incredible new thing. I've never seen it before, but it's a water-cooled CPU. And it has a radiator. It has two big fat cords that go to it and from it that send the water in and out of this cooling device, this radiator for the CPU. It's just, I haven't built a computer a million years, so it blows my mind. And what's so great about it is I pictured it. And I was like, I pictured someone over the faucet putting water into the thing. And he's like, no, no, it comes with the water inside. And so just like the eight comes with the water inside. So here we go. Will the price be higher next week? As you can't see it in the door. Very doubtful. The ball is a doubtable. The ball is a very doubtful. So it's going to be a correction. Everybody better hold on. The ball has spoken. Moving on to issue two. Be sure to give us a like down below. Issue two, Bitcoin price to $500,000 a coin. The Winkelvi lay out the ultimate bullish core, bullish case. And it looks like the Winkelvi theory is based on the price of Bitcoin if it overtakes gold, which is a popular thing to talk about. It's especially great that they've suddenly reappeared. And they're here to talk about it now that Bitcoin's over 10K again. Because if they had said this kind of thing when Bitcoin was 3K, no one would have believed them. Then I think you're the only one here we have to go to you. Are the Winkelvi correct? So the price of Bitcoin rise is $500,000 a coin. I was looking forward to not being first, because I thought, you know, I was first on the first question. So I get to chill out now and just say, oh, I agree with what CryptoRaptor said. They're right. I mean, they're right. I mean, so you've all these people with wealth, which they've accumulated, capital, which they've accumulated over relatively short period of time, and now currencies are going to have to do things like in flight in order to keep economies going, that they can't store capital in the currency. They're going to look to diversify. And they're going to look for things like Bitcoin. Bitcoin has, I think now, has a track record of proving itself that it's not a safe, what's the word? Not medium of exchange, store of value, not a safe store of value. But it is, the technology is secure and safe, and it works. And more recent, I mean, so more recently we've had a lot of, so I mean, the altcoin specter has been on the Bitcoin shoulder for a very long time, particularly with Ethereum, but more recently, it's so convoluted on the little hacks and trickeries they have to try and do to keep Ethereum running. Now, it really is obvious that Bitcoin, it's doing this one thing and it's doing it very, very well. And it's somewhere you can take your wealth and you can put it. And it's almost a hedge and it's detached from, I mean, there's just some guarantees, such as it's 20 more million. Cap, for example. So a lot of rich, new, rich, neoliberals who've gained incredible amount of wealth over the past couple of decades will have to put their money somewhere and they'll put it into Bitcoin. And a lot of them are tax savvy, a lot of them have earned a lot of money through tech stuff. And gold is, I mean, gold's great. I wish I had a little bit of gold. But Bitcoin is just so useful and so fluid and enjoyable to use in transfer and particularly in large quantities. I think we've got a story about the CFD or something coming up. But no, it's, I think it's plausible, I don't remember. But once upon a time people were witnessing that the fact that Bitcoin could be worth a dollar when it was like a ten cents and thinking, this is ridiculous. What are they going on about these people? And then lo and behold, it's, it went up. I didn't win up. I didn't win up. I didn't, there's any cap personally to it. You look at commodity use cases. Yes, gold has a whole load of commodity use cases. It's just being used in electronics, dentistry, and Indian grandmother's is using it for jewelry. But Bitcoin has a half lot of commodity use cases, particularly in a world in which we're spending more more time in the digital world. Yeah, it could go on there, man. Like, I mean, that's not to say that gold isn't suppressed. So if you say yes, it could extend beyond the value of gold currently, then it's like, well, yeah, because gold's probably worth more than it's actually priced at. So by then, gold, of course, also got up in value. I don't think it's crazy. The winkelvi obviously have invested in trust because they want you to go in there, exchange, and start doubling and buying Bitcoin, and also buying other shit coins. But the sentiment, I think, is probably correct that there is nothing stopping Bitcoin from going to 500K. Why don't you see why there is anything stopping it? Well, I think you made your best point last that they're not comparing it to gold. It's not like the winkelvi said it would be worth a million dollars in gold. They said it would be worth a million fiat dollars, right? They have $500,000, not $500,000 gold bars. That would be great. They're talking about it eclipsing the gold market, getting bigger than the gold market. But like you're saying, I think the gold market will continue to grow along with it. And that if Bitcoin is $500,000, a coin, what is gold? I'd like them to say that as well. But what's really important here is that nothing ever changes. Nothing ever changes about Bitcoin. It's always been this. It's always been the same. But what's so interesting is see the characters coming out in and out as the price goes up and down. When the price was down, either 3,000 or 300 years ago, the winkelvi did come out and talk about it. But then when the price sinks, they disappear again. So it's great that they're back. It means there's kind of a bullish enthusiasm out there because people are willing to listen to this argument and to write articles about it, even if it's only coin telegraph. Another thing I thought about while you're talking, as he said, we're talking about Ethereum and Bitcoin. And how Ethereum just has all these patches and it looks kind of funky and it's strung together by duct tape and it doesn't really work in a lot of ways. Seems like Bitcoin is the space program and Ethereum is the biosphere project. So Bitcoin just keeps cranking along NASA mission after NASA mission. Everything goes pretty well. There's a couple of screw ups for sure and some mistakes. But the biosphere project, it's leaking air from the beginning. People are sneaking in extra supplies. It's not very scientifically well-founded. The Mars and the Moon are different than Earth. They're doing a lot of things in the biosphere of Ethereum, whereas the NASA program of Bitcoin just keeps kicking on. And I agree that the Winkle Vi have a investment here in an exchange. They want people to trade. They want that excitement. Strangely, they went on this, the investor show. I think we talked about it last week. Port noise. Oh, it's so depressing. Some kind of Philip raw. It's a Roth novel. I read it. It's great. But that guy's just Port noise. But apparently he went in with his money. He went out with his money. He went in with his money. He went out. It doesn't seem like the Winkle Vi taught him anything. And especially they told him, oh, take your Bitcoin and buy altcoins. And a few minutes later, he was printing his own coins. So exit question. I loved the sentence though. There was this perfect sentence in that video where he was like, I don't understand Bitcoin. Why not perfect sentences? Perfect three sentences. I don't understand Bitcoin. Oh, look, there's shit coins. I'm going to make my own shit coin. And it was like the process summarized for people who, and you go back to the, you know, the Genesis, they don't understand Bitcoin, which is why they turn to the shit coins, which is why they think that they can then go and make their own. Focus on this bit. You know, I understand Bitcoin first. And then you won't bother with the other two stages of that process. Moving on to the exit question. Forced prediction. When will the price of Bitcoin read $500,000 a coin? Give me a year. Ben. I think everything's accelerating. So I wouldn't be surprised for years. I mean, that's not investment. If I see could go to nothing, it's, you know, whatever blah, blah. All right, next three years. So 2023, that looks pretty good. I could say five years. I could see it in five years, pretty easily. Ten years seems it might be higher. But then again, we've always bullish on Bitcoin. So like Ben said, not financial advice. Moving on to issue three. Fidelity. Fidelity is a thousand pound Bitcoin gorilla in the making. Yesterday, Fidelity filed paperwork with the US Securities and Exchange Commission to create a new fund entirely dedicated to Bitcoin, which will require a minimum investment of $10,000. Fidelity's minimum investment size indicates they have no immediate plans to expand into retail offerings, but rather want to focus on the higher end institutional side of the business. I guess I'll go to myself first. Thomas Hunt, what do you think about Fidelity entering Bitcoin? Well, first of all, I'm impressed and thrilled that they've chosen $100,000 as a floor, knocking all poor middle class and normal people like myself out of Bitcoin. If they'd had these kind of investment limits on Bitcoin in the beginning, I never would have been able to get any. So many other people would never been able to try it. It would be just taken away from them. So it also shows how much they're going to be spending on Bitcoin and the potential size of this fund. You can do the math yourself, but if they had a thousand investors, if they had 10,000, if they had a hundred thousand, certainly there aren't that many family offices. There aren't that many ridiculously rich people, but the Dellities going to find them. They're going to get them and they're going to, of course, hold all the private keys for them. These people never touch actual Bitcoin. It's something we've talked about for a long time and it's finally here. I don't know. Doesn't make you feel better. Again, it just feels like a big door is closing on all the normal people getting Bitcoin. We've talked about it before how used to be able to buy Bitcoin and now you're stacking SAC and you're collecting pennies and micro pennies and fractions of pennies. I think that's a great place to start, but I really hope that the normal people would be able to get more of this before it went crazy. But now the banks are here and the banks have obviously decided it's cheaper and it's more profitable to sell it to just a few rich people rather than just saying, hey, you can buy Bitcoin and all our banks now. Hey, all of our portfolios are Bitcoin ready. Ben, your thoughts on Fidelity joining the Bitcoin gang? It'd be interesting to see what impact it has on Bitcoin's distribution because we have seen more wallets, holdings, smaller or closer amounts. Bitcoin is, I mean, it's very hard to kind of get engaged because obviously, exchanges can have wallets, for example. But it does look like Bitcoin over time is becoming more disputed in the hands of more people, but you're right if it's a China appeal to big players with deep pockets who are able to pay the 100K, not 10K, 100K minimum, opt in for Fidelity. Then will that kind of centralize some of that wealth? I'm not sure it will. Because it's always counteracted by the hacks people hacking it and then distributing the Bitcoin, I guess. That's too little, it's a bit of a shame. It's a bit of a shame to store it already to hope on, but I don't think that on Robinhood, emptying out Fidelity anytime soon. I think ultimately, when we're moving into a period of unstable, fear, economic behaviour where people that are diversified, that portfolios into hedges and things outside of the legacy finance and they look at things like Bitcoin and start putting some of their money into it. There's only so far they can go with it. If you're rich and you're able to take control of government, which a lot of rich people are able to do, they can create constant easing and then buy up shares in companies which they have some exposure to and they can increase their wealth through just sort of neoliberal agenda stuff. Whereas with Bitcoin, you can't do that. It's limited. You can't, I mean, you can buy a whole bunch of miners, I suppose, and start trying to mine the stuff. But you're not ever going to be in the position where you have control over the printing press or the flow of money, whereas with current regular normal money, you are able to do that. So for a period, we may see Bitcoin centralising again, but it has decentralized quite well, like the wealth, you might have Bitcoin which is out there, is in more hands. So there's no reasons to think that that wouldn't then happen again. So I imagine you're, because just the sort of current financial predicament we're in, then a lot of rich people will pull up wealth into Bitcoin. And yes, of course, they're going to buy up a lot of Bitcoin. But then over time, it's a bit like, when you go from any old economic system where people benefited, so you have a feudal system in the UK, we have a lot of these things called stately homes, and they were owned by lords and barons and lads in Scotland, and they had big land owned a lot of land, and they had big houses, and they had huge wealth and surfs, you worked on that land. And then when we moved from feudalism to, you know, for free people and to moxie and capitalism, that wealth sustained them for a while. But now, you can go to these stately homes, and they open up the homes for people as a tourist, I think, in fact, Thomas, they took keys to one. You can walk around the stately home, look at the beautiful artwork and the wonderful house. Well, the reason you're able to do that is because that concentration of wealth, as it's moved into a new system, hasn't been asked to sustain itself, and you find that you have like a very rich family is reduced to living, what reduced, but they live in a wing of this house, during the tourist season, and then tourists, troise around the rest of the house and the rest of the garden, and really, you know, that family's wealth is all centered around the actual grounds and house itself, and there was just feudal days. And a similar thing will kind of happen with Bitcoin, in the people who kind of get in early, and the people who have a lot of wealth now, for example, they can buy a lot of Bitcoin. Yes, they will be very, very rich, and they'll phenomenally rich, but they'll buy stuff, and they'll spend money, and they'll have a son who has a cocaine addiction, and like fast cars and fast women, and without control of production and without control over the actual production of money, they will, that wealth will slip through their fingers and distribute to more and more people. So yes, for those rich dudes who get in now, you know, what played, they're going to secure some wealth and make some money, but it doesn't worry me, I think, because we are, we've seen Bitcoin, distributing among more people as time goes on, the stats are there, just Google it. Yeah, absolutely, right, Ben, I saw some amazing country homes in England, and there was one, or there was one, definitely, Chatsworth, where the family was still living there, but of course, I didn't see the family, I didn't walk through their kitchen, I certainly wasn't in their space, but I did get to see quite a lot of the building, and quite a lot of the grounds, and so forth. It'll be interesting to see if that happens again. I mean, it happens, so I mean, we all know people who made a lot of money from Bitcoin early on, and then people spend money like this. So like capital, it's kind of important, important, different, differentiate between capital and money, so money is, you know, you're medium of exchange, whereas capital is your ability to all the assets which you can produce more capital with, so you have more capital, you have more factories, you have more money, you have more gold, you have more wealth, then you can allocate that capital to producing more capital, which is capitalists, and that's how you increase your holdings, but with Bitcoin, it's money, but it's not necessarily capital, in that you can't make it work for you to produce more money, unless, you know, and you really make an effort, but you can't manipulate what, no, I'm very sorry, but what I'm trying to say is you can't, by having more capital, it doesn't mean you can manipulate the Bitcoin ecosystem to give you an unfair disadvantage, which you would, which you have if you're Vladimir Putin or Trump or, I don't know, my, in fact, most politicians in rich countries, you have the ability to enrich yourself and your friends, which you can't do with Bitcoin, we've seen people try to do it and, you know, they fall on their own, they fall on their own sorts. I'd agree, it's better to own the factory, and then you get the goods, but you can't own the Bitcoin factory, and certainly I would say that the, the big split with BCH and G-HON and BitMan and all of that, they attempted to own the Bitcoin factory, and if they had been successful and they wanted a block size increase, they could just pick up the phone of their programmers and say, do that if they wanted the blocks to move faster or slower, any other variables that they could control, if they had been successful and controlled the Bitcoin repo where the code comes from, they could have done almost anything to Bitcoin. And with the country houses, it's also a reminder of a certain American family that had a fantastic amount of real estate holdings, only to sell them off and dwindle and dwindle and spend all the money and get smaller and smaller and smaller until they were going bankrupt on casinos in Atlantic City. So it's don't get political now Thomas, don't get political. But going to the exit question, is this the long awaited bank breakdown? We've always talked about on this show how as soon as the banks start taking Bitcoin, first one of them will take it breaking the coalition, then all of the other banks will suddenly have to follow the leader whether they like it or not and Bitcoin will be complete. Then is this the the bank breakthrough for Bitcoin? Yeah, man, it's the Trojan, isn't it? Once you let that bad boy in, it's going to affect all your systems, be careful. I think that the the one was it like last month, some time the banks are now, US banks are now legally allowed to hold quote unquote crypto. That to me feels like it's in preparation for a bit for next style debt token for those who don't know what that is, you know, Google it. So when banks aren't able to give people their money, then they'll issue a token and that'll be a debt token and it will be of limited supply and it will operate in the same way the bit for next token operate it will allow the companies to the banks to continue to to operate work. So it's a you're not buying point, but if the banks and especially the airlines had the ability to do this now, I think they would. I mean, they just had more the other day, they're going to lay off 28,000 pilots for American airlines, they're going to lay off all these employees. If they could just print worthless debt tokens that they could dump on their people like BitFinext did, then buy them back at half the call. Well, it might be fantastic for them. Yeah, but no, no, it might, I mean, controversially, it might not be worthless. So BitFinext is still running. It was very successful exchange. Had it not produced that token, that debt token, it would have gone the way of empty gocs. So, um, uh, it get a company giving the option to its employees to be paid in some weird debt token. It might be one way to buffer, you know, financial crisis types. Anyway, your kingdom again, can's in is a drink. No, it's the idea of, if, you know, it's Andreas' Joey coin, isn't it? It's a software. If you work for a company and they produce a software in currency and you like that company, like working for them and you don't want to leave or you're dependent upon them and you can exchange that token somewhere as some markets and whether some value, um, don't, you know, you may prefer that over losing your job or not. Um, uh, if you, if you trust that that company is in fact able to produce, you know, hey, hey, back that token of some way trust Joey coin. I know, like he's my cousin's friend. So, trust Joey coin, but I want to answer the exit question too. Sorry, I disagree. I don't think this is the big break, breakthrough. I think it's another step on the way there, but I do think we're getting into John the Baptist territory where this bank has taken it on for the rich people, for a select group of people that can afford a hundred thousand dollars. Remember when we had to tell people you could buy less than one whole Bitcoin, you could buy a fraction of a Bitcoin. Hey, fidelity, you could let these people buy less than a hundred K, but they just don't want to deal with the Hoi Poo Lloyd. They only want people that have, you know, golden telephones. They don't want to talk to you. Normal people with your generic Android phones. Uh, but no, I don't think we're there yet. I think we need another level of this. I think if fidelity has success with this program, they might come back with a retail program at a lower level. And then we might get down to the basic level where you can put 20 bucks into any ATM anywhere in the world and buy Bitcoin. You can just hold Bitcoin in your bank account and it's just another thing. Uh, that's what we want. Or that's what again, that's what capitulation looks like. That's what moving the ball forward looks like. Uh, but yeah, we want to get to that stage. We still need, uh, we still need Bitcoin to be taken by other banks, normal banks, and then they'll be a breakthrough. And then all the banks will come along. It looks like Ben has disappeared, but we're going to just keep going with the next issue and he'll have to catch up. Issue four, what if Satoshi Nakamoto was Satoshi Nakamoto all along? Yes, Lee McGrath Goodman from Newsweek, aka the Daily Beast is back again and shocking she's continuing to support her headline story from years ago that Dorian Satoshi Nakamoto is the true founder of Bitcoin. In an interview with Anthony Pompleano on the Pomple podcast, Lee McGrath Goodman, the Newsweek journalist continued her claim that Dorian Satoshi was Satoshi. She doesn't seem to have any new information here. She was saying he's a prominent candidate candidate. His itinerary didn't ask at all. It seemed like he was a busy person spending two years quietly working. And again, she just comes back to this same misheard conversation. She continues to be focused thinking that Dorian Satoshi Nakamoto is some kind of Dr. Evil Mastermind who accidentally let it slip in a conversation with her that he was no longer involved in Bitcoin. She's again claims that she has an IP address that led to the same neighborhood in Los Angeles. As everyone thinks that an IP address couldn't be faked or an IP address couldn't lead to hundreds or even thousands of people. And she says she also talked to other Bitcoiners and they had her convinced that Dorian Satoshi Nakamoto is truly Satoshi Nakamoto. And again, we have to believe that he just used his real last name as a pseudonym. Looks like Ben is still frozen. So I'm going to take this story first. What if Dorian Satoshi Nakamoto is really Satoshi Nakamoto? Well, again, as a normal person, I've got to go first to myself personally and I have to say that's great because I have a photo with Dorian Satoshi Nakamoto and that would mean I have a photo with Satoshi. That's great. That's hilarious. That increases the value of my photo library. But photo library and an interview on the World Crypto Network if you look at the crypto art episode, which I did recently actually. I don't know. Do you think Dorian's really the Dorian? I met Dorian Satoshi Nakamoto. He seemed like a normal guy. He didn't put off the mad crazy math genius vibes that Vitalik Booterin did when I talk about the Vitalik Ben. Yeah. Oh, my head. I can hear you. I'm talking. Yeah. Sorry. But when I met Vitalik, it was like meeting a space alien. And this was before he had the cult of personality and the billions of dollars and all that. He was a normal kid then. But he still seemed like a hyper intelligent, socially awkward, normal kid. I didn't get that from Dorian. He seemed like a kind, gentlily old grandfather had a very strong accent, came over and talked to us. But maybe he was putting it all on like usual suspects like Kaiser Soze. And he was there just acting it up, acting like a gentlily old grandfather fooling us all at the arch toe and secretly laughing the whole time because he's Dorian Satoshi. I don't know. And I also think that using the same name as a pseudonym is kind of nonsense. I think he would at least use a different name. Let's go to Ben, your thoughts on Dorian Satoshi Nakamoto being the real Satoshi Nakamoto. Well, it's a bit weird that he was a few blocks away from Alfinney. That is a bit weird. And then also I also met Dorian in Bitcoin 2019. And I'm like, yeah, yeah, this is funny. I'll take a picture with Dorian Nakamoto. He really liked the hardware projects I did. And I was there early on because I was rupture-fitting those arcade machines, which you're super interested in in a very heart warming way. He was really helpful to hanging out, helping fit these things. And he was almost as if he was trying, he made an effort to make himself seem unremarkable. But then talking to him about his work. So he worked in telephonic type stuff. So answering machines and things, the functions of phones in the sort of 70s, 80s, I don't know what it was. And the engineering work he did was cool. Like, he knew what he was talking about. And he was a bright guy. He wasn't this bumbling, second rate mathematician, idiot engineer, which he sometimes made out to be. And I spoke to him probably because we were the only two people in the building for about an hour and a half, two hours, I think. Maybe there's a few other people, putting everything together. So I spoke to him for a good lump of time. And he was a, like you say, a lovely warm dude. And after about half an hour thinking in my head, I kept thinking, I know that it's statistically unlikely that it is you, but I really wanted to be you because you're such a nice bloke. And there's also the connection with the health thing. He really was only a short distance way from Ralfenny, which is all. Looks like Ben's frozen again. I think we'd all like to be a short distance from Hal Finney. What a great guy. What a hero. I think we just passed maybe even today, I think is the day that Hal Finney passed away four years, six years ago. Sorry, I read the tweet this morning. I don't recall. But Hal Finney was a great Bitcoin pioneer, one of the first early testers of Bitcoin. He wrote a lot of early posts on the Bitcoin mailing lists and the Bitcoin talk forum, discussing possibilities for Bitcoin thought experiments. A lot of these, like the Winklevi $500,000 coin Bitcoin. Hal Finney did the first one of those, you know, back of the matchbook calculations that she was. This thing could be worth quite a lot. And that's when it was worth nothing at all or even pennies if you could get anyone to take them off you. But as far as Dorian, Satoshi Nakamoto, my Dorian story is much the same as Ben was saying. The biggest story I've got about Dorian is that he showed up early to the art show and he helped the artists and the people setting up paint the walls white. So Dorian was there in an auger t-shirt, kind of with some paint on it. It didn't seem to care much about his appearance or whatever, just very chill laid back, gave a nice little interview with me in Mad Bitcoin, smiled at my goofy costume and agreed to take a picture with me, which I always appreciate when people do that. But yeah, I didn't get that secret evil genius or even just space otherworldly genius from him as it were. And again, we're not. I don't want to seem like we're bragging here, but just to throw in some of the other Satoshi Nakamoto candidates and as fortune has worked out, I've actually met some of them as well. But Nick Scabo, I met years ago in the Miami Bitcoin conference, I think in 2014. And we drank whiskey in my hotel room with some other people. And I asked him, I was like, I really appreciate your work on the Bitcoin project. And he kind of looked at me with kind of a knowing look and raised an eyebrow. I didn't work on that project. So I don't know what that is. If that's a denial or not a denial, or if that's him being clever, or if I was getting through his shield, but Nick Scabo, despite his incredibly right wing political views that he exposes on Twitter, I still think is a very big candidate to be Satoshi because he doesn't mention himself in the paper. And that's kind of a smart person double blind. If I tag to my paper, they're going to talk to me, but if I don't tag to my paper, they're not going to talk to me. But if I don't tag to my paper, then I'm exposing that it's probably me, that kind of thing. And then on the other hand, of course, we have Adam Back, famous Satoshi possibility, obvious genius. I definitely get that kind of vitalic, not very social, but genius feeling from him. But I also get more of a professorial vibe as Adam's an older gentleman now and not like a young Vitalik. Ben, are you back with us? I think I'm back with you. I think all I was going to say was that Dorian Nakamoto, who was a gent, and I very much enjoyed talking. He actually taught my email as well, but she never emailed me, but he taught my email. And by the end of the conversation, I was like, fuck it, could be you. But I've had, like you say, for the race, I've had so many conversations. I had one with Adam Back where I mentioned John Nash. And I said, I want to think of John Nash, Adam Back. And he said, I don't know what you're about him. And I was thinking, fuck off, like the guy who invented games here, of course, you know who this guy is. And then his very reaction to the question made me think, right, it's definitely John Nash. And then I speak to the story in Stosh and Nakamoto. I'm like, okay, it's definitely story in Stosh and Nakamoto. And then in fact, like I think the weird, I mean, we don't speak about so much in Bitcoin, among you know, our Bitcoin click, but that weird Stosh, you're leaving on the Tuesday. And then Peter Todd coming back on the Thursday, like, oh hi guys, I'm back. I was just studying art for a few years. And also the way in which Hal Finney spoke to Satoshi, very much like a mentor, you know, to a young person, a young person as well. Like, I've worked with a lot of young people and young people have the ego to think that they can smush all these technologies together and actually make something like Bitcoin. I remember once in conversation, like we were all talking, and I think I said something like, oh yeah, when you invent a Bitcoin Peter Todd, and then his reaction, I know you're a good friend of his, his reaction wasn't like, oh yeah, whatever, his reaction was like, oh he's supposed to be out. So, you know, for me, I've got like John Nash is definitely Bitcoin because of Adam Baxter action. During Nakamoto, he's definitely Bitcoin because that dude's like, Epic, I just enjoy talking too many scenes. He seemed like he was underplaying himself a lot. And then Peter Todd's definitely Bitcoin. I definitely, Satoshi, just because of the way he reacted when I challenged him on it. And Nick Sabos for you is exactly the same. So it's the Riddle of the Sphinx. I actually tweeted this today. So philosophically, there's this thing called the Riddle of the Sphinx, which is kind of a riddle you can't solve. And maybe that's the riddle itself, which is, you know, the Sphinx being something, which has four legs in the morning, two legs in the afternoon, and three legs in the evening. And then in either person, the Sphinx is human because a human is crawling, standing, and then it's an old person with a walking stick. But, but, oh sorry, the big, sorry, the beginning of the riddle is that it all speaks from one voice. So it all speaks from one voice, has four legs in the morning, two legs in the afternoon, three legs in the evening. And I think that is Satoshi. It's a riddle you can't solve. But that in itself is almost the answer to the riddle. It's something which is, should be explored, and it's very enjoyable to be explored just for stretching that gray matter. Because there's so many people who were kind of like, who it could be. There's so many, you know, usual suspects. So many guys are so days. I would love it if it was piece of Todd and maybe a few gray beds, just because that guy's a troll. He travels in piece times, travels the world, rolling all the Bitcoin conferences. And I love the idea that that's what Satoshi would be in fact doing whether it's true or not. So first, I want to say if it's Peter Todd, it's just the greatest thing because I've met him. We've got a bunch of interviews like you say he's a troll. He would be undercover in plain sight. Everybody knows him. Everybody sees him speak. He's very down to earth. He's a good guy. So that would be the best. I haven't even really even thought of that as a possibility or whatever. But that does bring up. And you also brought up with these things, the whole three in one Satoshi idea. A lot of people have said, certainly how thin he's part of this trilogy or trinity of Satoshi if we want to go there. But a lot of people talked about that Satoshi is an old man. It's a young man. And it's like a third guy. And that the old man is the mentor. And he has all the wisdom and that the young man is the brash one and the coder. And he knows how to get it done. And then there's a third person who understands the political aspects and the game theory. And that just something about Bitcoin as an invention is so difficult to make. And we've talked about this with Gabriel divine and with lots of other people here on the Bitcoin group, the multi-dimensional stress thing of Bitcoin that you have to be from different studies. You have to know politics. You have to know math. You have to know economics. You have to know computer programming. You have to know game theory. There's so many disciplines that you have to know to know Bitcoin that it couldn't have been one person. One person couldn't be so multivariate, which is again that the brain with the conspiracy theory. We try to make something simple so we can understand it. Something like an Einstein or Satoshi being just a singular person. It's too bizarre for our brains to understand. We'd rather it be a conspiracy. We'd rather Einstein be an idiot cheating with a team of 12 people. It makes more sense. So the three-in-one thing, and it's also funny. We're heading towards the end on this issue. But you wanted it to be Dorian. And before we knew anything about him, so let's put all the knowledge that you have about Craig Wright. If you put that all the way when it was just announced that an Australian computer science professor with a super computer who had a background in science, when that came out, I was excited that Satoshi was a serious intellectual and he was a scientist and he was a professor. And I also was excited just to have the questions settled. Every time there's the news Satoshi claim, I'm excited because the question might be settled and that we can stop talking about this. Also on the other side, we barely even talked about the main reason the media cares about Satoshi is because Satoshi may or may not have access to all the early bitcoins. That's a lot of money. As long as there's a lot of money out there tied to a person like the guy who robbed the bank, got on the airplane and jumped out, they're always going to be looking for that person. They're always going to be looking for that money because it's something that could show up. If Satoshi moved his money, it's spending it, the race starts anew. So it's then it's always that question because the money, the size of the money creates the question in the head and it creates the large size question. That is a major debate. When Bitcoin is 500,000, it's an important part of the world's economy. What happens to those coins will be a major worldwide debate and more than likely nothing will happen to them but there will be questions of there will be proposals to put in them. Here in our use them for that. I know there's lots of people that want them. Well, I want to go back to what you said. I want to go back to what you said on Craig Wright. Now this was an observation no one made and I love speculation. It's very fair. I just think it's fun. However, when Craig Wright said he was possibly, when he said he was Satoshi originally, everybody was thinking, this guy, maybe everyone, everyone, no one was outspoken about whether no that is definitely not Satoshi. Now someone who always sits on the fence about absolutely everything, always, to the point where it's frustrating during the whole B-cash debate was on the fence. Didn't point out and say these people are scammers. Andreas Antonopoulos always on the fence never really targets the group and says these people, and he didn't do it with the B-cash. He didn't during the year or people were like begging him to. However, when Craig Wright came out and said he was Satoshi, he instantly took to Twitter and said this man is a fraud. He's not Satoshi. He's a complete lie. He's completely not Satoshi and was triggered by Craig Wright's out and out professing that he was sitting in fact Satoshi. So the question may not be who is Satoshi but who knows the identity of Satoshi. And I would say that Andreas Antonopoulos just by that reaction and it being so unusual in his behalf does he find out who Satoshi is. So one day I'll write him and I'll find out. That's all I want to say. Now you're building into a good second question here, second exit question, exit question within an exit question. Who are your picks for best Satoshi trilogy? You have to pick three and I'm going to go out on a limb here. I'm going to pick some new ones because you just put them in my head here. What if Andreas is that third guy? What if he is the turn in the wheel and he's the economic mind. He's the game theory mind. He's the Uber smarts. Then you got Peter Todd, the young programming kid. He's hardcore and then you got Hal Finney. I throw Adam back to the side. I'm throwing a scabot of the side Dorian Satoshi Nakamoto I never even think about. But what if that was it Peter Todd, Hal Finney and Andreas and then Andreas just kind of lays low for a while. And all of it as soon as someone knows that they're Satoshi or that they know that they're on the Satoshi team, everything they do becomes different, right? Because everything they do could be world changing and they have all this kind of knowledge and all this insideerness. But what we've seen so far in at least these first 10 years is that the entire team or the entire person has been completely silent. There's been no real leaks from the Satoshi team or the Satoshi person. So that's where I'm going to go. I'm going to go Andreas, Peter Todd, Hal Finney, who have you got then? I'm probably going to go. I'm probably going to go now. I'm going to go next Abo because of the big old thing and it was that block post he's elated where he said, you know, not employed at the moment. And I'm looking for someone to code up big old so if anyone wants to help me. And then really the Peter Todd Satoshi leaving on a Tuesday, Peter Todd coming back on the Thursday after Peter Todd being involved like within the cypherponcine way pre Bitcoin, he's a kid, you know, he's 15. I'm having that whole Kaiser Sozier that the mug is spinning in 3D and Peter Todd was on the mailing list. Peter Todd was young. He was young and like he was like he was chatting about it and then all of a sudden like Bitcoin happened and then Peter Todd's gone. And then he's literally like Satoshi goes and then two days later Peter was like, how high guys I'm back. So yeah. So I love the idea of it being Peter Todd. And I want John Nash because there's part of me which thinks that the guy who invented game theory and was obsessed by money and thought that the ideal money would be that a theater currency would be would be strong armed into behaving by something like Bitcoin. The theoretically the game theoretically cracked play would be to have a hand in the thing which you know is going to strong arm the theater currency and that would be to have a hand in developing it and he was you know he worked for a round he was a mathematician he was a cryptographer he had a vast period of his career which was black excused by the fact he had schizophrenia which was shady a best. He was obsessed by money moved to Switzerland when he was you know ran away from everything and moved to Switzerland because that's when he thought the purest form of money was back in the the 60s and then went black from there on out and then you know died I think in fairly shady circumstances. So I think I think John Nash, Nick Zabow, Peter Todd that's my trio. You're picks for Satoshi trilogy or Satoshi Trinity down in the comments below. I'm curious to if you guys think that we have the right teams here or if you would choose a different team or if you're a Satoshi monotheist if you believe there's just one Satoshi I like these teams and what I also like here as I start to picture it is I'm picturing kind of a spreadsheet or even a whole final fantasy style role playing game where you could make your own Satoshi team of these different characters and then they could fight each other and that through this simulated fighting we could determine the ultimate Satoshi team like the X-Men and all these kind of things and they could include you know people that have no chance of being mad bitcoins is in the game. Oh he's good at media but he's bad not great programming and you know that you know Nash on Nash is in the game and he's good at this and I think it's a great discussion and a great argument and a great just the thing we're going to be talking about forever so I think it's super fun and again I'm I never really consider Peter Todd that much not for any good reason he's perfectly why not why don't you why don't you consider him because I've met him too much I mean I've just I've seen him at conferences and he talked on the thing with Chris years ago when I talked to Chris Ellis and Amir Taukey and Julia I'm gonna trouble here brave the world Julia Toriansky but yeah I mean all those people we just used to hang and he's just he just seems like part of the gang I've just he's a great guy I'm like I I I love to do the like I'm putting plenty of drinks and like he's a great he's a party animal and yeah he's a great guy but there's just that way how spoke to Satoshi in those you know conversations which Alan Satoshi had and there's just something to you for now about that the ego that he could take these technologies and smash them together in a way which all these great beds hadn't already previously thought about and wouldn't be great if it was Peter Todd I've always thought time stamping was so important I used to talk about timestamping back in the day with the lawyers and the note remains and understanding the nature of time and computer time can I can I give you a time stamping example so I mean this is probably unrelated but however my partner she's like a she's quite bright and she's involved in an academic study with with Oxford to do with coronavirus and linguistically kind of analyzing all these papers which are produced and you know also kind because a lot of papers being produced been out to kind of like filter through them by these sort of key linguistic values anyway the processes they use to to do these studies in Oxford it's a protocol and then that protocol has to be timestamped so the way in which they timestamp the protocol in Oxford University okay and this is this is like an accepted way of timestamping is print screening the files and folders on your desktop these are the files I used for the protocol print screen that in no way cannot be you know redacted corrupted in any way that's a that's an image crikey you know and that's an Oxford University right so we took the protocol she was using we hashed it we took that hash and then we made a a key public key and we sent funds to it like a small amount of Bitcoin now that is forever you know burn into the Bitcoin blockchain and you can reproduce that public key by hashing her protocol and and Pia Todd has opened times is it open time stamps yep open time systems yeah which which does exactly that and I am amazed that these big by academic institutions which you're doing making these protocols like why are they not using such a piece of software when we see Peter again you'll have to tell about it they'll drive him crazy he would love it if they'd use open time stamps instead of that terrible print screen method and he's also just I don't know the ideas in open time stamps are so clever I mean even as a layman I understand some of them and he he talks about proof martial and he talks about the need to have proof of things and Peter also I think forced me to learn at least a layman's understanding of what a Merkel tree is and if you took many Merkel trees you could make a cloud of Merkel trees and that you have a Merkel cloud and a lot of these large ideas come from discussions and and just thinking things through with Peter Todd so I don't know but again it's also self interest I want him to be satoshi because I know him I can't take that out of it but also an audience I saw a little chat of people are saying that Bitcoin was invented by the Chinese government or Bitcoin was invented by the okay or whatever so you can put that in as well you that's a perfect we have information so you can say perfectly valid it was a team with this it was a government team because it feels like this it was a a supply team because it felt like this I've even thought it could have been a part-time project somewhat at NSA or CIA could have done it in their spare time because they had access to such interesting things at work that gave them cool ideas but like Ben said it's a mystery may never be solved we may never know but that's okay that's the riddle of this thing that's the point like it just stretches your brain until you go insane line-on-line entry well they said they solve the riddle of the sphinx the real riddle is uh what was the sphinx originally patterned after and who built it because it's older than it seems but then again I heard that on Joe Rogan so who knows if it's true we've got to move on we've got one more issue it's a barn burner of an issue but we should only just do a basic introduction to it I just want to talk about these two ideas possibilities issue five a Stanford University debate I think this is from yet 2017 so this is years ago transhumanism versus anarcho primitivism and I'm going to go over to Belagie here what Belagie writes about this he says Zerzan encourages everyone to give up civilization and go back to a hunter gatherer lifestyle and this is the other side and I encourage everyone to do more to speed up technological and scientific progress it was the meeting of polar opposite views zoltan versus Zerzan and I first thought these were joke names made up to personify these two arguments but it turns out the two academics arguing are actually called zoltan and zerzan but let's mainly talk about the point of their two arguments transhumanism we should try to merge with computers we should encourage the singularity faster processors faster internet more interaction between man and machine or anarcho primitivism going back to a hunter gatherer cultural the environmental idea that too much humans not enough trees all this destruction of the planet trying to roll that back but not rolling that back with the help of technology rolling that back by going backwards whereas the transhumanists might say we could just clean the air later then I talked about it a bunch I'm going to you what's your preference transhumanism or anarcho primitivism well I mean so I mean in the basque region spaying when society collapsed in and of itself and there was a period of sort of anarchists taking control and you had an arcosyndicalism which actually main fact with all the technological advances we've had be a very plausible version of future reality in that it's democracy for kind of from the ground up in that you have like a say in your local community and in things which really matter to you and then you could also you know push your ideas to wider society and to wider issues by how politically active you want to be but I think anarchism makes a lot of sense it really does I wouldn't call it an anarcho primitivism I wouldn't polarize it again like there's no right or wrong good or evil you know if we can there obviously we are inclined eventually to um transcend the limitations given to us by our biological framework which we're having to deal with and our inputs and outputs um through you know augmentation that will happen and we'll embed ourselves with computers and the digital world but I think for human liberty and for the way in which you can understand society if you so if you remove all central control government and corporate and whatever else then you end up with you know an anarchist anarchist anarcho syndicalist society you end up with people who govern um uh themselves and their immediate interests and then that informs the wider interest uh we have like access to the world um uh so so neither neither neither neither are right we will um augment so we can plug in to you know the greater humanity um but we will also governments and big also big corporate so when I think gets too big now there's no reason that it can't be um uh replaced by a good free and open source system but why can't you turn amazon into a public uh commons or a utility or a protocol like why can't you turn a government into a public commons utility protocol um in the same way so any centralization of power can be uh i mean humans you know obviously you know the decision-making on that kind of management scale can be um extrapolated out to clever AI and programming uh so yes like technology is going to play a huge part in our future but we will be freeer in a way where we don't have to the idea of larger society will just be this thing which kind of administers i don't know allocation of resources to big road infrastructure and trains and whatever else and it will likely be handled by humans but more clever AI I watched over by humans on a smaller scale but no i'm awful like in our post-indicillism the experiments we've had in rajava more recently northern Syria and uh yeah i and i i i i think it's to me it's almost like when you first saw democracy flaring up during feudalism it's like great scene at the end of game of thrones where Sam suggests that the people vote for who is the next leader and everyone laughs like oh goodbye horse of earth brahara you know the covered people how can they possibly have um say on what actually happens in uh you know what how do they know what's best for them i'm asking for racial revolution you have the printing press and then you have democracy when now we have this information revolution of the internet of course it's going to impact society um but i yeah but i think everything will go go all local yeah but we'll also have a global connection then comes down in the middle with a push neither one side or the other uh i do want to say well i find an arco primitivism attractive especially in this uh over-inputed world especially with what's going on politically all these other things if we had a simpler society and i only had to worry about keeping the fire running or finding food or something like that it might it might feel better it might feel more connected uh to the real world and to the earth and so on and so forth but um as we all know from that old Dilbert episode uh from the Dilbert TV show there's a fantastic episode where Dilbert knocked down a satellite or something and pretty soon humanity has to go back uh to you know hunter gathering and society breaks down and everyone kind of likes it uh they like this kind of renaissance fair attitude they seem to have a lot more time to sit around uh their work is a lot more simple they understand it better uh but do i think we're going there as a society no uh of all the things i am and uh everyone wants people just to fit in a box and be one thing but many much like other people i'm many things and you know history and baseball and all these other things and music and movies all these other things above the mall being a liberal all this above that is technology it's really about the technology uh i am a technologist type person uh technology's gotten better in my lifetime i can do things that i used to dream of i can edit movies i can do you know internet things we can have a communication like this uh from the united kingdom uh to california you know it's amazing this was impossible uh when i was a child this was the the few people uh could do this and they couldn't even do it with video they'd have to use audio so i do think i do hope i wish that technology will save us i think we've got to stick on this course uh it is a bit scary like he says to think about accelerating accelerating the path of a i accelerating the path of technology uh Elon Musk has warned us of the potential of an a i killing us all uh potential of them not being interested uh Stephen Hawking warned us not to contact aliens uh because we might not like the results they might treat us like pets but all of those warning aside where humans we're gonna drive forward we drove forward with the atom bomb we drove forward with the industrial revolution and we're gonna drive forward with this technological revolution it's the can't be put back in the box pandora is free everything's happening now and i don't think it's going back i think um uh bet you know there's some questions which just i mean the maybe that paradox is really just drive people insane like the riddles of the snakes um uh wish you could just spend a lifetime pondering upon like whether a i would appreciate us for being able to kind of come up with those those concepts of of being in nothing much like why do we exist um uh there's a high likelihood that a i would be insane by human standard because it hasn't got the compassion of knowing the difference between being cold and being warm and being sad and being happy um so it could eradicate us in a very insane way but like uh it may also in that effect like think well you know you look at evolution you look at why um uh proteins eventually form life on a planet and then they evolve into eventually they evolve into conscious life and their conscious life builds an AI like you know what's the next step like is the is the next step for the AI to just destroy all the life and then we really get the managing the the planet i don't know like is in the next step for it to evolve beyond that point um uh so i think that a i would probably understand itself in a uh uh what's the word in the kind of you know in a linear um in a story of of the universe understanding itself a little bit more um i don't think it's going to be as scary as those people you know it could be insane and it could just destroy the planet instantly obviously i remember when when skynet comes online i think it's a matter of minutes before skynet becoming aware and then deciding to launch the missiles i'm pretty sure it was a pretty fast calculation yeah but it would be quizzical it would be it would be like well okay these humans are we're horrible yeah hold it in the minute it's cool however like why do they think this way and what are these questions these hard questions that try and solve like there would be these paradoxes which could be keep the AI thinking long enough hopefully that we could just go hide in caves and and you know survive oh i hope so i've often talked about the idea that we need um AI that will value humans right and AI that appreciates us um probably more like pets than like fellow creatures but unfortunately i think the the future we might get and there's a new video game i don't know if i'm going to get the ps5 but it's called more humans or something like that and it's a world where it's just robots but you play a cat uh so it sounds really cool it looks like a kind of a concept game but that idea to me is is the possibility where the robots wake up they nuke us but then they spend thousands of years writing about us and studying us and discovering us and and eventually they have debates in the robot camps like what should we have killed all the humans oh i don't think we should so i was over but it doesn't matter like the disorder that the die has been cast the humans are all gone uh they can only really speculate about them another good one there didn't directly reference it but the animatrix series is really good it's old now but it's an it's great um type collection about the matrix fantastic you should get it's really good like it's that it's that it's not anything remembers but before they produced the other films like the matrix was such a like revolutionary film it was so good and um uh uh the the the animatrix came out like after that and it was such i wish the other matrices had gone that way like they i don't incorporate some of the the stories or themes but that there was what a great series that was it was i was great yeah i enjoyed that loads um but um you're coming online is just so good it's such a it's a yeah now you just remember it visually the uh the two robots coming to the united nation with an apple trying to make friends with humanity humanity wanting to kill them all and the robots being ready for it yeah yeah i like i like the idea i like the idea that may be i mean so philosophically you know when you look back at the Greeks and the ancient Egypt like they have the Greeks specifically so many of these ideas and concepts and like really hard like the idea of the dialectic came really hard concepts came from that period and then it's almost as if we got really confused by all the consumerism feudalism and all the drama and tabloid crap which was going on in the world that we almost like lost our path on and try and basically are that that they're kernel like why are we here like what is our impact in the universe and all that stuff and i think that you know when we hopefully get to that leisure society like humans will be given that choice to to expand that understanding and i do think that a i will be interested in that like if you look at all these important ideas and thoughts and they then philosophies they all come and kind of come from that Greek period and and then there was obviously they were expanded throughout you know the centuries and you know how people are haggle and daycars and wherever else but um it's uh uh that's really where the important stuff happens you know um uh and sometimes we've become too wound up in the material world that we don't continue that conquest of of of of understanding the human uh the human i don't know just the human experience in that way well whatever you do don't tell the young people because they won't even watch black and white movies so if all the philosophy they need to know comes from ancient Greece uh there's no chance they're going to be interested but we've got a head towards the end of the show uh band do you have a story of the week for us well i mean like so you know obviously um big coin is an all-consuming thing which just pulls you in and affects you and i've got so many other things i should be doing but this week i've spent most of my time making a lightning pussycat so it's a i mean this is this is so this is uh you're really great if your video worked yeah my video not working yeah i haven't been working for a while but it wasn't really important from now well i mean so basically i i will i will release the tutorial on the workup then i work pre-recorded so it should just you know obviously won't work it doesn't it depends upon my terrible internet speed in this times of crisis uh but it's basically just a little cheap lamp which you can turn into uh lndi node monitor um it's green when the node is working it's red when it's dead and uh it uh pink when it's sinking and then when it you get a transaction the little light just does a little disco thing but it's useful like my node i want it to be locked away somewhere safe and then um uh i want just a little monitor like a little lamp is perfect for me so i look forward to people like making those cheap like under 20 dollars probably to make using the same hardware i always use just apart from this little ten dollar lamp very cool people can check out that tutorial soon and it's a very cute like a a glowing cat lamp so it's kind of like it would glow if you get a transaction or would blink if something was happening so it's really neat uh to be able to hook bitcoin up to these real world devices and right now it's just kind of hobbyist stuff but eventually i'm sure there'll be all kinds of devices with bitcoin monitoring built in or your alarm clock will beep if the price of bitcoin goes up stuff like that again though it's it's the point like like you you need di-y free and open source enthusiasts building these alternative weird things they've got control over and that then informs and strong arms like you know the commercial world into behaving itself um so you need a free and open source hardware wallet scene you need a free and open source like node making scene where we all make our own shit and iot making scene as well because it just like forces the commercial interests to pay themselves a lot of them all it shows a potential demand a potential market and uh they love them modding they love that just the different variety of devices and the uh again then future the the different variety of devices they can sell uh so my my story of the week is i've just been having a great time this week doing kind of political commentaries it's a very important period in the united states the election of 2020 a lot of people on both sides are very excited uh we had the republican national convention last week we talked about that we also had some very unfortunate events in the united states uh but we're trying to avoid that today but it's been great uh that everyone uh let's me talk about politics and let's us explore these ideas in an open environment where we can all learn something and maybe if you hear ideas that you disagree with uh you can you know expand and think about them some more and maybe come to a new understanding or include those ideas uh and then again we can always come back to things that we agree on like bitcoin and like the value of a discussion like this show so thanks to everybody for joining us on those shores and shows and for supporting us in the comments and with all the the likes and the shares it's been great uh also check out the world crypto network store at worldcrypto network dot store you can get the treasures don't float t-shirt the bitcoin not bombs bitcoin have an in 2020 special edition world crypto network this shirt and world crypto network the mug uh we're gonna look into offering some more product soon but thanks again to everybody who's purchased these t-shirts and mugs it really helps support the show and keeps us doing what we're doing so thanks so much for joining us thanks Ben for being our guest i think we're running out of time here i'm gonna find the right button to push there are so many but be sure to give us a thumbs up and a share subscribe down below if you already haven't but uh until next time bye bye