The Bitcoin Group, the American Original. For over the last ten seconds, the sharpest Satoshi's, the best Bitcoin's, the hardest cryptocurrency talk. We'd like to welcome our panelists, Dan Eave, the crypto raptor. Joaquin Wismer from General Bites. Hi guys, nice to be here. Josh Egala from thestandard.io. God save the Queen. Ben Arck from Lightning, Bits, Ellen Bits. The Queen is dead, lonely with the King. And I'm Thomas Hunt from the World Crypto Network. It's a good time to push the thumbs up button. And now moving on to issue one. White House suggests a ban of proof of work mining, saying that it uses too much energy. As we've expected for quite a while, they're attacking Bitcoin and they're attacking Bitcoin because it uses too much energy. It's a great time to remind everyone that Ethereum is switching to proof of stake, which they're now calling environmentally friendly, TEM, proof of stake. Dan Eave is the White House serious. Are they going to cut back on Bitcoin mining? Because Bitcoin mining is the only thing in the world using electricity. Well, do you know what was a lot of energy? Moaning about Bitcoin wastes a lot of energy. Maybe there's a lot of, because Ethereum based projects seem to have a lot more funding, because people raise lots of money out of thin air with Ethereum. This is a lot more lobbying going on. And people who would be lobbying Bitcoin for Bitcoin don't want to lobby because they don't want to give away their Bitcoin. Whereas Ethereum, they're just happy to blow it. And maybe that's why some of these decisions are being made against more against Bitcoin than say Ethereum. But I mean, that article had a very small section about the right up. About the good uses of Bitcoin. So from Ventid methane, I think they could have explored a bit more about how it's used to encourage sort of energy usage. Docs. But the fact is that I think this is going to, you know, this environmental stigma is going to carry on for a long while, especially while the Ethereum crew have their proof of stake cake and they're just going to use proof of work as a stick to beat Bitcoin with not covering the useful part of Bitcoin and proof of work, which is the fact that it makes things far more secure and less easy to game than proof of stake, especially when you've got a pre-mine on the go, which gives people the ability to have a big saying in the, well, the choices for the Ethereum development, for example. So I don't know. I think it's going to be interesting to see how they decide to regulate it in some way. But there were, you know, the fact is that even electric, the points about it being an issue for the grid, you know, being a burden on the grid, well, even in, is it California, they've said that there's issues with the grid at the moment, probably because of all the electric cars being used. So as there is other things that use electricity that, you know, fair enough, an electric car doesn't give out emissions, but there's emissions making the car and it's still got a run on power in some way. So I don't know. I think it's, I think it's going to be interesting to see how this plays out. But ultimately, you know, Bitcoin's proof of work is what makes it so secure. So it needs to stay that way. Well, it's, it's never too late to get on the bandwagon to ban electric cars. Martin Wishmeyer, we've heard that Bitcoin is drug money. We've heard that Bitcoin is only good for money laundering. And now it's that it uses too much energy. What do you think about the latest problem with Bitcoin? Yeah, Bitcoin was drug money. It was the only pay to pay your, way to pay your dealer back in 2012. But nowadays you can do a lot more with it. And, but now the complaint is we use it uses too much electricity, which I think it's, you know, it's it's based on false assumptions that there's like, you know, it Bitcoin miners go where, where electricity is cheapest. And as Dan pointed out, if they want to vent methane, methane, you know, it's a byproduct of, of fracking, for example, that that that that is cheapest. And it's also very good because by burning the methane, instead of just letting it go, you're actually reducing a greenhouse emissions by, I believe, to four fifth. So it's it is actually helping to save the environment, in my opinion. The other end, this is, it's also Bitcoin is growing to a point that, you know, they can't ban it anymore. So they have to attack it in another way. And this with a whole green, green agenda, this is a good, you know, for them a good point to try and attack it. I don't think it will damage Bitcoin too much. I mean, you know, it's a Bitcoin miners will continue to mine. But we've seen similar things here in Europe, where the central bank basically subsidized articles that made Bitcoin look bad in this energy use, while, you know, just conveniently forgetting the amount of energy used by all the bankers, the central bank and Eddie Holtz's existing traditional finance system. So no, I think this is a bunch of bullshit to be honest. Can we say that on YouTube, or is that like forbidden? I don't know. I think you can say it. OK. As long as it's not in the first five minutes, Josh, Gala, what do you think is this bullshit? We all know like Martinez saying that was report was released that traditional banking, all of the buildings, all of the armored cars, the ATMs, the buildings, full of people, the offices, all the electricity, the vaults uses way more energy than Bitcoin. It's almost as if a new technology has come along. And it's more efficient than the banks. And the banks are trying to get the White House and Washington to stop this new technology with legislation. Josh, Gala, what do you think about that? Yeah. This is one point about proof of stake that I've kind of liked, to be honest, is that it's very, very hard. It's very easy to ban proof of work because it's quite easy to see. I remember even back in the day when there was hardly any hash power on Bitcoin, there would be cops knocking down like houses, door and houses, thinking they've got massive growth arms, but weed, but it turns out they had some Bitcoin miners. So you can quite easily see the amount of electricity pouring into a certain place. So this is the thing like where China banned Bitcoin mining. It's very easy to sky as proof of stake because it just looks like any other traffic. That's not to say it's better. I'm just stating the fact there that it is a little bit harder to see proof of stake. So, but, but I do feel that it just cannot be stopped. They can try it out, Laura. They can spread fud like crazy. You know, we've gone about it at Norsium on this show. There is the fact that the PlayStation network on standby uses up more electricity than Bitcoin network does. There is the fact that actually most miners search for renewable energies and it's the very few miners that use coal and some of the older legacy mechanisms and carbon heavy mechanisms for fuel because they usually use them in communist countries or countries that have a heavily subsidizing energy. And then those governments don't like Bitcoin miners because they're using all this energy up. So, and then you have the point of something like Iran, which are actually mining Bitcoin because they have cheap energy. And so, if you ban it in some of these sort of green washed countries, I think you'll just get it popping up in other places that don't care. And so, yeah, I don't see it as a problem. Bitcoin's going to keep on going. It's so overly secure right now with the amount of hash power that it has on the network. It's silly. It's absolutely ridiculously over secure, which is great. It should stay like that. So even if it drops a little bit, it doesn't really matter. Bitcoin is mega secure. Ben, why does Bitcoin need all these big heavy computers when Ethereum has environmental friendly proof of stake? It's hard to see Bitcoin mining if you're not on the grid. If you're on the grid and using electricity, then it's easy to see Bitcoin miners or people running cannabis farms or something. But if you're not on the grid, I use renewables or some renewable source. It's less easy to see. And I think that's probably, hopefully, where logic will lie in the end of all this, that they will just ban Bitcoin miners who aren't using renewables or a certain percentage of renewables because Bitcoin miners, they're not crypto anarchists in the basement of these big massive operations, which can be lobbied, they're higher security than a part of the network which don't require, don't need the same privacy which we have. They're just high security, so we cannot be them to reduce renewables. But I think they did a, you know, it was kind of superficial, and I think about the new wants involved in the topic or the debate. But I think they probably did a pretty good job with that research, and they concluded that currently, proof of work is mostly done in a very heavily carbon way. And it's, and it is, you know, thermodynamically perverse. We're not using enough renewables for mining. But as it was on the Bitcoin talk, and it was Satoshi answered to a post when someone said Bitcoin is thermodynamically perverse, and he said that I think, given the things that were replaced, that it will be a net positive. And that's where I personally, you know, there's a lot of good work being done on trying to get Bitcoin to be incentivized, use of renewables. But I think just as easily it incentivized the use of fossil fuels and dirty forms of fuel which are cheap. But ultimately, like you said, Thomas, all the stuff it replaces, then compared to the amount of carbon which is produced by, you know, central banks and banking infrastructure and the petrodollar, then, you know, it will be a net positive. But, and, you know, I personally hope that they would just say, you're not going to ban, you can't ban proof of work, it's banning maths, you can't ban maths, it's ridiculous. But they will say we'll ban these big mining operations or heavily regulate these mining operations so they have to use renewables. And then people will just use renewables, it's still profitable. And then government could play a part in being part of that journey of Bitcoin shifting to renewables. Yeah. And incredibly reasonable solution, impossible. Moving on to the exit question, predict the price of Bitcoin, Dan Eve, and let us know in the chat down below, what do you think the price is going higher or lower and push the thumbs up button? Dan Eve, higher or lower this time next week? Well, I'm out to beat Jim Kramer's streak of being incorrect. So I'm going lower again. Josh, it got a higher or lower. But you're muted because it was kicking back. It's going higher. It's going higher. Higher, Ben, Ark, is the pessimism nightmare over? Last week I said higher and then so this week I'm going to go lower. Martín, wish mayor, Ben, just all over the place here. We're going back to 10K, yeah, I've been told. 10K? Yeah. 10% after a 10% bump and the Ethereum merge excitement. Only the ball knows for sure. And now we will shake the magic eight ball. Will the price of Bitcoin be higher this time next week? The ball says no. A commanding no from the ball. The ball has spoken. Moving on to issue two. Issue two, US lawmaker says there's too much money and power behind crypto to ban it. It seems like a Sherman here, Brian Sherman, Brad Sherman has says Congress has not banned crypto because there's too much money and power behind it. It's like he's going through the stages of grief here, but with Bitcoin. At first he hated Bitcoin and then he tried to ban it. Now he's finally come to the stage where he says, okay, I give up. I can't ban Bitcoin. Josh, what do you think? Because he correct there's too much money and power behind crypto to ban it. And then there's the other problem where technically they couldn't ban it anyway. Josh. Well, these people are sick. They're sick in the head. They're sick power hungry freaks. Why should someone even have the thought of banning a message passing mechanism that where you can have rare assets, rare numbers flowing across that? These people are demented with power. These are megalomaniacs that shouldn't be listened to and they should be thrown out of power movement because obviously they power their power mad. And this idiot, this absolutely disgusting fool needs to shut the hell up and just deal with his own life, make his own life better, make his own family life better. Stop telling everyone else what to do. And I just have enough of these politicians going around telling people how to live, especially with technology that doesn't do any harm to anybody, it only creates good in this world. Sure, bad people can use it, just like bad people wear shoes and we all wear shoes. But at the end of the day, it's ridiculous to go around calling for banning anything. His Brad Sherman is such a disgusting human being wanting to control and tell me what to do and tell you what to do. I just can't stand it. I see Josh. I see it the other way. I think that what Sherman's doing here is actually quite reasonable. He had a bunch of tools. He had a tool that allowed him to say regulate economies. He had a tool that allowed him to regulate countries like Iran with sanctions. And if we follow Bitcoin and crypto to its eventual end, it ruins all that, right? It ruins the tools that he has been given by the people. So I think he's right to tell the people that they're going to lose their tools, their ability to regulate countries and things. But I also think he hasn't quite reached the level of inevitability where he's like, because Bitcoin has been invented and because it's superior to fiat in this, this and this, that way. It will be used. It will completely destroy sanctions and other economic tools. It's because of people like that, that that e-gold and Liberty Reserve and some private money. This one is Satoshi stayed anonymous because people have tried to make alternative currencies that compare that were competition to the Fed and they got arrested and thrown in prison. They got shut down by people like him. And it was the whole point of Bitcoin and why I was so bullish from day one was that you cannot shut this beast down. All you can do is live with it. So that's exactly to your point. You can just live with it. And so he has to actually live with it. And you know what I tend to think is that he probably got given some Bitcoin or he's bought some now and now he's like, oh, well, we can't bad it now. It's all about self-interest. That's why I'm a big fan of air dropping Bitcoin on to politicians. So they just go away and start becoming greedy. I don't know that it was just self-interest. I think it's a philosophical issue where he keeps going through these steps and he keeps getting closer to just understanding what some of us understood right away that Bitcoin has a superior money. Ben Arck, what do you think about the lawmaker saying there's too much money and power behind crypto to ban it? I think it's positive and I think he's right. And Bitcoin now is too big to fail. And I like the part in it where he said, you know, to begin with, we didn't care. And then it got to a certain size where we couldn't control it. And that was the point. And we said that on the show years ago, we said eventually it will get to the point. The trod will get in and they won't be able to control it. And that's what's happened. So it's positive. We made it like we want. Like we're there. So it's fantastic. And he's acknowledging that as well. It's also primarily on cooperation, like holding state hostage, like it's a commons. And the participants within that commons who are heavily resource a lot of them. It's within their interest to fight for the health and survival of that commons. So it's great. He's got a point and he's right and it's good if we won. Martin Wiesmer, did we win? Yes, I think we won. It's like Ben just said, it's been going on for years. And we've been managed to keep under the radar for such a long time. And now it's a trillion dollar industry or multi trillion dollar. I don't know. We don't even count it anymore. And it's there to stay. If a government decides to ban it, we back our suitcases and we go elsewhere. And we don't have to transfer money via the bank. We just take our bitcoins and go elsewhere. And this is immense power. I think we've never seen something like that before. Because it's like Bitcoin has value all over the world. It's not that you can like it or that they're only good in the US or like the euro, only good in Europe. No, it's everywhere you can use Bitcoin. And I think it's amazing. And yes, I think he drew the right conclusion that he can't. It's too big to ban. Greying with Josh there too, the fact that he even thinks, yes, the authority or the power to ban such a thing creeps me out. But now we serve him right. Bitcoin wins. Well, everybody likes to ban new technologies. Dan, Eve, what do you think? Is he correct? It can't be banned. Oh, it's too big. Yeah, it needed to stay under the radar. And people, it needed people to dismiss it and just think that it's some sort of crazy, initially a crazy Ponzi scheme was just used by criminals. And therefore, they're not going to pay much attention to it because only few people use it because it's just a new crazy technology. And now it's just embedded in so many parts of society and it's growing. But also they're realizing that it's not just used for nefarious things. It's actually used for as money, as users of medium of exchange and international currency. I like the quote that stuck in my head. He said we didn't ban it at the beginning because we didn't realize it was important. So that's an admission that he realizes he's starting to realize it's importance. It's not just this crazy money making Ponzi scheme. And when he last slated Bitcoin in the possession where he called, he says something like Mongo, Mongo is Mongoosecoin and then someone made a Mongoosecoin. But now he's actually starting to realize that it's important. And the fact that he also says something that's quite telling is that we didn't ban it now because there's now too much money and power behind it. And mentioned in a few other sentences about how it could be used for lobbying. So he's basically thinking I could make a lot of money on my campaigns by accepting crypto donations. These people that are extremely rich can pay me off and keep me in government. So very, very telling that is about the system that we have in terms of lobbying. But the other thing that he says about that, he just believes it poses a systemic threat undermines the US dollar dominance. But what really undermines the US dollar's dominance is printing so many more US dollars. It's the same thing about like when shells used to be used as a currency. And the system collapsed when you could just go and get shells from elsewhere and just bring them all back and basically flood this system and they lost their value. And that's the same thing that's happening with the dollar. The more you print it, the more it loses its values. We're seeing with this crazy inflation, which they're trying to blame on all sorts and everything other than insane amounts of dollar printing. The shell market completely wrecked by waves. Moving on to issue three coin base is helping sue the US treasury over tornado cash sanctions. Coinbase says they'll pay the legal cost for six people's challenging the OFAC and the complaint argues that the treasury overestept its authority. Ben Arck, what do you think about coinbase joining to sue the treasury over tornado cash? I guess this is related to the previous article, isn't it? Like these heavily resourced companies, they're able to kick back and they are able to fight back. I mean, props to Armstrong. He's done something good for the industry. He's managed to find some employees at Coinbase who were using tornado cash in legitimate ways to send funds to Ukraine. I think he had five employees or something to be managed to find. They weren't using for in a various reasons. So just wanted privacy for good and honest reasons. So yeah, for the first time in the show, I think, what didn't Mr. Armstrong? Long live Mr. Armstrong. Obviously only Nixon can go to China. Martin Wismer, Coinbase, has famously banned every privacy coin. They would ban your account if you sent money to a privacy coin address. But now all of a sudden, they're on the side of privacy. What do you think about that? Yeah, you know, we've been bitching about Coinbase pretty much here. We've been hitting them again and again. But this, I think, is a good move. Wouldn't be surprised if they have a good chance of winning it, too, because they're basically prohibiting an open source software project. Just because some people used it for illegal laundry of money, quite a lot, Northern Korean Ethereum went through it. I've been reading. There's also many people that got stung because of these sanctions and they just legitimate users. It's like prohibiting greenhouses because some people use them to grow marijuana. I think that's just, it just makes no sense. Very good Coinbase. You will not get me back as a client, but I will remember your good deed for later days. Dan, you have more celebratory words for Coinbase here. A shocking turn of events on this show. Yeah, Kudos. Let the government get away with something like this and just blanket banning something. When it's just a technology, it's the same as we've said before, like about just banning the internet, right? Ban the internet because some people do ban email because some people get fished. It's just a stupid thing, especially banning certain smart contracts as a blanket. People are having their funds frozen. They've done absolutely nothing wrong. One of the angles that Coinbase has taken is about the fourth amendment, which is the unrightful seizure of people's property and money. It's a fair point. You just think about how many people have been affected by the OFAC, just basically publishing a list of hashtags has used tornado cash from EtherScan. It's insane. There's loads of mislabeled addresses and it's ruining that a lot of people's lives right now, who were just using the service completely innocently. And they're being tarnished with the, you know, or an aferious brush that sweeps so broadly. So it's insane to ban a technology rather than actually go for the people using the technology. And just think how far backwards the world would be right now if we did that every single time someone used a technology badly. We barely move at all because any tool can be used badly. A hammer can be used nefariously, a nail can be used nefariously. You could hit someone with a dish. And so we have to eat using our hands. How far do you go? And so this is the insane thing. You've got to let their technology run. And you can't just ban things willingly, especially when you do it in such a broad way, without really looking into the nitty gritty of who's using it and who should be banned, rather than just banning as a broad stroke. Josh Shagala, let me hand you a handful of food and see if you have something good to say about Coinbase as well. Yeah, I big, big prop up for Brian and Coinbase. I think it's really important move. I think this is what needs to happen. We need to say no, this doesn't stand. This shall not stand. This aggression. I think that when you have a unjust, it is for the powerful in that niche to stand up for the unjust because the developers from tornado cache can't stand up for themselves. And the people using it, I've used tornado cache because I needed to pay someone. I didn't want them to know all of my weird NFTs and of Thomas Hunt's face. No, but you know, look, the Ethereum is a complete nightmare when it comes to privacy. It's ridiculous. All I need is one transaction to me and I can look into everything that they have. It's ridiculous. Of course, you need something like tornado cache and actually big props to Coinbase. I went through and had a look at what else they're doing and they're actually funding grants into people researching zero knowledge proofs. So there's lots of stuff happening. I think good on your Coinbase. I think money needs privacy. I think criminals need to be exposed. The good old-fashioned way and that is good old-fashioned police work. This whole notion that we have to stop a good money protocol is ridiculous. We have to stop criminals with good old-fashioned police work and that's the way you do it. Yeah, the tool of following money was a great tool. We had it for a little bit but it's just not sustainable to say that, well, we have bad people in the world and this is the only way to catch them. No, it's not. There's many ways to catch bad people doing bad things. But there's many good things that we do with money and we need good money in this world for us. For the normal people, the normal book to have good strong currency and that's what Bitcoin's building, that's what we're building at the standard and that's why we need good privacy and money. Exit question, force prediction, yes or no, will Coinbase win their lawsuit? Ben Arck. Yes, they will. Martin Wishmeer. Not very helpful myself but good I was for trying. Dan Eve. Yeah, I want them to but I think the hammer is strong of the law. Josh Shagollah. Well, it's very hard to go to the police chief and complain about racism when you know the police chief is also in the KKK. You know what I mean? You cannot go to the establishment and complain about the establishment. Staying that, I think it's very important that they do at least try. I think that the more that you do that, the more they don't do it the next time. May basically because they know some money is behind it. Maybe you can complain to the establishment. It worked for Martin Luther. He had 96 theses. Coinbase will win because they have lots of money and money wins lawsuits. Check out the World Crypto Network audio podcast. It's up to date. It even has last week's episode which we apologize for the delay. It was temporarily blocked from all of YouTube because we dared to use footage of the Snoop Dogg and Eminem Board Ape Yacht Club performance at the video music awards. But you can always check out the audio version on the podcasts wherever you listen to podcasts. Moving on to issue four. Major Bitcoin mining pool with 10% of the hash rate pooling appears to be insolvent with draws have been frozen. It looks bad for pooling. They might not have enough money to pay out what they're supposed to. Martin Wishmer, what do you think about the trouble for pooling who switched to zero fees recently? Yeah, I try to ask if Alejandro would have any comments. But he already left a year ago or something. So he jumped ship just in time. From what I understood is that the way the payouts worked, FBBS or something full paper share, this requires a bit of luck. I think they ran out of luck. So yeah, maybe they also had expenses and that adds up. It's definitely not good. So this is, I think, one of the reasons they're switching their payouts, what do you call it, scheme or protocol from FBBS to this other one. So it's, yeah, I wouldn't definitely, we wouldn't point my miners to that pool anymore. I go with another one. There's plenty of fish in the sea, so not a big thing. It's unfortunate. Maybe they spend too much. I don't know. I hope we get some official information from pooling at the time. Because for now, for me, it's just speculating. Dan, you've trouble for the pool. Well, it doesn't sound positive. They're trying to counter it by like, you know, a lot of people locking in their funds, right? And trying to make use of them as a custodial wallet. So it seems a bit sketchy. I wouldn't want to keep my funds in some way. There's there's there's, you know, potentially insolven. So I don't know, it's, yeah, it's not looking positive. But ultimately, they're what, they're, they're, they're fourth or ranked fourth or fifth. So it's, they're pretty significant or fifth. Yes, so fourth, they're fourth, with Binance just behind, Binance will just behind. So 10% of the hash rate is, you know, it's not like it's just going to stop, right? If people just move, they're going to shift their miners to use another pool. It's not like that's going to be a dent to Bitcoin security. But you've always got to watch out, right? Try not to keep your funds on on an exchange is what we were always saying, keep, you know, hold your Bitcoin in your own private keys. Because when anything, anything could become insolven, even if it is a mining pool. And so, you know, you can end up losing the funds that you need to pay your electricity fees. So wherever you can, just try and keep your Bitcoin in your own pockets, rather than in someone else's, because you can trust yourself more than you can trust someone else to look after your money. That's a good point, Dan, that this is actually just a financial problem for some Bitcoin miners. The Bitcoin network would be fine at 90% as well as these miners can just redirect to another pool, continuing to secure the network. Josh, all of this reminds me a lot of what we talked about just a few weeks ago when we talked about cryptographic proof of exchanges and how the exchange might not have all the money. And now here it is, a pool operator seems to not have all the money. Yeah, it's a bit of a shame. I always like pulling, but if you can have a look at that graph for the proof of work. This is interesting to watch what happens with people and how quickly the hash power redistributes, but you can have a look. There's two pools here. And that proof of work, as much as I love it, you've got to point out when there's stuff that concerns you. And this concerns me, but there's three pools that hit over 51%. It's been like that for years, right? There's always, but people used to make a lot more. Three pools, three pools over 15%. Sorry, Josh. I mean, I mean, I mean, it deals with pools together, create like, three and four. And F2 pool are more than 50%. I think this is what George begins. That's what I bet. Exactly. That's what I mean. So, but you know, I like to say that off proof of study because, and I just, I love proof of work. I'm not, I'm not against it. I'm just saying that to, to, we need to as a community be more vocal when it comes to some of these pools being far too large. And, you know, pool and dropping out like this and dropping the ball. It's not good. It's not good. They need to, you know, I don't know what they need to do. But yeah, again, one of the things about these sorts of problems that pop up in Bitcoin over time is that most of the things that happen in Bitcoin are anti-spread jobs. So, usually what will happen is that now someone will develop a pool mechanism where it becomes more, it becomes harder for pools to do this. So, maybe payouts happen straight away through lightning in real time or something like that. I'm not sure. But this is what happens is when there's a big problem and a lot of people lose money. Basically, there's a market now for someone to solve that problem and, and come back bigger and stronger. But my, my critique on pools still are that there is far too much power. And back in the day, you used to have huge threads on Bitcoin talk, absolutely slamming some of these when they reached over a quarter of the, of the hash power. And, and, and, you know, asking people not to add more hash power to certain pools and stuff. I don't know. I'm not in the mining game too much. And I'm not sure if that's still happening. But I don't think so. I don't think it's happening as much as it used to. You know, what I think when I look at this list is one of the big players is missing here. I don't see any block stream pool. Maybe like Josh is saying there's time for a kind of a community driven pool or a pool that's not so much focused on the money, more focused on the mining. Something like that, a stability based pool. Ben Arck, what do you think about pooling? They're 10% of the Bitcoin market and the possibility that they don't have enough money to make their payouts. I mean, I guess this is why, you know, thank God that miners don't run the network, the users run the network. And that was proved because then that 51% attack if the miners run the network would be a bit a little bit more scary. But I'm going to show my ignorance here. Do all miners use pools or some of these big miners, so they're not use pools. They all use the pools. I'd say pretty much the miners would use the pool unless you had an incredible amount of mining software to the point where you could have your own pool. The problem with not being in a pool is if you mine a bunch of stuff and then don't get any reward. At least if you're part of a pool, you get a fractional rewards. You get part of the reward. I'd be interested to see the data and how many people are mining outside of a pool because not that many. Okay. So yeah, I've shown my... Maybe those guys with the block eruptors and they're like, you know, one, everyone gets struck by lightning sometimes and they're sometimes even twice in the same place and they're hoping they hit it. That those are the ones. It's like, we were small fry early on and a lot of these companies and businesses set up their operations with, you know, limited access to talent when they were setting up their software and a lot of them probably got hacked. A lot of them probably don't have the reserves they say they have or people assume they have, which is why I proved for reserve type stuff like Kraken did is quite important. But this demand for withdrawals and bears, they've got to pay their bills. We've we lots of people they want to withdraw their money so they can survive the bear market. And then the question becomes, you know, is this something like a contagion which is just going to be limited to pool in or is it going to extend to other mining pools as well who haven't potentially got all the reserves they say they have. And I would be surprised if a lot of them don't. But yeah, there's no fees for people staking thing. It doesn't look good. It doesn't look good. And then I wouldn't want to believe my Bitcoin on that personally. But yeah, proof for reserves. We just need proof for reserves. We need more talent. And mining pools of the future will be less hackable. They'll lose less likely to lose their funds. They'll less likely to be cavalier with funds. And and then not end up not having the reserves, which they say they have. So ultimately like Josh said, it's, you know, it's a hardening exercise. It'll make Bitcoin stronger. Well, I think Ben is right. This isn't something that happens during the ball market. This is something that happens during a bear market. Maybe their payout system would have worked if it wasn't for those kids and their dog. Moving on to issue five, it ties into what Ben was saying. crypto.com walks out on nearly 500 million dollar sponsorship with a major European league at the last minute. Perhaps the great and amazing nightmare of Bitcoin and crypto advertising is over. The company that launched Matt Dylan and Matt Damon and Fortune favors the brave into the stratosphere. Maybe cutting back on their advertising. Dan Eve, what do you think is this the end of an era? We won't see LeBron James, Larry David, Reese Witherspoon, Tom Brady sponsoring and being sponsored by crypto companies. Are they going to start tightening their belts? Indeed, it sounds like they can't afford the bear market. They can't afford Reese Witherspoon. So they're going to have to hire Reese without Reese without her spoon. But wow, wow, wow. But initially I thought this was just as the bear market stuff, right? But it does seem like they're kind of taking the the regulatory stance here. They're saying like they cut the they cut the deal more around the legal side because they're kind of worried about the European regulators and how they would react to their crypto products. So I don't think it's as kind of dry as obviously a lot of the crypto companies are going through a winter that there's been the insolvency issues and not in tolerance issues that the three-hour is capital cascade of craziness with Celsius and and voyager and stuff also being hit. So I think that obviously does have something to do with it. But the fact is that regulation is still on the horizon, especially in Europe. And we've been talking about the US and Old Ben, Ben Sherman, Brad Sherman. So it's on everyone's minds at the moment. And why would you risk 500 million in a market that could just heavily regulate you and stifle any form of advertising you have? You might pay 500 million for that deal and then suddenly they say that you're not allowed to advertise, right? Not like kind of like how certain countries don't allow advertising of sports betting on sports games. So you know, you're basically killing the advertising power that you would have had. So yeah, I don't think it's just kind of dry as it just being the bear bear bear market. I think these companies are still continuing to grow. There's lots of sensible people that are dollar-cost averaging. And buying whilst things are cheap whilst the Bitcoin fire sales on. So I think we're going to see a lot more deals coming out. They may not be as big and crazy as they were in the ball market with the stadium, the latest, the Lakers stadium being being bought and stuff like that. But we are going to see other big deals coming from the more sensible companies that are still going and want to build their books for when the ball market hits again. Josh, Shagala is Dan Eve, right? We thought we were going to get a commercial with Brad Pitt. We ended up with Brad Spit. They kind of forward half a billion dollar advertising budget. Whoa, they'll just cut back a little and instead of one, I don't know, just it's just silly, whatever crypto.com. Oh, the tragic loss of another company is half billion dollar advertising budget. We've literally been on Smell of an Oily Rag at Voltory.com since 2015. And we're still here. We've had funding of only two million over the whole time and we're still here. I don't know how these companies that have so much money screwed up so bad. It's just weird. I think you just want to put your name on something. You want that big deal and then you just get that idea that the big deal is going to translate to sales. And unfortunately, as I've experienced in startups, everything can be tracked through Google now. So if you really want a good deal, it's the deal that actually brings in subscribers, actually brings in sales, whatever you're trying to motivate for. And I don't know. Some of these big deals, they just bring in name recognition. Ben, are crypto.com pulled back half a billion dollars? Are we still going to know that name? Or are we going to suddenly forget? Yeah, I mean, I guess the assumption is that these big companies are run by rational people and not people who just got rich quick and managed to buy into the right market at the right time. And it's just like the .com bubble. During the .com bubble, there's all these sports teams, everything was responsible. All these companies, no one had ever heard of doing some .comy type thing. And then when the .com bubble popped, then all those sponsorship deals, they went away and they didn't have the money and the resource to do that. So we had a boom period. And now we're in a bear market and that's just the realities of a bear market. And I think that the regulatory stuff is just an excuse. I think they're just probably a bit strapped for cash. And then they probably don't deserve the amount of money which they had access to. But it's just a part of our Bitcoin cycle. We've done it a few times with Bitcoin. And we'll continue to do it, I'm sure. But yeah, it was a symptom of a bubble popping and then not being out of order to sponsor this thing. Martín Wishmeyer, they're out of money. No more sponsorships, no more Matt Damon. Yeah, it's a credit card. And to be honest, you have to put in a whole bunch of shit coins. And then you see the value go down and down and down and down. And then the the extra freebie deals went by by so no more Netflix for you, no more Spotify, no more prime. Then the cashback went from 5% to 3%. Then they have the crypto earn rate, you know, the interest you get on anything you put in a three-month deposit there. And then they have to. Again, in the meantime, they fired hundreds of stuff that got some PR out of it. But then quietly, let's go of hundreds more. So I think, you know, and then like last week that somebody was supposed to get like $60 back, but they got 10 million because they screwed up. It's a whole, it's not just one thing that fucked up. It's a whole string of things. And I think the larger a company gets, the more idiots are running around within the company. You know, you can't just hire smart people. There's always going to be idiots around. And if it's cash and the product is crypto and it's cash, then you'll be in for some costly mistakes. So yeah, I don't, I don't, I seriously don't think they can still afford to pay that sponsorship with their crow token because it's, it's next to worthless nowadays, you know, every time I get a cashback, I don't know how fast I must reach for my phone and convert it to Bitcoin as soon as possible to avoid it from falling in, you know, falling even further. So yeah, honestly, I do hope they succeed. I mean, it's an easy way to buy Bitcoin. I think the cashback idea to get some crypto Bitcoin back on your purchases is insanely great because just those cashback people alone will prevent another bear market. But just don't hire fancy actors to say fortune-fravers to brave fortune favors to brave. You know, it's just ridiculous. I think it's like, you know, they should get their shit together and just get back to building new things. Instead, they send me like weekly newsletters with all these, these sorry, no, offensive, but shitty NFTs that are, you know, they're constantly trying to sell me those NFTs. And I don't want to NFTs. I just want the reasonable rate on my crypto earn or the reasonable cashback, which they don't do. So I'm like, you know, yeah, the love affair with crypto.com, sorry guys, but it's over. I think Martins got a really strong point there that you can't always hire smart people. It's relevant to like it, it shatters, it breaks through, because if you think about the average, the average intelligent, sure, someone could be way above that, but someone else has to be way below that to get that average to where it is. And when you're making your hiring decisions, often you have to choose from the bottom of the barrel. But we're running out of time. Dan Eve, do you have a prediction or a story of the week we're going to you first? On the spot, my prediction is that I predict, nice and easy that that Prince Charles will be King now. Fortunately, King Charles, the third excellent prediction, Ben Arquets, moved you up in the list. Are you ready with a prediction or a story of the week? Good. I mean, I think there's going to be a demand for King Charles Spaniels. So there's probably something worth buying is King Charles Spaniels. That's my prediction. Financial advice. Oh, Corgis, Corgis all the way. Martins, Wiseman, a prediction or a story of the week. Go ahead. A story of the week. We're setting up our stand now at ChainCamp 2022, which is the largest event for crypto or Bitcoin in the Czech Republic. So there's lots of developers there. It's not one of those when moon type style conferences. It's really like builders and people like building stuff. And it's really nice conference and we'll be attending there. We've got a really nice stand for whale books and general bides. I will be attending LA bid comf, which is going to be insane. It's like one of the largest, I think we had Rodolfo on the show once, right? Yeah. And that's going to be really good. We're just finalizing details for Bitcoin Amsterdam, which is going to be smaller than Bitcoin Miami, but it's got a lot of wheat. So definitely come to Amsterdam. It's never too late to go to Amsterdam. Josh Tagalog, do you have a prediction or a story of the week? Yeah, I have a story of the week. By the way, folks, if you want to prove a attendance for this week, for this today, we have some keys, power keys giving away at the link in the chat. I've just posted there. So just follow the instructions and you'll get yourself an NFT. Even you Martin can have one. But yeah, a story of the week is we unborted, a pottery freedman, the grandson of Milton Friedman. Of course, the son of David D Friedman onto the project. He is the founder of the Sea Stepping Institute. He's done lots of stuff in terms of startup cities, startup countries. And one really cool thing about pottery is he's also a really lovely guy. And so we're really, really stoked, proud to have him on the team, giving us great advice on how to make the standard really a new currency for startup cities, enabling us to peg to things like gold, things like stock. Obviously, we're pegging to the the fiat currencies as well. But yeah, there's all sorts of really, really cool conversations that we're having in the background. And yeah, guys, if you want one of these proof of attendance NFTs, grab that that tweet, do a quote, retweet hashtag stablecoins and just follow the instructions on that and you'll get one. And you never know what will happen. What is that key for? Does it tie in with the rings that we were giving away? Very cool. You can check it out at the standard.io. And just a short fun for well to Queen Elizabeth II born 1926 died 2022. God bless, Queen. Thanks so much to everybody for joining us. Until next time, bye, bye.