The Bitcoin Group, the American Original. For over the last ten years, the sharpest Satoshi's, the best Bitcoin's, the hardest cryptocurrency talk. We'd like to welcome our panelists, Victoria Jones from Satoshi's page. Hey, hey, happy Friday. Josh Shigalla from the standard.io. Good morning. And I'm Thomas Hunt from the World Crypto Network. Moving on to issue one, issue one, spot Bitcoin ETFs drive insane, $9.8 billion volume in over three days. Grace scale amounted for more than half the volume but suffered $1.2 billion in outflows. The Bitcoin ETF surpasses silver to become the second largest ETF commodity in the US. What do you guys think about the launch of the Bitcoin ETF? Victoria Jones. Well, yes, certainly those volumes seem to be impressive. Although I believe that part of the reason is because, you know, Grace scale already was 610,000 Bitcoins anyway. So just by doing that conversion, you know, there was already, there were already a lot of assets waiting, waiting in the wings, ready for the Bitcoin ETF. So not that surprising, really. We're all expecting a lot of volume when it first came out, you know, it's in the nature of these things. It's a lot of attention initially and then often that can wane in the weeks following. Certainly, if there is all that volume, it hasn't been reflected in the price. So, you know, I think there's a bit more explanation needed as to what was going on there. Yes, it is interesting. There's a big article about the Grace scale discount. People talked about it all the time how you could buy Grace scale GBTC for less than the price of Bitcoin. They call this other thing NAV native asset value. So that just means the price of the underlying thing like gold or Bitcoin or diamonds. And what they say is happening now is that the people who bought GBTC are selling their GBTC to get, you know, the real asset value of Bitcoin rather than the discount, thus profiting and selling out and that people are afraid that they're exiting the entire Bitcoin market instead of buying a spot Bitcoin ETF. They also believe a lot of the inflows right now have been people selling their futures Bitcoin ETFs and getting into spot ETFs. Josh Agala, what do you think about the Bitcoin ETF, especially this wiggle thing with Grace scale? How 1.5 billion dollars in additional sales could come in as Grace scale continues to empty out? Yeah, it's extraordinary. I mean, the thing is if you look at Binance, I'm calling market cap just in the last 24 hours, did 14.5 billion apparently. I mean, you don't know how much of that is sort of just market making him and hither and vither. But it's, yeah, I mean, if that's that much volume coming in with 1.5 going out, that's pretty good because that's buying pressure that's coming from somewhere though. And I'm not sure where because there just can't be that much Bitcoin simply sitting around ready to be sold while the price goes down. That just doesn't make any sense. So I smell something fishy. And yeah, I think I smell the red. I think I smell the red. We have seen the price of Bitcoin go down as the article says Bitcoin slides towards $40,000. Bitcoin is down bad major altcoins like Salona, avalanche, Cardano are also experiencing a brutal sell off. I love how they write that yet. No, she I mean, that's happens every single time when Bitcoin goes down, everything goes down. If it goes up or Bitcoin goes up, everything goes up. It's it's weird, like, especially coming from decrypt or someone actually knows this. How can you write Bitcoin's down all and for some reason Salona is too. Yeah, what? Well, they have a they have a template and they do the same article every time. But what do you think about this? The price is down. I thought the ETF was supposed to make us millions and millions of dollars. Victoria Jones, what about the price of Bitcoin? Yeah, I mean, it's it's well known with these sorts of things that you kind of get a lot of excitement in the run up to these sorts of announcements and then it's a sell the news event and the price tends to drop. I think in this particular case, specifically, I think there is a bit of an issue with them. Grace scale converting to an ETF. I think one of the clauses when the SEC left in their documentation when they actually approved it was the fact that the ETFs had to be cash bought or something like that, which means that grayscale actually has to sell. I believe that it means that grayscale actually has to sell the Bitcoin that was holding in its trust and buy it again in cash. So one of the other articles, there's a story of how apparently 9,000 Bitcoins have now gone onto Coinbase and it may well be that grayscale strategy is to offload those off gently and then buy them back again, but who knows. So it wasn't clear exactly how they were going to manage that clause from the SEC. I mean apparently the SEC could have said that they would allow like for like, but clearly because, you know, grayscale rubbed the SEC's nose in it with that court case. They weren't inclined to do the many favors. But you know, that's an issue that's not really being talked about very much and so there's limited information on it. But you know, clearly, you know, with any of these companies, there are separately legal entities. They've changed their nature. There can be issues with, you know, needing to sell the asset and buy it again. So yeah, the details on that are unclear at the moment, but that could be an issue that's affecting the price movements at the moment. And of course with the actual trust, you know, the discount is to do with the actual value of the overall trust. I mean, the Bitcoin that they're holding, the actual trust is related to a proportion of that. So if they're actually having to sell their Bitcoin, that's going to create a capital gains tax event, not necessarily for the people holding the shares, but for the company itself, which will have a knock on effects on the profitability of the actual trust. And so anyone knowing that will have probably wanted to, you know, considering the discount has been so high over the year, as it kind of come back to par just before the ETF announcement, you know, that was probably a good time to sell. And everyone else is kind of getting the message late and the discount's going back down again. So yeah, all of these things will kind of play into it really. I think eventually the ETFs will have a good effect on the price, but I think a lot of these things have to be sorted out before they're really going to gain momentum. And of course, there's still a lot of negative commentary from people like Jamie Demon, and which are putting people off. And of course, you've got, you know, a lot of normal people, normal financial advisors who are still very skeptical about Bitcoin. And so it's going to take a while for that momentum to build. So I think, you know, it will pay off eventually price wise, but I think there could be a bit of a disturbance in the force in the near term. That's been exciting to have the ETF launch, but like many said, it didn't cause the price to go up. Josh Shagalla, what do you think about the ETF and the price of Bitcoin? Yeah, I mean, it's interesting because there are like, there is a bit of commentary going around about the options markets as well, because they've been around for a while and you can obviously short on there, but it doesn't seem like the retail side is overly bearish at the moment, like the put to call ratio doesn't signify that. But you got to remember that there's also, it takes a while for brokerage firms to put a new products like this Bitcoin spot ETF. So this might also be a thing where like we look at these numbers like 15 billion ago. Wow, it's not massive, massive. And there is a bunch of other things to play. I don't know. I can't really see the reasoning by it fully, even though I have looked, but that's where I do smell a little bit of a rat. How much has been re-hypophicated? Is there some sort of naked short selling or some sort of shenanigans going on? So that black rock can buy up more for their ETF in the background, because the game for black rock now is to basically buy as much as possible when they can and have retail then lift those products. Obviously it's regulated market, so they can't do too much funny business. But when you're that powerful, your threshold for funny business can go up. Although there's a lot of eyes on this ETF now. What I'd be interested in for all those listeners out there, if you guys have spotted the actual addresses that are pulling in this value, that'd be happy. We don't have the addresses, but what we do have Josh, and I was going to share this later for breaking news. Black rock now holds 28,622 Bitcoin worth over $1.1 billion for their spot ETF, according to Bitcoin magazine. Uh-huh. Okay, so it's not, okay, so it's not 15 billion. So the 15 billion volume is buying and sharing and buying and selling. Right, right now it's around $9.3 to $10 billion volume, but that's spread across the, I believe there's nine Bitcoin ETFs. I might have the number wrong, but the number of them. So black rock is merely saying they're holding this much. The other number is inflows in and out, which like Victoria said, is complicated by this weird grayscale situation where they might have to sell their Bitcoin and then revive them or in general, they're converting their previous Bitcoin, whatever it was, into a proper ETF. So it is a major change for them. And that people exiting and inflowing through there could definitely affect the market as we've seen. Yeah, it's interesting what you said, the Victoria about the, the cash. There was also an interesting story on Twitter this week that Adam Back was pushing that micro strategy was actually a great buy on the stock market. Something had happened where the value of micro strategies Bitcoin was higher than the value of the company. So micro strategy, the company could sell some of it and buy back part of their company and get more value for it. And I think he was basically suggesting people buy more micro strategy stock, but it was interesting as well to see that once a company's number of Bitcoin is known, we can estimate their value and they can start to mess with their stock price than the issuance of their stock by buying it back if their Bitcoin investment goes up. Interesting. Which is why it's time to ask the most important and knowledgeable trader in all of Bitcoin, the Bitcoin predictor ball. If the price will be higher or lower this time next week, Victoria Jones higher or lower, keeping in mind that you are predicting against the greatest predictor in all of Bitcoin history. Yeah, it said it was epically wrong last week. It is never wrong. It's just waiting to be right. Yeah. Now I think the longer this downtrend holds, the more scared people will get and it may well spiral. So I'm going to go with lower. Josh Agala downtrend continuing? Yeah. I don't know. I'm going to go against Victoria here, although she did make the right call last week, but I do feel it's going to go up. They just can't be that many weekends left after such a long bearish period. And the miners are selling that is one article that I did see that miners are selling, but that's because they're getting a lot of requests for their product. But they can't have that much more left either if they're selling that crazy. Yeah. And let us know what you think in the chat put higher or lower, but now we ask the ball with the price of Bitcoin be higher this time next week. And the answer is outlook not so good. Outlook not so good. The ball is on the negative side. And so are all the stories for the rest of the show issue to Wall Street Journal ETFs make Bitcoin's problems even worse. Yes, that's right. They're worried about the number of Bitcoin that are left in the ecosystem for Bitcoiners to use. And they're also saying that Bitcoin is not digital gold and so forth. Bitcoin is bad. And the ETFs make it even worse. Josh Shagalla, what do you think about the Wall Street Journal attacking that dirty Bitcoin? I mean, this is again such an uneducated article. It just surprises me that if you're going to write about something that's quite extensively technical and there's a lot of parts at play with Bitcoin, right? This game theory, this economic theory, there's also a whole bunch of stuff at play. And you can't just come in and rub it out the fact that there's not enough Bitcoin for users left. It's just dumb. It's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. And the fact is that even if there was just one Bitcoin left, there'd be enough for everyone to use. It's just that the price goes up. Yeah, I mean, it's just dumb. It's just constantly surprising that pretty well known publication, publications will asperate such nonsense. Well, it is incredibly simplistic analysis, Josh. It talks about how Bitcoin was designed to allow online transactions, but it's failed at that process. Even though we know that not to be true, they say it could also be used for larger payments, although so far mostly it isn't. So there's a lot of this kind of goal posting where they set up a goal and they say, well, you know, it's supposed to do this, but it's not doing it yet. It's not doing an in great enough numbers yet and always ignore the lightning network. Any of these articles never talk about the possible innovations of Bitcoin layer two and the way that Bitcoin is software. So it can change and get better. And we've talked about this before. They're always saying, oh, you can't match the transaction numbers of visa, but it's like, give us a chance. You know, it's only the first year. I don't remember, or I remember Windows 3.0 early versions of Windows, things like that. It didn't look like this right away. It wasn't built overnight. So it is interesting to see them do this in the financial papers. Go ahead, Josh. No, I would also say that if you look at the wider crypto market outside of Bitcoin as well, which we can't just ignore, even if it is a Bitcoin ETF and even if they are specifically talking about Bitcoin here. The wider crypto market is absolutely using crypto as payment. Most of most invoices that I get these days for different people that are using in various companies and such. All demanding like USDC or Tether, some people Bitcoin, some people Ethereum or their favorite strange coin. It's constant. I mean, I don't understand how they can say that I guess they're saying Bitcoin isn't used and maybe it's not used as much. But the fact is that the technology that Bitcoin's put out there is being used. And so, yeah, I mean, there's a lot of ins and outs here, dude. Well, I think that the entire ecosystem basically counts as Bitcoin. The fact that anything's going on anywhere is like because of Bitcoin and because Bitcoin still exists. If Bitcoin disappears tomorrow, they're going to have a really big article in Forbes about Ethereum, Solana and all the other ones going down because without this backbone, it wouldn't be that way. Victoria Jones, what do you think about the Wall Street Journal and their simplistic and obviously overwhelmingly negative view of Bitcoin? Yeah, I mean, it's just more of the same really from their own little financial bubble. I mean, the thing is, it's like their master's of the universe in their own little city and it's like anything that doesn't happen outside of there doesn't apply, you know, doesn't get in. You know, they just, they have limited experience of the rest of the world and so it's really hard for them to get it and not only that, but they've kind of created a castle for themselves that suits them very nicely and so it doesn't suit them at all to see it from a different perspective. And so as a result, they're really missing, they're really missing what's going on here. I mean, one of the things that I thought was interesting from the articles where it said, where it pointed out that those holding the ETFs are restricted by the opening hours of Wall Street, whereas Bitcoin trades 24, 7 and giving, given how volatile Bitcoin could be, I mean, that could be quite risky for some of the ETFs. I mean, some of the stuff, I mean, I've been researching around the ETS for the next article that I'm writing and, you know, it's not inevitable that every ETF that starts then survives until the end. And so, you know, there's, there's a lot of stuff to kind of work through before we know who the actual survivors would be. Not all of the ETFs that have started today could survive. It could start off really hopeful and then completely die in a ditch and you can just imagine, you know, some trader being completely crushed because the market moves against them when Wall Street isn't open and it's game over. And of course, that's when wealthy people start to realize that actually maybe I should be trading it on one of these other exchanges that is open, you know, 24, 7, even if it means I've got to figure out how to hold it myself. And so there's still a lot that could evolve here. But yeah, I mean, Wall Street have got their blinkers on and they're the ones who are going to suffer for it. I mean, they might think that, you know, okay, we've, we've got this new thing in our, in our view, no one can touch it now. And it's just like, yeah, keep thinking that because you're going to be completely blindsided by what actually happens to you here. So yeah, I think there's still a lot that could, a lot could turn out unexpectedly. I'm watching with great interest. It was a very interesting end to the article. It's almost like they're calling Bitcoin lazy because Bitcoin is open 24, 7, 365 when really it's the other markets that are lazy. He's pointing out a flaw in all of the stock markets and all of the currency markets and so forth. Not only do they close on weekends, not only do they close during evenings, but they would close for an arbitrary holiday, obviously, no disrespect to Dr. King. But you know, it's arbitrary to close your markets. No one really closes commerce down. If you really want to buy something as Andreas used to say drugs and hookers or whatever, and blow, you're going to get it 24, 7, 365 whether or not it's Martin Luther Kingday or not. And I think it's just kind of hilarious that he's like defending the old system where they take weekends off. You know that crazy Bitcoin, it'll sneak up on you, you know, the way it works all the time, that lazy bum. That lazy bum. That's right. And moving on to the next issue, check out worldcryptonetwork.com. We've got 3490 videos and we're almost going to celebrate our 10th anniversary on February 1st. Check it out here on the world crypto network. Moving on to issue three Bitcoin will never be money precisely because it's nothing like gold. Another negative article on Bitcoin this time from Forbes magazine and their slam in Bitcoin because it's not like gold because the price goes up and down and because it's a brand new asset. Josh, Shagall, what do you think about Bitcoin being nothing like gold and therefore will never ever ever ever ever ever be money? You know, I'm lucky enough to have spent a lot of time obsessing about the crossover between Bitcoin and gold because I ran the very first Bitcoin and gold exchange and had to give countless talks about the subject. And Bitcoin is very much like gold. It's very, very much like gold. It was modeled on gold. It's rare. It's a rare number. Golds are rare metal. It's found into existence. Gold is found into existence. It's scarce. It takes work to pull out. But there's all these things. At the same time, it's the opposite of Bitcoin as well. So Bitcoin, gold is kind of steady and sturdy. Bitcoin is all over the shop. Gold can't really transport it very easily. Bitcoin very transportable. Gold is divisible. So it's Bitcoin. So in that way, they're common. There's so many ways where it's exactly the same and so many ways where it's totally different. But that's why I've always said they work so well together. They are the perfect partner. If you can get enough gold sellers because people say, well, it's very centralized. Yeah, it is. If you take one single gold vault, but it's very centralized. If you take one single minor or one single exchange for the entire world. So what you'd want to do is have as many gold people looking for gold and gold voting facilities around the world as possible because that way you've decentralized that risk. But yeah, I think gold and Bitcoin work wonderfully together. You could secure gold and have it as a hedge against all of the stuff that gold bugs don't like about Bitcoin. And you can hedge against your gold risk for all the stuff you don't like about gold in Bitcoin. So I think it's a really great asset to diversify into, to take profits out into. Yeah, I think it's stupid. This whole gold versus Bitcoin war has always been dumb in my eyes. Peter Schiff has always annoyed the heck out of me. And so it's very silver with his dropped gold nonsense. Like, there's many things that are good about gold and there's many things that are good about Bitcoin. They work together. To me, it reminds me a lot of early video games. If you look at pong or a tarry or Pac-Man and you say, the entire industry is worthless. No one will ever play these things. And they're saying this again with Bitcoin. When gold was brand new, the price of gold no doubt skyrocketed. It went from zero. No one is collecting gold to gold suddenly having value. Now yes, that happened perhaps thousands of years ago. So we can't point at it like the author can as Joshua's saying in the article. They say that a dollar today is worth 30% less than it was 10 years ago. By contrast, a single Bitcoin today is worth 5,000% more than it was 10 years ago. And then he goes on to say that because the price of Bitcoin went up 5,000% in 10 years, that it can never be used as money or a medium of exchange. When we all know that we can meet at any point along that exchange, trade our $100 for $100 cash out on the other side, it would be fine. And that in the same way, Bitcoin's brand new. It's probably not going to go up another 5,000% in the next 10 years. It's actually been more steady and more stable than gold in a lot of the recent situations and certainly more stable than the US dollar. But it is interesting, much like with video games. If you judge something too soon, they say, oh, well, it's doomed forever. And that something contains a software, something that can change and evolve basically, right? We're back into the evolution debate. They don't believe anything can evolve or change. We've all seen things evolve and change from Pac-Man to Metal Gear, from a little digital character on a screen to a realistic human doing incredible things. The world has changed and obviously it's changing again with Bitcoin. Victoria Jones, what do you think about the negative aspects of the Bitcoin ETF and that Bitcoin will never be money because it's not gold? Well, I have to say I read this article. It has to be one of the most moronic ones that I've come across. I mean, you know, he starts off by stating that he believes crypto will eventually succeed because governments devalue their currencies. However, Bitcoin can never be money because it's limited in supply. I mean, go figure. I mean, he's kind of like making the, you know, he's using the same feature to kind of argue for it and against it in either end of the article. It makes no sense. You know, and some of the things he said, he said, you know, there's never too much good money because there can never be too much production. And it's just like, well, it's like Josh said earlier, well, one Bitcoin can absorb the entire financial system of the world if you need to. It's not about the fact that it's limited in supply, but it's endless. You can divide it endlessly, which is a completely different feature to anything that we've ever had in money before. And then the other thing he said was the sole use of money is a, is as a facilitator of the exchange of the fruits of production. Well, what about savings? You know, I mean, the reason why we have a problem with the dollar at the moment is because if you try and save it, it loses value. You know, the ordinary person needs something that they can save so that when they're old and they've retired, they've got something to live off when they're not able to be as productive anymore. So, you know, I'm not sure what this guy's qualifications are, but he's talking complete nonsense. You know, even if he has an economic degree of some sort, clearly, you know, they've given him so many different conflicting facts that he thinks that, you know, he can argue anything economically in the same way. But if you understand it from basic principles, it's ridiculous. So I was not impressed. I even enjoyed the title of the article, which makes no sense to me. It says Bitcoin will never be money precisely because it's nothing like gold. We're not on the gold standard anymore. Not since the 1970s are money, if anything is fiat these days, and to compare Bitcoin to fiat is to have an apples and oranges, a completely divisible, confusing comparison, whereas Bitcoin is a lot more like gold. It does have a limited supply. It is difficult to get and so forth. So it is a very interesting, confusing point for them to take. And at this point in Bitcoin's history, that Forbes is still publishing this stuff. I imagine he's a random guy. He said it in probably has doctorates and economics and so forth. Like Victoria says, I'm sure he's an expert. But it's way too late for this. Like we've been doing this for a decade now. We've all read these articles 100 times. A guy just posted on Twitter, a great Washington Post article from eight years ago, a rest in peace Bitcoin Bitcoin is dead. And again, here we are with a Bitcoin ETF, massive people all over the world, interested in Bitcoin family money, other things getting in. But that's nothing compared to our next issue, even more negative news about Bitcoin issue four. Jamie Diamond, Bash's Bitcoin again calls it a pet rock says that again, it's just worthless. It's nothing. It's a collectible. And there's part two to this where Jamie Diamond believes that Satoshi Nakamoto will either increase or erase the Bitcoin supply. He also seems to suggest that Satoshi Nakamoto will be alive in 140 years when the supply limit is reached. Josh Shagalla, what do you think about Jamie Diamond's pet rock and his erroneous and so brought up over and over again, beliefs about the Bitcoin supply changing, as well as Satoshi being alive in 140 years. It's just astounding. It's astounding that I did a video on this actually. Um, if you look at my German unit channel, uh, in the chat, um, and it's astounding to me that this guy is meant to be knowledgeable on all things finance, right? I mean, it's, it's Jamie Diamond for God's sake. So that's all he does is look at financial products yet he'll say such nonsense and a spout, it's like he's done zero, zero research, uh, with any sort of depth into the protocol zero. Like you cannot say that if you've done two minutes of research or maybe okay, let's, let's give it an hour. Like you just can't say such dumb shit. It's really, really, really stupid. Um, and so it's basic game theory, right? Josh, you have all these participants that have agreed to have the Bitcoin at this value and if they change it, it ruins everyone involved. So it makes no sense for them to change it and as far as an actual, you know, physical manner, how do you change it? It's a, you know, series of coders would all have to agree they put it in the code, but then even harder, all the nodes and all the miners would have to adopt your new version of Bitcoin, which as we said, ruins everyone involved. Everyone involved is agreed to these rules. We're going to play by these rules that clearly stated 21 million and so forth. So why in a, in a, just an intellectual game theory, why would they all suddenly change their mind? It doesn't make any sense. And Jamie Dimash should know that. I mean, he should be good at these kind of games, these kind of financial games think about the future like more people want iPhones, more people buy Apple computer, right? That's the same kind of thing. Why is he staying at this way? Why is he unable to see this future? It's, it's just perplexing that someone can be so daft. I mean, yeah, like you mentioned there, Thomas is why, but also it's just in part like Satoshi doesn't have any commit access to the, yeah, he could go there and write some patch, but then you'd have to prove his Satoshi. Maybe you'd do that. But like you said, even if the person comes out of the woodwork, proves their Satoshi and then writes a patch to increase the supply, it's like you said, then you're going to get them all these different participants and saying, what? No, I've just taken ages to buy this. I'm not like the whole point is inflation that we're fighting inflation. That we're saying, no, there is a limited cap. If you want more, buy more and divide it, divide it more. And, and so that, that's crazy. And the other crazy thing is that Jamie Dimash doesn't seem to understand that this is open source. Satoshi can't come up like that someone can't just erase the Bitcoin. Like, Satoshi can't just log in and hit a raise like, oh, man, this guy is meant to be a guy that understands financial products. It's kind of, it's super embarrassing. Wouldn't it be, I mean, would you be not embarrassed like if I was head of JP Morgan Chase and I started talking like saying something that's like an ETF. If someone said, what do you think about the ETF? And I said, well, the ETF, you can pretty much buy it at the fish market. You can go down to the fish market and buy a section of that ETF. Like something just that makes zero sense at all. And, and the talking heads on NBC and BC will go, oh, yeah. And that's the last I want to talk about it. I don't want to talk about ETFs anymore. It's like, yeah, but that's your job, dude. You're meant to understand a, how financial products work. You meant to offer those financial products to your clients. And you're meant to have a basic understand, like a basic understanding. The guy has none of it. And it's, it's also smells fishy to me. Why does he espouse such things? Is he buying in the back end? What? I don't know. I mean, he says it was such a passion that I don't even think he's doing that. But maybe his family is, I, you remember this stuff. He says that his, his company is one of the approved partners for the ETF that while he's saying all this bad stuff, his company in public, everyone talks about everyone knows is one of the approved partners for the ETFs. Exactly. Like none of it makes sense. I, I, the guy is a criminal in terms of, I mean, you know, allegedly. But I, I just don't like some of those shenanigans that he's got into in the past. There's a lot of sketchy stuff with J.V. Morgan Chase. I, I just, I don't know. I think it's ridiculous that this guy says such nonsense publicly. And the media repeated publicly and, and point him as an expert. And I agree with Jamie. He should just stop talking about Bitcoin because he's obviously doesn't know a thing about it. So, you know, when he said, that's the last I'm going to ever talk about it. Yeah, that's because you don't know anything about it at all. Zero. Well, and there's also the historical example. Josh, do you remember the developer's name that Satoshi basically handed it over to? I'm blocking on his name. No, different one. The, the famous one. He was in charge. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. I'm not. I can't think of it. But anyway, one of the things that he said is he said, if Satoshi comes back, I will give him commit access to the repos. And then the other Bitcoin developers immediately said, this guy is not safe. He can't be trusted to judge who is or who is not Satoshi. He was involved in the famous laptop situation where they proved, quote marks that Craig Wright with Satoshi, they removed his access. So historically, we can say Bitcoin developers are protective of the Bitcoin code and wouldn't give it over to a Satoshi without proof. And maybe even with proof, there's no reason like he's not the king. Like, yes, if Satoshi came back, signed a contract, proved he's Satoshi, so forth, we're still not really going to give him the power to edit Bitcoin or say go ahead and double the limit, double the coins, whatever you want to do. It doesn't make any sense. Victoria Jones, what do you think about this? Jamie Dimon, he says, Bitcoin's a pet rock. And of course, that they're going to just make more coins. Well, I love how these people just can't pronounce the names right. I mean, you know, he's calling it Satoshi and Janet Yellen's calling it Binance. I mean, it's just like these people are just hiding under a rock. They clearly know nothing about, you know, the crypto space and, you know, Jamie, Jamie Demon, who's like, oh, I don't care. I don't care about it anymore. And, you know, I'm not going to talk about it again. It's like, well, for somebody who doesn't care about it at all, you talk about it an awful lot. And then you get it wrong as well. So, you know, his, what he says and what he does are completely inconsistent and, you know, in my book that. Amounts to someone who's completely untrustworthy. So, yeah, I mean, he's a clown. We all know it. But unfortunately, you know, he has a lot of presence in the existing financial structure. And so, you know, he's well known amongst the media. And so, you know, they give him the time of day more than they give the time of date to the world crypto network and more for them. Yes. And we do have an update from the chat. Thanks for letting me know. It is Gavin and Jason. Gavin and Jason was the software developer that kind of took over the project after Satoshi left. Unfortunately, he was fooled by Craig Wright into thinking he was Satoshi. And they removed his access, like I said, because they were worried that he would give access to a random person that he thought was Satoshi. Which again, historically, we can just say like, are the Bitcoin developers really loose with this? Do they let anybody in? Is it a big party? No, it's very controlled. They understand the importance of the code and not letting anyone edit it. It's a very serious thing to edit the Bitcoin code. And I don't think Jamie Diamond understands that. I don't think he understands open source projects, which is very disappointing. It's been a long time now. We're not at the early days of open source where you're like, oh, what is the cathedral and the bizarre and how do you make software? And these guys think it's way beyond that Microsoft bought the thing that has all the open source software in it. There's a lot of things going on in open source that Jamie Diamond should know about. And it's hilarious to see him get this far and still not know. And it's easy for us to say, oh, this, you know, this old man from the old world doesn't understand Bitcoin doesn't understand computers and technology in the future. But that is kind of what it seems like. We're back to those old days of the early internet where they're like, this is only good for pirates and thieves and child musters and so forth. And whatever they said the internet was the same thing with Bitcoin. We're back again to its pirate money. It's internet money. No one uses it. It's not good enough. All these things again, which is why, you know, we had the good news with Bitcoin, but we also want to cover the bad news. But we're running out of time. So let's go to Victoria Jones. Do you have a prediction of prediction or a story of the week? Go ahead. Yes, well, I said last week I was going to work on my next newsletter, which was going to be about Bitcoin and the welfare system. But given that we've got all this ETF stuff going on, I thought that it was maybe time that I did one on joint stock companies, which does fit in quite well with the other ones have done recently. So I'm working on that the moment. Hopefully we published on Sunday. So if you're interested in that, follow me on Satoshi's page and you'll be able to read it there. Very cool. Excellent to cover the origins and the beginnings of things. Josh, you got to have a story of the week or prediction. Go ahead. Yeah, just to answer the chat quickly, someone said, how is BTC decentralized if we have the small select of core developers. The thing is that core developers can make a they can make a change to the code. But it's about the full node operators and the miners downloading that code and using it and using it to more than 51% so that you get a hard fork or a soft fork to the upgrade. And that's that's in positive. Most people will just argue and not upgrade and there'll be a big hull up a loop around the any changes. Because there's so much money. It's taken specifically for the miners. They don't want anything that would cause problems. So yeah, like to game theory it out a little bit, Josh, if we did say you and I went in, edited the Bitcoin code, doubled the number of coins from 21 million to 42 million. We would then have to get the miners to accept that code. And if the miners did, they would be essentially going off on a new chain. There would be the existing 21 million Bitcoin chain unaffected by anything we can do. There would be this brand new 42 million Bitcoin chain that the miners would be on. They would essentially be taking the bet that we are going to win and that the other Bitcoin is going to lose. And if they're wrong, they have nothing but essentially counterfeit copies of Bitcoin. They have Bitcoin 3 or Bitcoin 42 or whatever you're going to call it. So it can be done. But it would likely fail. It would be kind of like an attack on Bitcoin. It's like Bitcoin cash isn't it? The block size walls. That's exactly what happened then. Exactly. Exactly what happened then. So you can't just have this small group change it. And that's that's it. That's the end of it. It's absolutely something that needs you and me and the miners and the miners will make that decision. They can't even, you know, I mean, if you look at all the stuff behind these these are ordinals, you know, there's people are like patch up, patch up the core developer like, oh, this sucks, you know, because it was kind of a bug almost. And they caught because the miners are making too much money from it. So they're going to keep it in. Yeah. So in the same way with Bitcoin, it's in the miners economic interest to stay on the most popular chain. If the miners screw up in mine Bitcoin 42, they could lose all of their money if they're wrong. So it's a huge gamble for them to get on a wrong chain. One of these little upstart chains or whatever. It's it'd be a very big deal. Be very bad for them. Yeah. My story of the week is I got my bore fixed, which is another fancy name for well. We've been running on on rainwater and luckily it's been raining to fill up the tanks over and over again. But the the the bore itself is quite a kind of old and so we had to lift the pump a little bit higher and up the well. And the problem it now is I can't really water the garden because the well runs out of water. And then the pump will run dry, which will record. So we need to I can I can water the garden for like 45 minutes. And then I need to turn it off and wait for the for the border refill. And it's like 105 meters underground. This this whole. It goes all the way down it. It's great because it's free water. But it's hard because it's not the best quality water. You know, there's some some VOC and stuff like that. But it's still free. It's good for the garden. It's good flush the toilets and even have showers with. But yeah, it's been it's been annoying exercise not having it. So I'm glad it's back. Unfortunately, I will have to attach to mains eventually. It's just hard to I just hate dealing with governments, you know, being a libertarian type. I like having my own board. But yeah, that's my story of the week. The real question everyone wants to know Josh is do the toilets flow the opposite direction? Yeah, I think I think that I think that I've heard it's true because of the Simpsons, but I've never seen it. So we have a good story of the week this week is a sad farewell. The inventor of NTP network time protocol passed away at age 85. Dr. David Mills created NTP and you might not know about this, but when they started having computers and network computers, they had no way to synchronize the computers. And if you're going to have all the computers do something at the same time, whether it's launch a rocket, start a war or publish a web page, they all have to be on the same page about what time is and very precise. And because of Dr. David Mills's work in the early days of the internet, he was able to create the network time protocol, which holds all these servers together and is still run today. So an incredible part of the early internet infrastructure that we all take for granted. Dr. David Mills passed away at 85. So sad farewell. But that's about it for this show. Thanks to everybody for watching. Be sure to give us a thumbs up down below and subscribe if you haven't already. Until next time. Bye. Bye.