The Bitcoin Group, the American Original. For over the last ten years, the sharpest citossis, the best bitcoins, the hardest cryptocurrency talk. We'd like to welcome our panelists, Victoria Jones from Satoshi's page. Evening everyone? Josh Egala from thestandard.io Yodio yodio yodio And I'm Thomas Hunt from the World Crypto Network. Moving on to issue one. Issue one, Jack Dorsey predicts the Bitcoin price to hit at least $1 million by 2030, hitting that number and going beyond. But far more interesting was his long and detailed interview about the end of social media in which Jack decries his previous strategy of supporting blue sky, saying that he essentially wasted $14 million that he should have given all the money to Nooster instead and even admits that Twitter was wrong the whole time because it used advertising. Recently he has given $5 million to the open Sats Nooster Fund as well as $15 million to their general fund and 1 million to their operations budget. But you're here for the price. Victoria Jones, what do you think about Jack's prediction that the price of Bitcoin will hit $1 million dollars dollars dollars dollars dollars? Yeah, I'm sure many Bitcoiners are familiar with similar predictions, generally speaking it's a one with how many zeros after it, there's lots of debates about that. And ultimately when Bitcoin takes over the world and everyone's using it for transactions, that's entirely possible. But until we get to the stage where the existing financial system has broken, I don't think it's going to happen. I mean, really Bitcoin is designed as an inflation hedge and at the moment the things that are going on in the wider economy are actively designed to create deflation. So I think we need a deflationary crisis before Bitcoin is really going to take off. I just like the trend that the bigger the celebrity that you are, the bigger prediction you can make on Bitcoin and the larger number of series of articles that they'll make about it. Jack comes out here with a million, Max Kaiser and Matt Bitcoins of course famously have said one infinity, you know, just infinity. But again, the same article journalist doesn't have to do any work. You rewrite the article, you just plug in the names and the prediction amount. It's just like madlibs. Josh, what do you think today's madlib is Jack Dorsey and one million dollars? Oh, Louder, Pratter, verb. I am on mute. Yeah, well, first of all, I couldn't give a crap what that guy says. He screwed up Twitter. He just made it some big mess of a censorship nightmare. I always felt on tiptoes, even though my tweets might be annoying and crap and totally wrong, I should be allowed to say them. Although, you know, it is a private thing and I do get that. It was his like, you know, one single letter from some government department who'll just wipe you out without even telling you, he'll just shadow ban you for years and you sit there talking like I have been on the World Crypto Network chat. You know, like I just don't like the guy, like just leave Nostra alone, leave Nostra alone. That's really what I want to put it down to just go away. Dude, I don't want to hear from you. Go and enjoy your 40 billion that you got from Elon and just enjoy life. Get away from us. Just, you know, don't need Mr. censorship. Mr. Suck on the government's teeth guy near me. I just don't care what he says. Yeah, million dollars. Oh, wow, that's such an amazing prediction. Haven't heard that before, Mr. Jack. What an annoying yet. Yeah, but that's all I have to say now. That guy was just checking my notes just to make sure I don't have anything more to say about that knob. Well, it has been amazing to watch since the beginning of this social media that it seemed like it was set up wrong from the beginning. In the beginning, we all had our own HTML files that we kept on our own Unix servers and those Unix servers would talk to each other. And if you wanted to get someone's information, like if you wanted to know what John Carmack was doing with the development of Doom, there was a program called Finger, a horrible name, of course. But you could finger John Carmack. You'd get a little information file. And if he updated it, you would find out what he was working on. Tackled a difficult bug today. Fixed this rendering error. So on and so forth. These kind of things, but it was server to server. He had his own server. I had my own server. Everyone had their own server. But if you look at what they did with Twitter and Facebook and other things, of course, they centralized it so they could get all the traffic. When they got all the traffic, they hooked it up to the advertising model. And they used the traffic to get the revenue. If you went off the site, if you did anything else on the internet, you didn't get them revenue. Even though Facebook managed to put ads all over the internet and track you everywhere, you went. It was always a lot better if you stayed on Facebook. If you stayed on Twitter, if you stayed within the ecosystem, so that they could monetize you and turn you into their content. It's interesting to see this wrong from the beginning. And now it's starting to unravel. Go ahead, Josh. Yeah, absolutely. Great. And the advertising model is sick. It's demented. But actually Zuckerberg had a riot in creating Zuckbuck's, the Facebook coin, that they were going to release, but they got so much pressure from the state to drop it, because it would have been very, very powerful. In fact, I got a video of me in 2011 saying that they would release their own coin. But what that would do, what that would do, of them releasing their own coin, would allow them to actually start encrypting everything properly communications, because then they wouldn't need the advertising model. Because they have the money printer. They take the money printer away from the central bank and they could have started basically running themselves. But yeah, that got shut down pretty quickly and passed on. Well, and even the subscription model that Jack Dorsey talks about, Elon, switching to and lads it, as if that's part of the plan, is if it's just subscription model. It's not enough. It's never enough. You never get enough subscriptions. And going back to the history, I think PayPal had a real shot at this, the original PayPal, before it became kind of PayPal Ebay's payment mechanism. PayPal was a way to pay your friends. It was wallet-based. And they knew that if they designed their own currency, if they allowed it to go off their site. Again, we're talking about off their site, versus running on your servers, running on your computers, running open source, running on a different version, having the option to choose your version. If they allowed that, they wouldn't have control over their currency. And this potential PayPal currency could be used for bad things, TM. And so if your product could be used for bad things, it's better to pivot and become Ebay's payment mechanism, which was also very profitable, but very different as far as changing the world. And Twitter and Facebook have both fallen far short of their goals as well. Yep, yep, absolutely. The thing with PayPal is that they had the ability to sense the transactions. And because they had the ability, they had that small little ability, that door was slightly open. That means they had to. So because they had to, and that's also fair enough. I mean, if I sell something on Ebay, and the guy runs off with my thing, and never sends me the device, runs off with my money, and never sends me the thing I bought, then of course I want my money back. And so PayPal added a whole bunch of costs and friction because they had that tiny ability to reverse a transaction. That tiny ability turned into a massive ability. And then adds a lot of overhead to their business model, because now they need to be judged. They need to be executioner. They need to be a jury. So it changes everything. And that's why I just, Jack Dorsey, get away. Just go away. Mr. Sensor, boy. Well, and the product that they built ended up becoming way more complicated than the idea of a PayPal currency with wallets that would send it back and forth. As we were saying before, certainly someone could take your PayPal currency and use it for anything they want, which is a big problem for marketing and advertising. But as far as technology wise, it doesn't change. The coins are in the wallet. The wallet is at your own risk. If you use a third party wallet, that's your problem. If it has trouble, you don't have to control or warranty the network as much. Whereas PayPal, the service as eBay's shopping cart basically, if anyone complains, you reverse the transaction. You freeze the account. I know from my own experience with this type of moderation, often you make mistakes. You release the wrong funds to the wrong guy. You freeze the good guy. This completely happens just in the fact of doing business, trying to do your best. And also the complexities, like Josh said, having hundreds and maybe thousands of customer service response people who have the ability to freeze the accounts, the ability to say, what went on here and having to police these transactions. As well as we see with Twitter, much of the censorship is because they have to police the transactions because the conversation is taking place on their server. Just as PayPal was afraid of people doing things with their currency, Twitter is afraid of people doing things with their communication, whether those things are actual terrorist communication or propaganda or other kinds of controlled monetized speech, which it turns out are very common on the internet, as well as hate speech, horrible images, horrible videos, things like that. Far more popular than you'd think. Yeah, and there's been a case right now, actually with the Australian government, there was a priest here that was stabbed by some lunatic and the video went viral because he was kind of a never-wetkey-looking guy, or these robes and stuff. But it was also a nice guy, you know, and he got stabbed and people outraged by it. The government wanted him to take, wanted Twitter to take down the video. Twitter took down the video in Australia, then there wasn't enough of the Australian government. They wanted to take it down worldwide. And this is where I really have to take my hat off to, you know, he said, no, I'm not going to take it down worldwide. It's not illegal to show news. This is a news event. And I can't, you can't be the police for the rest of the world. Imagine if every country could just demand what every other country can see or not. And, you know, this is where Jack Dorsey, on the other end, would have probably would have gone, oh, okay. And just did it. Like, this is what I really didn't like. I've got a saucepot and I've got a chip on my shoulder and it's a goddamn big chip. Well, let's move on to the exit question. Do we want Jack in Noaster? We've had before, sure, we want his money and his support. But do we want the person that created the Twitter that failed, the Twitter that was addicted to advertising and the Twitter that eventually got sold to one billionaire and now seems to serve his point of view. And even that, not very well. Similarly, if Zuckerberg was out there saying, this new decentralized Facebook is awesome. I can't wait for it to be a success. Would we want him supporting our new decentralized Facebook? Victoria Jones, what do you think? Do we need these old rich billionaires and all their sweet money? I don't know whether or not we necessarily need them. I think people having too much money often creates distortions in the system. It's a little bit like Michael Sailor starting to suggest that he should create some kind of personal verification on the Bitcoin network. It's like, what are you doing? You know, now that he owns a big piece of the pie, he wants to introduce ideas that are complete antithesis to what it's meant to be all about. So, yeah, I mean, having anyone with too much resources in that kind of environment is a problem. And of course, this is the problem that we're experiencing in this end of the era that we're living through. You know, there are certain sectors of society. It's been designed so that, you know, there are these individuals that have a disproportionate share of the resources. And certainly historically, it's given them disproportionate power. But of course, the dynamics of all of that are changing. You know, the difference with Twitter was that it was a centralized organization and with centralized organizations, government have some power over it. But with decentralized organizations, not so much. Certainly, individuals with a lot of resources can probably influence things, but their ability to control it completely will always be disrupted, which is one of the main reasons why we support them. Yeah, it's great that Michael Saylor has so many bitcoins, but he gets as many votes as those who have zero bitcoins. No votes. There's no vote to control Bitcoin. So it's great that he's acquired so many. It would be funny though, he's like, I've got all the bitcoins. Now you have to do what I say. And everyone's like, oh, I don't know about that. But Josh Legala, what do you think? Do we want Jack and Noaster? If we had a decentralized Facebook, maybe one that would just show us our friends and our family's pictures and their nice posts and wouldn't even allow you to link to websites or encourage you to go down political rabbit holes, maybe we could have one of those and it could be decentralized. But would we want Zuckerberg to help us out? No, no, I don't want the guy. I don't want anything to do it. But yeah, it is interesting. I mean, what you mentioned about Bitcoin and Novotes, I think this is the fundamental problem with proof of stake is that large holders do have loads of votes and sway and swagger. And so this will be very, very interesting once that ETF comes along with Ethereum. Well, I think this goes well into our next issue. If only Michael Saylor had bought Ethereum. Issue 2, Robinhood receives a Wells Notice from the SEC for their Bitcoin and crypto business. What's a Wells Notice and why did Robinhood just receive one? Well, a Wells Notice is named after the Wells Committee and Advisory Group created in 1972 to review the enforcement practices of the SEC. Basically, it's a notice that a investigation that you, surprise, were involved in has been completed by the regulator. So this is bad news for Robinhood, meaning that they've been investigated and it's been completed. It seems the investigation is mainly about what Josh was just saying, whether or not Ethereum and Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are securities. Josh, Shagall, what do you think about Robinhood and their Wells Notice? Well, I love how Wells, and I'm pretty sure it's probably from Wells, the same Chaps as Wells Fargo. Tell me if I'm wrong here. I think it's just a person's name, but Wells and Fargo are both both author people. So just people's name. Yeah, that's what I mean. Like, I'm pretty sure that the regulator was being watched by the major player. Anyway, yeah, I mean, I actually haven't read the articles. So I can't say too much about it, which I honestly should read it. I just said it's 5.30 in the morning here. So I didn't get time to read that one. It did cause the stock of Robinhood to go down as everyone freaked out. And again, the issue here is really, you know, what have they been selling? What have they been selling their customers? Is it a security or not? Certainly Bitcoin created by an anonymous person worked on by a few other people, openly distributed, doesn't seem like a company. Ethereum created by a group of people with a profit motive who all owned an early piece of it that they paid themselves. Seems a lot more like a company, a lot more like a stock or a security. Let's go to Victoria Jones. What do you think? Are they securities? Is Robinhood in trouble? Well, I mean, I think the SEC hasn't even fully clarified what they're talking about yet. Let alone prosecuting anybody else. I mean, they had to debate for ages whether or not Ethereum was a security or Bitcoin was or wasn't a security. I think they've established now that Bitcoin is not a security. I think there's also been some discussion about Ethereum not being a security, although there's a clear difference between the two in terms of it being designed by a defined group of people, whereas because the creator of Bitcoin is anonymous, it's harder to acknowledge that. I think the SEC is on quite shaky ground here because they haven't actually clarified their own parameters yet. How is anyone supposed to operate in that environment and then be subject to the fact that they can decide one day that we don't like what you're doing. So we'll come along and issue this issue with this notice. It's just like, well, we're trying to follow what you guys are doing, but you're not giving us any clear instructions. So what are we supposed to do? So understandably, they're puzzled. I think most people who in the crypto space have a clear understanding of how this should probably play out, but the SEC seem to be really struggling in this area. So until they get their act together, I don't think they're in a position to be issuing notices to anyone. That's my understanding of the situation anyway. Are you just a unique guy, Josh? I've just really threw that article as well, but I want to add that the SEC has been constantly, consistently, trying to fit a round peg into a square hole, or the other way around, one of them. And this is the issue that they keep trying to find, like there's a new technology where we can create smart contracts, we can have digital currency, we can, there's a whole gamut of things. And they're trying to take this new technology and stick it into a set of rules that were developed so long ago about some orange groves. And so I think this is a fundamental flaw in the entire thinking of the SEC, rather than trying to pick it into a hole that it doesn't fit into, obviously. And that's why they cannot make a decision quickly because it's just, it's a new thing. It's a totally new concept that we didn't have this before. And this is the issue, whereas there are a lot of vested interests that would benefit by them saying that either Bitcoin or Ethereum are a security. So Michael Saylor would benefit from the fact that Ethereum would be named a security because it would then pump his bags as the only one in great cryptocurrency. And so I just think the SEC need to step the fuck off. And just go away as well, along with Jack Dorsey. It's neat to, like this, I was just so sick of seeing Gary Gensler's penis looking face head on my screen here, giving his silly thumbs up or thumbs down. Like, what's he got to do with anything? This one chap, I mean, and meanwhile, he lets things like FTX through. That's what he's got to regulate. That's what he's got to actually regulate. These centralized exchanges, along with the Securities and Exchange Commission, but instead he's sitting there, maybe it's a security, maybe it's not. Like, it's neither. It's a brand new thing. Go away, either create a whole set of new rules based around this concept, or go away, stop trying to cram it into something it just doesn't belong into. And you can obviously see that because you cannot decide about it. And there's so much vested interest in the failure of Ethereum and the failure of Bitcoin that I just don't want this guy to have any voice in that because he's a knob. He even looks like a knob. Well, in FTX wasn't a surprise, Josh. They were a company. They were in Fortune magazine. They were everywhere. They were practically on the stock market. Whereas we had a completely different situation years ago when Benjamin Loskey, Superintendent Loskey was talking to the Japanese. He said to the Japanese, I'd be glad to help you out with this Mt. Gox situation and do anything we can to help you with the crash. And the Japanese say to him, what is Mt. Gox? At least with FTX, he knew about it. He probably knew the guy. He knew Caroline at least all those kind of things. So that is really a big mistake when they can't regulate what's coming through their door. And like you said, Josh, I think one of the big decisions and reasons why they can't make a decision and why they're having so much trouble probably getting so many bribes from both sides is that whatever they decide decides who makes the money off of Bitcoin and Ethereum in the future. If Bitcoin is a commodity, it's regulated by the commodities commission. If it's a security, it's regulated by the securities commission. If it's regulated, if it's a currency, it's a whole nother commission is all these things. And as you can imagine, they're going to build a whole new wing of offices for all the agents that they need to audit this new thing. If it's a commodity, if it's a security, if it's a currency, all of those things. So tons of profit, tons of power, tons of great things. And going back to what Victoria was saying, the SEC or the SEC is in a unique position where the only way out is to do that thing in fear and loathing with the judge, where he just bangs the gavel and yells. He uses the power of the state to legislate the way out of it. And no one's happy with it in the past. They're all like coinbase. We could have had this and Binance, we did that. We could have had this, but the only way will be one big ground breaking decision. And like I said, it'll give it to the SEC. It'll give it to the commodities commission. Whoever it is will come in in the big Roman robes with the golden reef around their neck. And they'll say, this is it. We did it, you know, Bitcoin is ours now. And what a tragedy too for those who, like we said, reported first, these companies like BitInstant with Charlie Shrem that went in and said, this is our operation, this is what we do. We want to be legitimate. And then they send them to jail. Brian Armstrong was trained to jail. We want to be legitimate. They chase them around, give them a hassle and let CZ and Binance take the whole market for a slap on the wrist later on. Brian Armstrong saying, yeah, I would have done that four months in prison. Four months in prison for millions and millions of customers. I'm sure CZ could do the math. He probably has calculated out to the minute how many millions he made for this four-month stay. Well, I have four point to $1,000,000 as well. Nothing. I mean, if you have 50 or 100 million, like they say, finding President Trump a thousand dollars when he's allegedly a billionaire, it doesn't mean anything. Like it's not like a thousand dollars to you and me. I'm pretty sure $4.2 billion is a cut in the company. That's the company paid that, yeah, but not the individual CZ. Yeah, but again, like again, the company paid that. What does that do? That makes the company less secure for the customers. Because now they can't be as safe-who, because they don't have $4.2 billion to actually pay for security and all this other stuff, right? So they actually degrading the safety of an exchange to punish them. No, again, you're destroying the safe company in the exchange. Because there are a bunch of scumbag governments that exchange. But again, the government rules were plain. They were published. Binance moved their headquarters several times. Allegedly had no headquarters. They existed wherever CZ opened his laptop and his brain became working. And for all of that, they still had a legal structure. They still used credit cards. They used bank accounts. They were tied into the existing financial system. And because of this, they eventually had to pay just as we've seen others. Do we lose the internet? Okay, it's still working. I'll just start. But my puppy keeps taking my shoes. And it's like I got a rescue my shoes constantly here. Let's go on to the exit question. Josh, we're going to circle back to the beginning. Are Bitcoin and Ethereum securities should Robinhood be punished? Not ridiculous. Victoria Jones, same question punishment for Robinhood? Well, I don't think Bitcoin's a security. Arguably, ETH could be. So it's not a tricky question really. You know, if the SEC gets their act together and create some definitions, then maybe at the moment it is unclear. Oh, we all know the answer. Robinhood has been robbing from the rich and giving to the poor off with his head, off with his head. Moving on, check out World Crypto Network at worldcryptoNetwork.com. We've got lots and lots of videos. You can check them out for free at worldcryptoNetwork.com or on YouTube. Sometimes the videos we have, they have ads. We worry that YouTube doesn't suggest videos without ads. So we try to turn them back on now and then see if that theory is true. It's also a good time for you guys to give us a thumbs up. And thanks to everybody who joined the surfer club by staying till the end of the video last time. Be sure to stay to the end of this video. Moving on to issue three. College alum, surprise that is Iawaska inspired speech, praising Bitcoin got groans and booze. A recent college speech at Ohio State University didn't go well. Alumn and jewelry entrepreneur Chris Bann lauded Bitcoin and sang songs. He got booed. Pan said he was surprised by the hate and wants to talk to his critics. But the larger question here is Bitcoin cool. Do kids and college students think that Bitcoin is horrible and not cool and worth booing instantly say like NFTs, Victoria Jones, what's going on with Bitcoin's image problem where this Iawaska inspired speaker can't even get a little cheer there out of Ohio State? Well, I think the problem is as most of us come to learn with a bit of wisdom is that university is a clearly designed to brainwash the population. It's anywhere you go out into the world and have a bit of real life experience that you start to realise that the world is not quite the way which it was portrayed. And actually if you try and survive with the skills that you were only given at university then you're soon going to come across. And you know, you had to be quite versatile to work your way out of this. I mean sometimes you get lucky and things you've been taught, you know, create the perfect career path. But if that path is not straightforward, you need to investigate things a little bit and dig and figure out, you know, what's actually going on. And I can attest to that just from my own experience. I mean, I went to university and trained as a dentist and I had to get to the 2008 financial crisis even after having studied for an MBA before I really understood what was going on in the financial system because my dental degree didn't teach me, my school education didn't teach me, my MBA didn't even teach me. It was only when I got to the stage where I was in my own business struggling to figure out what had happened after the 2008 financial crisis that I finally understood. And so it doesn't surprise me really. I mean, I think even now, you know, Bitcoin's still a very young technology in the space we're very much surrounded by other people who understand our perspective because we've all been reading and the same stuff and having the same conversations. And I often say to people that the people who find it the easiest to understand often the ones who've experienced some kind of trauma or set back that's forced them to actually investigate these things. And unless you've been forced to do that research yourself, then it's rare that you're going to understand it. And of course, you know, kids who are at university, unless they're, you know, they've been exposed to some of those ideas through other people or family members. But, you know, they're very much shielded from the real world until they, until they experience it themselves. So I'm not surprised. And of course, the guy giving the speech is someone who's been out in the world running his own business and has clearly had to figure some of these things out. And I think the Iowaska just gave him some Dutch courage. It's just like, this is my opportunity because those that discover Bitcoin become so evangelical about it. Because it's like, I had no idea the world, you know, what happened to make the world so bad. And I've now figured out what the problem is. And I know Bitcoin's a solution and everyone needs to know about it. But then you come up against this brick wall of people who've just been trained to see the world completely differently. And you realize that until they come up against some hard knocks in life, they're not even going to be motivated to understand it. They're relying on the fact they've spent thousands on their education. So what they've been taught at university must be right. And until they learn for themselves through the School of Hard Knocks, it's unlikely that someone just giving a speech when they graduate is going to change their mind. So I'm not surprised really, but it just goes to show how early we are still. I think one of the interesting things about when people get converted into Bitcoin is like, you say, Victoria, it really is a religious conversion where all of a sudden these ideas we were talking about earlier is Bitcoin a security. Is it a commodity? Is it a currency? It's all of these things. And similar to the three gods and one of Christianity, once you take this holistic approach where it's a Swiss army knife, you could pull out whatever tool you need. And I think Michael Sailer is struggling with this right now with the whole. It's only digital gold. I find digital golds be useful. It's only digital gold. Roger Vera had the same thing, but it was different for him. It's only a currency. I use it for my businesses and my businesses have too many UOTXOs. And I need to combine them together and that's expensive. And big blocks would lead to better use for my businesses, my purposes. In the same way for Sailer, ossification, keeping the software hard, never allowing to change, is good for his digital gold theory. Everyone gets into this and I imagine like we're saying this, this college student with his high oska probably got a religious conversion into Bitcoin where he saw all of the possibilities and all of the things, especially like you say, Victoria, with business that he could do with this, the options that he could offer to his customers, the things that they could buy, the complex financial products, and the things we could do, even just sending money to a QAR code over the governments, over the oceans, over the internet. Probably blew his mind and got him exciting. I think it's disappointing though that we're not cool on college campuses. Everyone in the media needs to wake up and realize that Matt Damon Crypto.com commercial was right. You should have bought, they're all up now. They're all up. Everybody from the original crypto.com commercials up, the new one with M&M, who could be cooler than M&M, fantastic. And we're just keeping going forward here. This keeps happening. They keep having these setbacks. And then they're like, oh yeah, Bitcoin's still there. And they say, what's the price? You know, around 5,000, 7,000? They're like, oh, it's like 50 or 60. What? How could that happen? And going back to the college thing, just really quickly, I still think college is a matter of what you put into it is what you get out of it. If you're an aggressive learner, if you're a good learner, if you learn how to learn, if you learn how to read, and not just the words, but actually textual and understanding how book works, understanding what an introduction is. I mean, you can read the first page of every book. You can read the first line. You can read the first sentence. There's a lot of different ways to attack knowledge. And if you're passive about it, you'll get nothing out of university. And I fear a lot of these kids are coming in. Very passive, expecting the teachers to do all the work for them. And they're getting nowhere. And I also support that idea, like Victoria said. You've got to do your, no, not quite your own research, but if you're into research, and you learn how to research, and you do history, or one of the disciplines that actually requires, you know, reading multiple sources, putting them together, you can learn your own information. You can't expand your own learning. And you don't need university to that, but it can help. And I fear what would happen if we closed them all or put them all away. But Josh Tagalogah, what do you think? He made a speech about Bitcoin. He got audible booze. He was almost chased out of the arena. Yeah, I just, I think, Victoria hit it on the head. There are a bunch of, basically, been taken over by communist years ago, these institutions very subversively, and slowly, and anything to do with the free, true free market is frowned upon. But the funny thing is, the interesting thing, there's also this issue with these assets that, for instance, the fact that NFTs is really unpopular, are really unpopular with gamers. For me, that's really fascinating, because I'm not really a gamer, but I can't imagine why they would be, because, hey, man, you're paying all this money to these companies to have your digital thing in the game. And all the NFT does is allow you to have true ownership of that and take it out. The problem is, I think, is that the early NFT stuff was all based around, basically taking something that should be free, and infinite, and making them scarce. And this false scarcity around a digital item, I think, peed a lot of people off. So I think what happened is, is that the NFT gaming side of stuff was rolled out wrong, and rolled out through, and plus a lot of scams, like these, infaxiom infity, and stuff like that, and crypto-kitties, and things like that, which weren't really games, they're just sort of, kind of a game element. But true, in the game, I think you're right, Josh. It's an interesting idea where they could have rolled it out as you get thousands of items in the Eastcott's appenny, and you end up with hundreds of NFTs in your account before you know it. And when you get to the end of the game, you're like, okay, I don't really want to play this game. I'll sell all my items, and you could get five bucks. And that would be pretty cool. And everybody could cool that, but instead, they sold it where there are only a few of these. There are 10 for all of you million people, and they're going to be worth $100,000 each. And everyone said, I'm never going to have the $100,000 gun. You know, I'm never going to win the item in this game, and became this out of reach thing, whereas if they built it from the ground up, like you're saying, people would have been, oh, you know, I get an extra five bucks when I complete the game, that's fair. And as far as like the crazy item thing, you have to let that happen on its own, where you make some kind of item, and it's too powerful, or you make a mistake, and there's less of them than you thought. And that becomes very valuable. I think they're trying to force it too much. Yeah. And I also think that Bitcoin, we're at a stage of Bitcoin, like back in, back in 20, you know, I don't know, 2012, 2013, it would have been cool to get up on stage and talk about Bitcoin like that in front of the whole school campus, because no one would really understand what it was. It was pretty, now everybody already has heard of Bitcoin. They've either, their parents, of border, they either know people that have gotten very wealthy of it, or people that have lost a lot of money on it, because they sold when it was down, or they got scams by some shit coin out there. And so there's a lot of pain there as well. So I do understand the booing. I think, you know, and it sucks. It is an image problem. But I think there's a whole lot of things that play here. And at the end of the day, TikTok next block doesn't matter. It's just, we just keep on going and try to create true free market money. I do think you're right, Josh. It might not be as revolutionary as he thinks it is. If he just got into Bitcoin, say a few months ago, and he's very excited about it, for the rest of us, he's up there, and he's like, have you heard about email? Have you tried the worldwide web? It's fantastic. That's probably a little bit of that too. And in that way, we are kind of not cool. We are kind of like 45 records, or some kind of old technology. But the beauty of Bitcoin and the necessity of currency and something that we send around, is that we just keep using it. And you're like, do you use the same Bitcoin? You used 10 years ago? It's like, yeah, pretty much, pretty much the same Bitcoin. Yeah, still there. But I almost forgot for the exit question to do the Magic 8 Ball. A lot of people rely on this prediction, like sports gambling. They're like, I need to know my lock of the week. I don't know how to make my decisions on my own. I rely on a piece of plastic filled with water to make those decisions. So Victoria Jones with no more time left. The exit question, will the price of Bitcoin be higher or lower this time next week? I'm going to get with lower. Yeah. Josh, you got a higher or lower? I'm going to go with sideways sitting on that fence. I love sitting on that fence. Oh, sideways and pushes the worst prediction. Everyone knows that. All right, shaking it may cause bubbles, but here we go. This is the only way to predict the future. Will the price of Bitcoin be higher this time next week? As I see it, yes. As I see it, yes. The ball is optimistic. Moving on to issue four. Issue four. Apple computer gets crushed. As James Clark says here on Twitter, Apple's new crush ad, let's call it 2024, is a visual and metaphorical book end to the 1984 ad. In 1984, the world was monochrome, conformist industrial world, exploded by a colorful, vibrant human. In 2024, colorful, vibrant humanity is crushed by a monochrome, conformist, industrial press. And if you hadn't seen the commercial, here's just a little bit of it right here. Apple shows a lot of really cool items, like a record player, a metronome, a video game machine, and so forth. A lot of bars, industrial press. And then they are crushed into their many pieces, revealing that they all are now inside an iPad. So whereas you used to need all these things, and as you can see from the detail here, the commercial is also too long, weighing in in a minute, and provides way too much detail of the things being crushed, similar to the guitar, they're most of which people really love, and like, even if they are going to all be included in their new iPad. Josh, we've watched many of these crushing videos, which I enjoy as a pastime. I want to see what you think about here, the new iPad commercial from Apple. Yeah, I mean, it's kind of cool. It's kind of cool. I think it doesn't make sense how it just comes up, and then there's an iPad. The press needs, because everything gets squashed outwards. Maybe it should have had things on the edge to keep everything in or something. But yeah, I think it's kind of cool. Yeah, it's weird though how it breaks everything as well, like you're breaking everything. You know, really, you know, I'm sure it would have been, I would have liked like, Honey O' Shrunk, the kids sort of thing, where some machines zaps everything down into the iPad or something. But yeah, it's visually pretty cool seeing everything up and explode, and be destroyed. But yeah, destroying something isn't the same as putting it all into a, yeah, into a device. I don't know. Yeah, really is that that puff of confetti there at the end where the iPad is created. That was the human element. Now, I found it really interesting. As I said in the NFT yearbook, this really great coffee table book that came out recently has a lot of NFT artists in there. My whole life, we've been doing this analog to digital transition. So when I started out, we had record players and cassette tapes, and now we have MP3s, and that's it, and nothing else. We used to have card catalogs at the library. You'd pull out this big drawer full of cards, and that's how you look up the book or the article or the magazine that you're looking for. And I think this commercial is an incredible book end to that period and to that idea. And a lot of people probably don't even understand this if you weren't born in the analog era, and you don't have memories of using a record player, using a metronome, of course, all the musical instruments. It's insane. I don't know why they're included in there. But yes, there's been representations of this before, where they showed like a desk, and it had a roll of decks, and a phone, and a calendar, and a notepad, and they're like, you could do all these in your laptop, you could do all these in your phone, how neat that was. But this, and especially with the close-ups, and we're watching it again here, we're kind of over-watching it, I think. But these close-ups of the, you know, just beloved objects being exploded, as well as the cute characters being crushed and exploded here. It's very surprising that the corporation would allow this ad to go out. This seems like even after you've made it, and it's done, and you've wasted millions of dollars on it, somebody just needed to raise their hand in the back of the room and say, I don't think we should put this one out, boss. I don't think this is what we want to say. This is, and the idea is cool, and I love smashing things. I mean, I'm big watching the hydraulic press crush things, as fascinating. But I think it's kind of a fail as an ad, and it kind of, it fails that spirit of the company, that jobs tried to leave behind, and that spirit of the company was so apparent in the 1984 ad, with the woman swinging the hammer into the thing. So about the spirit versus IBM, and the new spirit, the new ad emotionally seems to say, we have become IBM. We have become a single tablet. All of our diversity is now this. Victoria Jones, what do you think about the new Apple ad? Smash. Yeah, I agree. I think it's terrible as an advert, and actually watching it is quite depressing. I mean, I love Apple products. I use all of them. I have several, but I've also just bought my daughter a new upright piano, and that costs way more than an iPad. So watching it being crushed like that is just, how can you do that? You know, I mean, yes, the world has a place for Apple products, but it doesn't mean that everything else is redundant. So yeah, no, I hated it. I hated it, and it just makes me cringe. And also watching that emoji with its eye popping out. I mean, it's just like, I'm sorry, but that's just too close to a real person. I don't even want to see that. And that idea is like a horror show idea, where you've already proposed like, let's smash things, and smash things is cool. Then you're like, let's smash something that looks like a human head, that looks like a face to where its eyes pop out, and it's clearly being hurt. And I mean, a lot of those things is similar to the case we have in America, where this woman shot her kitten and told people about it. Clearly, some people on the Apple team have some messed up childhoods. There's a like a television with like an animated chick inside or something, like a baby chicken, and they smash that too. And what's it called? I don't know, sculptor figure, that artist figure. They smash that. They seem to break its back. There's not just your smashing things, like you smashed a video game. It's there's some sadism in there. There's some like sickness in this smashing. And it's very odd to see that come out of, I'm sure, a major marketing organization, an incredible amount of team people that worked on this. One more idea on this, I had the tweet mark, so I want to show it here. Ivan Kuznetsoff on Twitter here says, I think the images below can explain this. And he shows a little bit of Steve Jobs office. And I've never seen this before. Usually they just show Steve Jobs home, and it's famously empty with just a Tiffany lamp, because he was so ordered and focused. He had to have a perfect lamp, and he hadn't found the perfect couch yet. So he was sitting on the floor. But this we see Steve Jobs at work. And look at the books, the manuals, the half-done projects, the ideas. There's even kind of a baby model of a G5 tower there, the cheese grater. Just what an interesting work environment the jobs actually had, that I don't think he ever let us see really in his life, because he was always ordered. And then this is, and maybe this is a press image, but this is Tim Cook's office. You can see he has his pictures on the floor, so that they're outside of the eye lines, so that everything could be more clear, and plain, and minimalist. He's got, it looks like an apple or two on his desk there for a show. Obviously a very staged photo, and he's wearing the Apple Vision Pro. Just go to go around again, Joshua Goll. What do you think about the differences between Jobs and Tim Cook, seen by these two photos, and as well as the analog digital thing we're talking about? Yeah, it's fascinating to see Jobs in a true chaotic creative space, because most creatives, most creatives are chaotic, because the chaos allows them to make connections between two seemingly different concepts that, and then sort of, well, here we go with the smashing again, and smash them together to create something out and new, whereas, and I do totally understand the xenophetic as well in terms of an aesthetic, but I think being creative you naturally are a bit more chaotic, because that's how you create it, because true creativity doesn't just come from nowhere, from nothing, from a zero point cloud. It comes from looking at many, many things and being inspired by stuff and saying, hey, would that wheel go well with that thing over here? And we've put it together, and now we've got this new thing. So yeah, that's fascinating. But yeah, I don't know. Like, Josh, that's one of the reasons I still go to bookstores or libraries, because you don't know the things that you don't know. So if you're out there browsing and you're looking at the covers of books and you're flipping them open, you're reading the back cover, you could get these new ideas and you can combine other ideas together and you can get those kind of groundbreaking ideas that you didn't have before, and you couldn't get that if you did the stimulate your mind and going back to the university issue in the same way when I was studying history, I took an English literature class and it turned out I was reading the same books that the people in the history I was studying. So all connected together, and I felt practically like a person of the time. They're like, they would be reading this book, they would know about this information. I was reading this book. I knew about that information. I understood the references, the book was making, things like that. So there really is a lot there. If you can combine these ideas together, if you are adventurous in your learning, if you're closed in and you have a limited supply of ideas, you have a limited amount of curiosity or have been designed to have less curiosity because of the people that you raised you or the way you were raised or if you're trying to stop people from being curious, you don't have a lot of problems with that university. You know, a lot of problems with those curious people. And this is the fight for free speech as well on Twitter and stuff anywhere, like to crush a different thinking out, you basically stop that process. And no matter how bad an idea is, you should just argue and say, look at it and laugh at it or something else. Of course, you're going to get people who go, no, no, I really believe in it and whatever. But it's really an important part of free society to have weird ideas and wacky ideas floating about because sometimes as weird as they are, they can inspire or do something new. But yeah, finally, I've rediscovered libraries recently. Specifically on my ePaper tablet where I've got an app called lib, which is a library app which has access to millions of libraries around thousands of libraries around the world. And yeah, it had my local library. And now I can like take ebooks out and it automatically gets returned. So there's not even any fines. That's pretty cool. And I can read so many magazines. I got wired magazine there. So all these things, so loving it. And I haven't gotten to the end of it yet, but the new John Oliver last week with John Oliver shows actually about public libraries. And of course, I was afraid to put it on because I knew he was going to say they're decaying and they're going to take all the books away. But he actually had kind of a mixed story where a lot of people are using them, especially low income people, people who need access to the internet, people who don't have air conditioning or heating and that they're able to find information this way. But despite their usage, a lot of other people are trying to close them and cut back on them, perhaps to close down ideas and thoughts that they don't like, which are available at the library, that are available on the internet, that are available in a wide number of books, these interesting thoughts that you shouldn't be having. It's crazy when they try to ban books. I think they should just put the ban books in the front of the library in a big section that says banned books and it would be like new releases at the video store. Everyone would want these. These are the ones that you want. And if you want to say, hey, I want to ban this, I want to move it to the front and get 10 more copies. I'll go ahead, Joss, I'll cut you off there. No, no, no, not at all. But I remember reading a little bit about the history of libraries and they've also, I mean, it was the original file sharing. Right? So they always had a lot of pressure against them and it was usually fought by large publishers because they didn't want libraries. But then there was a small minority of publishers that did want them because it was a marketing tool for them that people would read them and then tell their friends about these books. But of course, some of them, yeah, but if we were only so one book to them, instead of, you know, then everyone can borrow it. This is terrible. Yeah, and but, yeah, so fascinating how libraries actually are very similar with file sharing. A lot of the battles happened as well. It's nothing new is actually new. Well, and we have the ongoing fight here in the United States against the internet archive where they've made a very reasonable book lending system that allows you to access out of print books impossible to find books, research books, things that you might need. But the publishers companies don't make money on this. They'd prefer you to buy them through Amazon so they're trying to sue the internet archive out of existence. But that's a topic for another show. Victoria, what were your thoughts on the two pictures? We showed Steve Jobs. From the comments, it says that this is Steve Jobs in his home office. So it may be a little less clean than perhaps his work office. Unfortunately, as it says, we don't have his office photo. It was never published. So he never showed us where he worked, which is fascinating itself. Obviously, this is Tim Cook's office, a very staged photo. But what do you think about the two different minds of the two different men? Yeah, well, I agree with Josh. I mean, Steve Jobs' office obviously looks like a very creative environment, whereas Tim Cook's looks like a very stayed, unimaginative environment. And it's probably reflected by the advert that we've just been talking about. Well, actually, these two pictures were a reflection of that. But I think the thing that struck me the most is that this is the way in which I see the story of humanity. It's like human beings are very good at coming up with creative ideas. And then someone comes along and organizes it and sterilises it and kind of takes all the joy and all the creativity out of it. And then we have problems that require human beings to come along and be creative and disrupt that again. And so it's almost like the perennial battle between good and evil, really. It's a different kind of dichotomy that we're constantly having to follow through. And that's where I see it. I mean, obviously Apple was invented by Steve Jobs who was very creative. And it's like the suits have come in to organise it. But it's losing its creativity and its spirit. And is, in terms of this advert, has produced a very anti-human advert as far as I can tell. Which doesn't bode very well, does it? It's funny because Apple was such a human company, practically a hippie company. And so much of their stuff was doing the human things first. And they've had similar struggles in the past with a recyclability and the components that they were using at first. They were kind of like, we don't care. We're building computers. The good coming from computers is so great that if we use some kind of poison to make them, it's necessary. But then they realise what a mistake that was. And as well as how popular recycling and proper manufacturing were becoming. And they shifted in the same way I assume they'll shift on this. But then they also made a cringe ad around that. Like in the last way that woman was coming in saying, the environment and it was just so awful. It was such a bad... That was a pretty bad ad as well. That was also under the Tim Cook era. And that was a recent advertisement where an African American woman represented nature and made a big speech that kind of seemed anti-corporation, kind of seemed anti-human at time. Kind of this Georgia Guidestones. Let's have less people type thing. But like Victoria was saying with the way that new technology comes in and it's very explosive and exciting like radio was or like the early internet was or when jobs was building the Macintosh, he would say to his crew that they were pirates. And that why would you join the Navy when you could be a pirate? And that they were, you know, the work they were doing, the things they were doing were so adventurous and so exciting. And the work that Tim Cook's doing, well, I still would like one of those surface things if they were reasonable priced. And maybe everybody wears those goggles or glasses in the future and they've got it. But at the core it does seem like Victoria's saying there's so much of controlling these ideas and closing them up. And you look at all those music instruments that they smashed. Maybe in the future somebody will own B flat. And they'll be like, you can't use B flat in iMovie or in Garage Band anymore. And all of your instruments suddenly have one less key on them. Because I've seen that happen many times with music albums, especially soundtracks, even other albums where tracks disappear in iMovie. And so in Apple Music. And so you think, and I'm sure it happens to Spotify as well, and Neil Young disappeared his entire catalog. So you think you own access to your favorite band, your favorite album. But then you look at it one day, the tracks are missing. And there's nothing you can do. And maybe they'll take away music notes. Maybe someone will copyright the saxophone. You can't use the saxophone sound anymore. I don't know, but it's very dangerous when we smash all these things together into our iPads and then lose all these things. I think there's another future where you can still have a guitar and you can have an iPad. And you can record your guitar with your iPad and your guitar still exists. You don't have to take all the strings off your guitar and only play air guitar from now on, where the computer tracks your motion. You don't have to disable the item. I think they went a little far. Josh, just a little more on this. Yeah, I mean, it's funny because the whole ad is meant to really say, hey, we've compressed all this into the iPad. But the smashing and destroying part of it, which is 95% of the ad, the 98% of the ad is actually what comes across. And to your point there about censorship of, of, of, or copywriting of certain things, we have, we have precedents of this in books, too, where ebooks will suddenly update over the air and take certain parts out and refresh the new version of the ebook, which is really, really scary and this is actually causing a renaissance of people collecting actual books because they're saying, no, this is the book. You cannot change it. We have, we have a physical copy of it and this is the original. You know, it's almost like a hash in the real world. You could, you could, you get proof of something. And yeah, that, that is unfortunate that we, this sort of destruction of, of instruments and destruction of, of things, yeah. Well, while it wasn't a Bitcoin issue, I did think it was a very interesting advertisement and Apple such an interesting company. I thought it'd be great to talk about here. Let us know in the comments and the chat below. If you like the new smash ad, if you thought it was modern and cool, everything goes into the iPad or if you're like us, you're kind of affected by them, smashing a guitar, smashing a human head, smashing all these other strange figures. It just didn't feel right for the company. But again, like Victoria said, still using the products, not running away from the iPhone here. You make a bad advertisement every once in a while. There are some people on the internet that they seem to want to destroy them for the ad, but I think it's just a whoopsy. But we've got one more announcement to go ahead, Josh. So, just before we finish off with that, specifically music right now is in a very, very strange state with the release of audio and Sooner AI and now 11 labs have just released their music models and they're phenomenal. I tweeted about this just before, yesterday is the 11 labs one which came out like 10 hours ago, you cannot tell the difference if one of those songs played on the radio and it takes hours for someone and we are disrupting at such fast speed the entire industry of music because it costs a lot of money to have the instruments. It costs a lot of time to learn the instruments. It takes a lot of time to craft a song nowadays. I consider on the toilet taking a dump type some prompt and something comes out that sounds just as good as it takes a lifetime of someone to get to that antithesis at that point to create that song and there's something very, very sad about the fact that that's now a possibility. And I don't know what's going to happen because all those people that create film scores, all those people that create game scores, all those people that create music and maybe it's fine, maybe humans, you know, all musicians and this is what I always thought with Napster is that all musicians just head back to like touring and being minstrels that go around and entertain in real life and maybe that's the era of the super pop star that's multi, multi, multi, multi millionaire is over because there was very few of those anyway like compared to actually amount of musicians, very, very few made any money. They just traveled a lot. But the destruction of those musical instruments in that press I think comes at a time when musicians are feeling very on edge about computers and what they're doing to this industry specifically with what the 11 labs just released, it's insane guys. Well, I think that's right. It's in Hollywood. Yeah. That's a great point, Josh, too, because this this new iPad and the iOS behind it includes AI. It includes a language library or something like that where they're going to work on it. So it will be the first one with AI. And as you were saying, Apple is this artist company. It was always, you know, you've got the cool looking colored iMac, you write it, you know, your novel, you make your art with us, right? We're the art company. And now they're practically throwing that back in everyone's face and saying, we no longer need you artists. We can just make these IBM products and you just talk into it like you said, Josh, what a horror for these score people, especially for a video game or a movie because the people are already practically trained to write these prompts. They're not musically trained. They'd say something like, you know, moody music as if a serial killer was sneaking up behind you. But if the language library can understand that and go through all the songs ever written and then bring back an amalgam of those songs that's good enough for that scene or that video game, that's somebody's job right there. And like, say, Josh, it takes a lifetime to learn composing, to learn, to truly learn a musical instrument. And these are the people that Apple seems ready to push into the smashing machine. It's not just that they're smashing the technology, they're smashing the people too. Yeah, this ad might be just like the 1984 ad was kind of a positive, but also showed what computers could actually be. You know, it was kind of this, this Yin Yang where you're saying, yes, smash big brother, but actually the computers and the internet became big brother. And now, it's like smash all the instruments, everything how cool, everything fits into this thing, but actually this thing is actually literally smashing all of these things. So it's a fascinating mirror. There's also a great assignment, the way that it assigned all the PC users as 1984 big brother followers. You're all bunch of slaves in the same way in Bitcoin. We've seen Vitalik Booterin label the Bitcoiners as Bitcoin maximalists again, completely destroying your enemy with a well-timed name similar to the constitutionalists and the anti-constitutionalists who would want to be an anti-constitutionalist, you're just against everything. But I think it's a great issue. We're all out of smashing, smash the like button that's saying the chat, smash the like button. Yeah, I think it was a great issue and I enjoyed talking about it Josh and Victoria was good stuff. Everyone check out CurioCards. My little project that could is celebrating its seventh anniversary, the seventh birthday of CurioCards. We had a little hangout yesterday. We also had it here on the World Crypto Network. I have edited and updated the hangout if you want to watch it. Now I clipped off the first 10 minutes or so where the audio wasn't working and I clipped off the last couple minutes where we got trolled on Twitter spaces. The Twitter spaces chat had crashed. We couldn't control kind of who was going in and out and some guy said a bunch of stuff. But it was nonsense but it was great to hang out with everybody great to see the artist again and to get some questions from the community. So shout out to CurioCards. You can still buy and sell them, which is interesting. You couldn't really sell them back in the day. So it's nice to have both features going but we're running out of time. We're going to go to prediction or a story of the week. Victoria, are you ready with a prediction or a story of the week? Go ahead. Yeah sure. So as usual my story of the week I give you update on my website. So my latest newsletter on my website is totespage.com is on Bitcoin and inflation because I think inflation is often a subject that people struggle to get the head around. Not so much Bitcoiners because they've often done a deep dive in this stuff but I often like to look at the history of some of these issues because sometimes if you go far back enough in history you get to the point where the problem was simpler. And so when it was simpler you can then see how the problem has progressed so that you've got a good idea of how to interpret it in the moment. So at the moment you've got a lot of people talking about the fact that we've got inflation because prices are going up but that's not actually what inflation is. So if you'd like a better explanation of that I'd direct you to my website totespage.com the most recent newsletter I've talked about that and it also includes a link to the recent talk I gave at the Bitcoin Fest on Bitcoin and how it solves the problem of poverty. So again a few people might be interested in that. Yeah it's definitely well worth it definitely well worth it. Very cool and everyone can check that out at totespage.com. Josh Shagall, do you have a prediction or a story of the week go ahead? No my story of the week is basically my German Shepherd's ears it's puppy so you know German Shepherd's puppies ears are floppy and down and then they pump up and they're just this week started to stand up and now it's like this weird these two triangles because the head's too small to like be a part the ears so they're like together and it's super cute but we're also building and building and building on the standard the last puzzle piece which will bring deep liquidity and I I'm really just obsessed with solving this problem and so every day I get up and I work for 18 hours on this with my small team and yeah so I follow us over at well just on my Twitter and you can keep track of what we're doing there but it's exciting it's definitely definitely exciting what will happen in the next eight weeks. You can find out more at the standard.io and now that we've reached the end of the show I just want to give a quick shout out to the World Crypto Network Surfing Club last week I asked anybody that made it all the way to the end to give us a surfer emoji or maybe to say some kind of surfer lingo in the chat and you know people watch this show but we don't get a lot of interaction last week we got 14 comments so that's a lot more than zero so thanks to everybody that put a surfer emoji or said good show love a mad bitcoins surfer and turp strong rip out there today careful if you're going surfing and maybe this week you guys could give us a wave it could be either an ocean wave or a hand wave so let's count up which wins ocean wave or hand wave and obvious this is you know to drive attention or attraction or whatever is the whole YouTube thing you guys know what it is but it would be fun if you made it to the end of the episode here and you're listening to me talk if you leave us just a little wave emotion or say hi and thanks to all you did last week yeah and also big guys I want to know about propaganda where is propaganda if you're out there propaganda give us a wave emoji emoji as well because we miss you out there I don't know you were here every week for years and you're suddenly gone so I hope you're okay mate yeah we hope he or she as well and we do read your comments we do read the chat we do appreciate it and it's great that you guys support this show after all this time and until next time we'll be here again next week till the next time bye bye