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. Ben Arck from LNBIT. Good evening, all. Josh Shigalla from thestandard.io. Good day. And on Thomas Hunt from the World Crypto Network, moving on to the world at war. The price of Bitcoin, quick refresh from Bitcoinl.com created by DJ Booth, is down 1.52% in the last 24 hours, with the last of 105, 200, a high of 106, 920, and a low of 102, 660. That's $1 for 951 Satoshi's almost seems unchanged since last week. The Dow Jones Industrial Average is down 1.79% in just today, as you can see previously, it fell from a high of 42,984 to a current low of 42,197. It's right now, before the show started, Iran launches ballistic missiles at Israel as supreme leader vows to inflict heavy blows. Many of these missiles may have been interpreted and stopped by Israel's iron dome system, but Iran is attacking after yesterday, when Israel strikes and kill some of Iran's most powerful men, including military and nuclear leaders, after Iran was found to be continuing work on their nuclear program, some saying that the United States, according to whistle blowers, may have even coordinated and approved of Israel's strike. Of course, here in Bitcoin land, crypto altcoins lead slide as geopolitics spurs, haven demand. Because of the Israel-Iran war, the price of Bitcoin is down around 5% Ethereum off 10% other altcoins down as well. The memes are flowing on Twitter. We're waiting for crypto alt season in debt. Instead, we get potential World War III, Israel, Iran, at war. Ben Ark, what do you think of the current situation? And of course, it's effect on Bitcoin. Well, I mean, I haven't really been paying too much for my own sense. I haven't even been paying too much to the regular sort of new cycle. I mean, I've heard, obviously, that there's been a lot more, the conflict ramping up and the ramp were attacked. This is why Israel gets such support. If you look at the map of the Arab world, you have just Israel in the middle of it, and 8% of the population is Western aligned. And the West just don't want Arab-South Newks. So this makes sense. This is where we're all escalating, too. And we've worked for decades to not allow the Arab-South Newks. So I guess that's, you know, that I mean, this is why Israel manages to get away with so much because it's strategically. It's such an important ally to have in that region. Well, so they think, so they believe. So yeah, it's bad. It's yet another place, another kind of tender box, which could kick off a World War and you know, bring humanity to its knees. That's hope it doesn't. And on the Bitcoin price, which kind of seems very futile, in comparison to people dying and suffering, of course. I mean, I think it's, yeah, the price is probably going to go up. There's a lot of bullish things in the market, but it feels a bit distasteful to talk about that when there's all these horrendous things happening in the world. But there was a very interesting interview I saw with Naomi Klein who wrote the book, a disaster capital, and was it shocked, the shock doctrine. And she spoke about Israel as a citadel, which I thought was really interesting, in that it's this very technologically advanced society and then has this crazy eye and dome thing and it exists within quite a adversarial environment. But it continues to exist there. But it was kind of an interesting take to frame it as a sort of modern day citadel. Of those interesting. But apart from that, I don't really know enough to comment on the whole conflict. It almost feels like a Mars colony at this point, Ben. Everything around it is trying to kill it. Or if you see it the other way, it's trying to kill everything around it. It's definitely a very, very hot situation because of choices made years ago. Like Ben said, it doesn't matter with all the death and horrible things happening around us. But for the hotlers, for the investor class, you've been working years to make this money, years and years. And we were going up. It was looking good. All the chart guys had us up. You got this allegedly crypto president in the office and things were good for us. Then events outside of our control, Israel attacks, Iran counterattacks. Likely, Israel will counterattack after Iran's counterattack. I don't want to get too pessimistic and World War III here about this. I talked to ChatGbT recently and it said everything is going to be fine. Israel and Iran have had these kind of wars before. Israel and Egypt have had these kind of wars before. Usually, and again, we know what's going to happen in the future. But according to the past, these wars generally stay in the region. They stay contained. They're of course horrible loss of life on both sides, etc. But hopefully they'll tamp this down. They'll cool it down. But there is also a political article out there where they are speculating that Israel might, okay, originally, Israel is upset because Iran is continuing their nuclear program. So they might have not just attacked scientists, but military leaders as well as maybe key military leaders perhaps seeking to drive a coup or a change in leadership or direction in Iran. So that's a fascinating element of this to watch. It's like being back in a 80s Cold War spy type movie and we have no idea what to believe. Josh Egole, what do you think so far? Israel has attacked Iran. This of course affects the price of Bitcoin in the short term. It's down. Ben thinks in the long term chaos is good for Bitcoin and that's our brand. So maybe good. I don't know. Yeah. It's very, very sad to see World War. And one of the things that I think is really interesting is the sea change that happened over the last that I've noticed over the last 10 years is that the right have become the peace nicks generally speaking. They're the ones that are very like, I want my organic farm. I want to be left alone. So it get into wars. America shouldn't defend have these foreign wars. And I'm seeing it everywhere on the right. Honestly, I'm very deep in all of that. All my feeds are like on that spectrum. And they're all saying, this is Israel's war. We don't want war. And all of these people are saying we don't want war. Leave it alone. If they want to go to war, that's their thing. We're not going to stop them. And I find it really fascinating because as coming of age and seeing the Iraq war one and two, the right was always the big trumpet blowers of the war horns and the war drums, specifically around the nonsense around WMDs and weapons of mass destruction and stuff like that. And so, yeah, that's a mark change to say, hey, yeah, okay, Israel, you couldn't defend yourself. No problem. Do what you need to do. But we, the people that voted for the marga side of stuff, they just don't want anything to do with it. So that's interesting. The second thing is that. Well, but unfortunately, Josh, like I agreed, the initial reports were they were saying that perhaps Trump's hands off policy, perhaps his weakness, if you want to say that, the idea that there's this open space where one can attack whatever countries they want led to this. But the most recent reports from whistle blowers, according to the Jerusalem Post, is an American administration was presented with evidence of Iran's breakthrough towards a nuclear bomb. There was full and complete coordination with the Americans. So it seems like the Trump administration perhaps was involved in the planning of the attack. And again, it may be proved, there's a debate right now on both sides, whether this is the case, but you do have to open possibility that they were certainly aware, made aware, and perhaps even coordinated. So. Well, first of all, I'm talking about the people that voted for the guy. I'm not talking about the administration. I'm talking about the the zeitgeist of the people and what I see, the conversations coming out a lot, all like I zero, I see zero only on the extreme like Christian side that are that of Israel, even they are like, we don't want anything to do it. The second thing that we have to look out for and that that sort of post is is drawing on this. I don't know if it's true or not. There's always a more this massive fog right. But the second the second thing is we need to watch out as citizens as people, peace loving people. We need to watch out for false flags because when there's an engagement that can be very strong, it's very easy for the people for one side to create a calamity and make it look like the other to draw the main. And this is a motorcycle under that happens every single time we've seen it over and over and over again. And it's been declassified that Israel has done this to the states before. And we've seen it in multiple fronts. So it's important if a calamity happens not to knee jerk because that knee jerk is just getting it up. And so that's important. So keep an eye out on that. And these sort of news, you know, it's in Israel's interest to get us in. And so stuff coming out of, you know, propaganda newspapers and stuff, I just would take it with a grain of salt. But yeah, I just hope that this can stay very quick and people can find trade deals somewhere. It is interesting, Josh, which side and where America should be and what they should be doing in this situation. It's tough, though, to go back to the isolation views of the 1920s, given what we learned in World War II, that if you have an isolationist view that the evil will continue on in the world. And don't go back out and try to stop that evil, you know, staying at home in your cabin, the world getting smaller and smaller and smaller seemed like a bad choice as opposed to the all unfortunate having to go out and fight the evil. That's kind of to Josh's point about how on the right, there's a much more insular homestead kind of ideology, which is emerged, which is to protect yourself, those around you. And then the rest of the world, not that they don't care about the rest of the world, we're going to say that, except that'd be wrong, but to be less interventionist, I think from Josh was saying from the voters, and this is where the idea of strong borders come from on the right now is they want to kind of be much more insular. Whereas what you were saying about getting involved and picking aside and being a bit more interventionist, maybe that is, I'm not sure, yeah, the whole thing is. The war machine will always want intervene constantly. And they will trigger whether it's a nation or the war machine will trigger something like a Pearl Harbor event to get you into that war. Yeah, I mean, people make so much money. Like this is the problem. It's so much money. It's insane. They just won't continue a war because they make so much money. Yeah. And generally they want little skirmishes like the countries that can't defend themselves like Iraq. But then Iran is not Iraq. Iran is a lot larger, a lot more population, a lot, you know, I mean, they don't have that much money. But yeah, it's, it's, it's no good. Yeah. But Thomas, you're, you're, you're, like, these skirmishes in the past, they, they haven't blown out. And I don't think it's World War III sort of stuff. Russia on the other hand is World War III sort of stuff because NATO is a whole bunch of countries that are bound to act if something, you know, happens to land on the other side of the border. So and that could escalate a lot quicker than this. This is, this will, you know, sadly, it'll hurt a lot of people and kill a lot of people if it escalates, but it'll stay in that region. Thank you, Raleigh. But I was saying to Josh, because you're mainly looking for what outside countries are going to jump in, you know, NATO's all connection. Russia has allies. But in this case, it's mainly a Hezbollah or I forgot the other name, Hamas, who would probably be involved, but again, smaller forces, less of a possibility of a domino effect escalation like we saw in World War I. I'm not sure. And it could, it could, it could rally Arab support. So you have like the Palestinians are attacked and, you know, it's relatively small population of Arabs. But then if you look at the beyond of resources, the Saudis have access to and the Turks and the Libya, the year and all the African Arabs as well, like it's, they're surrounded by a lot of Arabs, a lot of wealth. Yeah, but the thing is, if they cared about the Palestinians, they would actually accept them in as refugees and they're doing. Well, no, and that they would argue that the Palestinians deserve to stay where they are and fight for their home run. So that's why that's why they would. But I mean, bringing around into the conflict does could, could potentially rally a lot more support from, I mean, around the Arab nation. It has been antagonizing consistently for a long time. Apparently, apparently. Yeah, I mean, like the, well, the first major compute, well, compute will stuck, and it wasn't. It was the first virus, which is created by nation states to attack the Iranian nuclear program. Nuclear stuff. Yeah, but we've been hearing this nuclear nonsense for 40 years and they hear it like, they're a week away. They're a week away, guys. They're a week away. They're a week away. Go ahead. Scruf your lives. I just, this nonsense to get you into war. It didn't seem like a big surprise that Iran was still working on it. Certainly, I have no inside information. I watch TV like everyone else, but to say that Israel was surprised, but it does seem like they've taken another one of these existential all or nothing actions that they seem so off to take. But looping it back to Bitcoin, this is one of the value propositions of Bitcoin, isn't it? Is that if printing money becomes harder than printing tanks becomes harder as well? That's right. It's an all talking point in Bitcoin, and I think it has some validity. But so does printing money for hospitals and printing money for everything else. So the whole society will have to go to more of a libertarian structure if Bitcoin. And that's why so many of the coiners originally are libertarians because they understand that when you don't have the power to print your own purse, then you need to actually create value. You can either extract it by force from the class that are actually productive or you can reduce the power of the state and hope for voluntary safety nets to be built around like insurance and stuff like that. Well, as you know, I still think we'll continue self-soft currencies for a long period, but they will become more like what I'm going to honest. So whether it's a federation or something like you will be able to create physical stimulus to build the house, build the road, whatever. But it would have to be a consensus mechanism from the majority of the people in industry which lives in that country. Whereas when you look at the Iraq and Afghanistan, it really was, flip on the money printer. And then enrich all of our arms mates and cause conflict. Whereas I think that's less likely using the toolset we have if you can still have Bitcoin, but then also soft currencies for prosperity and investment. I think we can maybe have the best of both. Going back to what Josh said about the false flag situations, I do think we need to be on guard. And there is another possibility with the situation in Los Angeles, with the National Guard and the Marines where possible agitators could have escalated the situation or general violence could have gotten out of hand leading to martial law or other issues like that, which we should definitely keep an eye on because that would certainly affect business. It would be ironic as well if Trump approved or was involved on the attack on Iran, given that like Josh says, many people believe Trump to be a peace president and an anti-war president that would try to stop this kind of thing. Although we have seen in the past Bill Clinton wanted to govern a certain way once he got into office, they sat him aside and they said, no, you can't do those things, you can't change the economy. This is our situation here. It's very dire. Perhaps similar things were said to President Trump. Of course, he's publicly been a fan of Israel many, many times. You also need the army on side. Doesn't need the generals as well. And if they want to run his support around Israel, and it's pretty hard for him to go against that. It could be. And to close out, we have the magic eight ball to predict the future of Bitcoin price as a war is currently affecting our future. So we will go back to plastic. Ben Ark will the price of Bitcoin be higher or lower the war likely continuing through the week? Actually, I don't think the war has that much of an impact on the price of Bitcoin. I don't think anything can have that much of an impact on the price of Bitcoin. Currently, with all these strategy companies who've been up Bitcoin reserves on an exchange as an all-time low and then soon to be a huge wave of retail investment. So I feel that the Bitcoin price can only go up quite a lot from now. Josh Jagala, Henny Penny, the sky is falling. But what about the price of Bitcoin? Sky is falling and the weather is great still. But the price of Bitcoin will be, yeah, it could be lower next time next week. I'll remain bullish. I'm always bullish. I think Bitcoin's great. I think like Ben said, it's a chance for some of those treasury companies to scoop up some more cheap Bitcoin at the hands of retail who keep selling it every jump and dip. The price isn't going to go straight up despite what sailor says. It's going to go straight up then down, straight up then down, straight up then down. And this might just be one of those downs, not necessarily related to the conflict and all the news. But the eight ball is the source of truth, the only one who knows for sure and we will ask it now, will the price of Bitcoin be higher this time next week? And it says it is decidedly so. The ball remains bearish, despout, out, despite outside events. Bullish, right? Bullish ball. The ball is bullish. Moving on to issue two, crypto industry's coveted market structure bill is doomed, lobbyists say. The landmark bills, odds of passes may have been derailed by macro political forces, crypto policy leaders believe we're talking about the, let's see, written down, clarity act. The clarity act, which is alleged to give regulatory clarity to cryptocurrency and Bitcoin is blocked again due to the attempts to include conflict of influence, interest legislation. The Trump coin issue is rising up as Democrats are using it to block the crypto regulation, hoping that they could limit perhaps future presidents having their own coin. The genius bill touted by JD Vance at the recent Bitcoin convention seems already dead and not going to happen. Josh Shagalla, they got a lot of executive orders. They got Ross freed, but as far as actual legislative accomplishments, it doesn't look like the right wing bit corners are going to get anything. Anybody think about the clarity bill, the genius bill and the possibility of the United States codifying these regulations? Remember an executive order. If there is another election and another president could be overturned by a signature, a law is a much harder thing. By Josh. Well, in the wisdom of old Bitcoin as memes, the meme is this is actually a good thing for Bitcoin. And we don't need no thinking states. We don't need them. We don't need no thinking badges. Like, okay, so what will happen is some other country will go all Michael Sala and just start stacking sats. And then another country will and another country will and another country will and eventually the US goes, geez, we better. So they'll print a whole bunch of dollars and they'll pump it into cracking and coin base or whatever. And they'll start stacking as well. It's just a matter of time. Ben, your thoughts on the political possibilities in the United States for crypto? Yeah, I think Josh is right. The Treasury book is out of the bag. People realize that if you have cheap money alongside, you know, not cheap money, which goes up in value, they can't really coexist together. And I kind of feel that we're in this like the thermodynamic feedback loop where now where the cats out of the bag and companies will want to accumulate Bitcoin. These Treasury companies exist and countries will start accumulating Bitcoin because they'll know that the asset's probably going to go up and go up quite a lot. And as that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, then everyone will just try and get more and more Bitcoin. And then I think maybe we're covering a story about it a little bit later on this. For companies. What if that other company? I'm not entirely sure would be supportive. But eventually, when people start owning their own Bitcoin and owning their own keys, I think it will be a positive thing. But yeah, no, we see it with the stake in shake and the other companies which you're dabbling with accepting Bitcoin via payments. For them, it's just dollar cost averaging in Bitcoin onto their asset sheet. And for good reason, because if you're a business owner, you want to accumulate some Bitcoin product and your business assets and you'll go up in value and you'll get a pound of back from your VCs and your shareholders and your board of directors and everyone else. So it may be it won't go through as it is, but we are going to have much clearer regulations in the industry. And it's funny because I've been speaking to VCs now with the Alumbits raise for the past nine months. And when I started, the kind of the pitch was that we have this Noster.com thing, which is included with Alumbits and Noster.com has potential to be a unicorn and create a lot of value on the payment side. Like we all know it's amazing, but it might take a while for the rest of the world to catch up to the fact that Bitcoin payments make sense for their businesses. But it will happen. Whereas now, a much more with the stake in shake thing and spar and whoever else, like a much more bullish on these companies just seeing payments as a way, an easy way to dollar cost average in some Bitcoin into their assets. So yeah, I'm bullish on Bitcoin regulation. I think that the time has come that particularly with it being such a big part now of all street, the time has come for clearer regulations. They don't have to necessarily be friendly, just clear regulations as to what you can and can't do with Bitcoin. And yeah, we don't need them ultimately. So whatever. But it would be nice if people who were operating in Clean Outland and they want to accept Bitcoin payments that they can without be having a fair of going to prison for it. Yeah, as company as a company, sorry, Thomas, but you know, as someone that's run companies in the space, it's like that as a company you care about regulation and you care about clarity from the state because they're the ones that will come in and they're the ones that dictate whether you can partner with banks and stuff like that. And about for Bitcoin itself as a soulless entity that is perpetual and just keeps going, it doesn't care whether your business fails or goes, it doesn't care if your protocol works. All it cares about is hashing a new block and mixing it with the last block. And so it's an interesting thing as a builder in the space because as a builder in the space, specifically if you come with an arched leanings and these philosophical leanings that are generally a little less friendly towards state upper artists, you have to bend the knee a little bit towards that. And that's not to say all, you know, a lot of businesses that are in crypto on Bitcoin themselves, don't have a single bone in their body that is driven by philosophy or anything they're driven by pure market need in something and they're happy to deal with regulations. So, you know, regulations will come and the clarity will come. So it's good. It's also I suppose it's also being good to not have clarity in a way because that has pushed for sort of more non custodial solutions like if from the onset, the world was very friendly to Bitcoin and people accepting Bitcoin payments and holding Bitcoin and transferring value through Bitcoin. We probably wouldn't have anywhere near as many non custodial solutions as we're starting to get in Bitcoin from trying to evade like regulators. Yeah, we also have things like tether though, but that all powerful billion dollar trillion dollar organization that's out there that so far is, you know, neutral good, but could be evil at any time. Go ahead, Josh. No, yeah, no, I've got nothing more. I was just going to say then I've said what I've said on this before, but I'll say it again. I think that the conservative Bitcoins did what they could. They took the advantage they had. They won big. They got Ross free. They got a lot of positive news stories about crypto, a lot of crypto people in the right positions. It doesn't seem like they're going to get legislation passed though. They're not going to get laws that are hard to change on the books. They're going to executive orders, which are easy to change. But again, this goes back to the long term strategy that we need both sides or publicans and Democrats, Democrats, liberals and conservatives to agree together on this that Bitcoin is good for them. And that together we can craft legislation that we would both agree on. And that's where I think we'll get the regulatory, regulatory clarity and the other things that the business people are looking for. But I'd watch out for that tether thing. Watch out for that tether thing. Moving on, check out worldcryptonenetwork.com where we've got new shorts featuring one galt and Victoria, Dan Eve and more at worldcryptonenetwork.com. Moving on to issue three. BlackRock owns 3% of Bitcoin and that changes everything. Basically the article from the tip sheet or tip ranks investor website says that now that BlackRock is heavily investing in Bitcoin, it's time for everyone else to get in. Bitcoin is no longer a fringe bet associated with tech libertarians and early adopters according to the article, it's sitting in the portfolios of some of the largest money managers on earth, 3% of the supply. Only one person holds more Bitcoin than BlackRock and that's Satoshi Nakamoto. Ben Arck, what do you think about BlackRock taking Bitcoin seriously and what this means for the rest of the Bitcoin market? We mean that kind of plays into our previous topic, doesn't it, about the regulatory side of things? Like if Bitcoin has kind of infiltrated the system as much as it has, it has to have regulations and probably quite favorable regulations. There is a systemic risk though with all these businesses, people getting access to Bitcoin, the trust of third parties like BlackRock and Strategy and whoever else. In the, you need to prove the funds actually exist. You need to, like the whole point of Bitcoin is to balance the books, like we had 2008 and then Satoshi invents triple entry bookkeeping, like we have this blockchain thing where we can verify all the transactions exist and it isn't being inflated and blah, blah, blah, everywhere is without some sort of proof of reserves, which I know is shaky at least, but it's something rather than I think like, but people to be in the markets to be accessing Bitcoin via these strategy companies and BlackRock and whoever else. There is an issue there where potentially it could cause a systemic risk and there is an irony that maybe the thing which is created off the back of the financial crisis to prevent another financial crisis causes a financial crisis, which potentially I suppose could probably happen if enough people just actually think it's Bitcoin and they don't hold their own keys. So yeah, good and a bad thing, I don't know, like good for the Bitcoin ecosystem temporarily, but then that's also that great fear if it goes down in value and then all these BMS start selling off their Bitcoin and then they don't really have the Bitcoin there, like what happens then, you know, like what impact does that have on the markets? So. And of course, we have Michael Sailor saying recently and implying that proving Bitcoin reserves would somehow hurt the security of his Bitcoin, he said that behind the Bitcoin there could be nothing but loans. So they'd take the Bitcoin and it wouldn't matter if you proved it, which is ironic because at the same conference, he was saying that everyone should be taking loans to buy more Bitcoin so on and so forth. It almost seems been like we need not only proof of reserves, but proof of time lock. If they could say these reserves are locked up for 100 days or a thousand days and if it was cryptographically and written and you know, time locked, unchangeable, it would be an acceptable proof of reserve, something that Sailor could not say, you just have to sell to pay the loans. I mean, proof of stake. There you go. Josh, what do you think? BlackRock owns 3% of Bitcoin. The only one who owns more is Satoshi Nakamoto themselves. Well, the language is interesting there, right? You're saying BlackRock owns. And so do the ECF shareholders own the Bitcoin? People would say, no, no, they don't. Okay. Well, does BlackRock own the Bitcoin? Well, actually on the same principle, no, no, they don't. Coinbase does because they have the private keys to those Bitcoin. So actually, the custodian is the one that owns the actual Bitcoin. And that's also with banking regulations. If the bank has your money, the bank actually owns that money and they promise to pay you when you want it back. But and they give you an interest rate on that for the privilege. Now, Bitcoin's a little bit different because it's not officially a currency in the US. But yeah, that's the interest in Conundrum, right? Does BlackRock actually own that Bitcoin? Because if you say yes, they do, well, then you would say, okay, well, there's legal definition of the investors because the investors actually own shares in the ETF. So that's an indirect ownership. And some would say, well, BlackRock's ownership is also indirect because Coinbase hold it. I don't know if it's just semantics. But at the end of the day, if you look past semantics, who owns the Bitcoin, the ones with the private key that can spend it. It does seem more and more Josh that these ETFs and other arrangements where someone else holds the Bitcoin are a bad deal. Publicly, Michael Sailor has said, oh, it's a great deal. We invest in the Bitcoin. We pay 10% to the person who gave us the money and we make 50%. As long as the person who gave you the money doesn't learn that they could make 50% themselves on Bitcoin, not need you to hold it for them to get the measly 10% or 12% or whatever they're getting back. It's a very, very tight rope that he's walking, especially when he's out there saying everyone else should do it. And we have a story later on, Oval talk about much, but Anthony Pompleano is creating essentially what sounds like his own Michael Sailor will hold your Bitcoin for your company. Continuing this trend, as we've seen meta-planet, as we've seen GameStop, as we've seen company after coming, and this is the next issue. But yeah, Josh, it's crazy. BlackRock buying in, but yeah, I don't think they hold the Bitcoin. I don't think they should hold the ETFs. I think it's like Ben said, Deja Vu from the original 1920s with a great depression, where the new tool was not owning the stock and buying it long. So you wouldn't own it, but you'd invest in it, someone else would own it, you'd invest in it. And these stacks and stacks of worthless paper led to a mountain of worthless paper and then everything crumbled. And they're all holding the paper. And Satoshi would want, like you say, Josh, for them to hold the keys. And they could make the 50%. They could take the risk, certainly they could take the holding risk, all the other things. But it'll be interesting to see how it turns out with all these businesses around. And we should move into issue four, because we're almost there already. Attack of the clones. Coinbase raises alarm on risks with Bitcoin Treasury model. A Coinbase analyst warned that the trend of publicly traded companies whipping up Bitcoin Treasuries could trigger systemic risks for all of crypto. Ben Arck, what do you think about the Coinbase analyst warning us what we've been talking about as well, the infinite, just nature, the addictive aspects of Bitcoin owning for Treasury companies, why even bother making any widgets, and what if the market actually turns, they start dumping, they all start dumping. What if your Treasury companies the last one to dump? Ben Arck, what do you think about the rise of Bitcoin Treasury companies? I mean, I think they're kind of fine as long as the price is going up. What we do have is programmable money, which we didn't have before. So like you said, Thomas, I think was that the, you can time lock Bitcoin. And that's how five fish works. And I know a whole bunch of, I think I mentioned it on the show last week. I know a whole bunch of people who work in Bitcoin get paid in Bitcoin. And then they need to pay for stuff with their cash and they go use five fish. I feel like a five fish. I know, but there's a bunch of good people who I respect, who also respect that platform. And so essentially they're like loaning their Bitcoin, they get cash, they time lock the Bitcoin for a year from now. They can default on the collateralized loan, and it doesn't rematter because they'll get back the surplus of the value. And then the person who led the money will definitely get about the 10% extra, which they gave the loan for. And I think the success of that platform shows that generally there's a whole swath of people out there who believe that Bitcoin's going to go up in value. So thus I will give you some cash. And I know that I'm going to get back that back. Well, thus I will give you my Bitcoin and lock it up in the time lock, knowing that the Bitcoin value, gold and price a year and a future. And there is some wisdom to that idea, like the last low thing, if he lies low, when he bought that pizza, if he'd used a collateralized loan, which then settled, I don't know, a couple of years later, then he wouldn't have spent billions of dollars on a pizza. He would have spent maybe a billion dollars on a pizza and then he would have got more of the Bitcoin back. So I can kind of see the logic in delaying selling the Bitcoin into a year in the future or two years in the future. And then the person who's willing to give you the cash then gets a percentage for the collateralized loan. I can see the logic in that. And then if you extrapolate that out to these like treasury companies, I can see the premise. But then there is this issue that if Bitcoin drops heavily in value, which is probably well at some point, so he always does, then all of these treasury companies sell off and just try and save as much as they can and convert to cash. And yeah, just cause us little damage to their treasury company or the ETF as possible. Then that could be a huge risk. And he could really like, you know, like it would create a much more volatile dump. So yeah, there is a systemic risk. I think I said it before. So it's good that that guy's using the same terminology, but yeah, systemic risk of having these essentially were futures, aren't they, I suppose. And it is the same story coming out of the other side that you can have infinite money forever that the price only goes up. And like you say, Ben, they'll be the one standing around they've they've already said Michael Saylor just said we could go there will never be another Bitcoin bear market, which is a horrible thing to say if you don't want there to be another bear market. Josh, should all of what do you think about Bitcoin treasury companies and the possibilities that could overload and and then cause a big crash? Yeah, of course it could. This is the this is the history of the world of divot of derivatives. So yeah, it could definitely most most absolutely happen. But the biggest thing is yeah, building on the paper loans, the backing long positions, they're the real scary ones because it's just cascades, it's like the little tiny domino. And then the bigger one and bigger one and bigger one and you know that classic. But yeah, to Ben's point as well, I mean, this is exactly why we we built Bitcoin, built the standard is that people can then you know borrow against it in a way that's provable. You have the collateralized loan and it's all on chain. You don't need to trust a third party. And and earn a yield on it as well by by your smart contract putting it into uni swap and allowing it to trade or be as be as liquidity. But yeah, it could most definitely happen. Nothing's holding it back from having a huge bear market. The higher it is, the higher it can fall. But there's always been to buy it at the bottom. As Tracy used to say that the hardler of last resort and then Jay, as he used to say, if it goes to a dollar, I'll buy them all. But go ahead. So there's so so I suppose what were you saying, Josh, is that there's kind of a smart way to do it where you actually use the technology and things like the standard. And then there's kind of like a dumb way we should do it, which is like the legacy paper bitcoins with an ETF or a strategy type thing. And you saw that with FTX. That's exactly what FTX did. They except they did it with even worse. They did it with their own shit coin. So they were they were making all of these contracts, these human contracts on the collateral that they had in their shit coin. And probably on their Bitcoin too. And this is what sailor can do. You can make all these human contracts on the Bitcoin. So you don't really know how much so you can prove for reserve it. Like sailor said, you can say, okay, he is the address. He's the coal wallet addresses. But you don't know how many how many paper contracts are actually promising that to other people if price gets to so and so. So you don't actually know where it's it's very vague. So this is why smart contracts are so important in the space, whether you do it on Bitcoin or anywhere else is it's that you can you can read you can use a program to read through all the contracts and and and collate all the data and know where you stand. You could even effectively have like transparent pyramid schemes and stuff on chain because at least then the people the players of those games can see where they sit in the game. Am I coming in right at the end or at the start or like it the the idea of transparent bookkeeping is a really interesting idea for so many different ways. And and we'll see we'll see it play out more and more. But yeah, it's these paper trails that are very, very hard to deal with. And you saw that in like the big short, for instance, where you had these people actually doing investigative journalists to try and get an edge on the market and going how how many of these mortgage backed securities are actually defaulting on their loans? Like how many how many people in these rural areas are defaulting on on on their mortgages. And so it took a lot of legwork to do that. But with smart contracts, you could literally just run a program that would go through all of the collateralized debt and see what's happening. See, that's really interesting because it clearly is something in collateralized debt. But the issue is always balancing the books. Like that's the whole point we have Bitcoin is balancing the books. But if you can still have collateralized debt, if someone needs it, like they they feel that you know the Bitcoin price is going to go up whatever else and they just need the cash, then the tools exist to do it properly. Yeah. It does seem though like Josh is saying that we're doomed to do it the wrong way that we're going to do it the paper way. We're going to do it the quick and cheap and easy way. No one understands technology. I know Josh knows what he's talking about with this smart contracts, but your average investor, your average CEO, whatever they have no idea what's going on. And it's almost like we're in a horrifying loop of a hundred years ago. We're going to repeat isn't registration all the other things. I mean, that's new meeting old, isn't it? It's like we have these new basket of technologies. They're meeting old basket of technologies. And then people who straddle both those worlds like the Michael sailors are able to exploit the book. It is interesting. He almost has an advantage like you say, Ben, because he's old world and he's new world. I've always speculated people of my generation generation. I think it's why where you had the analog childhood, but then the digital adulthood had a unique set of tools in that same way perhaps sailor has the analog financial experience, which he's now taking to the digital world, but it does seem like we'll have a lot of casualties and disasters before we eventually get around to saying that Josh is right. And we should have them all on smart contracts and that you really can't trust these people. But it seems like we'd rather put a billion dollars in one of these paper things and just lose it all and lose everyone's investment and so forth. We're doomed to repeat it. I remember Philip K. Dick talked about the Roman Empire never ending and that history was cyclic and that it was repeating. And it feels a little like that. We have a 1930s type situation going. We have a 1920s type situation growing. No one remembers the 30s and 20s despite the historical record and books and so forth being available. But we'll see how it goes. Hopefully, hopefully we'll learn. It's never too late for everyone to learn. We've got some quick update stories here. I just want to get your guys opinion and let the audience know what's going on with stories we've covered previously. Bitcoin core developers commit to changing, op return data storage limit by October. The controversial change expands data storage on Bitcoin to four megabytes, a move that has stirred debate for months. It sounds like they talked about it. They talked about it enough. They're going to try to push it through. Ben Arck really quick. We talked about this issue. People are trying to store more data in the blockchain. It seems like it's going to go forward. Yeah, I think I got it technically wrong last time. I tried to give a technical explanation as to what operatives. But yeah, so I'm not going to. I'm a practical guy. When the tool exists, I'll make stuff for it until it exists. When something's like a femoral, like not femoral, when it's something's like theoretical, I find it really hard to imagine what I can use it for. But when it exists and it's a new tool, which I can use, I'll build some stuff for it and it'll be cool. But the idea of a deadline doesn't make sense to me. I don't know if it's going to go down so well, like finding consensus on any change in Bitcoin takes loads of time, discussion, and then if it's kind of pain for the obvious of that change makes sense then make that change. So I guess it's part of the finding of consensus is to declare that there's a six month time period in which we're going to try and reach consensus. I'm, you know, for the idea. But yeah, it's a, it's a, I'm not sure whether anyone's ever going to be able to stick to the setting a deadline of six months because you can possibly make that decision. But it will happen at some point. It's just the, it's the free-napped resource and something like a Bitcoin protocol. It's the sausage being made in public. I like it. It's horrible, but you end up with a beautiful sausage. So I agree, Ben. I think you have to call for consensus. You have to set a deadline. Then you have to miss the deadline. Call for it again, set a deadline, miss it, so on a few more times. And then maybe we'll get to a tight consensus. Four megs is not a lot of data. Maybe if you put it all together, you could get a movie. Maybe you could put, you know, you could certainly put a book, maybe an image. Josh Tagalog, what do you think? Opera Turn and Ben's idea about the consensus and that we're just trying to get some agreement on this. I mean, as far as I understand it, the, the opera turn is limit are actually policy rules set by nodes, like Bitcoin core. And so, you know, I'm 100% on it, but whereas the block size limit was a consensus rule that needed to be enforced by the whole product on a protocol level. So like a four meg opera turn limit still actually aligns with Bitcoin's existing block size constraints, but and it doesn't alter them. But in fact, miners can already include larger opera turn transactions in the blocks if they, if they comply with the like before megabyte block height limit. So yeah, I think it's, I don't know if it's even a hard fork thing. It's just a Bitcoin core node software upgrade. I'm pretty sure. So I don't know if you need consensus. Well, we'll find out the debate is continuing. We have more updates on stories. We have good then. I know that so on a side note, I know that a lot of my technical buddies, my builder friends are very, very, very excited about arc. And I think that the, the, the, the opposite update means that they can have arc. So that's all I know. And again, they tell me about it and they tell me it's not arc. It's not arc investment with Kathy Wood. What is arc? It's not been arc. No, I know this is too much. It's too much. It's too much. It's not my name. No, it's a, it's a way of using Bitcoin using virtual UTXOs, but it means that you can have much faster transactions and kind of, and I know we've heard this before, we're lightning, but like an unlimited off-chain scaling solution, which actually benefits lightning, because you could have a channel, finally have channel factories and build them like properly using arc. That's about the extent of my knowledge. And I turn around to my developer friends, and I'm just like, okay, when it exists, I'll make shit for it. But until it exists, some of that crazy, I'm the same with geography, man. Unless I go there, I don't want to know about it. I, I care where the capital of someone so easy, if I'm not there, you know, this is exactly. It does matter more when you're there. But let's keep it going. Got another update story. Unfortunately, for El Salvador, there's bad news coming out about President Naive Bukkeli. It looks like money that was given as foreign aid from the United States to El Salvador was perhaps given directly to the gangs in order to buy the peace and safety that El Salvador has right now. They say report highlights an investigation is needed, despite his crime fighter reputation. His aides blocked extraditions of MS-13 leaders to the United States, perhaps showing a connection. Money laundering agents drew up a request to examine Bukkeli and senior officials diverting US aid funds to help gang members and allies threatened after threats from the government. It doesn't look good for El Salvador. Obviously, have not been a fan of this situation. Of course, anyone can use Bitcoin, but we don't have to support them. I don't know, Josh the college is briefly doesn't look good for El Salvador. What do you think? I don't know, enough to make a comment on it, honest. Yeah, it's just not, it's not looking good. But again, the dictator took power, perhaps made deals directly with the gangs, rather than the crackdown, which was presented to the public. But as far as I understand it, the gangs, gangs, ruled everything. So it's very hard to go in there and just crack down on something where you are the minority, like, unless you're the Spanish and Ecuador or something like that. You could be buying informants, it could be anything. So I think it's a very politicized vague argument, a vague report. If you arrest the majority of an army, this gangs army, which is the MS-13 gang members, and if there's plenty of evidence, video evidence that these guys have all been put in jail and are being put in these horrible jails, which there is, then I don't think you can say that Bikali was secretly just working with MS-13 and it's all a big scam. It's like, no, he legitimately locked up all the MS-13 guys. The El Salvadorian population is suddenly safe and can exist without fear of being killed. And maybe at some point, they diverged some of the funds to recruit some informants. Maybe that's one of this. But it feels like a like just an agent. It feels like a new story has kind of an agenda behind it. So there are certainly two ways to dealing with organized crime here in the United States. They usually take down the kingpins, the people at the top of the organizations, things like the John Gotti investigation and so forth. In El Salvador, the story that's being presented is that by picking up all of the foot soldiers at bars and so forth, people with tattoos that they've solved the gang problem. What the article seems to be saying is that the leaders of the gangs might have been paid the whole time and might have just sacrificed their foot soldiers temporarily while maintaining their power. So we'll see how it turns out. This is a developing story. We'll continue to cover it. There was a reason why Microsoft never released version 13. What was that? Well, I thought it'd be MS 13. And today, today is Friday the 13th. It's the 13th of Friday. Woo. But let's keep it going. I've got another story here. We don't know much about this. It's just developing. Check government faces no confidence vote over Bitcoin scandal. They say that a felon may have sent a large Bitcoin payment. They were saying it might have been a while ago because it was 468 Bitcoins to the state. The man was in jail after being convicted in the drug trade, but they accepted the payment. It's just always interesting when you see Bitcoin in the headlines, Bitcoin corruption in Czechoslovakia, not in Czechoslovakia, my Czech Republic. Ben or Josh, any more on this story. I don't really have that much, but it is fascinating to see Bitcoin at such a high level of potential government corruption. It's been at the high levels of government corruption for a long time. Even through the Silk Road case, there were so many offices and there were weird trickle things. I don't know. I could go all the way to Shumar. I never know, but let's keep the stories going. We've got one more or a couple more stories coming here. Like we mentioned previously, Anthony Pompleano, a famous Bitcoin financial guy, is leading a new Bitcoin buying group and raised $750 million to continue the pirate at 40 strategy where they will buy Bitcoin and hold it for you. You can trust them. Walmart and Amazon are considering issuing their own stablecoins. We've talked about this idea for a long time, but now it seems like it's coming true. I don't have the story up right now, but Coinbase has a just announced deal with American Express to launch a credit card in the United States. The credit card is of course metal, like all the cool cards these days, but has a very impressive looking Bitcoin Genesis block design. With all of the hex code and then the time's story, it looks cool. I kind of want one as a collector's item. Josh, what do you think? Walmart, Amazon, stablecoins, Coinbase card, or what do you think about the Pompleano? $750 million raise to buy Bitcoin for other people. Yeah, it's wild, isn't it? I don't know where the product market fit is there anymore because there's already a lot of ways to buy it. I don't know why you trust Poppoliano because he would just be trusting Coinbase anyway. You can use the BlackRock ETF, you can use Sailor, you can use Coinbase themselves. You can use many ETFs, actually, even if you're not in the States, there's plenty of it. I don't know. There's obviously people who want to raise $750 million, there's nothing to scoff at. It's funny that we talk about such large sums these days. That to me is a sign of inflation, is that we casually drop, this guy raised $750 million. It's just the side story that we don't really comment on. The sums are so ridiculous now that it does make you stand back and inflation. It does seem like an affinity scam, Josh, they're just going around to their followers. People who follow Poppoliano would presumably invest in his investment vehicle. Perhaps you could go around celebrity by celebrity. People who like Ben Affleck would invest in the Ben Affleck, Bitcoin Buying Investment Vehicle, so on and so forth. I'll talk to you in the papers. Every unity, every Taylor Swiftie, every single one, every vampire fan, whoever we got out there has all been exhausted and affinity scammed into buying Bitcoin for someone else to hold it, which again, because they wouldn't listen to normal people when we told them to buy Bitcoin, they'll only listen to celebrities or to Jim Kramer or to finance people. This whole not thinking for yourself thing is just rampant out there. Yeah. A Ben Affleck. Fun stories. We'll go back to you in a sec, Josh. What do you think, Ben, on the Pomp story? 750 million raised. If you're like a big name within the Bitcoin industry, isn't a big name within the sort of regular news cycle, the Jack Mahler's or the Bailey or the this guy, the Pompi guy. This is the new thing. You create your own treasury company, your own strategy and then you raise your share of money from people. Like Josh said, the figures are just eye watering. For me, as I said before, we've been raising money for a while. It's hard raising money for a company. You've got a lot of money, which is powering a large portion of all the companies building payments on Bitcoin Lightning. And we're raising like a million. It's a pretty low amount of money for a company in Bitcoin and Lightning. It's like a bit of a struggle. And then these guys come out of the gate and they're like, yeah, I'm raising 900 million and a billion and 600 billion. I need to say, okay, cool. Hopefully some of that money will make its way down to the development. And then they can actually build everything, which gives you a thing value. Their ideas are so weak, Ben. They just want to buy Bitcoin and hold it. It's this Pirate at 40 Ponzi scheme idea. And it makes us it would they could have done it years ago, but you would have looked bad. Now apparently it's fine. I mean, Josh, it's that people like you and I haven't been to Diddy parties. That's why. Yeah, the oily Diddy parties with fucking the oil and lipid octopus and slithering around with the baby oil. The 750. Yeah, I got it. It's nothing. That's three quarters of a trillion, three quarters of a trillion dollar or a billion, even billion dollars. That's my bad, my bad. But internet will kill me on that. But the the the the yeah. So so like the reason Bitcoin has value. So we we built for an open source, a political money when I trusted third party, that has value. We build a bunch of tools, useful tools for doing that thing that gives it value. Then you have the people come in and say, okay, well, I can just buy this thing, piggy back off that and then it'll go up in value because it's the you know, it's it's useful. It's a useful, it's useful software project. And it does go up in value and they do make money. But within Bitcoin's thread, there always needs to be it being used for apolitical free- and resource payments as an opt out from traditional financial financial system. And that's what gives it and it's always giving it value. So hopefully like this is the worst thing about Michael Sayler and Stragy is for all of his talk and all of his you know, CNN stuff and whatever else. He hasn't given a buck to Bitcoin development, which is just perverse in my mind when you have a whole bunch of developers who are struggling to make ends meet and they have all these great ideas and all these great things they want to build to actually create more value and yet they're struggling to raise money. So he needs to sort of shout out and so it's so sort short-sighted to do what they're doing then to just be a parasite on the Bitcoin. To see the thing that gives it value, send it around like currency, continual software development to not contribute to those things, but to build bigger and bigger organizations that do nothing, but hold the coin and make the money. And then worse than that, they'll they'll say to then turn around and publicly says, oh, not Bitcoin is to ossify. The adults are in the room, not Bitcoin is to ossify. And you're like, fuck off dude, like you've made your money, just enjoy the money you made. Well done, carry on. But yeah. That's why I heard years ago is that the younger generation has no concept of selling out. In the past, you'd say, Michael Sayler, you're a parasite and he would have shame about that. He would say, gosh, I should give 10 million dollars to Ellen Bitts because that will make me less of a parasite. And I could improve the community. It'd be like the Grinch who saved Christmas. His heart gets really big. And he's like, you get some development money, you get some development money. But instead selling out is cool. The fact that he's found a way to parasite and vampire on this Bitcoin, this political crypto technological project you guys have worked so hard on, that's actually cool. The fact that he's not doing work that he's not helping development that he doesn't understand it, that he doesn't want it to be currency, that's cool. Yeah. Very sad world. And then the Amazon story, go back to the Amazon story, that's an example of like, even if we haven't got fairer regulations or clear regulations in Bitcoin, that's an example of companies feeling that they can research and develop like some, as if there were to be or in the future we're going to have some some easier regulations or fairer regulations or clearer regulations. So like that makes me very bullish about general Bitcoin payments. I know that I'm talking about making the stable coins, but that these public companies are now actively openly talking about developing solutions off the back of the clearer regulatory environment, which we hopefully have at some point. Although the actual benefits to consumers seem incredibly small, we all know about gift card markets and how Amazon other companies give out all of this gift balance. No one ever spends it. It's like free money. They even get percentages on it and so forth. This would give them the ability to have their own gift currency incompatible with each other. A virtual tower of babble, all speaking different languages. What it could be. It could be Amazon. So Amazon makes Amazon. How does that help anybody? Well, Amazon makes most of its money from web servers. So probably using some digitally native like stable coin with web servers probably makes sense. I don't know if company think how right now. But I thought that different. If I have money in my account and you debit my balance or you debit my card versus you debit a pile of stable coins, I think the main difference is that Amazon or Walmart would get the fees on the stable coin. So every time you use it, they could get the extra penny or whatever it is and collect a million. I think it's probably the cost of transactions. So like earlier today, in fact, I had to go and pay an Amazon web server bill of like 80 cents or something. For, you know, it's where we, when we back up our SaaS, that's where it goes to. And it's a really small amount of money. And often the way they charge people is probably clunky because of the Visa network restrictions. So maybe they're just trying to bypass that for their Amazon web server. Just, you know, thinking of the top of my head. And maybe they'll have a cool logo like an A or a W on a coin. Josh, we've heard this before. Amazon coin, Walmart coin, what do you think? Yeah, it makes sense. I mean, I don't like the, I don't like centralized stable coins. I think they're an abomination. But they are what they are. And you can't stop them. And, you know, the idea is out of the bag. And it is what it is. But yeah, I wish they would use something, you know, like what we've created at the standard with USGS fully collateralized, over legal lateralized by like rap, Bitcoin and ETH and some other, you know, blue chips. But, yeah, I don't know, you know, these things, they, I guess they would promote then people using public private key cryptography within transactions. Because to me, it's still it's still crazy. It's absolutely nuts that when you use a credit card, you have to give people over the phone your credit card private key. Like, you, I'll read you out my private key. It's, and you actually read it. And the, the, the, the smart asses at the credit card company. So, too many people are getting scammed. We need more, you know, security. So the one guy says, ah, we'll add three more numbers on the back of the card. That'll fix it. Oh, you know, invent this easy, EVC number or whatever it is. It's so just retarded. And I'm allowed to say retarded again, because Trump made it sign an executive order to say that's all right. So, um, it's retarded. And I just, I can't, I just can't believe it. So maybe these stablecoins coming out of Walmart and stuff will, will allow us to allow the normie, you know, the giant sort of people of Walmart to, perhaps to, to learn about, to learn about public probably key cryptography. Yeah. And then they can all learn about, uh, insider risks, programmer problems, other things that could happen to Walmart coin or Amazon coin hacks, thefts, all kinds of fun things where if they just had gift card in their balance, how you can't steal it. I mean, it's more hard. It's more difficult to steal the seems. There's a great quote in the, in the chat, which is that regarding, uh, a quality micro sayler of a parasite, it says, uh, like a, like a surfer is a parasite to the wave. And I thought that was very cool. That is very cool. It turns me around on Michael Sala. Well, he's got waves go up and down. He says, a surfer who says there will be no more waves. Like, listen to what he says, there will be no more bear market. The surf you won't make fat wave. And it just, who does rise one one wave forever. No problem, which also blends into our last story. Uh, but first, and this is not an ad, but I got to give it to coin base. Uh, what do you guys think? This is a sharp looking credit card. It's got the actual, I'm going to get messed up here. I think it's the hexadecimal information from the Genesis block of Bitcoin, followed by the famous, the Times Oh three January 2009 Chancellor on the brink of second bailout for banks. What do you guys think of the coin base credit card? I had that. We, we, when I, when I owned Voltoro, that's, uh, that was the t-shirt that we had done. And it's, and it's sold like hotcake. Well, we gave it away, but we gave it away like hotcakes. People loved it. Uh, so we were cool before it was cool. I gotta say. Excellent. I agree. It was cool. Ben Arck, what do you think of the card? Makes me want to get a coin base account. I'll be honest. It's a pretty sexy card right there. I was sold when I saw the little video and then the, the thing and then it spins around and you got the card with the Genesis block on it. I was like, that is a sick card right there. And the video is full of like room, room sounds about how fast the card is in room, room. But yeah, I kind of wanted it as a collectible too. I think it's just this kind of little piece of Bitcoin history written on a credit card. Even if you're not a fan of coin base. But uh, let's head to the end of the show. Ben Arck, you ready with a prediction or a story of the week? Go ahead. Ooh, I'm a cracker. So this week we made, we released finally the, I've got you right here. In fact, and I made a video on the Alan Bitt's YouTube channel. So go check it out. It's the Anoster remote signer. And talking to public key cryptography, this is so sick. So I can have my private key on here. It's plugged in at home. My Noster private key, my NSAC. It's plugged in at home. I can be out and about with my phone or day long posting on Noster. And then it uses the bunker protocol. So it just has a relay. And then that's connect. Sorry, this is connected to a relay. My phone's connected to a relay. And then this pulls the note down signs it with my private key. And then publish it to publish it to the Noster network. But I just really like. So we've always had with Bitcoin. Obviously, when you're dealing with public key cryptography, you need to keep your private key very safe. And then you have your hardware while you plug it in, you sign your transaction, you click the button. And that's good. And originally with Noster, we built similar sorts of signers for Noster. But obviously with Noster, it's kind of a different thing. You know, you're on a social media network and you're just signing notes. But you don't want your private key on your device. So this little thing is honestly so sick. It just works. And it's so fast, like you plug it in, it connects the internet, connects the relay. And then you're ready to post. And I can just be walking around posting. And already it's making me feel much happier about using Noster. Because I'm last scared of using losing my NSEC. And if anyone wants to go buy one, then you can from shop.ln bits.com. It's it will help support the project a lot. So please pop along to shop.ln bits.com. Go to the Noster section and buy one of these little remote signers. But very, very cool. And it was a black coffee. He made this. So many works in in Ln bits. And yeah, more of this is what we want. More interesting ways to manage your public private keys. Because public key photography is the answer to a lot of humanity's problems. Well, that sounds fantastic. Ben, that's at shop.ln bits.com. And like you're saying, with the current implementation of Noster, your private key is the thing that controls your posting. So if somebody gets your private key, they can post as you. So it's a real problem. Having it in that secure device, I would make it harder for people to get that private key harder for you to essentially lose your Twitter account in the same way you'd lose your Bitcoin account. It would be bad. I also thought as well, like I'm just unexploring different ways of dealing with private keys, that this probably does make sense for like an exchange or something too. You know, when you have like a Bitcoin hot wallet, and you just need to sign transactions and publish and publish transactions. And then but you also you want the keys offline. You don't want them on on a on a computer on a server somewhere. So I think there's a whole bunch of applications for this thing which transcend Noster. Yeah, it's absolutely. It's like a warm wallet. Yeah, it's not like it's not hot. It's not cold. Luke warm Luke, that's junior warm. And people have been trying to develop that for a while, Ben, that the warm wallet idea like Josh is saying. It's a real thing. Josh, we got it. We had hot warm and cold. Yeah. Back in the day. Very cool. How did you get the warm wallet? Well, it was basically a wallet that we would show in the transparency protocol that had the amount of the users. So we could prove we had that much Bitcoin, but it was it wasn't the cold, which was totally off. And then we started working on using the pub the pub seed. Yeah, that's right. Yeah, it's kind of gets scary releasing that for transparency. But the story for me is it's not as cool as Ben's, but it is pretty cool. We released a little app called the key.fun. And it's on arbitragement. It was a fun little use case for USDS where people basically there's a treasure chest and there's one single key and people buy the key. And then a hodl time accounts down. It's all within a smart contract to the hodl time accounts down and they have to hold it until that countdown hits zero. Or somebody else can buy it off of you for 0.4% at any time and the hodl time it restart. So and every time it gets bought the amount 70% of that price goes into the jackpot. And so that jackpot keeps growing. And it's people have been buying it like crazy. And the good thing is every time you hold the key, you get a dividend chart and 10% of the price goes into the dividend pool. So people are collecting these dividend shards early on. And it's pretty fun watching it just play out because people are buying these these keys getting these dividend shards and then being able to claim from the dividend pool the amount. And because the key price goes up and up and up like it started at $1 now it's at 4 something or other nearly 5. And it's just fun because and this is the fun part and this took me ages to code this last bit even though most people won't see it because most of the game is this key keeps on moving because the hodl time it keeps resetting. But eventually the key price will get to like I don't know 500k or whatever some massive price and and they will be able to hold it down to zero down to the hodl timer because no one else will want to you know try that. But if it hits zero they go into a prisonist dilemma where the two last key holders have to decide whether to split or steal the jackpot. And so and it was fun coding it because they had they have to choose and they mix a salt with it and that gets hashed and puts into the smart contract so it's on chain and both players do that. There's a hash and as soon as both players have the hash up there then they go into a reveal phase where they send their choice in clear and they're sold and the smart contract hashes it then and says yep that matches so the rules are if it's split split then they 50 50 the jackpot. If it's split steal then the thief gets 100% of the jackpot but if greed takes over and both people steal then they get nothing and the the jackpot gets dropped onto everybody that ever held the key of the dividend shards. So it's a fun little game it's you know some would say it's a I don't know some would say it's gambling I just find it it's a fun game there's no like there's no house or anything it's all just you know people playing with smart contracts and it's all open source and freeing up the source and it's fun so check it out at key.fun. That's what is it sorry the key.fun. It was fun making the the the homepage too it's got this awesome key that we generated and then we made it living hold with smoke coming off of it looks really nice. Get it up Thomas get it up I want to go see it. It's been fun just creating something quickly you know like a look and then then we had a open source sorry a guy just a gum and an audit the smart contracts for us and and then we made some changes and fixed it fixed a few little things but it was it was great yeah super fun that's amazing. Oh it sounds like plastic Josh. Yeah it's totally dice it's a bunch of things connected and I have no idea what you're saying but if it's all on chain and provable people will play people love yeah well that's it that's it it's all on chain and provable yeah this we have one little server just running the homepage here and connecting to the baby eyes which are the which is the on chain stuff I love the I love the prison dilemma part and it's he because the game theory the prison dilemma is where a lot of this stuff starts from isn't it's love where big game from is the prison dilemma absolutely it's it's the key to game theory is prison dilemma and because it's the perfect mix and and like instead of just steel steel everyone loses I thought well steel steel and everyone that that bought the key before you went so including those two last players because they might have some dividend charts because it gets the jackpot gets dropped into the dividend pool basically but yeah it's it's been really fun to code and people should start coding stuff you know now with AI you have an idea you can start coding things up and and it's it's totally fun and get get into it like the site as well the size phrase slick did you build the site yeah and you clever you know it's when you fun when it's fun and and it's it's it's when you're having fun you it's not like work hey let us know in the chat and the comments below if you guys want to try it at the key.fun you can try it out and uh before we go to the last story I just want to say Josh and I got the same hat just days apart mine uh is A's colors and says extra large has an elephant similar to the A's logo uh Josh is is a giraffe uh what does it say Josh says hi and uh I'm I'm six foot nine so it's like it's so it's me to a tee and I've got a little bit quite a lot going on it's that's pretty fun shout out to uh Gore I think it's called the Gore and Brothers they make these animal patch hats uh they're kind of fun uh and then we have a question I never even knew I just walked into a little shop and I had this little hat I've never done the brand or anything I just saw it as an Oakland A's hat without being an Oakland A's hat and I love the idea of that with the the moving situation is going on and such uh but we do have a sad story to end with unfortunately a sad farewell to Brian Wilson the Beach Boys co-founder and architect of pop dead at 82 as Rolling Stone says one of America's greatest songwriters and the composers of teenage sympathies to God imprinted invented in massively successful sound full of harmonies and sunshine and if you want to check it out there's a great movie called Love and Mercy uh with Brian Wilson played by Paul Dano and John Kuzak it shows the making of pet sounds uh just an incredible album and the work he did with the studio musicians uh famously the Beach Boys went on tour Brian Wilson stayed home with the greatest musicians ever and made pretty much one of the best albums of all time pet sounds if you haven't heard it uh and then of course his his Beach Boy friends didn't like the album and there's a lot of controversy uh of course the Beach Boys a classic band uh the Brian Wilson the heart of them uh Josh Ben anything more you'd like to say on Brian Wilson or any of the topics from today? Not Rest in Peace man Rest in Peace um I wonder if he eventually learned to surf it was interesting Brian he famously hated the water hated the waves the Beach Boys were not surfers but they sang about surf culture and in many ways it was kind of a like an in an idealized culture kind of an imaginary you know imaginary dream world of California that people wanted to enter uh Ben Arck anymore on on Brian Wilson or any of the other topics from today I mean you left a bloody good life didn't you all Brian? Like wasn't he the guy recorded the album with Charlie Manson? Wasn't that Brian Wilson? I think it's as possible it was yeah it was Brian Wilson wasn't it because he had a a house full of babes in California and he's just recording music and then Charlie Manson turned up with all of his ladies quite I mean they're probably a bit too young really but we'll set that to one side so I think Brian Wilson had had a lot of fun in his time um but yeah he's I mean it's you know it's good innings not bad time to go yeah parasites on the on the surf culture started trading his destiny it all has to do with the waves and all ties back together uh we also had the loss of a sly from sly in the family stone uh some are saying that they are both 82 and perhaps it's a new 82 club of people that lived pretty well but lived a long time lived kind of more responsibly maybe than Jimmy Hendrix and the uh 33 club a lot shorter club but just fantastic music of course thanks to copyright we will not play any of it or dare to sing any of it but many of us know many beach boys tunes by heart and it sounds specifically just an incredible album uh Brian Wilson 82 but thanks to everybody for watching and listening uh giving us a thumbs up down below saying hi in the comments or in the chat uh I'll go read the chat now uh it's gonna be very contentious we were critical of sailor and of course we discussed the Israel Iran situation which a lot of people get excited about but uh it's all happening in Bitcoin it's all stuff we have to cover because it affects the price and it affects the Bitcoin so thanks so much for joining us until