The The Bitcoin Group, the American original, for over the last 10 years, the sharpest Satoshi's, the best Bitcoin's, the hardest cryptocurrency top. We'd like to welcome our panelists, Victoria Jones from Satoshi's page. Hello, hello, everybody. And I'm Thomas Hunt from the World Crypto Network, moving on to issue one, the battle between Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Nots is getting ugly. The Core versus Nots debate is sweeping the Bitcoin community, as node operators weigh core stability against Nots' anti-spam features. The Nots' party is up to 17% in votes on nodes. What is it all about? Op return. Op return allows you to store data in the Bitcoin blockchain. Previously, it was limited. Recently, Core decided that they would remove the limit on data. The effective limit will be a four megabyte block size. This debate launched by Peter Todd and Jameson Lopp, among other Bitcoin Core developers, says that they say that it's less censorship to allow people to purchase the blocks. Other people on the Nots side say that there should be censorship and somehow a way to stop data from being entered into the Bitcoin blockchain, which seems confusing as you can't stop anyone from sending the money anywhere. Victoria Jones, what do you think about Bitcoin Core versus Bitcoin Nots? Yeah, I mean, I hadn't really been aware of this debate until very, very recently, and so I've only just started looking into it. It does seem quite concerning, really. Obviously, there's already been the situation with ordinals on Bitcoin, which is fair enough that's part of Bitcoin's original design. To deliberately change the size of the amount of data that can be stored on the blockchain, does seem incredibly irresponsible. To go from 83 bits to four megabytes is huge. I understand that small amounts of text for various reasons might be useful, especially when it comes to managing the code. But four megabytes seems extremely large, and there seems to be a lot of concern about the fact that this could allow images and much bigger data storage on the blockchain, which is quite concerning, really, because of course the blockchain is immutable. Once it's there, it's there forever. And he used to say that something couldn't be placed on there that was libelous or slanderous, for example, and can never be removed. I mean, there are strong right to be forgotten laws in Europe, for example. And if you allow for certain things to be added to the blockchain that can never be removed, you create all sorts of implications. I think it's also concerning because a lot of people have invested in Bitcoin because they understand it to be a certain thing. And it's like having purchased an extremely high-spec car, for example, and then the car manufacturer is coming along and saying, well, actually, we've decided to change these parameters, and there's nothing you can do about it. And so, you know, understandably, in those circumstances, some people are going to kind of say, well, that's not what I signed up for. So I'm not interested anymore. Bitcoin has a very, very strong narrative, and part of that narrative is about privacy. It's a new kind of money that's a viable alternative to what we've had up until now, which has led to a lot of corruption, a lot of imbalance, a lot of poverty, because of the way in which the system is structured. And Bitcoin, as it exists, has a huge opportunity to change all of that. And all of a sudden, you know, you've got this unilateral decision to make this change to how the blockchain works. So that a lot of debate, you know, it's not the idea how it was only presented in April, has only been debated for a few months, and all of a sudden it's going to be implemented in October. And so, you know, there are a lot of people who are understandably upset about this, and I completely understand why. So, you know, I know that the Nots community are trying to introduce a new type of software, which helps to introduce more censorship again. But the thing is, if the underlying blockchain is able to transmit, you know, nefarious images, for example, you know, that weekends, the reputation of the entire blockchain, regardless of what someone like Nots might be able to do. And so, yeah, I think this is a really concerning change. And I, yeah, like I said, I totally understand why people are upset about it. I'm quite concerned about it too. I really don't get it. What's worse, hosting CP or sending money to CP? It seems like Bitcoin already sends money to anyone you want in the world, whether they support CP or terrorism or anything else that we as a society might reject, but they might like accept. That's the whole point of unsensurable transactions. The nodes that send everyone's money where it needs to go, no matter what, now it seems like they're just expanding the idea to send everyone's data as well, which will obviously piss off fundamentalists, people that don't like certain images, pictures of certain profits. We already know that the Kuran, the Bible, presumably, Hitler's manifesto, whatever else, is all in the blockchain as text, right? You've been able to do this with text. The big change is that I guess at four megabytes, you'd be able to pay an incredible amount of money for an image. It seems like it's more of another way of leveraging the blockchain, selling the data. I remember if they pay, it's not spam. You just need to raise the prices until you get a higher quality or a higher symbol or a signal so that if you're getting bad data at first, the prices raise, the prices raise. Eventually, the spambers can't afford the prices and it goes away as far as the database containing bad data. It seems like we're already pirates here, right? We have our pirate tats on. We're sending transactions to anybody. They were worried that Al-Qaeda was going to use it a moss. Anyone else, drug traffickers, all of these things. We found, of course, at the current level of Bitcoin developments, very transparent and probably a bad use for those things, which means maybe we should be working on fungibility instead of this debate. Victoria, what do you think? What about the idea that Bitcoin can already send money, which is support to any cause, while hosting a data file is in its own way, support. It seems like actual material, actual, potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars for your cause, whether it's CP or terrorism or production of CP or whatever. It seems like we already send them the money. What's the difference? But you're completely changing the character of what someone's already bought. I'll go back to my analogy of a car. It's like saying that, well, I bought a Tesla because it had this in this feature and then the manufacturer comes along and says, well, we're not doing it like that anymore. We're doing it in a completely different way. Data and money, obviously, you want it as a very neutral tool, but images and data is a different thing. The money transmission effects of Bitcoin are set up in a very specific way in order to mimic economic properties. You create a very different beast if you're including things like written text and nefarious images. It is a different thing. Yes, there are people who might use that money for those sorts of things at the moment, but I would argue that some of those things exist partly because our monetary system is so corrupt and so people will adopt those sorts of activities out of desperation because they exist in a system that's unfair. I think a lot of crime exists for that kind of reason. The arguments are quite complex. You've created a set of software rules that are essentially neutral, but data and language aren't neutral. They can be used for very bad things and libel and slager, for example. That can't be changed. You can come along and say, sorry, but once it's out there and added to the blockchain, it's always going to be there for someone to pick up on. It makes Bitcoin a very different thing from what it was originally intended. It still seems to me that we're already a pirate network. We already have all the bad text in the world. It's already been inserted by the old things. With the new system, they think it's going to create more efficient NFTs. It might get people to stop using ordinals, which they think was harmful to the network. Maybe this is a new way of adapting to new kinds of data that people want to store on the Bitcoin blockchain. Additionally, they'll have to pay. I can only assume that the price will go up if lots of people are using it. I just have to go back to, we're already wearing the pirate hat. We're already delivering potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars to terrorists or to Epstein's or to whatever it is. We don't know. That's the whole point of Bitcoin. If you take out the moral argument, is there a technical argument about why this is bad? I mean, the blocks are still four megabytes. The people are still paying them. There might even be a way where we look at this and we say, what about the mining problem in 2120 when there stops being a mining reward? What if the miners are now paid to host this data? What if the data turns out to be mainly time stamps and boring data and less of this exciting immoral data that we're suddenly morally against? Well, that's a speculative problem. We haven't reached that point yet. By the time it gets to the stage where Bitcoin isn't being produced via mining, it will be very different place. We will assume that Bitcoin is more adopted by then and it would be reasonable for the miners to be generating revenue through some sort of fees. To try and make that argument based on something that haven't happened yet, I think is a problem. Also, as someone who runs a node myself, I was working with a software developer, the other data, looked at updating it and already the one terabyte drive that I have to run it is already almost full and one terabyte was meant to be something that lasted four years. Ordinals are already causing a problem in terms of too much data. Every time you update your hard drive, you're looking at another 100 quid and then you've got to once you reinstall it, you then got to wait for the whole blockchain to propagate again. Having large amounts of data on the blockchain makes it very tricky to use. This was the essence of the argument when it came to the block size walls in 2017. One of the main reasons for keeping the data low is because you don't want to make it prohibitive for individual node users to be able to use the nodes. That's one of the main reasons in which you keep it decentralized. There may well be a number of financial pundits who say, well, it's only useful as digital gold. That's not true. That's not what it was originally intended for. Actually, a form of digital gold is not going to completely change. It's not going to fundamentally change the system as we have it already because it will just be adopted into the existing financial system and it will be financialized like actual gold is right now. The whole point of Bitcoin by having it decentralized, you have a legitimate way of disrupting that system. If you spoil the ways in which it can be decentralized by making it too expensive or too difficult for individuals to run a node, then you are fundamentally tampering with what Bitcoin was meant to be. There are a number of reasons why this change is a problem and also the way in which it's been implemented, I think, is a problem. The fact that they only found out about it yesterday and it's changing next month, I mean, I'm someone who's very familiar with what happens in Bitcoin and it's only now that it's really coming out. There hasn't really been a proper debate about it. Bitcoin was set up in such a way that it shouldn't be possible to do that. There should be chances to have ongoing debates about these things, especially when it's such a fundamental change. Bitcoin is incredibly valuable now. It's the backbone of the cryptocurrency industry. If you break it, you end up breaking a whole industry that a whole number of businesses are relying on now. I think it's very responsible, actually. I do understand why people are upset about it. It just seems like by reading Peter Todd's arguments here from this article, it says the Opp return war intensifies. It seems what they're mainly talking about is the trouble with people creating NFTs, whether they're ordinals or I forget the other kind and trying to cram them into the Bitcoin blockchain. This would allow people to just directly create them. They could insert the code into the blockchain. It seems like other than the moral argument, I'm not sure what else there is to this. I mean, as far as hard drive space, you can buy a flash card for like a hundred bucks that's a terabyte now. So I'm sure they have two, four and six terabytes. I mean, we continue to go up with technology. So I think that's going to work out as far as the nodes and the people running them. But we're only 10 years in. If you want something that's going to last 100 years, that's not necessarily an argument. I mean, the thing is if one terabyte is not enough at the moment, 100 quid isn't enough. You now need two terabytes or even four terabytes. Of course, if you're going to massively expand the amount of data, I mean, the increase from 83 bits to four megabytes is huge. So yeah, I do think it's a problem. And I do think using Bitcoin to transmit language and expanding its reach into something that it was never intended for. I think that is a problem. And I think it will damage Bitcoin's reputation, which could be very dangerous at this point in time. Yeah, but the text is already there. It seems it's mainly the switch to image, which is the potential problem. And additionally, if we just put aside the entire moral argument that I don't think is very valid because we send money to anybody, that's our thing. And money is more important than just support. Money actually allows you to do things. If you're holding someone hostage, you get some more money. You can hold them hostage longer, like your extended potential back. Yeah, but the thing is governments can't really interfere with that. And you know, it's much harder to shut it down just because it's a form of money because it makes it a very neutral tool. If you get to a stage where you've got illicit images transmitted on the blockchain, you're creating a situation where they can legitimately prosecute anyone who runs a node because you're transmitting data. You know, that falls within, you know, existing laws. So the moment you do that, they could legitimately arrest anyone who's running a Bitcoin node for transmitting that kind of property. So, you know, transmitting money is one thing, you know, creating a new form of money was technically illegal when Satoshi Nakamoto created Bitcoin. And they got around that. But, you know, transmitting images is not just about it being illegal, but I think it's also something that people find fundamentally distasteful. I mean, we've already got a reputational issue by the fact that, you know, it can be as used, can be used as money for that kind of nefarious thing. But the thing is money itself isn't a moral argument. Transmitting wrong images and wrong data is a moral argument. And I think, I think governments would legitimately have a problem with that. And I think anyone who's transmitting Bitcoin, you know, when it is carrying those sorts of images is potentially in trouble. I do think it could be a problem. It just seems like the text is already there. Also, if you wanted to take an image, I think you can convert it into text inserted into the blockchain and say it was there anyway. I think they were going to do this anyway. I think they were going to make node running illegal. I think they're going to make Bitcoin illegal. I think we're in a glorious time where Wall Street celebrating Bitcoin because they don't know what it is. They don't know the potential threat that it is to everything that they own. And so therefore, they're not able to do anything about it except to say, oh, it looks really neat now, all of a sudden. And I also putting on all these sides, I don't think that the knots crew is the one we want running Bitcoin. I mean, we might disagree with Core on how they've rolled this out or they didn't talk to enough people, but it does seem like a large-scale open-source project with the most developers looking for the most bugs is going to be the most successful rather than a couple of guys, you know, some religious extremists and so forth. And what do you think about that? I never said that knots was a viable alternative. I know very little about them. I mean, obviously, it seems to be the only alternative solution at the moment, so I can understand why people are flocking to them as a form of protest. And I think it's about the fact that the protest is valid and those voices aren't being listened to and it's not being discussed properly. And to make that kind of change without a full debate, I think is irresponsible. So, you know, you might not think it, you might not think that it's a moral argument, but I don't think a lot, I don't think everyone would agree with that. And of course, the source of this change is Peter Todd, friend of the show, alleged Satoshi Nakamoto via HBO. And I still think the only person who could have written that comment where it says, if you don't understand it, I don't have time to explain it to you. In the same way, I think he's kind of doing that here with knots. They're calling it an arbitrary limit. They're saying there's no reason not to have more data in the block chat. I'd say, what do you think Victoria, are they just engineers that just can't see the potential technical problems of this? Or are they like, you know, secretly working to undermine Bitcoin? What is interesting actually, because when I first entered the Bitcoin space, you know, my background is as a dentist. So, you know, I've worked with people on the ground face to face. I've run my own business. I know what it's like to try and, you know, operate in the world. And it was through running a business that I started to understand what the problems were with the financial system. And one of the things that struck me particularly when I started going to Bitcoin conferences was that there were software developers who really didn't seem to understand how the monetary system worked. And there were people in the monetary system who really didn't seem to understand how software system worked. And that's one of the things that prompted me to actually write my book, because I felt that there was a gap in the market for someone to kind of bring those two things together. And this is part of the problem of the way our society exists these days. It's very specialised. It's very, you know, there aren't many people who can kind of bring both sides of the argument together. And so, I wouldn't necessarily say that the software developer, you know, core is doing this deliberately. I just think they're so focused on what the software needs that they're just completely out of touch with what they're doing in terms of, you know, reputation management. I mean, I have heard, you know, Peter Todd comment on the fact that all cryptocurrencies are around a narrative. And yes, it's around a narrative, but the narrative is what is supporting the decisions that are made in the blockchain. Every single crypto currency is essentially just a set of software rules that developers have decided upon. And each different cryptocurrency, because it has a different set of rules, it creates a different economic environment. And so, you know, this is the foundation that all cryptocurrency works on. And so anyone who kind of comes along and just does an arbitrary change to the blockchain, especially one that is really spoken about against the community is really setting themselves up for a problem. You know, it's one of the things that we criticise the other coins for the fact that they can make these arbitrary unilateral decisions. It's one of the reasons why people panotherium, you know, Bitcoin's not meant to be something that you can do that with. And if you demonstrate to people that actually you can do that with it, you know, you're suddenly undermining what a lot of people see as one of its strengths. So, yeah, I think it's a big problem from a number of different directions. I think you're just fundamentally messing with what Bitcoin is supposed to be and changing it into something else. And it's not necessary. It's not necessary in order to improve the code, make it more efficient in terms of managing transactions. You know, you're adapting it because it's something that's seen as nice to have. But, you know, we had a protocol that was working well enough, you know, sometimes perfect as the enemy of good. It was good enough. And if you tinker with it to try and make it even better, you're going to create all sorts of unknown effects that you can't actually fully predict the outcome of right now. Yeah, I think it's a very dangerous thing to do. I'm really not impressed when I when I learned about it to hear about what was going on. Well, I certainly don't think it's a conspiracy. I think they're just computer programmers seeing a limit and saying, hey, let's remove that. And it seems like they might have stepped into a hornet's nest here. I do think there is some overreaction from the NOTS community, especially this. I don't know him, but this Dennis Porter guy, he's raised more than 200K for court halves. My faith in their work is now broken. He says echoing the BTC pay server guy when he was up a set up bit pay. So, we're getting a little dramatic here. I've also heard that Luke Dash Jr. has banned Adam Back, which has stopped him from commenting on Luke's threads. So we are getting into a little bit of a blocking situation here where he could have just muted Adam Back. And then he wouldn't have to see the messages. He doesn't have to block him stopping him from talking. And it's also hard to be out there when you're saying you're against Adam Back, Peter Todd and James and Lop, who, while maybe not the most reasonable of people are certainly some of the most intelligent people in Bitcoin. So I would like to hear more from them and perhaps more from these NOTS guys. But in general, the idea that the NOTS team should take over for the core team or that the NOTS team is in any way equal to the core team is very difficult to believe and very hard to understand how they could even say that. Yeah, I wouldn't advocate for that at all. I think Bitcoin core making a mistake and they should at least hold back on making these changes until it's been discussed further. But yeah, I mean, I have total respect for developers who work on code and understand how it works. It's certainly not my area of expertise and we need people who are good developers. But you know, if people are speaking up loudly saying that they're unhappy about this, there needs to be a wide debate to push ahead in spite of all of that, I think, is wrong. And at the very least, those changes should be halted until there's been more decision about this or a more viable alternative. Maybe if people feel that strongly about it, there needs to be a hard fork in this situation. You have Bitcoin where they increase the limit again and Bitcoin as it was before. And that's the way you decide. That's what we did when it came to Bitcoin Cash. And sometimes that's the only way to resolve these arguments, especially with something as valuable and as important as Bitcoin now. Well, the only thing I'd say is I'm not quite sure why they want to say, well, I wouldn't want a hard fork and I don't want two camps and I don't want the not skies running Bitcoin. Maybe instead of proposing a whole new system, they could say, hey, let's wait a year or wait three years and they could signal that with the nodes and it would just say, wait a year or study more something reasonable. I mean, it seems like Core might have gone too fast in this case, but I really don't agree with the other side and the way that they're behaving and they're kind of like bandals and waving the flags and all this paranoia and stuff. They might not have the technical standing for what they're saying. And again, if it's all about this CP and this moral argument, I don't want to say it, but I'm pretty sure you can break a JPEG into tech strings at 83 bytes and you could put a bunch of 83 byte tech strings and you could pull them out of the blockchain. You could say, this is a CP image I reproduced from the blockchain. This has always been true. Yeah, but it's still different Thomas. Come on. It's not though. I mean, it is. It is Bitcoin blockchain generates the P. I can make it generate CP now. I guess. Yeah, okay. So you can post the link. It's like number. It's like one is okay. Thousands bad. I mean, again, it's just I'm still yeah, but you know, it could be broken in the world for any kind of cause, any kind of system. And I'm out here saying it's okay to be a money delivering pirate. Like who am I to say you can't deliver data to somebody? This could be nine years in the negative Arctic, maybe CP. This could be, you know, whistleblower data. This could be exposing crimes data. This could be exposing the Epstein list data. There's potential good uses for this as well. Not to mention NFTs and all the things which I think it's actually designed for. It's actually designed to get people. But there are plenty of other cryptocurrencies that could do that. It doesn't have to be on Bitcoin. It doesn't have to be on Bitcoin. And you're fundamentally changing it from what it was that everyone else has bought into. So, you know, if there are a number of people who are upset about this, you're changing something that they invested in in good faith. And then changing the back end, you know, after they've already bought it. And that's that's wrong. That's just wrong. So yeah, I don't agree with you. I think I think data is a different thing to a neutral money transmitter. It is a different thing. And to change it without proper debate and too quickly, and unilaterally, you know, all of those things go against the principles of Bitcoin. So no, I don't think it's I don't think it's possible to I don't agree that you can make those arguments. Well, Satoshi left to work on other projects. Maybe he's back to time stamp data into the chain. Maybe it's all part of Satoshi's grander plan that we could never understand. But obviously, we're going to talk more about this in the future. It's not over by a long shot. Let us know in the comments or the chat what you think if you're on knots, if you're on core, or if you're kind of thinking like, I am, hey, let's just wait six months. Let's just wait a couple years. Let's just go a little slower. Let's not get out the pitchforks yet. Although it is fun to get out the pitchforks. It'd be all right. My faith in you is broken. But good luck with that. You're not going to make any friends and we're not going to have any long term relationships that way. But moving on to issue to Bitcoin faithful bet on sailors strategy being added to the S&P 500 micro strategy stock hasn't gone up like it used to. And now they're even using it to buy more Bitcoin. But that doesn't matter to Wall Street who say they're going to add micro strategy to the S&P 500 today in just a few hours. Victoria Jones, what do you think about micro strategy being added to the S&P 500 perhaps even the Dow Jones industrial index, the 20 or so stocks that they use to kind of get a feeling for how the market's going. Micro strategy, the company that does nothing but own Bitcoin, similar to the pirate at 40 Ponzi scheme of so many years ago. It's just blowing it up in the stock market world, I guess. Yeah, well, I mean, you know, for credit to Michael Seller, he saw an opportunity and he was in position to make the most of it, you know, most of the average Bitcoiners who understood Bitcoin only just weren't in a position to do the same thing that Michael Seller has. I mean, people wrote about it and talked talked about it. Michael Seller did the research and he implemented it and, you know, he has the rewards. It's amazing. But again, you know, he's, he has made his decisions based on the faith and the narrative of what Bitcoin is that, you know, many people believe in and understand. But again, you know, if Bitcoin core demonstrates that that can be fundamentally changed, again, strong public opinion, if that affects Bitcoin's reputation, it's not going to help Michael Seller very much because it's a very, he's using Bitcoin within the existing Fiat system, which is fragile. Bitcoin has the potential to break it. And while it's still strong and has the potential to, you know, break it, Michael Seller's onto a good thing. But if something happens that does damage the reputation of Bitcoin, you know, the whole House of Cards has a potential to fall. So it's a risky strategy. I mean, you might be able to be accepted into the S&P 500, but it can also lose that place as well. So, yeah, his strategy depends very much on the strength of Bitcoin. So I really hope for all of our sakes that Bitcoin maintains its strength. And, you know, for credit to Michael Seller for seeing the opportunity, but it, you know, it might not work out if things, if things change. It has been a dramatic rise, but it could also be a dramatic fall. And at some points, holders of the MicroStrategy stock were making even more money than people who held Bitcoin. I don't think that's the way anymore. We've even seen MicroStrategy do strange things like they're selling merch now. So the guy who wants you to hold all the Bitcoin in the world says you should go ahead and give some of it up for a t-shirt. Don't worry about that. And additionally, it was still amazing to see, hear him speak, at the Las Vegas conference, and to hear him basically say that you should do exactly what I'm doing. You should get totally leveraged. You should sell stock in your holdings. You should buy more holdings with the stock. You should sell more stock. You should leverage all these financial instruments. And at one point, it sounds really clever and really smart and really galaxy brain. And you're like, oh, this sailor guy knows it all. I'm going to go set up this corporation in Wyoming or whatever he wants me to do in Montana. But then another point, it seems incredibly risky and incredibly easy for someone who's been rich for the last 20, 30 years and probably owns several properties and is tired of going to Hawaii to say that you should take your meager income and run all these complicated financial schemes, which it's a little futuristic, but it's a little risky and radical. He says, you won't even need a financial advisor. You can just go to chat, GPT, which if you flip a coin and pretend you're not a Bitcoiner, and it's kind of like a crazy person telling you to do whatever the computer says, do a bunch of financial and legal things that you don't understand. And then just hope that it goes out fine and that everything works out fine. It's a lot to take. We'll see how it goes if they add them to the S&P. We're also going to go to the exit question to predict the price of Bitcoin back home. So that means I have the real Bitcoin predictor balls so everyone can start comparison comparing the averages of the replacement balls with the real one, which one predicts the best so on and so forth. I think I need complicated statistics for that. Victoria Jones will be higher or lower this time next week. I don't know. I think we all this debate going on. It could be lower. I think I am a bit worried about Bitcoin reputation right now with all this going on. Well, this is another make it or break it point for Bitcoin as the entire US economy continues to crater the most recent jobs report. Even though they fired the guy at the Bureau or the lady at the Bureau of Labor Statistics who gives them the report, the report is still bad. We made 22,000 jobs were supposed to make 70,000 jobs. It's the third quarter in a row that we've failed that badly and they've been revising the other quarters down. So it's one of those points again where maybe the US economy and the dollar and the whole world collapses, but Bitcoin is fine and probably gold too. But it's one of those where gold has done this a dozen times. Bitcoin not yet. And also it's very leverage now. That's a problem with incorporating it with the existing financial system. I mean, the existing financial system is fundamentally on fair. That's why we invented Bitcoin was invented to try and undo that. So yeah, it's important that it's protected. And it is true that we see it every time when the normal markets go down, people have to sell their other investments to cover their longs and their shorts to cover their positions. And they usually end up selling their Bitcoin. So it's not so much a symbol that Bitcoin is bad. It's more of a symbol that somebody's other investments failed and they have to sell whatever it is. Houses, Bitcoin, bonds, whatever it is, you have to pay if your shorts and longs fail. But here we go. I'm bullish. I'm sticking with it. What am I going to do? We'll be higher this time next week. And the ball says it's very bubbly, very hard to read. You're a new ball, I think. You may rely on it. You may rely on it. The ball remains bullish. No matter what. Doesn't matter. Excellent. Check out worldcryptonetwork.com. We've got lots of short videos and more at worldcryptonetwork.com. Moving on to issue three. Sora Ventures launches Asia's first Bitcoin Treasury fund plans to buy one billion dollars in Bitcoin within six months. We continue to see this expansion of Bitcoin Treasury companies with Meta Planet, Moon Incorporated DV8 and BitPlanet Treasury initiatives also taking off across the Asian region. I guess I'll go to me on this one. Thomas, what do you think about Asia launching Bitcoin funds? I mean, it's the same thing. It's very exciting when anyone's using Bitcoin. We can't decide who it is, whether it's Eric Trump's Meta Planet. Apparently he's involved in the Japanese company Meta Planet or his new company. We're going to talk about it in a minute called American Bitcoin. It's just more people buying Bitcoin, more people using Bitcoin. I don't know for live or not. We'll fix it later. We're recording anyway. But yeah, it's a huge thing and it's also huge to see a billion dollars. A billion dollars from this company. Victoria, what do you think about Sora Ventures investing a billion dollars into Bitcoin? Yeah, well, they're just kind of following on the trajectory from everyone else really. I mean, obviously, you know, Michael Sailor has demonstrated how successful he can be with Bitcoin. So it's only a matter of time before Asia catches up. Obviously the West invented the existing financial system. So they've taken their time to figure out how it all works and many of them have learned how to play the game. So yeah, not really surprising. It does get bigger and bigger moving on to issue four, kind of in the same vein. Trump families, American Bitcoin makes stock market debut. The Trump's latest foray into crypto is renewing ethics concerns amidst the president's push to deregulate the frontier industry. We've almost never seen anything like this before where a president's sons are making billions of dollars off a brand new industry that the president is also deregulating. It's almost as if we were going into the Wild West and the president's sons own the wagon wheel company or they own the company that makes the shotguns. It is really quite a thing. Obviously, American Bitcoin has lost money already lower than its opening price of $9.22. The company is set up to accumulate Bitcoin through computer mining of the cryptocurrency as well as quote opportunistic Bitcoin purchases. The same was to be said about David Bailey's Nakamoto corporation, which I've heard has done nothing but lost money and is a huge disaster for all those who invested Nakamoto also said famously that they were going to attempt to time the Bitcoin market starting and stopping buying and selling based upon a formula presumably. Victoria, what do you think about the Trump family and American Bitcoin as well as all these other Bitcoin companies? Yeah, I thought insider trading was meant to be illegal. So, I mean, you've got someone who's a family who are intimately tied into what the plans are for the future who were able to take advantage of it for anyone else and also they've obviously got the connections. This is the trouble with our existing financial system. There are certain things that you're just not allowed to invest in unless you've got the right connections. It's not a system that's equitable for everybody. And so, you've got people like the Trump family and other elite people who were able to put these schemes together and take advantage of them. We look at these newspaper articles. We look at these newspaper articles and we can't even begin to imagine what these sums of money look like. It's like it's a complete other world. It's like 5 billion could be 5,000 for all we know. It's just really difficult to conceptualize that level of money. Those are the kind of levels that they're able to play with the connections and the advantages of know what's happened. This is the Continent effect, which is well known economic. The closer you are to the issue of money, the better off you will be. At the moment, the Fiat system very much relies on our legal system and our laws and the laws are made by the politicians. So, yeah, they know which way the wind is blowing and they're making the most of it. It was seen. Well, I think we all know this is not what Bitcoin was made for and this is not what it's all about. As they said at the Bitcoin convention here in Las Vegas and they've said several times since Trump's sons have publicly said that they've had trouble with their banking accounts, likely because of crime allegedly. This is why they got into crypto and how great crypto is because no one can stop them from doing allegedly crime, whatever they want. It's amazing. What a wonderful invention. This is not what it's for. This is not what it's about. This is not really a big success. Then to see them make their own companies where presumably you too could commit crime is again not what Bitcoin's all about. But it does show how the entrenched and existing system is reacting to Bitcoin. These are incredibly wealthy, incredibly powerful people, incredibly well connected and they're now seeing that they can use and leverage those connections and that power to make money on Bitcoin. So, this isn't the the wonder kid down the street or the computer scientist or the cypherponk or even the libertarian who was an early investor in Bitcoin. These guys are late. They're behind but they're coming in strong. I also saw a report on Twitter that Grant Cardone who ironically I think made most of his money telling people to invest in real estate and how to do different things and flip houses and whatever and get real estate and get 10x your value. He's sold one of his mansions for $40 million and he was only interested in accepting Bitcoin and is likely holding Bitcoin for that mansion now. A complete reversal of his real estate strategy. He hasn't unpublished any of his books. He hasn't taken down any of his seminars but the rich are now acting like the early libertarians and the cypherpunks. They are trying to get as much Bitcoin as they can and they're using all of their advanced levers and financial things and whatever but it's the same as me and you emptying out our bank account and buying Bitcoin until we started getting overdraft fees and stuff like that. We've got more on the Trump family. Their world liberty financial firm has made five billion dollars at least on paper and that seems to be five billion dollars that's going down every single day. World liberty financial is down 50% from its peak so presumably they made 2.5 billion dollars still very good and they're having lots of troubles and debates about what they should do with the fees and if they should burn them but there's an even larger story rocking world liberty financial. The world liberty financial is accusing exchanges of token manipulation at the same time they have banned and blocked and controlled Justin's son's wallet. They say that Justin's son has $540 million worth of locked tokens WLFI tokens that are now frozen and allegedly $2.4 billion locked tokens which are out of reach. He's estimated to have invested around $30 million into the tokens making him the largest investor currently worth about. I don't know it's hard to say at least $540 million and plus the additional tokens. Justin's son has posted a tweet begging the Trump family and begging the WLFI people to unblock and unblock his funds allow and to send them. Victoria what do you think about the world liberty financial and obviously the Justin's son mess which is currently developing story. Well in terms of the world liberty financial token I mean it's nothing any of us who've been in Bitcoin for long enough have not seen before. I mean most of the ICO tokens in 2017 did exactly that you know they pumped initially and then they went down and then they went down and it's about the fact that you know you're relying on an investment that is based on based on hype and not to lot else. You mean they've taken some of the lessons from the previous crypto currency frenzy and tried to replicate it on the on the back of you know Trump's interest in crypto and the thing is yes you can do that with anything for a while I mean there are plenty of fads that come and go but whether or not it's something that lasts and continues to grow all depends on what its fundamentals are. Bitcoin has excellent fundamentals it certainly has up until now you know and that's what people have been buying into that's what they've been prepared to invest in the smart ones anyway. Yes I mean there's a really annoying ad that keeps coming up whenever I watch Rumble saying it's not notes kids are not just flipping orange coins they're making 10 20x profits elsewhere and you know it sounds good but the thing is you know you are jumping on a fad and the ad is completely misleading because while you can do that temporarily long term it turns out to be a really really bad idea. So yeah I mean it's the same lesson that we've been telling people about forever you know you have to do your research you really need to understand what it is that you're investing in and also recognize that it's a new thing you know if someone comes out of left field and decides to do something radical with it that other people don't approve of you're you're but you've got the potential to live destroying this amazing thing that was about to take over the world and suddenly it's not going to do that anymore. So yeah I mean you know the whole crypto industry is very new there are still many lessons being learned you know I think they they're just trying to you know some people did very well from the ICO craze in 2017 and maybe they're just re-applicate it with the power and and leave us that they have without recognizing that the reason why it was so successful in 2017 is that you know people had had enough and they wanted something different and for a while they seemed to be quite successful. So... Well and there was real excitement behind those ICOs real excitement behind the idea that this was a new way to make a company and that anyone with a good idea and some good programmers could get some funds and make a company that's not those these guys these are the rich guys they don't have any good ideas or good programmers they're not coming in with any world-shaking ideas. Oh world liberty financial is going to be a blank like a zero free crypto exchange or it's going to be faster or it's going to be I don't know more protected these are not really selling points they're not really new technologies even I mean Coinbase is kind of getting a new technology they say they're going to pack the the magnificent seven stocks plus a Bitcoin ETF together into one fund so that your stocks could lose money and your Bitcoin could go up and you could seem really clever and you could pay Coinbase fees of course this is always about paying somebody fees at the end of the day and I also think it's time for the media to take a step back and chill out it's fun to say that Trump made five billion dollars on this right like I like saying it it's fun five billion dollars but the reality is if they tried to sell that five billion there's not a market for it the price would go down down down and they would get far less than five million five billion just as we've seen there with the price going down 50 percent they made two point five billion still great still like over a bill like nothing you know we're not sad here but again if they tried to sell that two point five billion the market wouldn't really support it so they didn't really make that money so it's fun to say that they have a market cap of five billion dollars and obviously that's impressive nobody's taken anything away from them on that but they can't capitalize it maybe they could do some instrument and they could sell it or they could sell a percentage of it or have someone off the books that wants to take this but it seems very unlikely that someone want to take that especially the size of the bet that you'd have to take and that you'd be taking a huge bet on world of really financial you might end up like Justin's son with your funds frozen just because you want to sell oh which is again well hence why hence why it's probably been frozen because if he did start to sell that would it would be going down 20 percent 50 percent it would be going down 80 percent you know he's a bit bigger shoulder so yeah and there's really no reason for them to hold back his funds other than like you say that it would cause a collapse in their system so they have to to protect their system but there's no larger reason and again just I don't know what Justin's son's up to he bought that banana he bought the crypto dinner he got a tour of the White House his company got their criminal charges against them drop they got the charges against him drop so we still have to say this is a big win but even this guy can't leave I'm gonna estimate a hundred million dollars or what it may be on the table and just watch it die in this world liberty thing which is pretty sure how everybody I know thinks it's gonna go really you know sad to watch all these normal people but then this one rich guy but what do you think Victoria he's well he's got some of their awards but he can't just let the hundred million go I don't know I think Justin's son's probably rich enough to let a hundred million go but you know if he really had to but you know isn't it ironic that it's not a genuine thing I mean no one in Bitcoin was ever able to do that in no freeze freeze I mean unless one of the exchanges was hacked and no one had access to it again but you know to freeze someone's funds for you know no obvious reason other than you just don't want them to sell in order to tank the price it's just so blatant isn't it really it's also nice to see we get an answer to how much money would break up this political relationship between Justin son and Trump and it turns out a hundred million dollars that that was not much like he was willing he was fine with other losses and Trump coin and all these other things whatever but it was this hundred million that really drove him down so all right well we're out of issues for today so let's move on to prediction or story of the week Victoria Jones you ready with a prediction or a story of the week um I don't have anything on the top of my tongue I mean I've been away all summer which has been very nice it's been a very nice break so yeah getting back on top of my website and the courses that we're releasing and a step-by-step we've been trying to teach people about running a node and helping newbies kind of get into Bitcoin so if you're interested in that you can find my website stashyspager.com yeah I think the most recent video that I released was well series of videos is on a exchanging bitcoins so teaching people who are new to it you know how to buy and sell probably not necessarily appropriate for this audience because they probably know how to do that already but for people who don't know it's just a way of taking them step-by-step through that very cool and people can check it out at stashyspager.com I don't have much to say this week either I got back from Burning Man still a little tired and something in my throat going on but we made it to the show I don't think I've been at this desk for a while the calendar says June 11th but just want everyone to check out bitfest at bitfest.uk it's the 21st through 23rd and November in Manchester UK they're going to have a noster conference a peppy conference and a Bitcoin conference this is not a big corporate event so there's still a chance to get some early bird cheap tickets stuff like that support bitfest and check it out at bitfest.uk and that's about it for this week Victoria anything else going on no I'll just mention I'm going to be speaking at bitfest so I'll be there if anyone wants to meet me in person very cool I'm hoping to be there as well it is tough though it is so cold and so close to Thanksgiving but I'll just get the travel and we'll see how it goes. Yeah that is a challenging day someone needs to sort that out. It was it's a tough one because at first I was like the 21st now I'm like oh the 23rd and then we're getting closer the 24th the 25th and pretty soon you're right on the 28th of Thanksgiving but we'll see we'll figure it out not that much happening good to cover all this exciting Trump stuff get back on the news looks like we're on one of the YouTubes but not the other so I'll fix that later but anyone that's commenting on the wrong one just check out the other one but be sure to give us a comment say hello in the chat down below until next time bye bye