Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 20, 2017 - Project Camelot

02:03:51

STAN LARIMER - TRUTH ABOUT BITCOIN, BITSHARES AND CRYPTO CURRENCY

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Thank you.
	Hi, everyone.
	I'm Carrie Cassidy from Project Camelot, and we're having a bit of a difficulty.
	We're trying to get Stan Larimer on the show.
	I'm not sure what's happening, so I just thought I'd come on anyway and just say, just trying to get them to show up here.
	So bear with me.
	and we'll see what is going on.
	It looks like they're gonna show up.
	So I just thought I'd read his bio.
	I think he's going to make it, but there's some kind of slowdown at their end.
	I'm not sure what it is.
	So Stan Larimer is a really interesting guy.
	He has a background in aerospace, and apparently...
	I'm actually going to read from an article, and I think I can show that on the screen, so just bear with me here.
	Just...
	To kind of show people what's happening here.
	So he was featured in Forbes magazine.
	I'm not sure the exact date of that.
	Wish I could get rid of this.
	Maybe.
	Oh, shoot.
	Can't get rid of that ad thing.
	Anyway, I don't want that on my screen, so I'll stop sharing.
	So at any rate, there's this article.
	It's called Cryptocurrency.
	Cryptomex's Dan Larimer and his Four Horsemen of Crypto Economics is how the person put it, Roger Aitken.
	And he says that he was involved with Lockheed Martin and SAIC. He's a 40-year veteran of the aerospace industry and president of Here it says Cryptonomics Inc.
	and I guess they're known as BitShares.
	I'm not sure whether they're two different things.
	Okay, so I guess they're downloading a Chrome browser at this point to get on the show.
	Not sure.
	I assume they're technically proficient over there.
	So at any rate, their system is capable of processing over 100,000 transactions per second with an average transaction time approaching one second.
	And let me see when the date of this actual article is.
	I can see it.
	October 12th.
	Well, 2015.
	So they might be going faster than that now.
	Okay.
	And according to, it looks like Bitcoin was at that point at taking an hour, according to Larimer.
	So to process the transaction, I'm sure it's not that slow at Bitcoin at this point.
	We can talk about that.
	And it's really the aerospace background.
	He also was, he taught rocket science at the US Air Force Academy.
	And he contributed to 17 different R&D programs, and it had to do with ground, sea, and space systems.
	And so that's very, very interesting.
	His son is, I guess, Dan Larimer, is the inventor, visionary, and CEO of Cryptonomics.
	And so, you know, I've seen that video with his son on the screen as well prior to this interview.
	So I'm gonna try to get...
	Okay, I think that there was a bit of a miscommunication, not sure what happened at their end.
	They did agree to the interview, and the other person who may come on before Stan or with him, I'm not sure what this arrangement's going to be, says he is, let me see, it looks like he's the chief operating officer, I think he said he was.
	Yeah, CEO, COO of the company.
	And his name is Dylan Howard.
	So we may actually see him on screen before we see Stan Larimer.
	So I'm not, you know, I'm sorry about this.
	Actually, I'm going to pull up the chat, see if we've got any questions right out the gate that maybe I can deal with while we're waiting for these guys to...
	Get their act together.
	So hold on one second.
	I gotta find that right window.
	It's not around here.
	Okay, so it's always funny.
	All right, so If anyone has any questions and you want to just ask me, I am here and can sort of deal with your questions.
	And we're going to continue to try to have these financial guys on the show to see what it is they want to talk about, what they think they know, what they know, and what they don't know.
	Because I find it very interesting.
	And we're trying to also go down the road, of course, of the link up with cryptocurrency, AI, and quantum, of which I am positive there is a very strong link.
	And this could change and interfere with, if you will, this sort of rosy Bitcoin future that people are painting.
	So somebody wants to know, when's my next interview with Mark Richards?
	Actually, I don't know.
	I was hoping to go see him sometime in January and it looks like that's not going to happen.
	Or actually not January.
	First I was trying this month, November.
	But now it looks like we're going to do it in January if there's availability.
	He is being moved apparently from one cell to another.
	And yeah, I don't know what's happened with these guys.
	I'm just going to let them know.
	This is kind of crazy.
	What's happening here?
	I didn't think this was going to be that difficult.
	So hold on a second.
	Okay, so just bear with me.
	We're going to see what's going on.
	We're going to see what's going on.
	We're going to see what's going on.
	Hello?
	Hey there.
	Hi.
	Yeah.
	Well, we're waiting for you.
	I've got my audience here.
	We are live.
	Sorry that there was some problems with your technology at your end, huh?
	Slow internet today, I guess, downloading things.
	No worries, though.
	I see.
	Okay.
	Do you have a camera there that you...
	Are you going to be able to turn that on?
	Yeah, I'm trying to do that.
	Hold on.
	I'm new to this software.
	Okay.
	Well...
	Sorry, we can use Skype if you guys are not able to use appear.in for some reason.
	Hi.
	Hi.
	Here we go.
	Sorry about that.
	Great to be on the show.
	I've been watching your show, Carrie, for many years, so it's actually quite an honor to be here while waiting for a scan to get on.
	But I'm very efficiently able to give an overview of what our company's doing.
	Okay, great.
	I'm going to bring you on the screen if you're all ready to go.
	I think your audio is a little low.
	Maybe you want to turn it up a little higher at your end.
	And I'm going to just check really quickly with my audio engineer and make sure he thinks everything is capacetic.
	Okay.
	So I guess we're good.
	I was just reading a bio out of Forbes magazine for Stan that was kind of interesting, and I thought it would be fun to get your response to some of the things they're saying over there.
	So hold on one second, and I'll...
	I'll bring that article up, actually.
	That's a good way to start.
	Okay.
	Yeah, and this, everyone, this is Dylan Howard.
	As I said, he's the COO for the, I guess you call your company Cryptomics or something?
	Cryptonomics.
	Cryptonomics.
	Yeah, so like economics or crypto.
	Okay, so cryptonomics.
	Okay, so great to have you on the show.
	And...
	What I was saying is that I was reading the bio off of Forbes magazine and there were some things there.
	It's actually, I guess, a two-year-old article.
	So it was saying at that point, Bitcoin was taking, well, he said an hour to process and you guys were doing it in a couple seconds.
	I'm sure those times have changed.
	So I was wondering if you want to update us on that and anything else you want to tell us about your company while you're on and before Stan gets on?
	It's a great honor to be with all of you.
	I guess, first off, going back to the transaction speed.
	Back in 2014, 2015, we officially launched BitShares and ProtoShares.
	We're using the Graphene blockchain that's using proof of stake, not proof of work.
	The manly-purpose steak and it's able to process since that time it was tested in the laboratory that can do at least over a hundred thousand hundred hundred eighty thousand And that's in the laboratory.
	So that's the capacity for the system to work.
	It has never been a stress test or has never really gone up to that pressure point of that maximum yet.
	So we don't really know beyond the laboratory if that's even how that's going to work in the real world.
	But so far it works at that level.
	And we're already pushing Steemit is another blockchain that uses us, or another platform that uses the graphing blockchain.
	Steemit's top 100 list, Vidshare's top 100 list.
	So they're doing things as well with social media.
	So you're getting paid by posting content on Steemit.
	Okay, I'm sorry.
	We're just losing...
	Can you hear me?
	We're losing your audio.
	Okay.
	Your picture is also bouncing around.
	I guess you're walking around.
	I'm not sure what's happening here.
	Are you on the self?
	Let me switch over then.
	One second.
	I can switch over one second.
	Give me one moment.
	Okay, no problem.
	Yeah, I appreciate your efforts there.
	So just for everyone, we are waiting for Stan Larimer.
	We've got his COO, Dylan Howard, here on the show, and we're having some technical difficulties right off the bat.
	But they were not familiar with the software for what we're using with the show, appear.in, which is, by the way, well, dead easy. But you do need a Chrome browser. Maybe they didn't have that, it looks like. So that created a problem. We have let them know we could take them on Skype and have that show there, you know, with them using Skype if that's better for them.
	I just don't, it's kind of hard to kind of communicate.
	Looks like they lost their connection just now again.
	So I'm going to go back to the chat and see what's over there as far as questions go while we're waiting here.
	So and you know what, if there's.
	You know, I really appreciate it if there's no trolls.
	So this, you know, it's just great when we can just not have that going on.
	Oh, by the way, I can say that tomorrow we're going to have a very interesting show at 4 p.m.
	We're going to be doing a JFK show, and we've got Paladin and Jim Fetzer and Ole Domogard.
	So we're going to have a roundtable discussion with some updates on the whole JFK assassination, you know, the controversy, believe it or not, that still surrounds all of that.
	And so that'll be happening tomorrow.
	So if you're tuned in here and you want to know about that show.
	So how are you doing, Dylan?
	Are you back with us?
	Yeah, thank you.
	Sorry for that.
	I just switched over.
	Is this better?
	Do you hear me a lot better?
	It's better.
	Maybe turn your volume up just a tad, and otherwise you're fine.
	So you want to get back to, you were talking about the speeds, I guess, what we were talking about.
	Yeah, yeah.
	So yeah, we were the first industrial grade blockchain that could handle real-time transactions on the blockchain.
	So this was the first advent of the proof-of-stake mentality where we're not, usually mining itself takes a lot of time or it takes a lot of processing time because you have to certify each block as it's being mined.
	So it can't be ever faster than that process for the mining if we're comparing to Bitcoin.
	Ethereum is a hybrid of mining and proof-of-stake.
	So they're doing some mining, but they also have proof-of-stake that they're switching over to.
	So, oddly enough, you'll hear from Stan later when he gets on, but he was actually the one that created, or for the Sun, he developed the white paper for the autonomous Centralized organization, DAO, that Ethereum actually based their entire organization structure on top of.
	They took the white paper, it's open source.
	We took that, built Ethereum on it, and thanks, Stan, for developing that.
	So that's all within the community here of developers, which are pioneering these new platforms, these new structures, right?
	So that was the first step.
	And then BidShares came shortly after, or sort of in the same time of development, and this all came around To the point of Dan's son, Dan Laramere, he didn't want to keep seeing these centralized exchanges running away with money and getting hacked and getting, you know, Mt.
	Gox is an example, where just a massive amount of Bitcoin was stolen and hacked.
	So that was all because of these centralized exchange platforms that are out there.
	That kind of put everyone through one portal, one funnel, to get exchange into the cryptocurrency universe.
	So what the BitShares platform is doing, it's actually a decentralized exchange, and it's the first ever where you have multiple nodes.
	It's not a centralized point of entry.
	You're able to enter in many different nodes all over the world, and it's a lot more secure than the central, things like Coinbase.
	These other kind of more mainstream ways of getting into cryptocurrency.
	So back in the early days, 2014, they were able to use this blockchain to do real-time transactions between Steam and BitShares combined.
	They're actually taking up a majority of the We're looking at performance charts, not market cap, but the performance charts are, you know, Steam and BitShares, they're handling most of the, they're doing more transactions than all the other cryptos combined, those two together.
	They're making up 75% of the pie charts.
	So we look at performance because, really, if we're going to be able to accommodate the new users that are coming on board to develop this technology and start utilizing it on a corporate level, on a non-profit level,
	or on a social movement level, we need to be able to scale to the numbers that these people are going to be expecting to just jump right on board and get a new Get on board and actually start,
	you know, not having a lot of the lag time that we're seeing with Bitcoin, because Bitcoin, they're going to get overloaded in a moment because you're seeing hour transaction times taking place where you're waiting hours and sometimes days for one transaction to go forward.
	Well, I just want to...
	Sorry, it looks like I got some kind of...
	Echo happening at your end.
	I'm not sure why.
	Maybe you've got the show on at the same time on another browser or something.
	Hope not, but anyway.
	Just want to ask you about that time for BitShares, or not BitShares, but for actually Bitcoin.
	Is that accurate, that they're taking an hour to process transactions at Bitcoin?
	I mean, that sounds outrageous.
	Nobody else is saying that.
	You have to pay, well, the way you don't pay an hour.
	Or take an hour for those transactions is if you pay a pretty large transaction fee.
	So you basically set your own fee for sending or wiring the money through Bitcoin.
	So if it's not high enough of a fee, the miners aren't really going to pay attention To verifying that block that you just submitted.
	So it's going to take maybe a couple hours because it's just not at the top of their priority list of block time.
	I know, but you're acting as though they're actually going to do this like, what do you call it, in real time.
	Is that right?
	I mean, are they actually looking at every transaction?
	I mean, humanly, is that even logical?
	There's a lot of them.
	There's a lot of miners.
	I mean, that's, I don't really know exactly.
	Again, we're more proof of stake, so I'm not exactly sure of all the mining sort of freeas of Bitcoin, but I just know that it takes over $5 for you to ensure that you're going to get a transaction through within an hour.
	Really?
	About $45.
	You want to make sure the transactions have been like, I don't know, half an hour, maybe 10 minutes, you're going to have to be like $20 a fee to get that money out there.
	That's what it's like for me.
	That's how I've been using it.
	So in comparison to proof of stake, that's where you see these other blockchains like IOTA, BitShares is right with IOTA. We're able to do transactions with like a fraction of a cent and it gets there real time, you know, because we're not using mining.
	And that includes Steemit as well is also moving quickly like...
	It's plugged right into the BitShares exchange or at least the blockchain.
	They're pretty much separate though.
	Steam is more of a social media platform where they run that whole system and then BitShares is more of the decentralized exchange where you can do commodities, you can take different assets, you can do a lot of You know similar banking functions like we would all be familiar with with the current banking system.
	You can give yourselves no interest loans backed by your bit shares that you have in escrow kind of like home equity.
	You can start market pegging assets so like you can create commodity tokens like bit oil, bit coal, you know bit anything and then you can actually peg that value to that token that can kind of keep it level and So it's not volatile.
	You connect tokens as a market-pegged asset.
	And it's all verified by the blockchain and by the smart contracts that make sure that this is a trust-building situation.
	And then basically you can even have countries start doing exchanges of these commodities without using the petrodollar or without using any of these sort of government Gold, you know, fiat currencies that they're all forcing countries to go through or buy things and then you fund more by using those certain currencies that are with these different interests.
	So you're funding these different power bases by these countries needing these resources.
	So you're actually funding the tyranny, right?
	So the blockchain, you can actually set up these peer-to-peer Country-to-country negotiations, smart contracts, where the countries actually do business on the blockchain without going through these very large orchestrated bureaucracies that are controlling the world reserve currencies and all this.
	So we're working with some These with different countries, I don't think I have the ability to say which countries right now because we're in development with them, but a lot of these countries are looking to open up Asia to see, you know, let's do real-time transactions on the blockchain.
	A lot more Asian countries are excited about the industry and the freedom that that brings for business and speed.
	They're more interested in how fast they can do things because wiring even from China's four keys, but with the blockchain you can do it instantly.
	It's the implications of this.
	And so you're taking out the third party entirely that's slowing the process down because you have real people making sure it's all lines and whatnot.
	So we're able to do things very efficiently and really at the same time open innovation.
	Really what Stan talks about, which you'll hear from me, But anyway, he talks about that we're really becoming our own reset.
	We talk about the global reset at some types of shows like this.
	But while that's all probably on track, this is just a way that we can even input some of those actions of a reset of an economy, of a global economy, of a global reset where we're revaluing not just the fiat monies, but we're revaluing these of a global reset where we're revaluing not just the fiat monies, but we're revaluing these crypto monies that are more trustworthy and okay well and I appreciate that explanation Sorry?
	I'm getting Stan on here in one second.
	He's about to join in.
	I have a lot of questions.
	Yeah, because I wanted you to talk a little bit more about the technology behind BitShares and exactly what BitShares is capable of doing and also the miner.
	You're talking about the miners and I'd like you to talk a little more about that as well.
	But if we get Stan, that would be great.
	Obviously, you're doing a great job though.
	It's good to have you on as well.
	Oh no, I'm a humanitarian futurist, My role, I've been working in these areas to try to free up innovation capital to do all this infrastructure that we need to, you know, help rebuild our planet.
	I know we have a lot of other things that are kind of breakaway civilization type stuff that I know you're very familiar with, Kerry.
	But as far as just keeping the ball rolling for just the surface dwellers here, we're just trying to see if we can, you know, we have all the resources.
	Let's just, you know, let's just get to work and kind of free up this capital, not let it all be bottlenecked.
	By these archaic systems.
	Sure.
	So I'm very excited to break open innovation by flooding it with new honest capital that's not being corrupted.
	Okay, so do we have some sound?
	Stan, welcome to the show.
	Are you able to hear us?
	Yes, I can hear you very well and my apologies.
	Okay well what we did when we started is we were reading this Forbes magazine article and kind of quoting from it a bit that was from 2015.
	I was asking Dylan to update us a bit since then and we're still in the preliminary stages of the actual conversation here so you're welcome to sort of jump in and if you want to First of all, your background, because your background, of course, as you may know, is very interesting to Project Camelot because of the kinds of subjects I cover.
	So I'm curious to hear more about that in the beginning, and then we'll jump into your company and so on.
	Okay, sounds good.
	Well, I guess my background is six years serving in the Air Force, teaching at the Air Force Academy, working in the laboratories.
	And then the rest of our career in the aviation, aerospace industry, air, land, sea, and ground vehicles, specifically unmanned ones.
	And now I do unmanned companies.
	It seems that's the general trend, high levels of automation.
	And so about 2010, I decided that I would leave the Current career and it was based on a reason of the fact that they would not let my 401k go free.
	And they said, well, you know, you're old enough to take your 401k, but it's against our company policy until you leave the company.
	So I said, okay, I'll leave the company.
	And that way I could take my 401k into my own custody.
	And that would be the opportunity to become an entrepreneur.
	And so I've worked on a number of things, including unmanned parking lots.
	That may be a bit coming down from a Mars rover, but it was still another piece of the pie.
	And then my son, Dan Larimer, back in 2013, got some funding for doing digital currencies, a next generation type of blockchain.
	Put a whole company on the blockchain instead of just a coin.
	And so I did that.
	And he called me out of retirement to basically run the company while he could attend to the software team.
	And that's what got me involved.
	And since then, he's gone on to start a couple more companies and left me in charge of his first point.
	And so that's what I do these days is work on BitShare.
	Okay, so I guess I'm going to have to...
	I don't know.
	We have some kind of echo going on here.
	I'm not sure why.
	It's a bit...
	Difficult, but at any rate, so what happens is I was wondering if you could explain exactly what BitShares does as opposed to, say, Bitcoin.
	Oh, absolutely.
	Bitcoin, you can think of Bitcoin as being the first company put on the blockchain.
	And if you think of it as providing just one service, keeping track of who owns its stock.
	Okay.
	Then people started out passing those tokens around and you could pretend that those tokens are stock or you could pretend those tokens are currency.
	And so Satoshi Nagamoto said, hey, you know, this could be a currency someday.
	So that's the way people started thinking of it as a coin.
	And the service that that company provides is transferring ownership from one account to another.
	And that turned out to be useful because People started speculating on the price as soon as it got just worth a few cents.
	People said, well, if I get enough of them, I can send that money to someone else on the other side of the planet.
	And once they proved you could buy a pizza on the other side of the planet, then everybody started using it for different things.
	And so then, since there was a fixed supply, people started bidding up the price in order to get more and more of them.
	Can you hear me now or should I go get another microphone?
	Oh no, we can hear you fine.
	I can hear you fine.
	I can check my chat.
	I do have someone monitoring everything and I think they would have let me know if you couldn't be heard.
	It looks like no problems as far as I can see here.
	You sound really good.
	So wondering what, you know, there's this discrepancy on limits that, you know, you said it had a limit that they could only mine so much.
	And I have seen some controversy on the web about that, that actually once they reach their limit or something, all they have to do is recreate it or whatever they do, and then they can do it again.
	So I am curious about this whole mining thing, and I'm also curious how mining relates to BitShares.
	Okay, that's a nice handful of questions.
	So, well, let's see.
	Promise to limit the number of coins out there is like very inherent in the Bitcoin religion.
	I mean, you would not dare increase it.
	Could it be done?
	Yes.
	In fact, when Bitcoin was super decentralized in the early days where hundreds of thousands or tens of thousands of people were mining it, you'd have to convince all those people out there to change the software that Limits the supply.
	Well, that's pretty hard because that would mean that all of their value would go down.
	If you diluted it by, let's say, a factor of two, then every Bitcoin would be worth half as much.
	So you'd never get that many people to agree to that.
	Nowadays, because only four big companies in China control over half the network, You could theoretically convince those four companies to change the software and double the supply, but it wouldn't be in their best interest to do so because in the process they would destroy the whole value of the system because no one would trust it anymore.
	That's something that sort of happened with Ethereum here recently.
	They came up against a need to create two branches of Ethereum, that's what's called forks, because they couldn't agree on whether the rules were the rules.
	And one group said, no, whatever's coded in code, even if somebody uses a mistake in the code to steal money from everybody, it's immoral to change the code.
	And we just have to live with that bad result.
	Another half of the people said, oh, we've got the ability to go in, make a software mod that stops that person from stealing that amount of money, and restart the system and press on.
	But that is a human intervention in an unmanned system.
	And that is Well, that's a no-no.
	Now, how big of a no-no was it?
	Well, we can see right now the people who did that got to keep the name Ethereum, and they are the biggest of the two chains by a lot.
	So it looks like it's okay, been ratified by history, that you can go in and change the code and let the market decide whether the change in code you made was good or not.
	And we can look at it and say, well, the market decided that even though they broke the rules, And changed the code and restarted a new system, a new blockchain.
	That was still what everybody apparently wanted.
	Or maybe just because they were lucky enough to get to keep the name Ethereum instead of Ethereum Classic.
	You know, they got away with it or something because a lot of people probably weren't that analytical and continued to invest in the one that had the original name.
	But whatever the reason, still people had the choice.
	They could have sold one and bought more of the other.
	And you can see the ratio, almost like a vote, of which people own is which of the two solutions they believe in.
	And that would be what would happen in Bitcoin.
	If Bitcoin were to somehow get those four big companies to change the supply, there would be another group of people at that same time, while the rest of the people would say, no, we're not going to go along with that, and Bitcoin would work.
	You'd have two.
	Bitcoin half and Bitcoin full.
	Okay, but aren't these things...
	Am I wrong?
	I thought Bitcoin did fork or was about to fork.
	In fact, I thought it forked just recently.
	Yes, and that's the point.
	In that particular case, it was a disagreement between two different ways to modify the software so it could handle a little more traffic.
	One group of people wanted to make the block size bigger so that they could put more transactions every 10 minutes.
	And another one wanted to find a tighter way to pack the data into the same size block.
	And so the two teams couldn't agree over that simple thing.
	And then they went ahead and said, all right, well, let's each do our own thing and we'll just let the market decide.
	And so they made two versions of Bitcoin, gave everybody who had the original Bitcoin a copy of each of the new coins.
	So they weren't cheating anybody.
	Everybody got one of each and are free to sell the one they don't like.
	And have two or the one they do like or whatever.
	And once again, the market will decide which of those two was the right decision and probably decide based on things other than the esoteric technical decisions.
	It doesn't matter to anybody which way it was done.
	It was purely a technical argument.
	But as it is right now, one group got to keep the name Bitcoin and the other one had to call itself Bitcoin Cash.
	And I think they're not done fighting.
	It could well be that dark forces in the world are currently manipulating the markets in order to bring about their favorite one, winning.
	And so, you know, hey, grab some popcorn and watch what happens.
	Another interesting thing that happened at that same time, by the way, is we said, well, guys, don't split Bitcoin.
	That would be Very bad because it would create confusion in the marketplace and everything.
	You don't need to split Bitcoin.
	You don't need to speed it up.
	There are other blockchains out there that can handle the traffic.
	Why don't you just be gold?
	Gold doesn't have to move around that fast.
	People can use transactions in Bitcoin for moving stores of value around and use BitShares, which runs thousands of times faster when you want to do everyday money transactions.
	And so we said, well, you know, if you guys are going to split over some things like a factor of two and how you pack the data, then why don't we give you a third alternative?
	So we created FastBitcoin, which runs on the BitShares network.
	And it's basically sitting there instead of running at, let's say, 14 transactions per second for the new Bitcoins, it's running at hundreds of thousands of potential transactions per second.
	Now, people aren't trading it right now.
	People who got the two Bitcoins on August 1st got a third Bitcoin on the BitShares network.
	And they own it and it's sitting there, but we haven't had the right engineer to come along and write the software that will hand that out to the people.
	So right now it's just sitting there.
	It can't be traded.
	But when we get people to agree on how to do it and fund the right engineer to do a little bit of code to I call it free the fast bitcoins then suddenly those will become available and now people will have three different versions and I predict that there'll be other arguments like this coming up where other people will try other variations and before long you'll have a whole zoo full of different kinds of bitcoins.
	Wow!
	So you deal with...
	I thought you were an exchange.
	Am I wrong?
	BitShares I think is basically an exchange?
	Yes, you asked me a question about five minutes ago and I got off on the track.
	No, you did great.
	It's great what you're doing.
	Thank you.
	Well, what we did after looking and saying, well, Bitcoin is a company that does that one little thing.
	What happens if we put a fancier, more sophisticated company on the blockchain?
	Why don't we put an entire smart coin factory and exchange, a centralized exchange on the blockchain?
	A whole lot of extra functionality, the same kind of decentralization so that there's no center point of control.
	And, you know, people can own pieces of that the same way they own bitcoins, but it can make all kinds of other kinds of coins as well.
	And those coins can trade against each other.
	And that became a big Improvement over centralized exchanges and maybe this would be a good point to explain what the problem is with a centralized exchange.
	There's lots of them out there.
	All the rest of the markets are centralized.
	That means that they have control over your money and if you want to trade you have to send them your bitcoins or your bit shares or whatever and they lock them up in their own wallet Where they own it and then they give you poker chips, essentially, that you can trade on their exchange.
	Their software is just a computer program running on just a single server or a single group of servers that are handling that trading for you.
	And they don't really touch those coins until you want to cash out.
	And it's just like at a casino.
	You take the coins you've been trading.
	I traded some blue chips for some red chips.
	Now when I cash out, I go and say, send me this many red chips.
	They take that and send me the real coin.
	And that works perfectly fine, except while they're holding all those coins, if anything goes wrong, like somebody hacks their server, there's this big honeypot of coins that's worth hacking at.
	So every big exchange out there has hackers working on it all the time.
	How can I guess their password?
	Who can I find inside the organization that I can bribe or trick into giving me the password?
	And so they work really hard at it.
	Well, with BitShares, everybody keeps their own coins in their own wallet.
	And the blockchain does the trading.
	They don't have to give them to anybody else to hold while that trading takes place.
	And could you still hack my computer and get my coins?
	Yes.
	But I have a much smaller amount than the exchange has.
	And so, you know, which of the Thousands and tens of thousands of BitShares holders, you want to waste your time hacking to get their little supply.
	So by decentralizing the exchange, you decentralize the honeypot, and you keep people from doing other things that exchanges might do.
	I'm not accusing anybody of anything, but I just point out that if they're holding all those coins off-market and issuing poker chips, then what happens to the idea of a fixed supply?
	What stops them from having their own poker chips to throw into the mix and trade and drive prices down or up and make a killing with fake coins?
	How would you know?
	Okay, well that's an interesting, that sounds a little like the banks.
	When you put money in the bank, the bank takes and loans it out to 10 people.
	I think it goes something like that.
	So it sounds kind of like that model.
	It sounds a risky situation.
	I do have some Ethereum in Bitcoin, let's see, in Coinbase.
	So Coinbase is just such an exchange as you're describing, correct?
	It's a centralized one.
	Is that correct?
	It's a centralized exchange.
	And I'm not saying any particular company does that.
	I'm just saying there's no way to protect it if they do or don't, right?
	It's a change for corruption to creep in.
	And that could result in severe market manipulation.
	No one would be able to necessarily detect that.
	See, a nice thing about a blockchain, the Bitcoin blockchain or the BitShares blockchain, is it's all public.
	Everybody can see every account.
	You can see who's got what money where.
	Well, I want to drill down on that.
	What do you mean, who's?
	I mean, so the identity of the users, aren't they private?
	Yes.
	So if I may not know.
	If Dylan has an account on BitShares and he calls it Deep Fat Fry, you know, I don't know who owns Deep Fat Fry, but I know all the transactions that that account did.
	Okay.
	And I can add up all the coins in all the accounts and see that it adds up to the fixed supply that is allowed to be there on the BitShares exchange and I'll know there's no funny business.
	Okay?
	Okay.
	I don't know for a given exchange whether they still have all the Bitcoins that got sent to them.
	And so they may have found a way to sell some of those coins on the side and not have full backing and be trading pucker chips while their cold wallet has been handed to somebody else in exchange for a nice fat sum.
	That they're able to go invest and do things with and trade with and whatever.
	And I don't really know who controls those Bitcoins.
	I might be able to trace the Bitcoins through the system and say, well, you know, here's the address of Polyneics wallet.
	And I can see they moved them off into these seven other wallets.
	But I don't know if they sold one of those wallets to someone or used it to borrow against as collateral or who knows what they might have done.
	And I'm not accusing politics of anything.
	That's the first exchange name I bought it.
	But any centralized exchange has the ability to do that.
	Another thing they can do is front running.
	Front running says that they look at the order books on their system and they say, well, Billen's willing to pay an extra 10 cents for this Bitcoin than the other order.
	That person could get Dylan's extra 10 cents, but instead, I'll buy it from Dylan, earn that 10 cents, and sell it to them at the extra price they're willing to pay or whatever.
	So I can look at every order, and anytime there's a chance for somebody to profit, I can steal that profit and give them just what they ask for.
	That's by peeking at the order books before anyone else sees them.
	With BitShares, everything happens on a three-second clock tick.
	And everybody puts their orders in and they execute all at once.
	There's no opportunity for somebody to get in front of the market and do that kind of trick.
	So everything we talk about, whether it's a simple thing like Bitcoin or a sophisticated thing like a pull-up exchange, putting it on the blockchain gives us tools to prevent cheating and give everybody an honest playing field.
	And that's sort of the Uniform trend, and this is my chance to laugh at the banks.
	A lot of news headlines about big name banks say we're going to get on the blockchain.
	I've worked for a big bank like that that hired my company to do a blockchain for them.
	But what they said is, no, we don't want to do it on the BitShares network.
	We want our own private blockchain.
	Guys, if it's a private blockchain where they control all the nodes, You don't need a blockchain.
	You can just use an ordinary database to store everybody's accounts because you have total control over everything that happened.
	We have to trust you, Mr.
	Private Blockchain Bank, to run the whole blockchain and not cheat.
	We don't get to see all that and therefore we don't have that kind of protection.
	They can change the code anytime they want.
	They can put in backdoors.
	They can manipulate different supplies.
	They can seize people's assets.
	Freeze them, change the rules at any time, because it's all under their control.
	And so when those banks say, we're moving on to the blockchain, they miss the whole point.
	It may be blockchain software, but it doesn't have the attributes that make blockchain valuable.
	That can be very misleading to the public, I'm sure.
	So I want to ask you, I want to go back to something you said earlier.
	You said something very interesting about China owning, if I understood it, or running something like half of the market or more than half the market for, I think you said Bitcoin, if I understood what that statement was about.
	Can you explain that and tell me why that's not a threat to the whole system?
	Oh, it is definitely a threat to the whole system.
	What happened was, when Satoshi envisioned it in 2009, he figured there'd be thousands of ordinary laptop computers, and everybody would be participating every 10 minutes, and amounted to a contest or a lottery to guess the magic number that would solve the puzzle for that particular block and allow you to lock up that block.
	And there's no way to know ahead of time, other than by guessing, What the right number is.
	So there would be tens of thousands of people guessing.
	Somebody would win.
	They would sign that block and get the Bitcoins from that block.
	And that would be an ongoing lottery that would run everything.
	And then somebody noticed, hey, you know, if I have a bigger computer or if I have five computers in my basement, then I have five times the chance of winning the lottery.
	And then somebody said, well, why don't I build a custom computer?
	That will be specialized in doing Bitcoin guessing super fast.
	And so people came up with these custom chips that they could put into computers.
	And then somebody else said, well, gee, if one custom computer is good, then how about a whole room full of custom computers?
	And so they went out and formed a company, essentially, that owns very fast computers that do that.
	And so then they started getting most of the Bitcoins.
	And it became an arms race to see who could get the most powerful computers, the most number of guesses per second on what that number was.
	Because the more times you guess, the better chance you have of winning the prize for that time.
	And then we noticed that electricity was subsidized in China.
	And that there were places in China where you could go where it didn't cost you as much to guess.
	And therefore you could afford, it was more profitable I guess I would say, Whatever you guessed right, because you didn't have to pay as big an electric bill, and therefore you could spend the extra profits on more computers.
	And so several big companies grew that way in China to the point where they're doing over half the guessing for the whole Bitcoin network.
	Wow, that sounds extremely dangerous, doesn't it?
	Well, yeah.
	I mean, for example, if It's an authoritative government.
	It wouldn't take very hard for the government of China to call in the CEOs of those three or four companies and say, we've decided that it's China policy that you make these changes to the software.
	And they would say, I don't want to do that.
	That's immoral.
	It's against our philosophy.
	And I say, well, we'll shoot your family or send you to jail or whatever if you don't do what we want.
	And they would say, grumble, grumble, grumble, okay, and go change the software.
	And now the only way everybody else could still participate in Bitcoin is to adopt the same software.
	And so essentially, and this is, I love this statement, the Bitcoin has become the Federal Reserve of China.
	Really?
	Think about that.
	There are a total of seven governors of the Federal Reserve, okay, for the American dollar.
	And It only takes four of them to vote on an issue on whatever the policy should be.
	There are essentially only four governors of Bitcoin in China.
	So Bitcoin has become the Fed of China, but it still maintains the fiction that it's decentralized and that it's going to be ultimately the new world currency.
	It's become the enemy.
	Fascinating.
	Now, this is an interesting dynamic.
	You know what?
	I want to give Dylan a chance to weigh in here.
	Dylan, can you hear me?
	Yes, I can.
	Do you have anything to add to this?
	And, you know, certainly we'll go back to Stan and get more.
	This is really quite fascinating to me anyway.
	And it's the first I've heard of it anywhere.
	So do you have anything to add to that?
	Yeah, sure.
	And again, I came on board recently With a team here with a lot of humanitarian projects that I wasn't being able to get capitalized in the old system.
	So one of the favorite things that Stan talks about with his son is the idea of creating these digital endowment platforms where you can set some of these organizations or charities up with BitShares, like a growing BitShares account.
	And you can kind of lock that in there that can grow with the wave of this new, you know, unramping the masses into this new way of exchanging value.
	If people or industries want to merge with BitShares as a platform that can do real-time transactions for their business models, I've been all openly setting up basically these endowment platforms for charities and for innovative groups to get on board now and get on this wave early.
	To actually benefit from all these different industry leaders plugging in their businesses into this new exchange system, this model economy.
	And so the idea of having endowments is going to be one of the key things that I see kind of flipping over the energy of getting all this money that's bottlenecked, that's earmarked for all these different things that we don't want, where now we have the democratization I was hoping that you'd weigh in on the China situation
	because doesn't that affect you and doesn't affect the whole model?
	Well, so if China and Asia gets on board, a lot of what China and Asia are doing are very large infrastructure projects, not just for their own countries, but for the world.
	They want to create a vast network of economy by creating these new silk roads, shall we say, of industry, of development, of kind of upgrading the planet, where we can actually have a bit more of a civilized thing going on than just a lot of war.
	They're more about, let's do business.
	Let's create economy.
	Let's create prosperity.
	Let's create open markets.
	Let's create a free marketplace.
	Okay, but it doesn't sound like a free market, what Stan was saying.
	Are you disagreeing with what he's saying about what China's got going on?
	Because it certainly does not sound...
	It sounds like a...
	And Stan, you can weigh in again on your end.
	I'm just trying to interpret what's going on here, but you're basically either not addressing what he's saying about their centralization, creating kind of a Fed using a Bitcoin, because I understand what BitShares is trying to decentralize.
	I get that part.
	But what I'm trying to ask about is Bitcoin.
	In other words, Bitcoin is in this mix with all these other currencies, right?
	Or these other blockchains.
	And therefore, it's changing up the game, isn't it?
	Yeah, I mean, I guess it's funny, I just see Bitcoin as a very obsolete platform that even if a country like China was going to fully implement the usage of Bitcoin, I mean, if the whole population of a billion people started clamoring for Bitcoin, There's only 21 million Bitcoins that will ever exist.
	So the inflation of price, I'm sorry, it'd be an incredible, because so many people would be buying, wanting to buy Bitcoin, I mean, you can easily see Bitcoin going up to 100 grand or something if a billion people population was looking to take on that currency.
	I don't think that Bitcoin is really the vehicle that China is really going to be able to settle with, and mainly because of scalability issues that it has with the transaction times and the limited amount of Bitcoin that there are.
	It just wouldn't allow for a lot of average people to use Bitcoin if a billion people are trying to get Bitcoin.
	Okay, well, let me ask Stan.
	Maybe he can weigh in here.
	And maybe I've got a misunderstanding.
	My understanding at the moment is that, you know, with all the coins out there, Bitcoin seems to be the one that is the big story, the one where...
	It went from, you know, nothing to now, I think it's 7,000.
	It's worth, I don't remember the exact amount now, but it's something like 7,000 for a Bitcoin.
	Is that correct?
	Yeah, it actually went over 8,000 a little bit today.
	Oh, did it?
	Okay, so there you go.
	So it's this so-called success story, if you want to call it that.
	So can...
	Now, Stan, can you explain, you know, hearing what Dylan's saying, you know, because it's an interesting dynamic, and eventually, I guess, it will affect your network as well because you're a bit...
	You're doing a sort of an exchange, right?
	So any coin that is dominating the exchange maybe could be a sort of a...
	You know, an imbalance, you could call it.
	So, how can we say it's an old-fashioned, you know, Bitcoin is old-fashioned, according to Dylan, but nonetheless, it's the so-called, you know, in the mainstream, success story?
	Well, yeah, things happen at different phases, okay?
	So, At the phase of technology, Bitcoin is obsolete.
	At the phase of introducing to the public, it's becoming aware of it.
	It's a brand new thing and a lot better than the banks.
	So it can still grow for some time in that capacity.
	Before it becomes a victim of its own success.
	In the event, let's talk about it right now.
	If I wanted to transfer a Bitcoin to somebody else today, I would have to pay several dollars to go to the head of the line because there aren't enough transactions.
	A lot of times, Bitcoin says, well, you know, you only take three to six transactions to confirm each one of those, not transactions, but blocks.
	That's each 10-minute block.
	Three of them would be a half hour, and it would take an hour to get full confirmation at about six, or nearly full confirmation.
	So you think, okay, I can stand an hour, but that's only after the network starts working on it.
	Your actual request to do that send could sit in what I call a memory pool purgatory, where it's sitting there waiting for somebody to work on it, And the rule is that the miners, the people who are packing these into blocks, do the ones who pay the most first.
	So you can offer to pay a higher fee and move to the head of the line.
	You'll bubble up in the memory pool and get skimmed off the top and packed into a block because every miner wants to make as much as he can with that particular block.
	So they grab all the profitable ones first and work on them.
	And it's only when There aren't any profitable blocks that they dig down deeper in the memory pool and grab some more and process them.
	And so that is the biggest problem.
	If you had a billion people in China start doing serious daily transactions on the Bitcoin network, the price would be equivalent to wiring money.
	You'd have to pay $30 a transaction or something, or who knows how high, to go to the head of the line.
	So the fact of the matter is that's the fundamental limitation It can't serve the whole world.
	The only thing it can do is serve the people who have the most important, valuable transactions that are willing to pay that extra price for and all the small price stuff.
	I'm not going to buy a Coke and pay $30 to Go to the head of the line, right?
	So in essence, you could sit there indefinitely, it seems to me, as long as they're processing those transactions.
	If you have a low transaction, you know, it could take a year for you to get your transaction to go through.
	That's the way it's trending, as long as the miners, who have total discretion in terms of which things they choose to pack into the block, And so it's even possible and I've seen it happen not on Bitcoin but on other chains where miners to get a little bit of advantage over other miners were actually not putting any transactions.
	They were cheating.
	They were mining the block empty and to gain a slight advantage and in terms of maybe a few extra guesses and that was slightly profitable and there were enough people to Helping them in that particular mining pool who didn't care whether the network succeeded or failed.
	They wanted to have a slightly increased chance of winning the contest.
	And so they went on that way for some time.
	And there's nothing anybody can do about it if a big mining company with all that hash power decides to cheat.
	There's no way someone can come in and turn them off.
	Okay, Ken, with China's share of this situation, doesn't that also, I mean, aren't they the ones that are going to get first choice to get their transactions through?
	There is no constraint that I know of that tells any given miner how to decide what transactions they're going to process out of the memory pool.
	And therefore they can Generally do it based on what's most profitable, but if they had some other criteria, they could censor transactions, I suppose, by refusing to process transactions from certain parts of the world.
	Those are the kind of things.
	Now, I'm not saying that any of the things like that are happening.
	I'm just criticizing the centralization and the fact that it does leave potential for mischief, and therefore Most of the situation we have is there's like this waves of stuff.
	The leading wave is everybody out there doesn't have all day to read all the documentation and learn all the issues with Bitcoin.
	They just discover, hey, did you hear Bitcoin is up to $7,000 or $8,000 a coin?
	You better get some.
	It's like tool mania.
	People are buying it because it's going up, not because they understand its merits.
	The only time they're going to understand its merits is they try to use it in a real application and say, wait a minute, I had to pay $30 for this transaction and it still took six hours.
	And as that happens, that will be the thing that affects its adoption.
	Well, it also sounds like politically, though, China, if it owns, you know, and again, I guess, you know, I don't have my mind completely wrapped around what China's dominance is.
	I understand how you're phrasing it.
	You know, I don't picture it very well.
	But so if China decides with that kind of dominance, you know, of having all these computers and cheap electricity and all this stuff centralized in their country to then...
	Somehow persuade the miners to, let's say during a political issue, let's say that they decided that anyone from the United States could not process their transactions because China was dominating.
	You know, they were in the front of the line, so to speak, by nature of...
	Maybe the money they pay, but also some kind of political weight that benefits the miners in some form or fashion.
	Where do the miners reside in China?
	They could hold a gun to their head.
	I don't know.
	But you know what I'm saying?
	I do know.
	That is what happens.
	I don't know about the gun.
	But yeah, they could.
	And yes, they are in China.
	And that's why they have access to Chinese subsidized power at certain places.
	Yeah.
	So, why isn't this front page news this stuff you're telling me now?
	Well, okay.
	Now you're asking me to speculate, okay?
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	Here's the thing.
	The Bitcoin industry is very tribal.
	And there are a lot of people who have made a lot of money in Bitcoin early on who Have a vested interest in Bitcoin being successful.
	A lot of people would build businesses on Bitcoin.
	They don't want to see something else come along.
	They want to make that go as long as possible because it costs money to switch the new things.
	All that investment and all those people who are or have become famous celebrities are the ones that news media go to to ask questions.
	And so when a news person goes and talks to somebody famous in Bitcoin who made a lot of money in Bitcoin and has a lot of investments in Bitcoin, he's going to tell them all the good things about Bitcoin, not going to talk about innovations happening out there.
	And so there is a network effect that has put up a barrier between the average person And the media and their ability to understand the technology, they're interfacing through a group of people who have that vested interest.
	And so it's going to take a while to leak out.
	And the way it's going to leak out is companies are going to start providing services that are more competitive.
	I go to Bitcoin and I wind up saying, wait a minute, I had to spend $30 and it took three days.
	That's no different than wiring money.
	But I can go to company X And for some reason, they can do it in three seconds and charge me less than a penny.
	I don't know how they're doing it, but I'm going to spend my transactions via that company.
	And underneath the hood, you can look.
	And if you did investigate, you find that company is using BitShares.
	But people don't necessarily need to know it was BitShares doing those transactions.
	They just find a company that provides a service that they find better performing.
	And that's how it will actually get unraveled.
	But in the meantime, there's a very large discrimination between the price and the value of one thing, which is because of a limitation in how much information is getting to the speculators, and the value of bidshares whose performance is eight quarters of magnitude better.
	If I take the latency, that's how fast it takes to do one transaction, The bandwidth, that's how many transactions to complete per second, and the cost of running the network, which is 300 million for Bitcoin and 200,000 for BitShares.
	I take all those together, I get a factor of eight tens, eight factors of ten, ten times ten times ten, eight times.
	That's the difference between the speed of a Model T and the speed of Starship.
	That's how big a difference there is in the technology between Bitcoin and BitShares.
	Okay, now I can appreciate the difference in speed, and yet speed does not change what appears to be sort of a political situation developing.
	And if I was, let's say, the United States government, you've worked for the government, huh?
	So I would probably, you know, start to be concerned on some level, I would think, about how it is that this is working out.
	In other words, knowing that, I guess, the American people and or the government, in other words, are they, explain to me the competitive situation of these various countries Coins, if you want to call them that, or currencies or whatever.
	You know, Ethereum being one that I'm aware of, and I know there's count, really, maybe there's even countless at this point, maybe there's a limited number, who can enter the marketplace.
	And I understand there's something called AAC or something like that.
	I can't remember the exact terminology that Lynn...
	Lynette was talking about...
	Lynette Zhang, I don't know if you know who she is.
	She's a financial analyst I interviewed last week.
	Anyway, she was talking about this sort of...
	I think it's called AAC. Anyway, it's starting to sound like a...
	A standardized coin that they're trying to, I guess, make the IMF adopt or something of that nature and having to do with drawing rights or whatever kind of currency.
	Anyway, some kind of standardization.
	How does all that kind of, you know, in a competitive landscape, faced with a Bitcoin that is being sort of taken over by China?
	Do you understand where I'm going with this question?
	I'm trying to describe, or ask you to describe, what is the competitive landscape that involves all the different coins, the sort of lion's share going to Bitcoin at the moment, it would appear.
	At least that we know of.
	And what does that look like, even politically, when it plays out?
	Well, I'm not worried about it at all, because free market forces will rule the day, ultimately.
	Yeah, there can be dirty tricks played along the way, and people can lose money if they're not paying attention.
	But the fact is that, as I simply described, if I I go to two companies, let's say Western Union and FedEx, and I ask them to get my money to the other side of the planet.
	One puts a suitcase of dollar bills on a 747 and flies it to the other side of the planet and delivers it for me to somebody in about 12 hours, and the other company wires it there and takes three days.
	I'm going to decide to use the FedEx service to send my money somewhere instead of the Western Union.
	And it's that same dynamic that's going to wind up driving if Bitcoin starts to do anything that people find objectionable due to the influence of the Chinese government.
	Then, at the very least, someone will fork Bitcoin into Something else or one of the other things like BitShares will take over.
	People will move their money to where it's being treated best.
	And so even though China does have the potential to order something bad to happen to Bitcoin, they've got a lot of investment in Bitcoin and I don't think it's really in their best interest to do something too blatant because if that does, that's the end of Bitcoin and now whatever advantage they might have had is gone.
	So the markets have a way of correcting for that sort of thing.
	You talk about is there going to be a one-world currency that will be based on digital currency technology, probably centralized, but it works the same other than it's centralized in the IMF or whatever.
	Yeah, I think they're going to do that kind of thing.
	It's so obvious to me how you can get to a one-world currency from here.
	Use the very technology that we're talking about and make it mandatory.
	And the only thing you can pay your taxes, if all the governments of the world agree you have to pay your taxes in this new digital currency of theirs, then that's going to make you have to go exchange your other currencies for that, at least to pay your taxes.
	But at the same time, I see all the other coins, the thousands of other coins out there competing Most of which will never amount to anything, but some of them will.
	Each will find a niche.
	Or some will find a niche.
	And those provide escape valves, if you will, for people to continue to do business as long as there's a free internet.
	Now, if you want to do a George Orwell 1984 no free internet, expand the Great Wall of China to, you know, be on the border of every country and, you know, start Doing draconian things like intercepting everybody's emails and putting it in a big database somewhere that you can go search without telling anybody and monitoring everybody.
	Like in Bluffsdale, Utah, for example.
	Yeah, I mean, you see it coming, don't you?
	And so governments of the world are telling us we need to do this to protect you from bad guys.
	Sure.
	What would happen if somebody kidnaps somebody who uses digital currency or ransom?
	Or what happens if somebody launders money?
	It's always kind of a strange thing.
	The difference between laundering money and simply doing a private transaction, it's not clear to me what the moral crime is there other than it's been made illegal.
	But every one of those little steps, you can go to jail for years, money laundering, You can go years for structuring your payments.
	People have taken money out of their own bank account in regular intervals and gone to jail for three years for structuring their activity.
	There are so many Byzantine rules out there that they basically can get you for a crime by simply selectively enforcing it.
	And we saw that example happen with the TRE and the IRS. Selectively enforcing to favor one political party over another.
	Well, if government can abuse its power to give people a tax-exempt status, then certainly it can abuse its power to control your bank account or to simply turn you off.
	Think about that.
	If they complete the cage they're building for us, then any one of us says something they don't like, they can turn us off.
	And in fact, this happens all the time right now.
	There are laws on the American books, if you can believe it, that say the very first thing the government does when they want to put you in jail or want to accuse you of something is go seize all your computers and all your bank accounts and everything else that might be of value to your defense and then say, okay, we've got unlimited resources.
	We can bring as many lawyers in.
	We can stretch this out for years if we have to.
	And you don't have any money to hire a lawyer to defend yourself.
	Well, okay.
	In other words, they could take your Bitcoin, your currency, your crypto, the number that you're supposed to keep on a piece of paper somewhere in your house or whatever.
	I can't memorize, I don't know, 52 characters, but whatever it is.
	You know what I'm saying?
	In other words...
	At some point, there are ways, if you take the person's computer, this is, or they, you know, their hard drives or their thumb drives, what they call, you know, a lot of people are saving their cryptos on a little, you know, stick, what we call a stick, type of thing, right?
	That's a possession.
	Yeah, I would take your stick that has your stuff on it, and I would put it in some other location Where you know where it is, because since we know that it's standard operating procedure to seize your computers, you watch it every night on the news, somebody's accused of something, and there's a picture of the FBI with dollies carrying boxes and boxes of papers and computers and stuff that they've seized from somebody who hasn't been proven guilty yet.
	Right.
	And they've frozen their bank accounts and basically turned off their life as best they can.
	Well, if we're all on one common Government-run money system.
	It's a lot easier, right?
	They just type it into a computer, shut down Stan, and suddenly every account everywhere in their system that Stan owns is frozen.
	And then they say to Stan, okay, show up in court and we'll provide you a government lawyer because you can't afford one of your own because we took all your money before you were proven guilty.
	So that's the kind of stuff that this one-world currency is And that's why having alternatives to that is important.
	But if you take and store on your little stick and write down on the stick, here's the password, and you leave it laying somewhere in your house, then when they come and take all your papers and all your computers, and they're certainly going to be looking for little sticks, and they run off with your cryptocurrencies as well.
	And I would suggest that while you're at it, when you take your little stick, Well, you certainly can't keep it in a bank deposit box, right?
	No.
	You can understand by just looking at the examples of how they have been treating people who haven't been proven guilty of anything, that we are rapidly approaching a point where we have no freedom.
	And so you have to think ahead and realize that there are forces out there that could get out of control.
	And that's why, despite all the problems I've been pointing out, I'm very positive about the potential of digital currencies, especially if non-government ones, if the private ones that are out there and widely decentralized get out there and are popular enough, at some point, It becomes too dangerous for a government to come along and interfere with something that's gotten popular.
	Right now, while it's still pretty small, they can do things like, let's associate these digital currencies with drug running or something.
	Let's try to make the average person stay away from them by saying, you could use this to do crimes.
	But they ignore the fact that their own dollar bill A suitcase of those passed to somebody in a dark parking garage somewhere can cause the same amount of crime as something passed with digital currencies, yet they don't badmouth and say, don't use dollars.
	They actually may start that because they want to get rid of cash anyway, right?
	So they might tell us, hey, we're taking your cash away from you so that it can't be used for bad purposes.
	And every single thing like that that is done Okay, but what about, you just said something interesting about, you said it was dangerous if these kind of, you know, I guess peer-to-peer networks become dangerous.
	Bigger.
	They're small right now, but they could become a lot bigger.
	And then it would be dangerous for a government to interfere.
	Dangerous how?
	What is the response that a people...
	Is it any more dangerous for them to interfere with that than for them to, let's say, devalue the dollar across the board for the American people, which is something that a lot of people are saying is coming as a result of some kind of currency reset.
	The danger, I'm going to ask you, is that people hitting the streets in protest?
	Is that the big danger?
	Well, we see...
	Let me take an example.
	Prohibition.
	They outlawed it by a constitutional amendment and spent the 1920s or whenever it was busting up stills and speakies and stuff.
	That was such an unpopular law that eventually they had to repeal prohibition.
	So if they do something that an overwhelming part of the population finds objectionable, if the whole population has decided they like having their glass of wine at night and you suddenly take that away from them, You might get a political revolt.
	I don't mean it's necessarily up in arms, but at some point the politicians have to respect overwhelming anger.
	And that's even true in China, right?
	You think that's a super-authoritarian thing, but they do have to watch that they don't do something that would cause the masses to get angry.
	Now, the masses will put up an awful lot, and most people are busy Watching Dancing with the Stars at night and not really paying attention to what's going on and don't think they can do anything about it and they're just kind of lethargic and so they can slowly boil the frog and get us to accept almost anything and then they can cause a crisis like FDR had in the Great Depression where He's
	able to rule by decree and tell everybody, you need to turn in your gold.
	Even though that's private property, you can't own it anymore.
	It's illegal, and I'm going to do that with an executive order, and I'm seizing everybody's gold.
	And keep doing it.
	Well, I don't know how many did it, but he got away with it.
	We've seen in recent years lots of executive orders coming down that turned out to be blatantly illegal.
	Well, it reminds me of 9-11.
	The president went on the television and told everyone to go shopping to be a proud American and support the system because otherwise it was kind of falling.
	That was right after 9-11, kind of an interesting directive.
	It wasn't exactly like taking your gold, but by the same token, it was a programming gesture to sort of Program the sheep to go out there and start, you know, buying things to make, you know what I'm saying?
	So there is that kind of thing going on.
	Yeah, the president does have the job of being chief cheerleader, right?
	And certainly he's elected to propose things to the people who make his case for what they ought to do.
	And so at any given time, any president can suggest that it would be good for everybody to rally around the flag or You know, buy savings bonds or war bonds or, you know, there's lots of that that happens.
	I don't object to an out in the open advocating a certain activity or response.
	That's the political give and take.
	It's when you start doing laws and executive orders that coerce people into doing things without due process through the Congress And all the safeguards that we've got in place, that's the point where it's crossing the line.
	And what we have right now is both major political parties in America are perfectly willing to have their representative in the Oval Office take an autocratic approach to enforce what they want to see accomplished.
	And they're outraged when the other party does the same thing.
	Sure.
	In either case, unless you're repealing a previous president's executive order, I think that's fair game to do that.
	But to insert your own executive order that hasn't gone through Congress is not, I mean, that's unconstitutional and dangerous, slippery slope.
	Okay, now I've got Paladin.
	He's a financial investigator on the line and on the Skype over here asking you if cryptos will replace the current financial system.
	Is that your point of view or do you have a thought on that?
	No.
	I mean, although I spent every single day of my recent life trying to bring that about, I don't think that you're ever going to replace it.
	I think you can augment the current system with a nice safety valve or a safety net, if you will, that provides us with a way to avoid total imprisonment inside the matrix that they're trying to assemble for us.
	And I think, though, that enough people in this world are willing to accept whatever their governments do, either because they've been disarmed and have no way to fight back, Or because they actually like it.
	A lot of people have been trained to think the same way.
	And so, yeah, the governments always have the ability to do it.
	And the big banks and the people with money and power will always have a way to have their assistance out there and to make it hard for other people because they're close to a monopoly right now.
	But that doesn't mean we shouldn't still struggle for whatever freedoms we can get.
	I invite everybody to go back and read the Declaration of Independence.
	We're all taught in school the first and the last paragraph.
	Don't look at everything in between, which is the list of grievances against the King of England and the things the King of England were doing that caused us to revolt back in the 1776 timeframe are nothing compared to the atrocities that our government is doing today.
	If we were to give that list Of what our government does today, back to our founding fathers, they'd have a hissy fit.
	I mean, totally unacceptable.
	And yet, over 200 years of gradually increasing government interference, we have got a government that is worse than George III. Right.
	Absolutely.
	Well, okay.
	So at this point, I want to know, I'm going to ask you another question that comes actually from Paladin, but he didn't ask it.
	He just told me about it.
	So the idea being that some people are viewing cryptos As currencies and some are viewing them as sort of a stock and you seem to talk about it to do with a stock which has a certain certain laws and rules and regulations that go along with it and then also if you you know if you want to cash it in how you report that to the IRS so to speak so can you talk about any of that?
	Oh absolutely it's a really great question Tokens on a blockchain can be used to represent anything.
	They can be frequent flyer miles, they can be discount coupons, they can represent bearer bonds, bearer shares, shares of stock, coins, smart coins, which are not just dumb coins, but they compute their own value under certain circumstances.
	All kinds of different things can be represented and the thing people have What I'm able to realize is that just moving on to the blockchain does not change what laws in different companies govern you.
	There's this famous Supreme Court case that's called Howie.
	It goes back to the middle of the last century where a company in Howie in the Hills, Florida had a big orange boat and they got the brilliant idea that they could raise some money By dividing that property up into strips of land with one roll of orange trees on each strip of land and then selling that land, ordinary real estate deals.
	And then they would offer the buyers of that land as part of the package.
	They would come in and harvest, take care of their trees.
	I just like taking care of a rental property or something.
	Harvest stuff and give them a pet of the profits.
	And they did not register as Having released a security at the time because they said, why should we?
	We just sold a strip of land and did a contract to manage some person's property for them.
	Why should we have to do that?
	Well, the Supreme Court decided in something that's become the famous Howie test that it doesn't matter whether you're issued a stock certificate or a strip of property that owns orange trees or a token on a blockchain.
	That if you invested in a common enterprise with the intention of reaping a share of the profits, you have purchased a security.
	And so that Supreme Court decision has been around now for 100 years or almost, and it's become the law of land and so many precedents and everything.
	The Howey test applied to anybody who sells digital tokens to raise money To develop a piece of software or a business or whatever and plans to share the profits is, guess what?
	Pass the Howie test, it's a security and if you sold it, it's an unlicensed security and that makes you subject to all the security laws and going to jail and having the money confiscated that went into that business.
	So if you are an investor, you'd better look at that because if you bought into one of these ICOs, the initial coin offerings, Passes the highway test, in the sense you need the highway test for security, then all that money you invested could get confiscated.
	The people you invested could go to jail and you lose everything.
	People are just waking up to the fact that that is how it's going to go down.
	And if it works for the orange trees, it works also for watching.
	And so now people are scrambling around to say, well, uh, I'm going to do things right.
	There's a TXSRB, TokenExchangeSelfRegulatingBody.org.
	It is one attempt to self-regulate the industry and to show people the proper way to do it.
	And the secret is, admit it's a security and follow security laws.
	Register it with the government.
	Follow the laws.
	It's not that bad.
	They hold you up for a half-million-dollar A to register, but okay.
	So you have to go raise a little bit of money from some investor to pay your fees to get the government to give you permission to sell it under certain conditions.
	But if you go step, step, step, you can work your way up to where you raised $20 million or $50 million.
	And if you do it the right way, you can use the blockchain.
	And now you're safe.
	Investors are safe because you've complied with the rules.
	And as much as I hate centralized control, I also know that an awful lot of people did ICOs.
	A couple kids in a basement do an ICO where they promised anti-gravity.
	Everybody sends money in to invest in these kids' anti-gravity machine.
	And when they get all the money, they take off for a Caribbean island and spend the rest of their lives partying it down, not doing anything.
	Because there were no protections for the consumer and governments.
	Then get all this flood of complaints and they say, well, we couldn't prevent it because these guys didn't follow the rules.
	Okay, so how many ICOs such as that that are basically having what you call unlicensed securities are trading on your BitShares network?
	I don't have any idea.
	I haven't gone and done an audit Of who's issued what.
	But that is, you know, the BitShares network is totally decentralized.
	I don't have any control over who does anything with it.
	It's been handed off as a piece of software that other people are taking that free software, setting it up and running it all over the world.
	And the software allows you to issue a token and claim anything you want about the token.
	And if you do that, then you're responsible for that.
	Token and on the thing now.
	PayShares provides all the tools for you to do it right, including full regulatory compliance.
	You can issue shares of your company and you can whitelist the accounts that are allowed to own shares in your company by doing the proper KYC AML that's for your customer, anti-money laundering, following the laws, getting the ID of the person Before you authorize them to hold the shares of stock, BitShares provides all the tools for you to comply with the laws in your country, which may be different from the laws in other countries.
	But all it is is the accounting system that's keeping track of who owns what, and it is up to any exchange or any person that is offering assets on that network to make sure that their assets are In compliance with the laws that apply.
	Okay.
	Let me ask you, are Ethereum and Bitcoin, are those securities or currency or what?
	No.
	Definitely not.
	Because the first thing that Bitcoin, BitShares, Ethereum and a lot of coins did, they were mined into existence.
	Even though BitShares No longer uses mining for day-to-day operations.
	The people who own BitShores got them by participating in a creation lottery that did not pass the highway test because nobody invested.
	In other words, they didn't go and send their money in in order to build the system.
	The coins came into existence and grew in value because of their utility.
	In that sense, they are called a utility coin.
	You can do utility tokens.
	A nice utility token would be Chuck E. Cheese tickets.
	You've got a Chuck E. Cheese, you know, and your kids each get a string of these little tickets that allow them to go and play some games.
	And, you know, all those things are is utility.
	They authorize people access to a service, a token in a laundromat, Poker chips, whatever.
	Those are all utilities.
	They're not investments.
	They're a way of managing who has access to certain resources.
	So the coins that you talk about are all classified as utility coins.
	But just in this past year, it started to become fashionable for people to say, well, this coin is going to serve as a way for me to raise money, go Okay, someone was telling me that the volume is low.
	I don't know.
	I'm turning it up here.
	Hopefully it's a little bit louder.
	I'll try to talk louder.
	Okay.
	I could hear you fine.
	So it's recording, I think, fine.
	But at any rate, all right.
	Well, that's very interesting.
	Now, I've been asking you a slew of questions here, and I'm going to look in the chat and see.
	I don't want to get this going much longer.
	I know we started late, so we have a little extra time maybe, but I don't want to delay you guys too long here.
	So what am I not asking you that I should be asking you?
	And along those lines, and I know we kind of went back and forth with Dylan on this, but there is a component that is an AI component.
	Because you've got something digital, it's non-tangible, it's in the network, out there, and there's also even the quantum aspects.
	Have you guys considered that, those two things?
	And also, just as I said, is there anything else that you would like to address about BitShares and things that I haven't asked you?
	Well, relative to quantum computing and things of that nature that are of a deep technical nature, that's outside of my expertise where I can really talk about.
	That's...
	Dan Larimer is the inventor of this technology, my son, and he's a guy that would have to answer deep technical questions.
	But I would say from my point of view, which is in the let's find good uses for this existing technology, that the existing technology is offering something that the world desperately needs is the ability to scale up to where everybody can use this technology.
	And that's sort of the contribution BitShares makes to that Play.
	So, you know, I find that, you know, a year from now, BitShares will upgrade to BitShares 3.0.
	It'll run on Dan's latest technology, which will be highly parallelizable and scalable.
	That's called the EOS system.
	And so the arms race continues on, and there will be threats that emerge of supercomputers that maybe track the codes that people are using when that happens.
	And there'll be a counter move and you know, it'll continue to evolve.
	Just like the Sopwith Camel is no longer used to fight air superiority battles when you have high speed jet fighters and so on.
	So yeah, we'll just let that roll out.
	I'm not particularly concerned about that.
	I think whenever I get a chance to just raise Points, I would say the one thing would be that most people evaluate coins based on market cap.
	How many total coins are there and what's each coin worth?
	And that gets a number like 120 billion per bitcoin and something like 300 million per bit shares.
	And they say, well, okay, I can tell who's the leading coin on that axis.
	But, you know, there's other axes.
	If I say utility, well, BitShares does a whole lot more things than Bitcoin does.
	So in terms of which is more useful, Bitcoin will transfer value around the planet in a certain amount of time and BitShares will do it faster and it'll make multiple coins and it'll have all kinds of financial services it can do.
	So on that axis, BitShares dominates Bitcoin by a lot, but Ethereum would be even more flexible because it's programmable by anybody.
	So if you take the axis of utility, maybe Ethereum is number one and Bitcoin is a distant memory on that axis.
	And the third axis is performance.
	How much can it get done in a given unit of time?
	Bitcoin's dead last.
	Ethereum isn't much better.
	They're both dead slow.
	And BitShares is out there at eight orders of magnitude better.
	So I ask people to, when they're evaluating which coin is the leader, It's like asking, who's the best athlete in the world?
	Is it the world's greatest sumo wrestler, the world's greatest gymnast, or the world's greatest tennis star?
	Right?
	Well, it depends on the game as to which of those three athletes is going to be best.
	And that's what I tell CEOs when I go into their boardrooms.
	I say to them, well, how did you choose which blockchain you're building?
	Some of them will tell me, well, I want to go with number one in market cap.
	And I say, How does the cost of a Bitcoin have any effect on whether your company can use it or whether it's useful to your company?
	And then they said, well, no, no, no.
	I meant we picked on it based on the fact that most developers are using.
	Anybody can program on it.
	And they switched from Bitcoin axis to the Ethereum axis.
	I say, you're building a particular application that's not going to change after you finish it and you're offering it to your customers.
	Do you want a bunch of amateurs in various colleges and basements and stuff there doing rapid prototyping and putting up different variations and competing with you and so on?
	Is that really why you picked it?
	Meet skilled programmers for that?
	And they say, well, no.
	I say, well, what is it that you're going to do?
	Well, we're going to bring in Probably 40,000 new users every day.
	We've got 3 million customers now, and it's just going to grow like crazy.
	And each one of them is going to be using our system.
	One example was playing a game in a stadium where, you know, everybody in the stadium all at once bets on what the next play is going to be or something.
	And I said, the network you're building on can do 25 transactions per second tops.
	And how are you going to possibly have that run?
	How are you going to bring all those people in?
	All those people, when you launch your product next month, are going to find your system doesn't work because they're going to put in their bet and it gets logged tomorrow after the game's long over.
	And I said, have you thought about that?
	And the CEO looks over and says to their technical guy, is that true?
	And the technical guy says, well, yeah, but keep in mind a whole lot more people like Ethereum or Bitcoin is a whole lot bigger in market cap and the CEO doesn't care anymore.
	He says, you picked the thing for me to build this big investment on and you use those two criteria that don't affect whether it's going to get the job done for me.
	Now they don't fire the technical team while I'm in the room, but I'm sure they get a spanking afterwards.
	That is one of the things that anytime I talk to a group of people, especially people who might be wanting to start businesses on something, I tell them, evaluate the right axis when you're deciding who's number one, depending on what you're doing.
	And by the way, there are cases where Bitcoin is the right axis because if I'm a billionaire and I want to move my billion dollars onto the blockchain, I need a blockchain with a market cap a lot bigger than a billion Because if I were to try to move a billion dollars onto a $300 million blockchain, I'd buy up everything.
	I'd spike the price, clear up to many billions.
	And then as soon as I bought everything and stopped buying, it would settle back down and I'd lose my whole billion.
	Well, there are cases where being big is better.
	But for a lot of cases, like dealing with little transactions for a typical business, you want something that's quick and agile.
	Wow.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Very interesting.
	Now, I'm just going to scan the chat.
	If there's anybody who wants to ask a question, please put it in all caps so I can determine the questions from the chat.
	And I'm sort of scanning to see if there's any question marks while I do that.
	All right.
	Oh, you're looking.
	I'll say one more thing.
	Okay, great.
	I'll just talk in the detail until you look and scan there real quick.
	Yeah, thanks.
	One of the other exciting things That we have going as the Billion Hero Campaign.
	I'm not sure, Dylan, whether you have told them anything about it.
	We'll be giving away a billion dollars.
	And so go to BillionHeroCampaign.com and participate in that.
	You can help pick which good cause gets a billion dollars given away.
	And in the process, you can learn about how to use all kinds of different digital currencies and get some training in a fun way.
	Okay.
	Can you say that again?
	You're a bit muffled.
	TheBillionHeroCampaign.com is where you can log on to find all that.
	And I believe it's all pretty much up and running, right, Stan?
	You can sign up, but we're still building it.
	We're going to add more and more games to it, more and more stuff.
	But it's a good place to sign up now, and every time something new happens there, you'll get it.
	What's the newsletter telling you about it?
	And that's using the BitShares platform to again create endowment structures where you can put a bunch of money like that in there, like put a million dollars in there.
	You can get a billion users or a billion heroes of this new economy.
	You can raise the BitShares price to a factor of a thousand and then that million dollars that was put into that endowment now becomes a billion dollars and then you choose or the people that have joined that community get to vote for One of the top ten charities or causes that that billion dollars will be given away to.
	So that's a way to kind of get people rewarded for just, you know, it's a rewarding economy.
	That's how it can play out.
	So it's a game changer for non-profits.
	The idea would be you can fundraise once and then it's in an endowment and then you can actually loan your organization salaries and any kind of grants to keep your activity going but you don't liquidate your shares.
	You collateralize your shares into these other currencies that are more stable that can do what your mission is.
	So it's a huge game changer using this kind of a system for 75% of their time is taken up by fundraising, so if we can make that more towards their mission, this is one tool that can help them with that end.
	Okay.
	Now, someone in the chat is asking, I think this is, you know, obviously a good question.
	It says that China can hack anything, including Bitcoins.
	I don't know, you know, where they're getting their information, obviously.
	But you want to address that?
	In other words, I guess the hackability of all these chains and the technology, the status of it and so on.
	Well, the day will come.
	We really don't know what the current state of technology of every country is, but certainly the day will come when it will turn out that something like that could be hacked.
	But I think that's a long way off if you're talking about guessing the private keys for a particular account in order to steal its money that way.
	Yes, I think they can hack by all the spyware they put in everybody's computers, logging your password as you type it in on your computer.
	In that sense, there's no way to secure all the world's computers against all the malware that might be present everywhere.
	But somebody once used the analogy that there are as many different Lockboxes in the Bitcoin system as there are grains of sand in the universe.
	If you can find the right grain of sand where I put my money, then you can take my money.
	But you have to guess the address of the right grain of sand, and there's so many of them that the size of the computer it would take to do that is mind-boggling.
	Will they come up with quantum computing Someday that can examine all the grains of sand in parallel.
	Well, who knows?
	Anything might be possible.
	But I'd say the bigger threat right now is the fact that the normal things you do to use your Bitcoin wallet on a daily basis expose you if the government wanted to go after a single individual.
	And in fact, they have done that when they want to target somebody big and important, you know, like the owner of Silk Road, for example.
	Then all they have to do is spy on that person long enough to, you know, get into the computer he's using and watch his keyboard until he types his password and bingo, they got it.
	And it had nothing to do with the vulnerability of Bitcoin.
	It had to do with the vulnerability of his interface to Bitcoin.
	Yeah, good point.
	Now, there's an interesting question here.
	Someone called Dr.
	Craig Wright.
	Someone says that many believe he is Satoshi Nakamoto.
	I guess the person who wrote the white paper, the original white paper.
	Is that on blockchain?
	Any thoughts on that?
	I have no inside information as to who Satoshi is.
	I've heard rumors it's not even a single person.
	It's a group of people.
	That just used that as their moniker and so on.
	Apparently there was a real individual at the early days who was using that name on the BitcoinTalk chat.
	My son actually had a conversation with him back in those days.
	You go to 2010 and type in Satoshi Nakamoto BitcoinTalk and ByteMaster was the handle that Dan Lerner was using at the time.
	And you can quickly find they had a little chat on some technical issue.
	So there was a real person at a real keyboard using that name at one time.
	Okay, interesting.
	All right.
	So just doing another scan here quickly.
	What would you like people to take away, you know, just from this discussion?
	Because you've really said some interesting things and you do have a background background.
	Which gives you some, I think, a little more weight than just an average, if there is such a thing as an average, you know, but a witness who is sort of deep in on the financial sector but has really very little clue as to the What I would call the deep black situation as far as when you're in aerospace,
	you sort of brush up against the state and its reach and the sort of military-industrial complex of whatever Eisenhower was referring to and that sort of thing.
	So it lends you more weight than what I would say is the average financial analyst or any other kind of job with regard to this whole picture, this financial system.
	Do you see a financial reset?
	And with the financial reset in the crosshairs, how do you think the cryptos are going to fare during that time and so on and so forth?
	Are they a hedge, for example?
	Yeah, that's certainly what I consider them.
	I don't have any inside information.
	I'm not privy to what the powers that be are thinking.
	But I've certainly heard enough credible people Tell me they are convinced that that's going to happen.
	That's something I used to consider a tinfoil hat kind of theory.
	I don't think it's so tinfoil hat anymore because there's so many credible people that I've bumped into.
	One of the neat privileges I've had in working in this industry and this particular little niche of visibility is a lot of people talk to me.
	I meet a lot of interesting people.
	A lot of people say stuff.
	Yeah, I believe there is definitely a plan to use, and there has been for centuries, to use the monetary system as a way to gain control of the world.
	And that it is being used to construct an ever-tightening cage on us.
	And therefore, it's time for people to wake up and start looking at what their options are.
	Now, what is happening at that time usually when they slam the door and what would presumably happen is just one day your ATM stops working and, you know, the government authorities explain that there's been a crisis and they're working on it and just take yourself a nice three-day weekend and don't worry about it.
	We'll have something else in place when you come back to work on Tuesday.
	And Tuesday suddenly there's a whole new financial system that It took them 30 years to put in place, and they switch over.
	And in the process, everybody suddenly finds themselves fleeced of most of their life savings and totally dependent on the government to hand out what amounts to food stamps to everybody, which is how they introduce the new currency to everybody who now is so desperate because they didn't store some cans of Spam in their pantry.
	for such a contingency and they need to eat and they desperately accept the money handouts from the government and switch over to that system and they go to work and they find out that the only thing they can get paid in is a new currency and they go to the grocery stores and the only thing they can buy your food with is the new currency and guess what?
	We've all been switched over to a new electronic system and the only people that had any say in the matter were those who had stored some wealth offline and And had stored the means to feed themselves for a period of time offline.
	And that at least would buy some people a chance to maneuver, if you will.
	Now, if they don't do it that quickly, and I do believe they will do it that quickly, then there may be some rumblings that would cause a flight to safety.
	If it's a typical hyperinflationary collapse, then, you know, every day gets worse.
	But you still have a chance to go buy Bitcoin or BitShares or whatever.
	The problem with that flight to safety is, A, you try to go buy gold and silver and nobody's selling gold and silver anymore.
	You can't get it.
	You say, all right, I'm going to go buy Bitcoin.
	But Bitcoin's a tiny little footbridge and your transactions to go get Bitcoin from somebody are backing up to, you know, a week or more and you can't get Bitcoin.
	And sitting over there is the BitShares superhighway where I can in three seconds and buy all kinds of different coins.
	And we see that as people will find us plenty quick when that type comes.
	And then there'll still be the demand because the people who own the BitShares right now are probably not stupid enough to sell them to you at anything near whatever your paper money would buy.
	But certainly the Any wealth that you can get over into those currencies could allow you to then buy the necessities of life.
	The way in Zimbabwe everybody was buying food with little chunks of gold jewelry because that's the only thing they would trust and that was a hyperinflationary collapse.
	Well now we've got digital currencies.
	One thing I worry about is there's a possibility that in a real crisis The government could pull the plug on the internet.
	That wouldn't make you lose your money, but it would make you unable to trade it until the internet came back on.
	So, in the case of a crisis, the internet kill switch out there is a very serious threat that could be used to prevent that.
	Now, that is crossing the Rubicon.
	Because any time a government throws the internet kill switch, That's something that has gotten so big that it's like the nuclear option.
	You take away the internet from people out there today and it collapses the entire economy because so much business is done.
	So their ability to throw that switch would simply be a last resort when chaos is ruling anyway.
	Okay, well, you know, it's lots of fun to talk to both of you, really.
	And I know we didn't get Dylan to come on all that much, but he was pitch hitting for you in the, you know, interim when you weren't around.
	And so maybe we can have him back if he wants to talk a little more in the future.
	And certainly, Stan, we can have you back on.
	I appreciate, you know, you give very clear answers.
	And you seem to have really thought about these questions that I've asked you.
	You've already, you know, and I find that very, very, very interesting and quite interesting.
	You know, enlightening in terms of, you know, the sector you're in and what you've been dealing with.
	And you're obviously dealing with companies as well as individuals.
	And that's kind of another level.
	So, you know, that's good for people to hear.
	So I want to thank both of you for coming on the show.
	And, you know, any last words, I'll give you the floor here.
	And then we'll say goodbye.
	Well, I just apologize for being late.
	I was out winterizing my tractor and lost track at the time.
	Okay, that's great.
	It's an honor to all of you guys and no worries.
	I'm learning as well from Stan to a large degree, so every day I work with him.
	It's been a joy and a thrill.
	It's really great to build this new system with him and with his team.
	I think we can accomplish a lot and we're just taking very decisive steps forward with who we're partnering with.
	It's all about collaboration and partnership and alliance building.
	So all the different groups that are looking at doing similar things, it's really important at this time to really build a consensus together of actually how we want to move together as a body.
	and how we want to do this jointly because I think any other attacks that we see coming would be divide and conquer so I think it's really important to harness the technology collective and really come up with a solution that is decentralized but offer many many facets of that answer and I think that's part of what we're looking to build partnership and alliances with different industries different people that have the same vision and to really get that other weight counterweight To that new
	control system that they dreamt of, I think there's a way to balance that energy out.
	And I think we both can definitely come back in the future and talk more in detail about these types of things.
	But thank you so much for everyone having us on.
	Take care.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Thanks, guys.
	Take care.
	And we'll see you hopefully in the future and have you back.
	Okay, so now at this point, I think we're basically done with the show, and we're going to be back tomorrow again with a very interesting show.
	It's going to be kind of an odd hour, but we're trying to make allowances for Ole, who is in Europe, To join us, so that's Jim Fetzer, you know, Dr.
	Jim Fetzer, and also Paladin, who's, again, the forensic financial investigator from the White Hats, and also Olay, as I say.
	So we've got three guys, and myself will be going over the Kennedy assassination.
	I guess you know the anniversary, or whatever you want to call it, of his Death is, I believe, you know, it's coming up next week.
	I think it's next week.
	So this show is, it might be this week, actually.
	But at any rate, we're going to be talking about what the government has been doing, the assassination, the background behind the assassination, and how it relates also to false flags that we're experiencing here and have been for the time since the Kennedy assassination, actually.
	And so, hope to see you tomorrow here on the channel, and thanks again for watching.
	Take care, and have a great day.

▲