Welcome in to This Week in Bitcoin, episode 115.
My name is Chris, chrislas.com, jupiterbroadcasting.com.
I am excited about this episode.
Another name for this episode could have been why the real identity of Satoshi Nakamoto doesn't matter.
I want to mention at the top as well that there is a video version of all these episodes, but particularly this one.
It's not required, but I've slopped together some visual aids like names and diagrams and documents.
And later in the show, there's going to be some old price action and old chat rooms and stuff that the visual aids are nice.
So you may want to grab it. You can grab it from the MP3 RSS feed or you can get it on YouTube.
It's not needed, but I thought I'd mention it.
It may make the experience even nicer.
So while I'm on the road, I've put together something I hope you're really going to enjoy.
And I think it'll help us all have a better appreciation for Bitcoin and where we're at today.
This week, we're going back in time.
And we're going to talk about some of the key innovations that led to Bitcoin, the things that were tried before Satoshi.
And when it's done, we'll revisit the early days of Bitcoin.
Ah, okay. It worked.
So, in fact, what I've just demonstrated to you,
it's the first public demonstration of the first software-only electronic money for the network.
That was David Chom at the World Wide Web Conference in Geneva in 1994,
14 years before the Bitcoin white paper.
He had just used DigiCash software to demonstrate an electronic payment over a network.
It was working with digital cash, but it was not decentralized money.
To understand what it solved and what it left behind,
we have to go back to the problem Chom started thinking about in the early 80s.
Physical cash doesn't normally create a permanent record of who paid whom.
Computerized payment systems could.
Chom saw that transaction data might expose the same relationships
that privacy systems were designed to conceal.
And so then the next step has come to your question about money was, well, then I thought, well, great. So I can participate in this upcoming internet thing or this, you know, the future digital world. We didn't know exactly how it was going to play out in the late seventies, but I'll need some way to pay things and be paid to do things.
And if, you know, that payment system allowed the linking of who's paying who to be recognized, you know, by people listening in on the network, then it would undo all of the what we call traffic analysis protection, now called metadata shredding.
the hiding of who talks to who in the messaging system would be obviated, would be undone by
learning who pays who, because then you'd know anyway. So I thought, well, we need a payment
technology that will work in this privacy protective metadata shredding sphere.
Chom's answer was a cryptographic technique called a blind signature. The bank could authorize a
digital note without seeing a note's identifying number and therefore without being able to link
its later deposit to the person who withdrew it. His simplest explanation used an envelope
and carbon paper. Basically, the easy way to understand, he cashed it. It's very close to
the reality of it. The blind signature is that, let's just say, I make, I take a piece of paper
and I write a random serial number on it that only I know. And I put an envelope with some carbon
paper inside or carbonless lining or whatever.
I give it to my bank and they say, here, it's me, you know, take the money out of my checking
account and validate this with your special worth $1 stamp, where it's like a signature
that they can make.
But on the outside of the envelope, they return the envelope to me.
Then I can remove the envelope.
Now I have my own random serial number with their, the carbon image of their unforgeable
worth a dollar stamp on it.
So now I have this dollar, but no one knows the serial number.
The issuer still mattered.
It signed the notes and it maintained a list of serial numbers that had already been spent.
But it didn't need to know which customer had used a particular valid note.
Chom then tried to turn that protocol into a payment infrastructure.
DigiCash ran its own trial currency.
It demonstrated web payments and it built systems for banks issuing national currencies.
So it was a very industrial strength e-cash banking system, if you will, that attached to their, you know, what are called current accounts, so their, you know, regular consumer bank accounts.
And there were shops that were accepting.
And in those days, of course, it was before the euro, right?
It was Deutschmarks.
And so you could use Deutsche Bank issued Deutschmarks and buy things online.
And so we made all that for them.
It was all Deutsche Bank branded.
And then we had Mark Twain Bank in the U.S., which offered U.S. dollars.
This was more than a thought experiment.
But the privacy mechanism still had an institutional center.
It had a bank or a company that issued the notes and checked whether they had been spent before.
DigiCash also failed to achieve durable commercial adoption and entered bankruptcy in 1998.
The architecture did not by itself necessarily cause the company to fail.
So I think it's an interesting trade-off, right? Because with the DigiCash and related blind signature-based protocols, you've got a very strong assurance that you can't selectively block transactions. And the only thing that a party operating it could do is shut down, right? They could say, well, I refuse. I mean, I can't block anything selectively. So what do you want me to do? They're all indistinguishable to me, assuming that the sender wants privacy.
Chom had shown that digital payments could preserve privacy.
The next question was harder.
Could digital money survive without a company, a bank, or a central mint at all?
That question then moved into the cypherpunk world.
And these ideas coalesced in two groups, the Xtropians and the Cypherpunks.
Xtropians were libertarian futurists, very interested in the intersection of Rand, Rothbard, Hayek, and high technology.
and cypherfunks wanted to free cryptography from government control
and make it a tool for the masses.
And they're very interested in privacy.
And one of the chief cypherfunks here was Tim May,
who came up with the idea of fusing a lot of these ideas of gulch and cyberspace,
that you can really secure free markets from outside interference using cryptography.
One possible tool came from an apparently different problem, junk email.
In 1992, DeWalk and Nowhere proposed a pricing via processing idea.
A sender would perform a modest computation before gaining access to a resource.
The work would be costly to produce, but cheap for the recipient to check.
Adam Back developed Hashcash independently several years later.
And, yeah, and I mean, so in terms of Hashcash, I was not aware of Dwork's paper until somebody sent me a link to the publication a couple of months after I'd posted the source code for Hashcash.
Back published Hashcash in 1997, but its original purpose wasn't to create money.
It was electronic postage, a way to make bulk abuse expensive without requiring the sender to reveal their identity.
So it got me to thinking about it in a different way, which is, well, what's the underlying problem?
You know, the blocking people based on identity is not really a solution.
It's just a patch.
And it doesn't work that well.
People just create, you know, people who want to determine to spam for commercial reasons just create lots of email accounts.
And there's essentially no cost to creating an email account.
So the real underlying problem is it free There no cost to sending And so that where I came up with Hashcash which is a way to add a cost to sending So the sender could let say run their computer for a couple of minutes and create I guess about five leading zeros in hex or 20 leading zeros in binary
of collisions on the beginning of a stamp by grinding on their computer for a few minutes.
And they could attach that to their email as a kind of electronic postage stamp,
and the recipient would be able to verify it.
Hashcash produced evidence that a computer had spent time searching for a valid result,
but it did not maintain a balance, transfer ownership, or issue a currency,
or decide which transaction history a network should accept.
But it supplied a useful asymmetry, costly creation, cheap verification,
Other designers began assigning that property new jobs.
In 1998, Wei Dai published B-Money.
The participants would be identified by public key pseudonyms, not legal names.
In the first of two protocols, every participant kept a separate copy of the Bounce database.
When Alice Broadcast assigned payment to Bob, everyone debited Alice's pseudonym and credited Bob's.
New units could be created by broadcasting a solution to a computational problem.
The first version assumed a synchronous, anonymous broadcast channel that Dai himself called impractical.
His second protocol assigned the accounts to a subset of participants called servers.
Those servers posted deposits, published their databases, and could be penalized for misconduct.
But Dai was explicit. The servers still had to be trusted to a degree.
The money creation rule also had a coordination problem.
Account keepers had to agree on the real cost of computation, even as hardware improved,
sometimes done privately.
B-Money described distributed money accounting, but it remained a proposal, not a deployed
currency.
B-Money imagined a shared balance sheet, and Nick Sasbo pursued a related but different
target, a scarce digital object that did not begin as somebody's redeemable IOU.
And so what interested me was that people like David Choum and so forth had already
solve the IOU problem. Like, you can do that digitally as long as, you know, have a central
party issue an IOU and then redeem it for something. But what they hadn't solved is the
gold part of it. And that's really the trust minimized part of it.
Sasbo called the design property unforgivable costliness. In his BitGold proposal, a participant
computed a proof of work string from a public challenge. The result was then secretly transmitted
and entered into a distributed property-like registry.
The previous bit cold string
then supplied the challenge for the next one.
Ownership was established through a chain of signed titles.
Anyone assessing a piece could check its challenge,
its work, and its timestamp.
This brought together a computational cost,
secured timestamping, and chained records
with a registry of ownership.
Timestamping itself drew on earlier work,
including the schemes developed by Stuart Haber
and Scott Sturenta.
But Bitgold was never launched as a currency.
It still needed a distributed timestamping and a registry machinery.
And its proofs could have had different values as hardware changed.
SASBO proposed markets, exchanges, and bundled them to try to turn those unequal objects into something more fungible.
He also thought Bitcoin made the money supply radically simpler.
Yeah, simplifying the money supply.
I have a really complicated multilayer way to get a fungible currency out of what starts out as non-fungible proof-of-work solutions in Bickle.
And so he sort of, I thought maybe papered that over a little bit, but it's radically simplified.
So it turns out to be quite worth it what he did, which is to just have this fixed schedule going up to 21 million.
Hal Finney explored another branch.
In 2004, his reusable proofs-of-work system accepted hashcash work and returned a signed token.
Each token could be spent only once, but spending it created a new token of equal value.
Proof-of-work had then become transferable.
RPOW reduced trust through published code and remote attestation, but it didn't eliminate the verifier.
The system depended on a server running inside a tamper-evident IBM secure coprocessor.
It was an important experiment, but it wasn't a decentralized monetary network.
In August of 2008, Satoshi Nakamoto emailed Adam Back about citing Hashcash.
Back pointed him to B-Money.
Satoshi then wrote to Dai saying Back had noticed the similarity and asked for B-Money's publication year.
That correspondence, it documents a citation path.
But by the time Back saw the Bitcoin design, it seems clear it had already been using Hashcash.
Well, I mean, obviously, you know, it became evident that he'd already used it.
I'd said implement the system, he'd used hashcash, increased the precision on it a bit, which is something contemplated before, but not, you know, you didn't need that kind of fine level of precision for the previous use cases.
It was okay, the difficulty would just buy a factor of two.
And so, yeah, that was actually the topic of his initial email, which is I'm using hashcash.
Is this the correct way to slice it?
The Bitcoin white paper explicitly cites hash cash and B money along with secure timestamping work done by Harper and Sereta as well as others.
It does not cite CHOM or Bicol, but similarity is not the same thing as documented borrowing.
Bitcoin's central move wasn't just attached proof of work to a digital coin.
You have nodes.
They broadcast transactions and group valid transactions into blocks.
Each block commits to the previous block.
That creates a history.
That proof of work makes rewriting that history more and more expensive as time goes on.
And when histories compete, nodes follow the valid chain with the most accumulated work.
So an attacker trying to reverse a payment must redo the work to catch up.
So confidence in the network grows as more is built on top of each transaction.
This replaced the central spent note database with a peer-to-peer method for ordering transactions and converging on one usable history.
Bitcoin also connected that history to its monetary issuance.
The miner who extends the chain can claim newly issued Bitcoin and, over time, transaction fees.
The difficulty adjusts so that the changes in total computing power don't permanently change the intended rate of block production.
So the block reward gives participants a reason to spend resources validating and extending the network's history.
None of these mechanisms alone were entirely unprecedented, but their integration was.
Chom had provided digital notes.
Hashcash had figured out computational cost.
And B-Money has pseudonymous distributed balances.
And Bitcold had costly timestamped digital objects.
And then there was RPOW that made proof of work tokens usable.
Bitcoin was not a copy of any one of them.
It was a design that made several older components and several important new mechanisms operate as one system.
I mean, you know, of course, people look at Bitcoin as a design and it's elegant and you can understand it at different levels.
And so when you see something and you can understand it, some people's intuition is, oh, I could have done that.
But, you know, we tried. A lot of people tried in 95 to 2005 and didn't quite make it.
Bitcoin wasn't necessarily just created. It was the accumulation of all of this work brought together.
It wasn't necessarily inevitable, but it was 30 years of work and finally produced something truly unique.
We have a usable system without a central mint.
well coming up we'll move a little forward in time to just the very early days of bitcoin when these
things started to come together if you want to support the show you can do it by doing what you do Buy sats on river Use my link in the notes All about self Check out the Bitcoin Well link in the notes You want to spend your sats You can go from sats over lightning to a gift card
in just like seconds using the Bitcoin company. You want to stack sats while you pay your bills?
You got to pay them. Fold card. Salt lending. Great for lending. And now strike as well for like
all of your Bitcoin needs and just super solid lightning infrastructure.
Links to all of that in the show notes.
You can support the show by doing what you do.
No boost this week, but I still want to know, how did you find Bitcoin?
What got you in there?
And did you poop around and find out with the altcoins first?
Boost it and let me know.
I'll cover those on next week's episode.
All right, let's talk about the early days of Bitcoin.
And, well, it just so happens I was around and I had a podcast going for some of that as well.
It's a bit different than this one, but it still had some great music and we still talked about Bitcoin.
The first episode was 13 years ago.
I had a co-host named Drew Adlant, and our first episode was on April 10th, 2013.
and Bitcoin had been pumping.
It was up to 148 US dollars.
Of course, it would slide later on.
And every episode we did was live.
And we had a chat room and it's a hoot to read
if you're watching the video version.
At one point, somebody in the chat room
just casually mentions that they've just picked up 500 Bitcoin.
2013 was also the year that the Bitcoin conference went mainstream.
They had other events in 2010 and 2011,
But in 2013, it was the big one, the Future of Payments Conference in San Jose, California.
It happened on May 17th through May 19th, 2013.
And the big narrative back then was payments and bringing companies on to do payments.
And it was called and still is sometimes referred to as the Woodstock of the cryptocurrency community.
And it just so happened that my co-host Drew went and the vibes were high.
So tell me about the Butterfly Labs booth, because, you know, I have one on pre-order.
I got one too. Yeah, the labs was there. They had a wafer out. They had the little Android app there mining. It was really cool. If you go to the link in the show notes, you can see the picture that I took. They have both one of the, I guess, the small units, and then also I think they have a 50 giga hash unit right there as well.
Yeah, yeah.
Yeah, so that's really cool.
All right.
So the other thing I heard is that despite the fact that DHS just recently seized the
Mt. Gox, you know, Shell Corporation account here in the U.S., not many people were even
talking about Gox.
No, nobody really was talking about it.
I mean, Gox couldn't make it because they were dealing with their legal stuff.
But I mean, everybody was really focusing on like new ideas and what we can do.
And it's really interesting because the financial community has really like gotten the idea.
And so they're basically, you know, piling tons and tons of money for people that have good ideas. So everybody is really, really excited about the space. And it's about I mean, it's about to blow up. Now, you can look at that as a bad thing because you could say, well, the financial community is going to try to regulate it or going to try to do, you know, the usual thing that they do. But I mean, it's good that that it's valid now that Bitcoin, in my opinion, we've made it. We've hit critical mass, you know, maybe that's not true. But, you know, that seems that's what everybody seems to think. Right. So we're kind of on our way.
Did you get the sense there was a lot more suits there than you would expect?
Or what was your sense of that?
It was probably 50-50, but there were a lot of suits.
There was three tracks, you know, for the conference talks.
And one was technology, and one was business, and one was financial, like, regulations or whatever.
So according to the talks, two out of three were for the suits, and one was for the nerds.
But in general, it was about 50-50 as far as the breakdown, right?
So, yeah.
I have heard reports about 1,000, 1,100 people.
Is that the sense you got?
Yeah, that was really good.
I wanted to tell you a quick little story.
I was sitting at a table with just some people I'd met,
and this guy came up and he said,
hey, do you guys want to buy some Bitcoins?
And we kind of looked at him like kind of weird,
like why would, like, who are you?
Like, this seems really sketchy, right?
And then someone said, well, why are you doing this?
And he said, oh, I don't have any money.
I'm just trying to get money here.
I just need some cash.
And everybody at the table then said, oh yeah, let's do it.
Like their opinion flipped immediately.
So because the community is really helpful,
about each other, if you just say, listen, I need some help. This is what I need. The community will
come and sponsor you. I love that. I love that. You know, it strikes me a bit of familiarity with
the last entrance into the bear market we just went through. This Gawk situation, as you might
have picked up, was brewing. And there was a train at the end of the tunnel. We thought it was a light
of payment systems and commercial companies coming on board. And we were all going to embrace Bitcoin
as a payment system.
We thought that's what the light was
at the end of the tunnel back then.
Turns out it was a fast approaching train
called Mt. Gox.
So it blows my mind.
It blows my mind too
that plan B was 13 years ago
and 13 years ago was seven years
into my journey of becoming
a full-time podcaster.
I don't normally talk about this kind of stuff,
but I thought this was noteworthy
because I was interviewing Adam Levine
from the Let's Talk Bitcoin podcast
and the topic of how Bitcoin
could be useful in monetizing podcasts came up, I don't know, 10 years before we started using
Bitcoin for that. And I tell you, people really don't know actually how difficult it is to
monetize this kind of stuff. Now, this is what I do for a full time living, but it's taken me about
seven years to get it to the point to be able to do that. And I'm talking seven years of extremely
hard work, the hardest kind of work that I've ever known was possible. And, you know, it's been
a certain formula that I've had to land on. And one of the reasons that I'll be completely honest
with you, Adam, that interested me in Bitcoin back in 2011 was I saw it as a potential way to
completely revolutionize the way new media is funded. I'm one of those people, I subscribe to
the school of no agenda where there is a value for value model where if you believe you're getting
something valuable from the content producer, you would tip them appropriately for that as much as
you can afford. And that's different for each person. And I find, I find too, that a big barrier
to this and a problem that Bitcoin solves specifically is, you know, Bitcoin can be a
world currency. One of the problems we have is we have people that listen from all around the world
and there's different fees associated for every single different country that wants to donate to
us. And Bitcoin just sort of neutralizes that. Yeah, no, you know, you were talking earlier in
the show about, well, you weren't talking specifically about this, but you said something
earlier in the show before I got on that made me think of it. Bitcoin is a global local currency,
right? Yeah. It's a local currency of the internet.
It's a local currency of the internet, but it's even a local currency of wherever your locality
is. Because since there's no common centralized point it needs to go through, legitimately,
it's just person to person. So it doesn't matter where you are. And that's the fun part about
Bitcoin is that you can be a person in one town talking exactly to a person, talking to a person
in another town, sending them value, and it's just as easy. So yeah, no, absolutely. The ability
to include international audiences is huge. It really is, you know, and, and you said it,
it's hard to monetize this stuff. You know, you did it for seven years. I just got out of the
game for a long time because I, you know, it, it, it was, this is always something podcasting is
always something that I've done despite the costs because it's important to me. Yeah. Rather than
the other way around. And so with Bitcoin, you know, so like when we received like $200 worth
of donations from a single person, that's like more than I made in a year, you know, on, on,
on my project in 2006. And it's pathetic, but it's because like we were using CPM ads when we had,
you know, we had like 10,000 subscribers. So it wasn't even that small a base. It just was
that there was no effective way to do this. Right, right. Too bad it would take 10 years
before we'd have boosts. But at the time we recorded that Bitcoin was 120 US dollars. Just
absolutely remarkable. However, it would soon crash. And that is because of that ticking time
bomb that was Mount Gox.
The thing that I think I was
reminded of listening to these clips,
and maybe it something we forgotten with the passage of time is it wasn an overnight crash Like FTX happened pretty quickly Not Mt Gox Mt Gox took months to unfold
And there was misinformation initially.
And there was a lot of misleading, like, oh, we're going to work this out.
We've got some of the funds.
It took forever to play out.
And about seven months before they collapsed, Bitcoin started to slide.
It had crashed down, quote unquote, to $87.
And I was smelling a rat.
Why don't we talk about that price?
So we've kind of been mentioning it all episode.
It's been sort of the elephant in the room.
You know, when we were on the air last week, I think I talked about I bought some Bitcoins at $97.
How's that doing right now?
You never try to catch a falling knife, Drew.
You never try to catch a falling knife.
I always do.
I thought you were supposed to.
You know what's playing out is exactly what we thought would play out.
It just took a lot longer.
Right.
And I think it's a representation of how the Bitcoin economy has grown.
It used to be in the past when something really bad happened, you'd have an immediate, immediate, immediate result.
But now I believe what we are seeing is the death of Mt. Gox.
We are seeing the collection of that $75 million lawsuit, the shutdown of funding options and getting money out of Gox.
I mean, don't forget, USD, there's just no way you're getting it out of Gox right now completely.
I mean, that's nuclear right there.
That's massive.
All right.
And then you've also got sort of all of these questions around the security state of Mt.
Gox and they're trying to file to get legit now.
Like now they're trying to file to get legit and nobody knows if that's going to go through.
I think you're seeing a major sort of correction because of all of those events that we expected
a while ago.
honestly we expected three or four weeks ago we're just now getting in the last week yeah it's
turning down very slowly from from the peak you know like i would have thought like like you were
saying that we were talking about us you know you're going to see a huge spike and then a huge
drop but it's moving much slower in a downward direction yeah we keep getting like these little
we get these drop what we're getting is like we get these drops and then we then think it picks
back up for a little bit and then we get these drops which is actually not i guess from what i'm
reading all that uncommon i guess that's generally how this kind of works this is why i don't i
I don't really get into short-term investment because, to me, I go based on, like, I look at the fundamentals and I think this is a great idea.
There's obviously a need for this.
To me, it seems like a screaming deal at $120 and it seems like an outrageous deal at $90.
Like, to me, this seems like the big secret that nobody's got into yet.
And so when it gets down around $90, I start, oh, I got to buy.
I got to buy.
I know, yeah.
I'm getting excited as the price is dropping.
And it's not like hyperbubly, you know, trying to pump, you know, Plan B or Bitcoin or anything.
I would like, I would, as pessimistic as I am, I'm still going to buy more.
Yeah, although the trend is definitely not our friend.
Some people are thinking as low as 60.
I'm hoping, I'm hoping there's still enough demand out there that it's not going to go down that low.
But if it does, you better believe I'm going to buy in.
I don't know.
I don't know at what point I would stop buying, to be honest.
I would just, my goal is not to buy while it's falling.
My goal is to see it actually start going up a little bit and get it as it's going up.
Right, right.
That's the dream.
Hopefully.
You know, it's so funny because now we're talking about $60,000 and $87,000.
Of course, back then we were talking about $60 and $87.
And I think the analysis holds.
I think the analysis 13 years still holds.
It was a screaming deal at $100, and I knew it.
I knew it.
Dang it.
Why did I sell?
Now, I think to kind of set the context of what what the community was really worried about and focused on besides Mt. Gox back then, and actually Mt. Gox brought additional concerns around this.
People called it a big widowmaker of Bitcoin, the U.S. federal government.
And it was at least back then and assumed that eventually the U.S. federal government would come for Bitcoin.
It was only a matter of time, most of us figured.
And it was a common question that was sent in by the audience.
Please email first.
Joey writes in.
He says, this was a text message?
Yep.
Was this like a lot of text messages that you had to compile?
Only four.
Okay.
You know how guys are.
He says, it seems to me that it would be possible for the U.S. government to gain control over
the Bitcoin network by creating an online wallet.
This wallet would only send coins to other U.S. approved wallets and could accept coins
from unapproved wallets.
People could be lured in with their higher values and regulated coins.
The effect would be a walled-off ecosystem that could be regulated and controlled.
I know this could be a dangerous idea, but is it worth thinking about?
Thanks, guys.
Joey.
I still don't like the whole use of the word regulation because nobody defines it anywhere,
you know, like this guy or anybody else or Joey or whatever.
I mean, I guess they can kind of, I guess saying that they can kind of co-opt it is
like the way that I would think about it, if this were to be done is they would have,
you know, an address here and they'd have an address that was unique and registered
to individuals and you can, you know, you get some, I guess, greater degrees of protection.
I guess it was applied.
The only way that could work, because what he's saying is that you'd have these U.S.-based
wallets and they would only be allowed to send to other U.S.-based wallets, right?
But if you're using Bitcoin and the Bitcoin protocol.
You're not restricted from going outside of the system.
Yeah.
Every wallet out there, every downloaded wallet on every computer, on every Android device,
on every server would have to support some sort of additional code that allowed them to somehow,
how would you even allocate these Bitcoin addresses to the US?
And these, I don't even, it seems impossible because people can generate a Bitcoin address
at will.
It's impossible.
This is impossible.
Right, right.
Which is great, Joey.
I mean, that's great, right?
You think about some of the things that Satoshi figured out seem so simple at their first pass.
But then when you go down thinking about the ramifications of some of those early decisions, you see how brilliant those decisions were.
Like this example, people are constantly every week coming up with new scenarios on how the U.S. government could take over Bitcoin, right?
Would you agree we get an email at least one or two every week?
Right, right. And we can't really, because I mean, they can't do it. They can't do it like in this example, inclusively, like you're not going to be able to co-opt a Bitcoin, the entire, the entire thing and regulate in any kind of way. People will be able to jump in and jump out of, if they have their own wallet and, you know, registered addresses or whatever, you can jump in and utilize those. I mean, they can kind of co-opt that portion of the Bitcoin network, but they're not going to be able to co-opt the entire thing. And you're still going to be able to exit, you know, exit their little scenario that they could possibly build. I don't put much credence into that, but yeah.
So these are all different things that we're evaluating.
And it's like, well, I don't quite see a way they could do it, which is a...
All right, that's enough. That's enough. That's enough. That's enough.
I think that's enough of the classic clips.
You know what I'm going to do?
I will upload all 20 episodes to archive.org, and I'll put a link in the show notes.
And if you find a gem in there, you let me know.
You send me the episode and the time code,
and I'll see about maybe playing another one in the future.
But that's it for me. I'm on the road.
But I hope you found this useful and hopefully informational and entertaining infotaining.
Links at thisweekinbitcoin.show.
And I'll see you back here next week.
Thank you.