The Fight For Bitcoin’s Future | Samson Mow

31:58Like their argument is that you can do it anyway, so we should not get in the way. Right. And they're thinking, I believe, is that at least they've said it. They want they don't want private mempools. So they want to kind of unify policy across the network. and they hope i'm kind of steel manning for steel manning for them but they hope that the people spamming will stop using utxos and go to opertern because now they've removed some of these defaults and it also reduces the risk that you need to go to a miner directly to broadcast the transaction because the network as a whole will accept these larger operterns Do you think there's kind of a disconnect between Bitcoiners and Bitcoin Core at this point?

32:47And is that the widest that disconnect's ever been? I would say so. I mean, there's a massive amount of mistrust on Bitcoin Core development as a whole right now. And I can definitely see that perspective. If you look at what's going on, they're kind of antagonistic to users. and you see this in a lot of their communication. It's almost like they look down on users and actually you can find quotes in posts on X if you want to look for those. But there's also the fact that it looks corrupt. I don't want to say it is corrupt, but it definitely looks corrupt because they're rewriting documentation to avoid fixing bugs.

33:33And there are people that have interest in these spammy projects like Ordinals and Taproot and whatnot. And they're all over and they're in the mailing list discussing stuff and very friendly with the core developers and maintainers. So I can definitely see why there's this massive mistrust of core development. And then there's the resistance to undoing their changes and not changing these defaults. So it kind of altogether adds up and people kind of feel like you know they're being gaslit communications on x compound that but the refusal to not undo something and their refusal to you know slow down or pause is all reasonable for the average person to assume that you know there's some ulterior motive going on i think probably the reason that they're reluctant to go back on what they've said they're going to do is because they think technically it's the correct solution.

34:38But again, is that them just missing some of the ideological arguments against what they're doing? Well, I mean, here's the thing. Like, I was just chatting with Adam back before I came on and I told him my position is not to upgrade. And this is what I will recommend to people. And he's saying, you should just upgrade. Like, just go to 30 and you can always change the defaults back. So then I countered back and said, well, then why not just not have those changes if people can change them back? We're kind of in this cyclical argument. He's saying they don't matter and you can change them back.

35:17And I'm saying, well, you can just not change them if they don't matter. So we're stuck in this cycle here. So there's no really good end to it because at the end of the day, you can bypass filters. They are not absolute. So it's more of an attitude of what Bitcoiners have. Is Bitcoin for data transmission and storage, or is it for money? And this is where the divide is. There are additional angles on slippery slopeness here because the discussion around filtering out the spam leads people to think, well, if you can filter that, you set a precedent. And governments can also tell you to filter other things too down the road potentially.

36:05But I don't think that's necessarily true because a lot of these spammy things, they're embedding data in envelopes and they sort of self-identify themselves by these envelopes. So you can tell like, OK, this is a BRC, this is an inscription. And yeah, it's spam. So filter. But that's not the path that we've chosen. And Notts is doing that. but core seems to be trying to implement more things to make it more easy for them to spam because they think that is the deterrent to you know spamming utxos but if if they're trying to deter people from running private mem pools their argument for that would be because that increases minor centralization so we should do anything that sort of prevents that is that correct well mining centralization is a common talking point that's always brought up right like we're doing this because we want to mitigate mining centralization.

37:02So you don't, but so then why don't you think that mining centralization is an issue in that sense? Well, I do think mining centralization is an issue, but I think it's just being used to justify actions that they've decided to take, but they don't need to take those actions. They can roll it back. But I think the prevailing argument from the core side is they think we cannot be forced to undo something that the community wants, right? Like for them, that's a slippery slope. If there is backlash and they change something, it means they're not following through on the most absolute technically correct solution.

37:42But I think they're missing a point here, which is delivered security. And again, this is something Adam has brought up. If you make a change and no one uses it, then did you actually deliver any security to the network? or improvement or anything? And I think the answer there is no. If you make a change and no one is willing to run your software, then you might as well have just not done it because it has zero effect or negative effects in this case, because now you have a lot of mempool fragmentation. One of the things that keeps me up at night is the idea of a critical error with my Bitcoin cold storage.

38:15This is where AnchorWatch comes in. With AnchorWatch, your Bitcoin is insured with your own A-plus rated Lloyds of London insurance policy, and all Bitcoin is held in their time-locked multi-sig bolts. So you have the peace of mind knowing your Bitcoin is fully insured while not giving up custody. So whether you're worried about inheritance planning, wrench attacks, natural disasters, or just your own mistakes, you're fully protected by AnchorWatch. Rates for fully insured custody start as low as 0.55 % and are available for individual and commercial customers located in the US. Speak to AnchorWatch today for a quote and for more details about your security options and coverage.

38:48Visit anchorwatch.com today. That is anchorwatch.com. Do you wish you could access cash without selling your Bitcoin? Well, Ledin makes that possible. Ledin are the global leader in Bitcoin-backed lending, and since 2018, they've issued over$9 billion in loans with a perfect record of protecting client assets. With Ledin, you get full custody loans with no credit checks, no monthly repayments, just easy access to dollars without selling a single sat. As of July 1st, Ledin is Bitcoin-only, meaning they exclusively offer Bitcoin-backed loans with all collateral held by Ledin directly or their funding partners.

39:21Your Bitcoin is never lent out to generate interest. I recently took out a loan with Ledin and the whole process couldn't have been easier It took me less than 15 minutes to go through the application And in just a few hours I had the dollars in my account It was super smooth So if you need cash but you don't want to sell Bitcoin Head over to ledin.io forward slash WBD And you'll get 0.25 % off your first loan That's L-E-D-N dot I-O forward slash WBD Bitcoin is absolutely ripping and in every bull market There's always a new wave of investors and with it a flood of new companies, new products and new promises.

39:53But if you've been around long enough, you've seen how this story ends for a lot of them. Some cut corners, take risks with your money or just disappear. That's why when it comes to buying Bitcoin, the only exchange I recommend is River. They deeply care about doing things right for their clients and are built to last with security and transparency at their core. With River, you have peace of mind knowing all their Bitcoin is held in multi-sig cold storage and it's the only Bitcoin only exchange in the US with proof of reserves. There really is no better place to buy Bitcoin. So to open an account today, head over to river.com forward slash WBD and earn up to$100 in Bitcoin when you buy.

40:27That's river.com forward slash WBD. So you certainly don't sound like you're pro not sorry, pro core in any way here. So why aren't you running Noughts? Well, I don't think I should have to run Noughts because I've been running Core for a long time. So I think I should be able to stick on an older version of core and you know i'll run a third one if there is a third one that is more reasonable and conservative so but do you think that knots is a safe node implementation to be running or do you think the risk of the single maintainer is too high well i don't necessarily think the single maintainer is an issue the issue is more that there's a large uh difference in code like 25 thousand some odd lines of code between core and knots and this is because luke is cherry picking things to merge it's not a rebase i think you might have some things that could be merged for security reasons that may have been missed i don't know i haven't looked at it closely enough but for me that would be a reason why i would choose not to use knots but i don't think it's because it's just one maintainer because you know luke is very luke is a very skilled engineer he knows the code base in and out.

41:42He was the one that figured out the Segwit could be done as a soft fork when nobody else in all of Bitcoin Core thought it could be done. They all thought it was a hard fork. So he knows the ins and outs of the code base, like the back of his hand. And I think, you know, I could trust his judgment on, you know, developing Bitcoin software because he's been here since the earliest days. So I agree with that. Like Luke is clearly brilliant. He's done some great things for Bitcoin. But I still think there's an issue with a single person having eyes on the code before anything's merged? Because like with Bitcoin Core, there's five or six lead maintainers and then, I don't know, 50 or 60 devs that look at this thing consistently.

42:22Surely that is a way more robust system than one where Luke can just merge code whenever he wants to, even if he's brilliant. Like surely you need more eyes on the code. Yeah, definitely. More eyes is better. So, you know, I think that's a valid point. People should want more review of knots and i think they will get there i mean there are people putting together i think a new organization to fund court of knots development so that will help with that i mean it's really a question of funding right like luke is doing it himself without any funding so that can all be fixed but i think overall it's healthier that we have multiple implementations especially multiple robust implementations, because then there's no risk of core just ramming something through that people don't like, because it is the reference implementation right now.

43:13And people do blindly follow it. So there is a risk that something could go through that is detrimental to the network. And, you know, there was CV, you know, 17144, which was the inflation bug and that went through with all the review of all the different developers and all the big names that you would expect they all waved it right through so there is a risk there too even in core itself that you know people will miss things so the risk is really the echo chamber and i think that is another systemic issue in core which is they kind of give each other a free pass and they have their in group and the out group and the in group can kind of wave things through and that's also a risk, just as big of a risk as just one maintainer or a few maintainers is for Nots.

44:02The thing that I can't quite get my head around with the multiple implementations idea though, is that are we not diluting developer mindshare with that? So there's probably only, I don't know what the number is, a hundred people in the world that are capable of actually working on something like Core or Nots or whatever it might be. If we have multiple implementations, do we not just remove eyes from core take them over to knots and then to whatever the third implementation is and instead of having one really robust reference client you have three that are all slightly less robust well it depends i think if you have one client that's rebasing off the latest uh core version then it's less far less risky than just cherry picking changes and merging which is the knots method um but i don't necessarily think that's an issue like what we need is more testing than development.

44:52So the question is, Danny, why do we want so many developers developing so many features? You know, there's a clip of Sailor on the old What Bitcoin Did pod that's going viral right now where Sailor is saying, you know, we don't want to change things. Like you don't want more and more complexity. You don't want more rules. You know, you generally want to be very conservative for Bitcoin because, you know, it was a$1.3 trillion asset. Now it's$2.0 something trillion, right? So it's getting more and more valuable. I think we need to become more and more conservative. Like, do we even want multiple releases of Bitcoin Core a year?

45:31Or do we want one a year or one every two years? I don't know, but I'm okay with like a one to two year release cycle cadence, barring any urgent bug fixes for critical vulnerabilities. Because there don't need to be that many features added to Bitcoin at this time. i i don't disagree with that at all but there's still going to be bugs in bitcoin there's also there's things that we know are going to need changing at some point like there's the timestamp issue um so like this can't ossify yet there are things that we absolutely have to change at some point but do you think the time warp attack right no i i may have it may not be called the timestamp isn't there a problem with like um at some is it like the 20 the fact that it's 24 bits or something like that?

46:18Let me find out. I don't know. There's a time warp attack that's being worked on, right? But I mean, there's a problem here too, which is the current state of things is making it very difficult for getting consensus to upgrade the network, especially with core the way it is now. Like, as you said, trust in Bitcoin core is at an all-time low. Will they be able to push a soft fork through to fix something so i just had a quick look there's a timestamp bug that um will break bitcoin and core in 2038 because it was written in 32-bit institute rather than 64. okay right right that one so so there are things that we know are going to come up that will require developers working on bitcoin core to make some changes but so like how much ossification do you want to see like in terms of things like covenants and these more out there potential upgrades to Bitcoin?

47:15Are you just like wiping the board? You don't want to see that come to Bitcoin? I'm open to it, but not right now. I mean, there's no need for it. Like people pushing for covenants, you can do that on Liquid right now. You know, yes, you don't like Liquid. Probably you want it on the main chain, but prove out the use case and get some adoption. Like have people using it for some wallet somewhere for some reason. But you can't just say we need this. And I don't think we're at a stage in Bitcoin's lifecycle where that should be the case where someone comes to the table and says, I need something and let's change something.

47:50That's just completely unreasonable for an asset that is the size of Bitcoin. And I agree that we do need bug fixes. There are things that we can fix, but that bug is in 2038. We have time, right? There's no urgency. We can spend more time analyzing the current state of Bitcoin, looking for more bugs, fixing issues and fixing these longer term bugs that can wait for a decade. Is it fair to use Liquid as a comparison there? I like Liquid. I think it's going to be useful. I think there's obviously very real use cases for it, but it is a custodial model. It's not the same as these things coming to Bitcoin.

48:36Well, I don't like the word custodian for anything like eCash because custodian is a legal term. It's like you have a legal responsibility to someone because you're taking care of something for them. It is a definition. I would call things like liquid, eCash, fedements and the like, you know, cypherpunk asset pools or caps. and you know you're just pooling and unpooling together and there are different security models around these things but it's not a custodian so you want liquid because you want the benefits of the liquid chain you can't expect to have your bitcoin and have the liquid liquid btc at the same time right doesn't work that way so you have to make a trade-off and take one over the other but you can always swap back and there's utility there.

49:26But my point is, if you wanted to build something with Covenants, there's simplicity now activated on Liquid. Go and build a commercial project on Liquid that is in demand and people want it, right? Like Aqua is a good use case. We're seeing a massive amount of Aqua usage transaction volumes because people want to use Liquid and being able to use Liquid as a base for Lightning payments or aggregating smaller Lightning payments to swap to Bitcoin main chain and consolidate their UTXO. So the onus is on the people asking for the thing to prove that there is a real use case for it. And it's not just theoretical that they themselves want.

50:06Because if you look at Taproot, like we rushed to activate Taproot. It was a major emergency because we want to have signature aggregation. Where's the signature aggregation? I don't know. I don't see it. Do you? No. And do you think Taproot was a mistake? not necessarily, but rushing it through, maybe. I mean, we could have packaged up a software proposal that did a lot of different things and activated it all at the same time, right? There is no rush here. I think the monetary maximists are trying to build a Bitcoin for the next thousand years. And if you work back from that timeline, you don't need a release every few months, you know?

50:47A release every couple of years is good enough. yeah i don't disagree with that so where do you think we go from here then because when this debate all started up i thought this was going to be something that was a talking point on twitter for a few weeks and then would die down and if anything it's ramped up like the vitriol from both sides has got to insane levels um call 30 is going to be out in i don't know three or four weeks what do you think will happen well i don't think a lot of people will run it i think there is sort of a shelling point here. There is a faction that won't run it. They'll stick with 29.

51:25And there's a faction that will run Notts. And I really don't see a lot of people keen to run 30 unless they're just a devoted core supporter and they want to signal that they're loyal to core and they support the devs. Or they're running it to spite the Notts people because they don't like them. So that's generally the lay of the land. like if you look at the entire landscape it is very fragmented then there are these camps that have their entrenched beliefs but to answer your question about where we go from here i'm really not sure it definitely feels like everyone has their side and that's it right now So I posted a sort of bait post on X about the UTXO size growing from 11 gigabytes now to 128 in like 10-ish years, and then maybe to one terabyte.

52:27And if you look at the responses to that, everyone kind of missed the mark. Everyone was like, they missed the mark on a number of levels because there's a lot of nuance to this. and i was trying to tell you what i thought and you can tell me where i missed them up because when i saw that like the the few things i thought is it's 11 gigabytes right now you can still run a node with a machine with four gigabytes of ram so like why i didn't necessarily know why it was an issue one because like storage capacity is going to get cheaper and easier and like i don't you don't need to keep the entire utxo set in ram like i i didn't know why it was an issue.

53:06Yeah. So I was trying to kind of try to do what Adam was doing. So Adam posted a tweet saying he's running Bitcoin 30. And, you know, that triggered everyone in the usual way that you would expect them to be triggered. But he left out the word core because what he was implying was he'll run a Bitcoin 30, not necessarily core 30. So it could be a knots 30, a knobs 30, another implementation based off of 30. But it goes to show like on his thread, you get the people that are in their camp pushing their view. So the core camp was like, hey, Adam is on our side, you know, suckers. And then, you know, the Nots guys are angry.

53:47Like, how dare you run, you know, Bitcoin Core 30, right? But for my posts, I was trying to get to the point of if you care about real decentralization And if you care about miners, small miners, which is the argument that Core is giving for their changes, then you definitely want to constrain the UTXO set size. So you can, so a lot of people first got wrong. They think it's just on disk. Oh, hard drive space is getting cheaper. And like, what are you talking about? But I was referring to RAM. and I was referring to people that want to mine because if you want to mine, you have to load the entire UTXO set in RAM.

54:30So that it's fast access. Yes. If you're a miner, whether you're a small mining operation with a couple S9s or you're a Bidax user, then you should be, you know, running Bitcoin Core with all UTXOs in RAM so that you're competitive. And this has been an argument about mempool policy and why it's bad to have divergent mempool policy because you're slowing yourself down. But it's the same thing. You want to have the entire UTXO set in RAM if you're a miner, regardless of your size. And if it's in RAM, it's not 11 gigs. It's 50-something gigs because 11 is compressed. So if you have that linear-ish growth of UTXO size, you know, in a decade, it's not 128 gigs.

55:18It's, you know, five times that. And in 2040 something, it'll be, you know, five terabytes at the max. That's the worst case scenario. But you get my point. If you care about mining and you care about decentralization, you should realize these things. But everyone just said, okay, you're wrong. You missed it. and no, it doesn't matter, but it does matter. And if you care, then you should have come to that conclusion and added one plus one plus one and figured out, oh, it's three. And it does actually matter because the UTXO set is huge now and it's going to be a problem for anyone trying to run their own node.

55:55And if you want decentralization, they should be running their own node, not just running with a pool and relying on a pool's templates and node. So help me understand this. Does putting all of this information on OperaTurn not reduce UTXO bloke because people aren't using unspendable UTXOs? It could, but I mean, it's cheaper to do UTXOs versus OperaTurn, right? And I think people have kind of homed in on that. And this is why they're resisting core, because it doesn't make sense. Like you're trying to encourage people with thoughts and prayers to use OperaTurn instead of UTXO. and again this is probably where some mistrust is brewed because you know why would they think that that makes zero sense at all so and why is it cheaper to do it in utxos because of the discount okay but i don't yeah but at the same time i don't think you want necessarily to encourage more people shoving stuff in the opera turn too because it's true that you can prune opera turn but then you're running a pruned node.

57:01You can't just prune only the operaturn. And if everyone is running a pruned node, then there is no more full node to boot up the network and help other people, you know, spin up new nodes in the future. So if we put Samsung Mauer in charge of core, you're the dictator of core today, what would you do? I don't know. I would roll back some of the more contentious things. And I don't think there's much we can do to undo the damage that's been done. But I would say let's be very conservative and very cautious on what happens in the future. But if you were to ask me, how do we fix this whole divide?

57:39I don't think you'll like the answer. You have to be able to bring Luke back into the fold. I think Bitcoin Core has to remove a lot of people that are maintainers and have been driving the project. And I don't think that will happen either because there's economic incentives to be a maintainer. You get paid more, right? And you get prestige from it. So the only way that someone would step down is because of honor. Like, yes, we messed up. We caused a massive clusterfuck and I'm stepping down because of that. And I'll continue to work on Bitcoin, but I won't be, you know, in that position anymore.

58:19And I don't see that happening either. and I don't see them welcoming Luke back either and I don't see them willing to roll back the changes but if you wanted to you know repair the divide that's how I would see it happening that some people in core step down and there's kind of a house cleaning there. So I was only around for the very end of the fork war the block size wars in 2017 obviously that culminated then but it'd been going on for a long time beforehand do you think that this does risk escalating into something similar and we do end up with a fork because of it i don't think so i mean like i said i don't i don't believe core releasing 30 is going to be the end of the world i think we can unify some of the policy uh we can talk to miners and mining pools like i used to run a mining pool you can talk to people that run mining pools and you know show them that it's better to align with what the network wants, which is seemingly filtering of spam.

59:19You know, there might be some holdouts and some people, some pools might want to keep mining and relaying spam. But in general, I think it's possible that a lot of them would understand that it's better for the network not to do that. And yeah, I think you can kind of bring about some change to the network. I think the problem with a lot of core developers is you work with the tools you're given. If you're a lawmaker, you know, you're just going to write laws and write more laws. You're not going to remove them. If you're a developer, you're going to keep focusing on the code. It's probably not in your tool set to go out there and engage and educate and talk to miners and mining pools about what is bad.

1:00:01So I think this is why the default reaction was, let's just adjust the filters and standards to what is happening instead of trying to go out and affect change. I think one of the dynamics that's missed a little bit too much in this conversation is the fact that not all nodes are created equally. The economic nodes are the thing that matter on the network. And obviously, for a long time, basically forever, they've all been running Bitcoin Core. Do you think any of those will be moving across to NOTS? Because it's really easy for me to spin up 10 NOTS nodes in my bedroom and then it looks like there's massive growth on the network.

1:00:37And obviously there is some real organic growth, but do you think any of the big businesses running big economic nodes will move across the NAS? Hard to say, but I mean, Ocean, I would say a lot of the hash rate there is using NAS. And I don't think you can really deny that they are a sizable portion of the network now. And that is good. It's good to have mining decentralization. So everyone that was paying lip service to mining decentralization, on the core side, I really don't see them congratulating Ocean in any way. So you can see that a lot of this divide is really personal. They just don't like Luke for various reasons, and they will never like Luke, and they will never like Ocean.

1:01:18So it's a difficult predicament right now. It seems to be personal attacks and attacks on individuals are more prevalent than actually thinking things through and thinking things through from a level-headed place of calm. And you see that, like the first reaction to a lot of posts is maintaining my side. And that is not a way for us to move forward. So do you think this really is about Luke as a person? Because he obviously has some pretty wild views. Lop just did a big post where he went through a ton of things that Luke said in the past that are very out there. Is that what is at the core of this issue, in your opinion?

1:01:57I don't know. it's interpersonal I would think it's a lot of these people in Bitcoin Core that don't like Luke ultimately we do need to get along and I think eventually we will get along you know we have more in common with each other irregardless of all the differences in vitriol being spewed than we would think and we are all Bitcoiners so you know maybe in a couple years it'll all calm down and you know everyone will get along better and you know we can move forward but for now i think it's important to keep in mind that you know everyone is everyone wants the best for bitcoin they just have different views on what is best for bitcoin and yes maybe some people are doing some things for the lulz but that is short term it's not going to last forever yeah rough consensus is messy um all right samson you are obviously fronting up jan 3 how's everything going how's the nation state adoption going?

1:02:58Pretty good. We just got back from Paraguay and we made some good progress there. We met a lot of the right people that could potentially make a Bitcoin bond happen in Paraguay. And we likely will go back again if discussions progress. And I assume all of these countries have been looking at what Trump has been saying in the US and him leaning into Bitcoin. Has that made a real impact in your conversations with these other countries? Well, I think they have a vague idea, but we often seem to think in a wrong fashion that everyone knows everything that we know. And that's not always the case. A lot of people don't even know that the Bitcoin ETFs are BlackRock's most successful ETF and has generated some 200 million in profits for them.

1:03:47People don't know that and the executive orders you know they don't know that either so it's kind of our job to go and tell them these things so if you look at what we do from a 30 000 foot view we're kind of like a personalized podcast about bitcoin that we go and sit down with them talk about everything that's happening in bitcoin and answer questions and there's no question that is too uh too newbish to answer you know back in 2021 when sailor came out and started doing the strategy stuff everyone was thinking like institutions were going to start piling in and we saw one or two and then like really it wasn't until the last 12 months where we've seen real institutional adoption of bitcoin um do you think nation states may be similar in the sense that it may we may just be like a cycle early and in a few years we'll start seeing a lot of these nation states actually piling into Bitcoin?

1:04:40Well, there's like two parts to that question. So this cycle doesn't seem to have played out. We're behind schedule. You know, we should have had a bull run already, like a massive run up. And, you know, we're down actually at the time of this recording. So I think this cycle, if you want to call it a cycle, is delayed. It might push into next year for whatever various reasons there are. But I think the nation state adoption is coming. we're pushing on a lot of fronts other companies and people are pushing too there are concrete examples of what Bitcoin can do to benefit a country out there right now the moves in the US I think have yet to propagate throughout the world so Trump did create the SBR but they haven't started buying yet and we are talking with other countries to do the same there are a few that have said they will create it and I think it's all coming It's really that these things happen very quickly.

1:05:40It's like literally gradually and then suddenly. And I think we're on the tail end of gradually and we're at the beginning phases of suddenly. And if you look at just the U.S. alone, they're pushing forward on a lot of their budget-neutral Bitcoin acquisition and the Bitcoin Act, too. So I believe it's simply a matter of time before we see a massive run up and we see a massive nation state FOMO panic. Which nation states are you most bullish on as like a category? Because obviously El Salvador done incredibly well. Bhutan done amazing. The US is starting to make moves. Countries like the UK where I'm from and Australia where I live, I think are going to be laggards in this.

1:06:21I can't see them being amongst the first movers. Like where do you think the real progress will come from? I think it's likely Latin America. And I've said that since we started Gen 3, that it's the most ripe area of the world to significantly do something with Bitcoin because you have energy, the energy part of the equation. You have the general stability, political stability, and you have the need. So you put all those things together and it just makes it the perfect place. And I think we just need a few more dominoes to drop. If Paraguay, if things pan out in Paraguay the way we hope, I think that's a big domino and countries in the surrounding area would likely come as well.

1:07:07I mean, I'm excited for the nation state FOMO. Is that when we actually get the million dollar Bitcoin target that you always talk about? We'll see. I mean, even without nation state adoption, we should see it too, simply because of the corporate buys. every day there's more and more corporations buying and it just blows my mind that we're not running already yeah it is like it is a bit strange this this cycle has felt very different and and one of the best ways that i've found to describe it is like my vibes my vibe check is completely gone like in previous bull markets you get a sense of what's happening you get a sense of where we're going you can almost feel it when we're about to run and this time i've just got no idea what's happening and I don't I can't put my finger on why that is but my vibes are all off yeah because every day you see an announcement that strategy bought this many coins meta planet bought this many coins this new company is buying and the price is going sideways and down so it makes zero sense you know and I don't really have an answer about why I think it's probably a number of things.

1:08:11It could be paper Bitcoin. It could be ETFs. It could just be outright fraud like FTX. Some exchange somewhere is selling coins that they don't have and they're buying back when they need to buy back to meet demands for withdrawals. I don't know. But definitely, I think everyone has a sense in their head that something is off and there's no way to know for certain until, you know, definitely, I would say it puts the suddenly, you know, very close to now, and it could trigger at any time. And that's kind of like the Omega thesis. And I think that the current situation of Bitcoin price is definitely, you know, on the verge of Omega.

1:08:59You're feeling it. So why do you think there's fraud? Like, what leads you to think that there's

1:09:10these like bull and bear markets? Because we have had that in the past. Do you think that's likely in the future? Well, there's always been something, right? Like FTX was the perfect example. We saw that they were selling Bitcoin that they did not have. And that's always a possibility. And I think of all the factors, it has to be some contributing factor that some entity is doing something weird. I'm here for it I'll have the popcorn ready Samson anything else you want to talk about before we close this out this has been great no I think we pretty much covered everything it's a good conversation Bitcoin's going to a million dollars everything will be okay with Core30 run whatever implementation you want stop shouting at people this has been great Samson thank you very much where do you want to send anyone before we do close out I'm on X my handle is Excelion E-X-C-E-L-L-I-O-N and you can find Jan3 on X2 Jan3.com Perfect.

1:10:10Alright, thank you man I appreciate that, that was fun Thanks Danny, catch you next time