 I came across a very interesting treatise on commercial real estate, and in the comments section on LinkedIn there was a bit of a critique, and the author was exceedingly dismissive of the critic, but I actually dug into some of the critique that the author gave. My question for you would be, clearly you've encountered people who disagree with you, perhaps on emotional grounds, perhaps on intellectual grounds. Who is your or your program, not this program, but the entire concept of Bitcoin? Who is the most effective, well-reasoned, intellectual critic that you enjoy engaging with? Because they've actually invested the time and energy to try to decipher what this might be, something not for them or any of us for that matter. It changes from time to time, because honestly, the people who I find are most intellectually honest about trying to understand this technology, they start off as critics. We all started off as critics. My first reaction to Bitcoin was dismissive. Everyone I know who's in Bitcoin was dismissive. Satoshi himself went, I don't know, it might work. Pretty much everybody who followed Satoshi went, no, that's not going to work. We all come into it like that. I think many of the intellectually honest people eventually stop being critics, because they suddenly realize that the flaws that they're identifying are temporary features or issues, and not inherent problems. There are very few inherent problems in a dynamically evolving design or ecosystem of different designs, all competing, that cannot be resolved. There are critics who criticize this technology primarily based on their worldview. It is politically inconsistent with their worldview. It's not that they do not like the technology, it's that they do not like the implications of this technology, and the primary criticism you get then is, this should not be to which all I can answer is, and yet it is, right? But we mustn't, and yet we did. But you shouldn't, and yet we did. So now let's talk about what we do next. We shouldn't have the ability for people to send transactions peer-to-peer anywhere in the world without control. What will the world descend in? Will it turn into chaos? It's almost as if people are using cash. Again, that shouldn't be, but it is. Now what do we do about it? So the problem with debating and criticism about this is that, if it truly offends your worldview, then the problem is that you are trying to resist reality. Reality has a lack of sneaking up on people. So I honestly can't really identify critics that I would enjoy debating on a regular basis, primarily because for people who are fundamentally offended by the implications of this technology, this is not a discussion on the merits. This is a debate on the morality of the individual. And that quickly turns very, very personal. It undermines people's sense of self, sense of morality, sense of right or wrong, and people can get very heated about that. So I get enough of that threat as it is. I don't need it anymore.