 Okay. Hi everyone. The panel that we're doing right now is called How Scaling Impacts Privacy. I apologize my voice is a little rough today, but I think I can manage. My name is Liz Steininger. I work at the disability, but I'm just here to moderate the panel. And we have four wonderful panelists to talk about this topic today. And I'm going to let them introduce themselves, and then we'll get started. Hi everyone. I'm Josh Cincinnati. I'm the executive director of the Zcash Foundation, a U.S.-based 501c3 nonprofit focused on privacy, financial transactions online permanently through Zcash. So I'm very excited to talk about all this today. Liz previously said that we could have our little rant about privacy as part of this introduction. Yeah, we can add that speech. So yeah, why does scaling, how do you think scaling impacts privacy? Why do you think it matters that we're having this discussion? Yeah, for me, I think something has become apparently very apparent is that oftentimes the discussion around privacy is at odds with what we can do, or the things that can enable scalability. You have to sacrifice one in order to have the other. The other thing that I'm really fundamentally concerned about is actually more about scaling, and this is kind of a semi-off topic, but scaling the public discussion around why privacy is important, because if we don't really socially agree that it is, we're going to have a very hard time actually convincing people to integrate the things necessary to make those sorts of trade-offs. Hi, I'm Ed Felton. I am a co-founder and chief scientist at off-chain labs. I'm a professor at Princeton and sometime U.S. government official. So we might come back to that there. So for me, one of the big issues about scaling in privacy is what happens as we try to meet this vision of Web 3, of scaling up this technology to the point where it's something that everybody uses all the time. And I think there's a lot we can learn from the history of privacy on Web 1 and Web 2, which were not good. People are very unhappy with how that worked out, and it's not because there was not useful privacy technology there. We knew how to do end-to-end encryption. We knew how to encrypt in place. We knew how to do strong authentication. We knew how to do a lot of things that somehow did not actually get done in practice with Arduino. We had horrible problems with endpoint security. We had horrible problems with all of our data sitting in corporate servers where who knows what happens to it. The point being that having the technological tools there is not enough. If we just redo everything that happened in Web 1 and Web 2, but now with more stuff on a public ledger, we're going to get a result that is no better. And so we have to think beyond just building the technological tools. We have to understand how to build a market and how to build a structure in a community that's going to behave differently than others have before when the big money shows up. Hi, so my name's Ian Myers. I'm one of the founding scientists at Zcash and as a next fall professor at the University of Maryland. First I'm going to do cryptocurrency because I was worried about the current aspects of it because cryptocurrency is basically Twitter for your bank account. Everything's public. Everybody that's not acceptable for the same reasons that I just said that's also an actual link, I think, to the scaling problem. A lot of people think that privacy techniques are opposed to scaling. They make scaling harder. But things like ZK Starks are slow. When it comes to verifying data on blockchain, it actually extends faster because Twitter for your bank account also describes the scaling problem somewhat aptly. And then Twitter has these hilarious problems when they first started because they were trying to broadcast huge amounts of data to everybody. And so if you solve the privacy problem by removing that data and they can't properly verify, you've also inherently solved the scaling problem. So I think these two things are linked. They're actually a thing where you can have synergies between them. My name is Jacob Ibalas. I'm a researcher at Technical University of Berlin. And so why I'm here is I work on different things in the context of off-chainning. And one of these things was the Socrates framework, which is kind of programming language and toolbox that allows you to easily or more easily specify programs that are provable in ZK Starks and verify them conveniently on the blockchain. What's maybe interesting to note here is, like me, it indicated ZK Starks and these things that are not often categorized as privacy tech. Like privacy was not a motivation to do that. It was actually scaling because the idea was if there is a way to verify a very complex computation with a constant amount of computational effort and we can do that on the blockchain, then we can scale very well. So I do agree that these things are not opposed at all and the scaling things were actually brought there and now it's also nice to address privacy. My take on privacy and security and how they relate is both are key challenges that need to be addressed for DApps to actually become successful and make mainstream usage because I do think people will not be comfortable tweeting not only their financial transactions over blockchains, but actually all their interaction with any IT service over the blockchain. So let's say we solve scaling in a year and privacy tech does not keep up. I don't think we will see mainstream adoption of DApps, right? So for me, it's a key enabler. Great. So thanks, everyone. Thanks, panelists, for your introductions. We've covered a few different things here. Actually, there's a lot just captured by candidates for statements. So let's talk about how things are working now and why we should care. Let's dig into that a little bit more. So right now, sometimes projects think in the space that it's more important to solve some technical problems, to solve use case problems, and we'll play our privacy on top later. Or that, yeah, let's get the scaling first and then we'll do the privacy part because there's not that much. We shouldn't be too worried about that. So let's talk a little bit about maybe what is the concern right now with the technology that's being used and how is it not good for privacy now and how this could scale up and to be something they could in the future? Sure, I want to start. So I think the way it works now for anyone that, if someone uses Ethereum in the room or many other cryptocurrencies, frankly, actually the average Zcash user, the way they use it now, is that they use the portion of the system that effectively paints the transaction graph for anybody to see and it only takes like one short conversation with a blockchain analytics firm to realize that the system, as it exists today, within all of these projects is measurably worse than the patchwork of offline cash transactions and various financial intermediaries that actually do have some degree of privacy guarantees in the way it works today. So I think we can all kind of universally agree that these systems need to change in order for us to actually feel comfortable using them on a more day-to-day and broad basis because otherwise, what's going to wind up happening is we're going to recreate this brand new financial system but then people will actually feel comfortable because they'll know that all the data can be traced and opened for their competitors to see. People won't actually engage in any cryptocurrency transactions because they know that companies and governments will be surveilling their every move and that's like a very frightening thought. So how do we fix that? I'll leave it to smarter people we need to figure that out one of the ways to do it is to figure out how do we incentivize privacy on this chain how do we get people to actually say that it's cheaper to do this on various chains and then socially how do we connect or really solve the disconnect that people have like right now we've talked about this before when people interact and buy something online at their credit card or use cryptocurrency without any privacy protection they don't really think about how many people can actually surveil and understand the data that is being sold on their behalf or observed on their behalf like if you imagine going into a store using cash like my newspaper the online equivalent there'd be like 30 people in the room watching you do that and then taking notes and then recommending other newspapers while your process is doing that and most people don't view it that way so I think we have a big social challenge in terms of convincing people that that is the truth I want to just sort of take issue with the approach of which you talked about but obviously weren't suggesting that we'll just build the thing first and then we will figure out how to add privacy later because if you say that what you're essentially saying is design a system in a particular way and once we've invested a lot of engineering effort and we have a big install base then we're going to fundamentally redesign it that's not going to work if you don't start out with privacy in mind if you don't start out at least thinking about what your privacy strategy is going to be and at the very least not engineering in a way that's inconsistent with that strategy you're going to find yourself locked into a design later that is very difficult for those privacy standpoints and just to add to that it's tempting to think that you don't need privacy if you're not doing painless so actually when Josh here wanted me to give the first answer I think you expected me to give the standard spiel idea of you can't do payments that are public it's clear for your bank account you'll get stalked by your ex-girlfriend your business competitors will see what you're doing foreign government should use it for counterintelligence this is a rant I can go on for 20 minutes but it's tempting and I think particularly for this audience to go well if I'm not doing payments if I'm doing crypto kiddies if I'm doing something completely different then there's no privacy problem because you just can't think in terms of what it would be actually I have that problem too I think about smart contracts but it's not the case right there will be some privacy problem if stuff succeeds if your stuff is worth money someone will want to know what the data is and I think you had a very good point that for actual contracts you don't reap the fact that there's a business relationship between two different parties every time you sign one of these but in a blockchain when you establish that kind of relationship it's public to everybody and that's just not a thing companies or enterprises are going to do and so this goes back to your point that if we don't solve these privacy problems even for things that aren't like money it's going to be a major barrier to adoption you made a very good point that privacy needs to be considered early in the process of designing applications and also platforms but my perspective is that currently people are also ill-equipped to address these privacy concerns from a technological perspective right? we built Ethereum as a platform that allows you to do something you could some people say also do a Bitcoin to a large degree but it was super complex Ethereum came along, had this nice programming model and smart contracts that added generality to the field the problem is now Zcash solved for Bitcoin but who solves the same issue for Ethereum Ethereum is much more generic and there will there will not be a privacy solution a technical solution that fits all the use cases that can be built on the platform so from my perspective it's key that we establish good tooling and equip the engineers that build decentralized applications with the tools they need to make their stuff privacy aware and I'm not only talking about cryptographic mechanisms but I think they could bring you a long wave of as a community we need to think about how we enable people to build privacy aware applications because now even if people think about it I think they can often just not pull it off and nobody has to see Cache Engineering 2 One more sort of engineering note here and that is privacy is a safety property and a safety property can be lost at any layer in the system so you can have the strongest possible platform underneath you that's privacy preserving but you can still build an application on top of that that destroys privacy in the same way that the fact that you have HTTPS to transmit data across the internet is an excellent way to protect the privacy of that data but there are plenty of services that use HTTPS and yet have terrible prices because of the application level they give away everything that you gain at the lower level So one thing that you were saying is that looking to the future we just try to avoid the mistakes that we made with Web 1 and Web 2 and do Web 3 different and so the answer is privacy by design giving developers the opportunity and the knowledge to build in privacy by design and make it easy for them So do we think that that would just is that the answer? That's how we get Web 3 but will that really help our scaling issue and not have Web 1 and 2 again? Well I think if all of the engineers in the world could make a pact that we would only build privacy-friendly technologies for the rest of our lives and be careful about who else we train to be an engineer then we'd be in good shape but given the incentive structure that we're in given how everything works we have to be concerned about what kind of market develops and avoiding a situation where there's a race to the bottom and that means we need to think about governance because there is a competitive dynamic that will drive everyone to try to collect and exploit more data than the other person in order to eke out a little bit more profit gain a little bit of a business advantage I don't think we can solve this by just all agreeing to not be evil and I don't think we can solve it by trying to build a layer 1 or a layer 2 which is going to make insecure or unprivate applications on top of them impossible. We need to have some way of governing our behavior that is stronger than just than just slogans and that means that we need to think about how we're going to operate we need to think about rules of the road for the sector and we can try to set those ourselves governments will try to set them for us sometimes governments will actually be helping us when they do that but there are going to have to be rules because the market by itself leads to a bad outcome when it comes to price No, I just wanted to add to that that I see the decentralized space also as a kind of opportunity because it just show buddy where which data is collected and that it needs protection whereas in the current system it's kind of hidden behind API or company walls and we do not really know because we cannot personally track what's happening behind that so like by making this issue very prominent issue by showing everybody your data's territory attacks it will probably encourage this process to speed it up hopefully And one sort of follow up question I had for you on the idea of how governments could potentially provide guidance or additional incentive for us to consider privacy as a sort of central time in all these systems do you think like things like GBBR that kind of transform user data into a much bigger liability for companies and business entities do you think actions like that and other governments or regulations like that and other governments might serve to compel people to effectively change their behavior when it comes to businesses approaching these systems I mean I think ultimately when businesses think of large holdings of data as a source of risk then their calculations will change GBBR is one of the things that does that it's legal risk, it's reputational risk and other kinds of risks that can come from holding data governments will be tightening the screws because there's a perception probably correct that privacy has gotten worse over time and companies have become more careless with consumer data over time and if this sector is going to be better to make that happen anybody in this sector or any other sector who gets big enough to matter gets big enough that your investors are happy you will be visible to policy makers and regulators and if you are not behaving well you're going to find out in the same way that ICO markets have seen crackdowns we're going to see I think crackdowns on privacy if people are really careless so I guess my question for everybody is how do we make sure we get privacy that's actually good and not just the illusion of compliance we've seen this for payments in Bitcoin we have these privacy techniques that look like they work now but they really don't and so anyone who just has a public data set you can think you're safe but then when you start up sophisticated analysis when people have access to data not public then this stuff all breaks down and it seems like the immediate reaction would again in anticipation of GDPR and everything else is someone does some completely broken piece of cryptography that's like good enough to get past compliance until five years later when we find out it doesn't actually work so I want to speak to this one because I was at one point the CTO at the Federal Trade Commission which is the US government agency that is most responsible for enforcing these laws and one of the things in that role that drove me absolutely crazy was when companies made blatantly technically false statements about a privacy protection for example claiming that we only store the hash of the 32-bit IP address therefore we have no way to know what the IP address is or even people who claim we have the hash of a 10 digit phone number and therefore we have no way of knowing what it is and saying that with a straight face to senior policy makers and so I think over time governments can get smarter they're hiring people who know how to call BS on those things I mean that's part of it part of it is we have to create an environment where people just can't get away with bogus arguments about privacy and we need to call them out if somebody is making a bogus privacy argument they should be called out by their peers publicly and it should affect their reputation governments will listen to that stuff but more importantly prospective employers, prospective investors and so on will listen as well it's sort of up to us to call BS on each other when somebody is saying something that is really misleading to their customers so besides the good nature of developers in the community saying that they're not going to collect personal data and they care about privacy also government regulations and also just catching each other on BS on each other what else can we do to incentivize privacy being baked into our systems and allowing them to scale I guess this will go back to my previous point a little bit but you really have to make to get to make your users want it I honestly think that if you, so there are all these external incentives but one thing that people should be intrinsically motivated about at least as an American coming from this sort of constitutional rights perspective you should care about your Fourth Amendment rights care about a sort of right to fundamental privacy that isn't shying by these fundamental legal rights but I do agree that oftentimes like in practice I think the user has really bad trade-offs there is one service that is very nice and easy to use privacy and then you can do a CCAS shielded transaction which is very complex in comparison to the people right so I think it's maybe that's not the best example but it's also like just thinking except on the website for something so we need to provide better trade-offs and maybe regularly force people to do better trade-offs I think we also need to provide better attacks it would be really good if you can demonstrate to people what you're on Venmo, which in the U.S. is an app used to pay back your friends for dinner because we don't have a good banking system for transfer money that way and for a long time a bunch of people knew that Venmo had this default public feature that literally was Twitter for your banking account it was a web-page version that listed everything everyone did but we were all shouting and people went and then someone made an art project where they had this website with all this stuff on it and people started caring about this and so similarly for blockchains I think we actually have people writing tools with nice UIs and look, here's all the data we can find out about you don't you really wish you hadn't made this mistake and until we do that it's just a hypothetical oh I can tell you that an error doesn't work well I can tell you that this doesn't work well that doesn't work well but it's not real I mean another thing we can do when they use technology just have this fatalistic attitude whatever I do, my data is going to go everywhere right and so it doesn't really matter what I choose people don't really believe that if they choose product A rather than product B they'll be in a significantly better position with respect to privacy and in that kind of environment if there is A product, A stack if there is some environment that's available to people that actually does offer better privacy and we talk about the idea that it is possible to do this because I think in the legacy tech space the narrative that you hear is that we really don't want to have all your data but we just need it to run our business it's just a thing that's necessary to make the sector go and I don't think that's necessarily true but we stand that this is the way that our community talks about these things we will make it true so we need to work hard I think to try to give users hope and to try to talk about holding ourselves to a higher standard that we can solve these problems and we don't have to just collect everything in order to make our businesses go Does that get easier when we're not talking about do you trust Google with your data or Facebook with your data in some part of your data or is it public to everybody it's not just this trade off maybe give us some better ability to you really don't want to expose everybody you can at least decide you only trust whatever it is you're using does that change the narrative at all you think of? Maybe I have a follow up question do you think there's really that much of a choice you have in web 3 or isn't it rather there is an implementation that gives you privacy properties technically before you have zero for me it's much more binary in that space because it's a longer company that has data and can act maliciously or be yeah be good with the data well in the legacy tech space a lot of the privacy action or trouble happens at higher levels in the stack right so and I think that is a real risk here in this space as well that at high levels of the stack you might see more data collection you know from a fundamental technology standpoint in an answer to your question I think there are pros and cons of this which is compared to what came before also this is a do-over on some of the structures and approaches that happened before and maybe we're a little bit wiser about how to do it So speaking of being wiser let's talk a little bit about the technology and actually speaking of hope more about the technology and incentives that can be combined perhaps like we were talking earlier about scalability and privacy can be done at the same time with certain technologies I think it's good to explore that kind of thing too because it adds an extra opportunity for incentive that perhaps is not there in what we know about too and stuff so yeah do you want to talk about some of the abilities that we can deal with the things that we can capabilities that we have when we're doing scaling and privacy skills? My usual thing at work with is zero knowledge proofs and we've seen a massive amount of new excitement of what we can do and it's quite interesting but I think we sort of people getting distracted by looking at just the new exciting little pieces of it and not the general pattern of here's the tools, here's the techniques so a common thing people think of as a piece of photography we have to invent a bunch of new things to do this which is the existing techniques to do like how Zcash works in Mercury which works well and then also that people in this audience get hung up like oh we're in the account bottle bitcoins and UTXO bottle and they find none of the techniques over there pour over here and it's actually, these are all pretty uniform you can use most of these developments on anything so it seems like in fact in this space right now I'm getting very excited about what from a priority perspective are actually minutiae what color means under a car it's not the biggest thing there are also things that you can do in terms of design that don't rely on the absolutely newest Chinese most complicated cryptography so looking at what we're doing at off-chain labs we've done a lot of work to try to move state of states of contracts off-chain we did that originally way back in the beginning motivated by scalability but when you move stuff off-chain when you reduce the footprint on chain you also have significant privacy benefits so you don't need to use the highest tech stuff there's stuff you can do within the sort of traditional engineering frameworks and there is a synergy between efficiency and privacy in a space where the public more public on-chain setting is more expensive than what you can do privately that's not to say that you should never use the high tech stuff or that we would never use it but you can get a lot without needing to even use that stuff I would totally agree and I would like to ask a question to the other panelists because it was like the initial question was like where did it like how do we have privacy while we're scaling for me oftentimes the answer to privacy and scaling points in the same direction as these because it's like reducing blockchains to what they're actually good at and not doing as much as possible on the blockchain and if you remove computation steps and then like to verify the mon chain you can use different techniques it can be simple integrity checks with caches it can be complex mechanisms like starch whatever it doesn't matter but the key aspect is we move stuff away from the blockchain keep as much of the information of that public ledger in the first place and then there's much less we need to bother about and at the same time we push less load on the blockchain so it's naturally going to not scale better but for the same amount of utility require less computation to be done on chain in the first place so do you think there is a synergy between privacy and scalability or a trade-off so I think I'm a lone panelist who said that it was a trade-off and almost at least technical one here so maybe you're wrong but I actually like I think there is a trade-off present in that because it creates it creates a degree of user complexity for one thing when you start offloading stuff onto other layers and doing like 2K rollouts in the light you have to figure out then how do you actually engage that interaction layer on the user side then the other good thing that I think it creates is it does require shinier newer photography that has potentially like unknown unknowns about what you're building really with stuff like Halo where there is it does seem to be like a win-win trustless person that preserves privacy but there is so much that's not knowing about it and you just have to understand those trade-offs when approaching that's not to say that there isn't still some alignment on like there being a mutual advantage to having less state on getting blockchain and more of it private and elsewhere but it just creates new complexities to deal with I got what Josh is saying there's a technical level that seems to be true which is an interesting switch because usually in traditional centralized systems when you add in photography it made it get slower and so you had to justify it versus here it's more effective in removing data and a system that's overburdened it makes it faster but the social complexity of this bike shedding of which photography we use or hopefully you can use not this whole debate of which assumptions which elliptic curves which do we believe in falsified assumptions you've seen these things on twitter can slow things down it's very practical from the social perspective to go well in the interest of scaling the debate and scaling the system we're going to put those off for five years and what it's going to ignore and that is tempting but if we do that we will find out five years that we can't add privacy to the system later and it will be too late to fix it there's a role for standardization here as well in dealing with the issue that Ian was talking about that you know the sort of fragmentation of the complexity you see this in other areas as well where those things that are similar across products can be standardized while allowing people to still compete in the areas where there's more innovation you see that in cryptography for example right there are standard ways to do many of the older cryptographic primitives it's understood how to do them, what key size you need how to generate this or that even formats and so on are standardized and that's all useful for a bunch of reasons one first because it allows more vetting by the community of particular approaches but also because it helps with the emergence of open source implementations so you don't have people re-implementing the same stuff so how do you think that interacts with what seems to be emerging now where we have companies that are basically marketing not a product but literally they're like zero knowledge or encryption proof and they're trying to push these things are we going to actually disappear in like five years is that just a effective fact this is a very recent ecosystem or is this a problem of like you're not going to standardize this because one guy says they want to standardize on thing and someone standardizing completely different or did we have to start with photography and I was just too young to remember I mean there's standardization works where there is enough agreement on where how some part of the system would work you know you can come up with standards for say verification of zero knowledge proofs maybe without needing to have a standard for how you generate the proof or how you build the circuit that you're proving and so on so you know and similarly in other systems there are parts that are standardized and the standards can be pluggable where people can plug in their own secret sauce in the areas where there is a lot of innovation and where it's a little bit less subtle. I'm not an expert on the history of photography but I do think that there was kind of similar things taking place with early encryption right where it was in private companies and they selected some parameters and was like hold out magic and over time these things were battle tested, became established were republished in a more open-source way so maybe we're just on track but I do see what they're getting at that just could be an issue. The reason I mentioned it seems to me that that's exactly right, there are some standards for like Beds and such but a lot of it was all done by RSA for basic encryption and then Netscape for TLS or SSL all the time but it seems like in those cases there was one dominant black guy who had all the Netscape keys and now in this case it's democratized which is good but there's now more infighting and that somehow seems different but maybe because I'm just sitting in the middle of it. I mean if you look at cryptographic standards some of the most popular standards like the hash function standards for example or AES were done through government organized processes although they were open competitions and that was a way of organizing the community and you had a lot of it was community work and so lots of diversity, different opinions about how to do that but yet a strong standard emerged in one that got trust out of that process. Obviously governments can run these things badly and the result of that can be worse than nothing as we all know but there are good examples good existence proofs that this can be done well and you can get to standards even for things like ciphers where there's a lot of different ideas about how to do it. And I guess standardization will help with making easier tools for obviously by design. Is there anything else you all want to say before we open up for questions? Are there any questions from the audience for the panel? Are you doing the mic thing or not? It's fine, I can express. Could you talk about the role of cryptocurrency exchanges in this debate and perhaps in your answers could you debate amongst yourselves or talk about what you'd like to see versus what you think will happen? So the question was how can exchanges help in the future? It's going to be very brief but with exchanges my major concern is the last two exchanges maybe for a bit but many users and users' behavior goes back to privacy and trust and putting responsibility on users as well because if it looks statistic how many people actually keep private keys themselves and how many people trust exchanges with it it's kind of boring to think or I don't think we can think that these people will take responsibility for privacy. If we all view data as a liability then exchanges are effectively like centralized exchanges are legally mandated nuclear waystops they're where everyone's data goes and they're legally required to and I don't see that changing to be honest. So like my preferred outcome that I don't think is actually likely to be honest is that at least in a high time soon is that people figure out other ways to exchange and get into these systems that do actually preserve privacy without having to go through the nuclear way stuff. Any other questions? Where's the mic? I'm just repeating. Any without it, yeah. I wish that I guess in terms of the panelists I guess you're repeating in American but probably like the most users are or will be and then mostly in Asia and China and Japan what is your experience from that side? Is there anything like we can see if there's developments there or what's your take on that? So last month I was in Tokyo on a panel with some people from the JFSA which is the Japanese Financial Services Administration I believe and they regulate cryptocurrency and finance in Japan and that was actually interesting because there was an appreciation of the privacy wasn't in they should be aware of they wanted to deal with other things first but that actually was a thing they were concerned about and they acknowledged they needed to have privacy for these things. The really interesting thing there was that the regulatory environment JFSA is responsible both for consumer protection and privacy and for enforcing like anti-money laundering stuff versus in the US the guys who do money laundering is Treasury Department FinCEN and when you talk to people about privacy they basically go yeah you sound right but that's not our problem so why are you getting on our way? So I think there may be some better hope in parts of Asia in other places while I'm not going to comment further on that. Anybody else? I mean this also could be the difference between privacy for companies versus privacy for individuals too. Oh right I mean there is the other thing that like even in the most like privacy hostile government you can think of those governments have enemies that are other governments and they don't want those other governments seeing everything like just imagine what would happen if you go look at everybody and who worked in the security service company go oh yeah that guy there is having trouble paying his rent maybe we could try to brighten to give us all the class of that documents he has right so there isn't any set up even in regimes that are hostile and privacy they at least have security from other governments they don't like so it's kind of going to be funny because the government any other questions well then I'm going to ask a fun question for the panel alright so so if you could so I remember life before the internet you probably do or have some idea of what life was like before the internet and here we go again web 3 what is like maybe think about what would be the coolest dream for web 3 outcomes what's life going to be like if everything works out as we want or some aspect of that just think in the future what was it like back in the day before you were like the person you were on a date with to find out everywhere you've been and everything you bought just google your address it's tough but I just hope that this could be like cloud computing infrastructure as powerful with better privacy with less dependency because as it turns out information technology is like a key driver nowadays and that access and solid infrastructure would be nice on a more daily life level I think there's still huge opportunities for integrating services reducing vendor lock-in all these kind of things that just make life better but we'll see how it's going to turn all over to the next 10 years my biggest hope is that we learn from what has happened before us we had a chance kind of to for a do-over to rebuild the technology stack that people rely on and we have a real opportunity to do a better job it is probably not as easy as we think to do that but we have a lot of jobs that made a lot of decisions most of them still seem like good decisions in hindsight and yet they ended up in a place that has some real disadvantages but I hope that we do better this time and I think one of the keys to doing that is to well two keys to doing that are first to really pay attention to what happened before and learn from it and two not to give ourselves too much credit for being able to see ahead or for being more altruistic then we actually will turn out to be if I could describe my ideal view for what the end result of this movement might be I actually I think it would be more just in my day to day I would like to have a device on me that is not tracking me that when I go to buy a book it doesn't have DRM on it I pay for it without having to enter in my email or user account and without anyone knowing who I am buying that that information I just want to live in a world where it kind of emulates what it was like when you went into a bookstore in 1970 with cash with cash we got a little fun I actually feel like that's a return to form and that we could build that return to form up gaining all the convenience that we have in today's society so you're saying you wanted to look like what it was before there was the internet about with the internet so we want the mobile device in our pocket that's not acting like the mobile device tracking us in our pocket that we have right now and we want something like cash but that's digital did I get that? alright any other last comments? you got 17 seconds I'm nowhere over time that's why it's coming up but anything else to say? alright well thank you panelists and thank you all