 The major traditional consultancy companies, or food leaders of the internet era, I'm thinking about task offer, are saying that big coins are nothing, but real focus is blockchain. In those gatherings, big coins, blockchain go together, which is your view. Can we have blockchain without big coins? That's a question that comes up a lot, and I'm going to talk about that more tomorrow. I think there's a lot of misunderstanding as to what blockchain is, what Bitcoin is, how they relate, and what each can do. I like to call Bitcoin the open blockchain, with the emphasis on the word open. That qualifier is the all-important one. Bitcoin has an open blockchain, which is global, decentralized, burdenless, and allows anyone to participate and innovate without asking for permission. Those are the characteristics of open. It's also a system that works by anonymous submission of proof of work, which is also a very key characteristic of Bitcoin. You can create other blockchains. However, if you create a blockchain without a currency, you have to come up with an alternative way of reaching consensus that doesn't lead to centralization. The other thing you have to realize is that some of the characteristics that you see in Bitcoin do not exist, but for the anonymous proof of work system. One of the most important to those is immutability. A lot of people tell you that we have a blockchain where we can record things that cannot be changed. The reason things cannot be changed on Bitcoin is not because of the open blockchain, it's because of the proof of work. Even the miners with 99% of the hashing power colluding together cannot rewrite history for more than a few dozen blocks. 144 per day. They can affect an afternoon. Beyond the scale of an afternoon, Bitcoin is immutable. It's immutable because you cannot forge proof of work. You would have to recalculate proof of work for all of these, and that is physically impossible at certain scales. That characteristic comes directly from the needs to present proof of work. A lot of people who use the term blockchain, not open blockchain, or decentralized ledger technology, which is the new one, they're not talking about things that use proof of work, yet they assume immutability is one of its characteristics. It doesn't have immutability. It has unforgeability to a certain extent, in that if the five banks that are part of the consortium of the blockchain and have signing privileges decide to go back, rewrite the last two years, and zero the balance of WikiLeaks because the government ordered them, not that that would happen, of course not. We live in a democracy that would take a big court fight. They could do that. They could do that instantaneously without presenting any proof of work, but they couldn't do that without it being noticed. That's the fundamental difference. Whereas on the Bitcoin open blockchain, they could not do that. That is immutability. These two characteristics are very different from a security modeling perspective, and there are many other characteristics that are very different. One of the fundamental aspects of having a proof of work system, and you can say that Bitcoin is more centralized than we would like, and the miners are less anonymous than we would like, but they are still decentralized and anonymous more so than many other systems, certainly more so than any other system at that scale. By being anonymous, they can't be coerced. That is another very fundamental aspect of this. If you know who has permission to write on the permissioned ledger, then you can extort, hack, steal the keys, and take away that permission for yourself. I can't imagine all of these systems running as permissioned blockchains with full identity of every participant, because they also want to put identity KYCAML on top of it, with full identity of every participant in a system where all it takes is one set of keys, or several set of keys to be stolen, or one copy of the blockchain to be stolen for every single transaction to be visible to the world, and the ability to disrupt the operation of that system. That is Panama Papers on a magnificent scale. If they want to build a blockchain where it is completely controlled by five entities, and it can be leaked and provide forensically secure evidence of every transaction that every corporation put on there, I will bring it on. Anonymous is going to have a field day. They are going to have so much fun hacking these decentralized ledger technologies. I am very skeptical until I have seen what is the security model and what are you trying to achieve. Bitcoin sacrifices transactional efficiency to give you freedom, global access, open access, permissionless innovation, and most importantly, censorship resistance. If you don't want those things, then why are you sacrificing transactional efficiency? What do you really get? There is no question that a distributed ledger technology is probably better and more secure than a single entity clearinghouse. That is only because a single entity clearinghouse is a ridiculously anachronistic and insecure idea that should have died two decades ago. Yes, they will replace Swift with a decentralized ledger technology, and they will reduce their operating costs by a certain percentage. To me, that puts me to sleep. What I am working on, and what many people in this forum are working on, is the open, global blockchain that fundamentally changes the nature of trust and authority on a global level, empowers billions of people to participate economically and provides censorship, resistance, and individual freedom. For that, I am willing to sacrifice transactional efficiency.