 I'd like to kind of just, you know, put the context of that question in the light of what you said before that when certain parties are, say, not quite getting it yet or in fact even actively, you know, working against it in some way, we mentioned already the banks, but what about the government? What about, say, the European Parliament or the European government right now that we're maybe only one or two percent of the people that will be making the decision for the upcoming law even know, you know, very much about this. So most of the people that will be voting, you know, know so little about it, what do we have to look forward to? Bad law. We have to look forward to bad law. And the reason is that when democratic systems make laws about technology, especially in the early stages, especially when they least understand it, they make bad laws, which is why the best type of technology law you can make is to stay the hell out of making law for technology until you understand it well, which usually takes 20 or 30 years. And bad law will slow down technology in the countries where bad law is implemented because it's going to make it impossible for startups and innovation and entrepreneurs to create interesting companies. What they'll do is they'll move, they'll move to incorporate in Singapore or Hong Kong with some place that didn't make bad law. Canada comes to mind now. And they'll do it there. Cash exists. Bitcoin is a luxury here. You have PIN, you have Visa, you have MasterCard, you have cash. You don't really need Bitcoin unless you're doing international trade. It's not really that important. Your government isn't fascist. Your corporations are not completely mafiosi. You just, you know, you handle it. There's a lot of places where that is not the case. And if cash is banned or severely restricted, then Bitcoin is no longer a luxury. Then it's a necessity everywhere where cash is banned. And people will go to extreme lengths to protect the wealth of their children, to protect the future of their children. Extreme lengths includes breaking the law. And that's the very least of what people are willing to do, to protect the future of their children. So government has no power if what they're trying to do is destroy the wealth of the next generation, because no one will accept that. I'm an optimist. I think devil's advocate for you for a moment, just to see how far I could get as a government. Okay, fantastic. Yes, please. Do play devil's advocate. So you're saying that people can run off these unregulated programs to do all sorts of crime? Yes. So we can just make sure that our software companies don't allow their software to interact with computers or software. Every single phone in China is jailbroken. That does not run on a trusted platform. Every single phone here will be jailbroken. All right, so... If you can design a phone that can't be jailbroken, Apple wants to hire you. They haven't yet. It's actually not that hard. To design a phone that's not jailbreakable? No. Not if you want to keep it useful. We have trusted platform modules. All you need to do is be able to check the memory that runs on the device to see if the program still matches what you have. Yes, and there's a reason why Apple doesn't use that technology. This technology is being shipped in more and more Intel computers already. Yes. It's called Secure Boot. Yes. The only thing we have to do is extend Secure Boot to exclude programs that are not digitally signed by Microsoft or the government. Right, and then you would have a piece of shit computer that could only run Microsoft software. Good luck selling that to anyone. You see, the problem is, this is the reason why... It's already selling. Secure Boot is doing fine. Okay, great. But that's because they haven't forced it to only run programs signed by the government and Microsoft. If you create a closed ecosystem that you control, what happens is innovation dies within that ecosystem. So all of the innovation moves to open platforms. And if there are not enough open platforms, we'll make more open platforms. I'm not worried about... The thing you would have to do in order to get it signed is send out the source code to your program to allow it to be blacklisted in case it goes bad. Or you could just steal the keys from the manufacturer that's signing. Yeah, if you would have a contingency... If you have a breach of security, you would of course be able to continue on that path. Right, and so how difficult is it to steal the signing keys from these companies? Well, you see, the thing is, it depends on how much pressure there is to steal these signing keys. How long is it to steal nuclear codes? They keep them on floppy, which makes it a lot harder. That's true. The point being that you're already being discouraged from installing unsigned software. If you open an application from the internet, your MacBook will say, are you sure, your Windows computer say, are you sure your iPhone will refuse unless you've hacked it. So you're going to disguise it as other software. There's thousands of ways to get around restrictions like that. And the point is, you've got to realize that in countries where they try to apply controls like that, they fail. And in countries where they apply controls like that, at penalty of death, you can still get the movie, that comedy, those idiots made that was banned in North Korea, that showed the killing of Kim Il-sung. You can get that on a USB drive in North Korea, where the penalty for watching it is death, the penalty for owning it is death, the penalty for owning a DVD player, I don't know what that is, probably life in prison. Not everyone. But they cannot... Now, if you, as a regular computer consumer, will no longer own a device that can run... Okay, great. So I would recommend that we strongly resist the erosion of control over our devices, which is something I've been involved in since the late 80s. But this is hardly the point. The point is that through developing faster and offering more features, the large companies are able to get nearly everyone on board with their program. Okay, this calls for an EFF t-shirt. I'm with you. 25-year anniversary, I've been a member since year one. The advantages of running only secure code, running only code that has been open source, are numerous. There are no more viruses. Right, but secure code is not code that's signed. And I think that's a fundamental difference in our appreciation. To me, code becomes secure when it's exposed to threats all the time and continuously improved. When you put a bottleneck that requires every version of that code to be signed and audited, what it does is it actually slows down the exposure to security improvements. And as a result, code that is carefully controlled and signed, essentially managed, falls further and further behind in innovation, and in security innovation, and eventually in security. That's why every Microsoft product sucks at security. It's a simple truth. And we see that playing out on the internet. It sucks because you will still buy a computer that has faults in it. Well, I certainly won't. You have. You most definitely have. Yes. Because there's actually no offering at all for a secure computer. Yes. So, actually, the only secure computer I have is my hardware Bitcoin wallet. The only close you're going to get is a $2,000 laptop that runs like a calculator. Yeah. Or maybe you're Raspberry Pi, but it's not even... So this is a broader conversation about our ability to control our own computing devices, right? Which I think is extremely important. That's why... It is not a limitless power that we have. No. This assumption that Bitcoin is definitely secure from whatever fascism will perform in the future is false. Oh, no. I don't think it's forever secure for every fascism. This is an arms race. Technology is an arms race. Technology has always been an arms race. And when you stop fighting for your security, for your freedom, for your liberty, for your control, then you start losing those things instantly. The moment you start fighting for them, you start losing them. The thing is, this is not a battle that is being played out between all technology and new technology. The same battle that we played out in the industrial setting between fascism and freedom, or between communism and freedom, in the 20th century, now we're going to play out that whole same battle all over again on the internet. And both things are going to be technological. We're going to see technological fascism, and we're going to see technological liberalism. We're going to see technological decentralization. We're going to see all of these new political movements, but it's a mistake to think that what we're fighting is the technology of the new versus the model of the old. Because both are now playing out, yes, two different futures, both playing out on the internet, and you have to fight for your right to be free and to party. So the last question would be, do you think we're winning? I think we're winning. I think we're winning because as much as people think that the internet is controlled, it is able to spawn surprises. One of those surprises is Bitcoin, and that's why we're here today. As long as the internet is able to spawn surprises like Bitcoin, and Bitcoin is able to spawn its own surprises, and who knows what else is going to come out of the internet, I think we're winning. I'm very happy and very optimistic to be part of this fight. Thank you.