 My question is just around the next couple of weeks and months with Bitcoin. Yes. Would you be able to just focus through or provide some comments in relation to the whole segway of the scaling issues with Bitcoin and how do you think that will play out over the next month or two with a few of the key dates coming up? Well, I wasn't prepared for that question because I didn't think anybody was going to ask me that tonight or bring me the way I just have had. Okay, so first let me get a quick feel for the audience. How many people have heard of forks or segwits in this audience? Okay, great. And how many people understand what forks and segwits are? About half of the previous group. All right. So Bitcoin within its protocol has this ability to fork, which means partition, split in two. And this is because when you have coordination of 10,000 computers around the world, if they disagree, you have to have a way for them to temporarily disagree and then come back together and agree again. And the blockchain does this. It's a fork function. It happens two or three times a week. Nobody even notices it. And the reason it happens is in order to keep all of these systems synchronized. So if one side of the network maybe goes out of sync for one block, then by the next block they reconverge. There's a different kind of fork, which is when the rules change, but only part of the network changes the rules. Remember I was talking about these lots of rules you have to validate. So one of the fundamental rules is how big is a block? Today there is a rule in the system that says a block is one meg. That's it. Every ten minutes, one meg, six megs an hour, 144 megs a day, that's it for capacity. You have to fit your transaction in that space. And that causes some fees and capacity issues. So some people want to change that rule and say how about two meg or four meg or eight meg or whatever meg. But in order to do that, they either have to convince everyone or they end up splitting the network so that they go off and do their own Bitcoin, which has different set of rules than the other Bitcoin that has the original set of rules. And that's called a contentious fork. There's been an ongoing scaling debate for the last two years which is about how to make Bitcoin support more transactions. And the problem isn't that it's difficult to make Bitcoin support more transactions. The problem is it's difficult to make Bitcoin support more transactions without giving more power to some participants than others. So keeping it free and open and decentralized while doing more transactions is the hard question. The easy answer is let's make it less free and open. But a lot of people in Bitcoin don't like that answer, so they're not willing to do that. So that's the debate that's been going on. It's coming to a head on August 1st in just about three weeks with three competing proposals working at the same time. One is a proposal that is called segregated witness, which is to restructure transactions in such a way as to have two parts to a transaction, one which contains the signatures and one which contains everything else. Signatures are a big part of the transaction. This reorganization also increases the space by about 1.7. So you get about twice, almost twice the amount of space to do transactions. And an alternative proposal is to just increase the block size by two. And the third transaction is to do both. And it's called segment 2x, which is to first do segment and then three months later also increase the size of the block by two megabytes. Those are competing at the moment. And the way this competition works is that everybody gets to choose what software they use. And when you run a specific set of software, if you run your own Bitcoin software, or if you choose a specific wallet or a specific exchange, the software they're running determines the outcome. Then depending on how many people are running different sets of rules at the end of the day, there might be a change in the other levels, if enough people agree. If this plays out, as I expect, and many people expect, we're going to have a fairly uneventful situation. 85% of the network is going to change the rules on July 31st, August 1st. We're going to have a new network which will have Segwit activated. Everybody's money continues to run as it was before all of the transactions continue to operate as they were before. There is a small possibility that you have a small chain of the 10%, 15%, or 20% who disagree, and they could create a separate Bitcoin. Now, if that happens, pay attention, because this is important. If you control your Bitcoin, that means if you have a wallet that controls your own Bitcoin, not your money parked in an exchange, if you put your money on an exchange, you don't control it, the exchange does, and it matters what they will choose to do. But if you control it, if you have it on a wallet, then after such a fork, you now control Bitcoin on both sides. If you have one Bitcoin before, now you have one Bitcoin Alpha and one Bitcoin Beta. Then you can choose to keep both or sell one, buy more of the other, do whatever you want. All you have to do is do nothing for a few days before and a few days after to see how things play out. But you must control your own Bitcoin. If you do not control your own Bitcoin, if you put your Bitcoin on an exchange, you are violating the most important rule of Bitcoin. The point is about individual participants controlling their own systems, not trusting somebody else with their money. We already have a system of institutions where you can trust someone else with your own money. It's called banking. The problem is that in order to trust other people with your money, you have to have all of these organizations whose main purpose is to make sure that those people don't run away with your money because they have a tendency to keep doing that. Pretty much anytime in humanity, someone has been trusted with other people's money. Very quickly after that, they've ran away with the money. Banking is two systems. It's a system where other people hold your money, and it's a whole other system where people watch them to make sure they don't run away with the money. Bitcoin isn't like that. You hold your own money. If you give your money to an exchange for them to hold for you, here's the problem. There is no system watching them to make sure they don't run away, and guess what they're going to do?