 This next question comes from David about Segwit and batch 32 addresses. Hi, Andrea. Social media brought attention to a transaction of $450 million, with a transaction fee of less than $0.25. A block explorer highlights that the transaction fees in this transaction were 30% lower by using Segwit, meaning to clarify David. That means that if this transaction did not use Segwit in its inputs, then it would have cost 30% more because it would have been 30% bigger in fees. The block explorer also says that a further 16% could be saved by using Segwit batch 32. Could you explain more about this upgraded protocol? Segwit batch 32 isn't an upgraded protocol. It's simply a different address format. Let me explain what's happening here. In order to make the transition to Segwit more comfortable, an interim address proposal, which is wrapped Segwit addresses, was used. What that means is that rather than having the native Segwit addresses, a lot of wallets use Segwit where they wrap a Segwit address inside a pay-to-script hash address. You'll see this online, for example, referred to as P2SH and then in parentheses P2WPKH. What that means is P2WPKH, which is pay-to-witness public key hash, which is the Segwit address, in parentheses wrapped in P2SH, which is pay-to-script hash. An address that is like that, a Segwit address that is wrapped, a Segwit address, starts with a three. That's a script address. It's a traditional Bitcoin script address that existed since 2012, since P2SH was introduced. Inside the script that's actually wrapped is a Segwit script. Instead, however, you can use a native Segwit address. A native Segwit address starts with BC1 and uses a batch 32 encoding. When you see an address that has a lot of lower case alphabetic letters that start with BC1, usually it's BC1Q, and then a whole bunch of lower case letters, that is a batch 32 encoded native Segwit address. Because that address is not wrapped inside a pay-to-script hash address, it doesn't have a script hash in it. Therefore, the address and the spending script are actually shorter, 16% shorter because they don't include the script hash. And so when you spend from money that has been sent to a native batch 32 Segwit address, instead of a wrapped P2SH Segwit address, it costs 16% less because you have 16% smaller transaction because the inputs don't have the full script hash in them. But they immediately go to a native Segwit address. Of course, in order to do that, you have the other problem, which is many wallets don't support native Segwit batch 32 addresses yet, and that's because they haven't been upgraded fast enough. It's been two years now. Recently, someone visited the Antonov shop to buy a product, and they said, I can't buy the product, my wallet doesn't recognize your addresses. Why are you using BC1 Segwit addresses? And the answer is, well, one, because I want to save 16%, and two, because I don't want to be stuck in the past. The native Segwit addresses are the future of Bitcoin, and therefore we should be using the most efficient address format that exists, which is native Segwit addresses. And if your wallet doesn't support native Segwit addresses two years after their introduction, you need a new wallet. And so part of my motivation of using those in the shop is so that I can go back to customers and go, hey, you need a new wallet. And that's why you save 16% of space.