 A couple days ago I read an article on news that some company invented an editable blockchain and I thought, wow, finally we solved world hunger and we did a little bit of blockchain. Then I read it again and it was editable, so I'm just facepalmed. The question is, how do we hinder random suits of patenting random stuff in this space and hindering the innovation that is happening by the whole fact of this thing being open-sourced? I'm not really worried about patents because patents really affect only the commercial companies in the space that are interested in doing commercial and proprietary technology. Quite honestly, if they're not fighting against patents, getting organized creates patent pools, which I have suggested and participated in groups to do, then they are going to pay the price. They're going to spend a lot of their time in litigation over stupid crappy patents, so the things that are common generic algorithms or systems that were invented by other people. We're going to see these fights break out and quite honestly, they're not going to affect the most important thing, which is the broadly available volunteer-basable open-sourced software that we really care about because you can't stop that with patents. They will slow down the proprietary software companies. They live in a world they built, and they're not actually doing enough to fight these parasitic patents companies. I think you're going to see that problem. As for patenting an editable blockchain, I've expressed my confusion as to why someone would miss the fact that irreversibility of a contractual agreement between two parties, one that may allow for refunds and multi-sig and consumer protection programmed in, or may just be a payment. That irreversibility is not a bug. It is one of the most useful features of this. It is a system that encourages autonomy instead of authority. It dodges the fundamental question of, if you have authority to change and edit the blockchain, editable blockchain is nice. It's passive voice, isn't it? Well, they patented it as a system by which they can edit the blockchain. It's important to understand who the subject in that sentence is. An editable blockchain is a blockchain that can be edited, which brings up the question by whom and under what circumstances, which is the most important question. An editable blockchain that can be edited by a committee, an institutional authority, a hierarchy, a government agency, whatever, whatever, whatever, is really not a useful construct. We already have those. Again, I refer you to SQL databases with digital signatures. We already have institutional money, we already have authoritarian systems, we already have systems of authority and control and censorship. What we have now is non-editable systems of freedom and autonomy and censorship resistance and free expression, and the ability to enter into contracts between individuals that are encoded in a Bitcoin script, and which are absolutely inviolable and guaranteed to perform exactly as expected. At least in the Bitcoin system, with its constraints, that is a promise that is very, very strong, and that strong promise is not a buck. It's one of the most interesting features. I expect the next patent they're going to file is for the open-air convertible sub-grain, with a drop-down soft top, and other things like that, which are maybe the microwave oven without the door, so you can get a tan while you're cooking your burrito. All of these are things that they can patent. Patent-things doesn't mean it's useful, novel, or interesting. It just means that you first pay the consultant to come up with a nonsense, and then pay the lawyer to make that nonsense part of the permanent record, so that you can be forever embarrassed by it.