 Hi Andreas, I just wanted to ask you a question about your metaphor, your organic metaphor of the decentralized network developing a resistance to attack. It made me think of the TCPIP technology and how that was, you know, invented to be bomb proof so that you could just, it was like a mesh, you could blow a hole in the mesh and the information would go around the edge of the hole. Although you've characterised the, you know, the confrontation between the old hierarchy that you described and the new decentralised world in a sort of confrontational way, what, you know, as a kind of confrontation, what do you think of the irony that that technology sort of fell into public hands as it were? And, you know, is it possible that there's a cooperative aspect to that confrontation as well, you know, that the old hierarchy at a subconscious level will cooperate with this evolution? Some will, some won't. And again, I'll overuse this metaphor, but if you look at what happened on the internet for the very, the first decade or so, phone companies absolutely hated it, right? So they wrote the propaganda for the media about how the internet could never replace phones, etc., etc. And today, every single phone call we make, especially long distance calls are carried over the internet. The vast majority of the phone networks, the same ones that resisted the internet running on top of them, now run on top of the internet. But what happened? Was it the largest telecommunication companies that adopted this first? No. It was actually the third tier of companies, the ones that could not compete with the large telecommunication companies, that could not compete with the capital, the access to legislatures and the marketing budget. And they said, well, we can't play your game on your terms, but we have this internet thing, and we're going to use it to beat you out of the competition. And so what I predict we'll see is a bifurcation of especially the financial industry, and we're already seeing that. When we say banks, what do we mean? There are different types of banks. There are banks that deal primarily with consumers, that deal with checking and savings and payments for consumers. Most of the world's regional banks are that. They do loans, they do checking, they offer currency. They're not really bad. In many cases, they offer good services. I've had some conversations with very large banks from developing nations, and they do not fear Bitcoin. They see it as an opportunity to expand their services to populations that they can't reach today. And then there's the other kind of bank, the bank that really doesn't have customers. You'll notice that these banks are gradually dropping consumer accounts, and they're focusing primarily on investments and large concentrations of wealth and gaming the stock market and other international markets, where they have significant advantage. And what do these banks do? They don't fund consumers or loans, because consumers and loans are not profitable, and they don't care about expanding their services. They fund oil companies to destroy the rainforest, they fund warmongers to create dictatorships, and they fund other large corporations to create advantages. Those banks are going to have a problem with Bitcoin. In fact, they do, and you can see it in the way they speak about Bitcoin. To them, this is inconceivable. They are now going through what I call the five stages of grief. They started with denial, Bitcoin. Go play, you little hackers. Then they noticed it wasn't going away. So they started getting angry, oh, Bitcoin, criminals, pedophiles, terrorists. The world will end if we allow normal people to control their own money. Next comes bargaining. Hey, we don't like Bitcoin, but blockchain. So that nice, open, decentralized, borderless, peer-to-peer, open innovation, open access system you built. Well, we can build one that is not open, not decentralized, not borderless, not open innovation, and not open access that we control completely. Blockchain! And they're missing the point, because those are not the features to avoid. Those are the features that make it powerful. And so they're bargaining, right? And I can tell you it's not going to work, because blockchains suck at doing the things the banks want to do. Blockchains in the use of Bitcoin with a decentralized consensus algorithm are inefficient, because the inefficiency is the price you pay to get freedom. And if you don't care about freedom, why take the inefficiency? Install a database. And after bargaining comes depression. And this will be a financial depression, because more than 50% of the world is what they call the black market. And more than 4 billion people are cut off. So which economy do you want to serve with your network-centric currency? The big one or the little one that's broken, corrupt, and dying? And that, in the end, will be the depression stage, hopefully followed by acceptance. And some companies are going to do very well in playing in the game of network-centric currencies, of using it to expand access and borders and be able to trade internationally and empower people. They will be the majority. The banking system are dinosaurs. They operate on 70s technology. And you know that dinosaurs have enormous contempt and disdain for the little furry mammals that are running around their ankles. And they spend some time squashing these little mammals that are insignificant. But there's a meteor in the sky. And once the dust settles, the mammals, we win. So this is a confrontational system. But not because we are confronting anyone. It's because we are creating opportunities that some do not want to see. When you reveal the truth at a time of universal lies, that is a revolutionary act. And the revolution in it is not what you say. It is the fact that you go against the lies. Bitcoin is doing that on a global scale today. And many of the other technologies that go with that. I don't look for confrontation, look for inspiration, and positive energy that we can create as community. The banks are really irrelevant in this conversation.