 If the Bitcoin blockchain was up against, hypothetically, a well-funded government or some consortium, how was it not necessary to get financial benefit from it, but to actually inhibit its existence? Would that be a concern? I would argue that that is already happening. You know, little Bitcoin is currently poking the $100 trillion banking industry going, hey, we want that. So yes, well-funded opponents, the best-funded opponents. We have them, the greatest. So, if they use some kind of internal consensus attack to attack Bitcoin, and to thwart its ability to develop new blocks, essentially a develop-service attack, that would be a very interesting scenario. First of all, it would be noticed pretty quickly. And second, it would immediately lead to creating countermeasures. And when something attacks you and you develop countermeasures, that's a form of immunity. And through immunity, you have a form of evolution, which means that Bitcoin will evolve resistance to that kind of attack. And then it will get attacked again, it will evolve resistance to that kind of attack. And it is being attacked today, and it is evolving resistance. Not to those kinds of attacks yet, but when they come, it will evolve resistance to those, too. Why? Because it is a massively decentralized system, with a lot of independent tactors, who are guiding its evolution towards protecting the system against these kinds of attacks. So it is going to evolve much faster than a biological system, and it is going to evolve immunity. Meaning that what the well-funded opponent is actually doing is training Bitcoin on how to win. They are inoculating it against those attacks, and whatever doesn't kill it only makes it stronger. So that is not the way you want to go after a decentralized system. I don't know that there are any good ways to go after a decentralized system, but I know that will backfire badly.