 So one of the sort of experiments that, one of the experimental results, the unintended experimental results of the DAF failure was the Hartfork of Ethereum. Yes. So just in your view, given that there's sort of the chatter in the Bitcoin community around Hartforking with Unlimited and what's happening there, what lessons, what positive lessons and what other lessons will learn from the Ethereum Hartfork? I mean, the Hartfork was a fantastic learning opportunity. It's a tempered discussion of Hartfork in Bitcoin very strongly. I said at the time, I think during the first week, that I thought that the Hartfork had executed technically in a very successful way. And then when ETC retargeted its difficulty and continued to go on and then started again enlisting in exchange, I was proven wrong. So technically it had failed politically, technically it succeeded, politically it failed. It failed in a very big way, causing all kinds of problems in an 8-12 month setback for Ethereum. That became a salient lesson for Bitcoin and for the potential damage, especially in a system that is $20 billion and with much more contention as to what a contentious Hartfork could do. And that was a very useful lesson. The question is, is that a lesson worth a billion dollars? Because that was the cost, right? So the cost of the fork was about a billion dollars. That's not the kind of price you want to pay for an experiment. So if the rules and startups fail fast, fail cheap, that was slow and damn expensive, not a good way to learn a lesson, but we did learn something from it. And I've learned a few things I think I'll continue learning as we see how it progresses. One is that all cryptocurrencies get one mulligan, right? So a mulligan in golf is where you move and then you say, can I do that again? And you get one more, right? What? You get one. You get to try that shot again. Bitcoin got a mulligan, right? It's like, oh, a block, just mined $192 billion Bitcoin. Oops. All the way enough, concentrated enough. Satoshi goes, that didn't happen. Run this code, didn't happen. If you didn't get a mulligan, the cost of that mulligan is that it put Vitalik in a position to make very difficult decisions. That is going to force a permanent handicap. Because Satoshi disappeared, but Vitalik, we know where he lives. I mean, honestly, that's a terrible burden to put on one person. And it will cause difficulties down the road. So I don't think that was worth paying the price. And the lesson of the hard fork for other cryptocurrencies is that things can go much differently than you planned. And there will always be someone who to their dying breath will not, you will only take these coins from my cold dead hands, right? And as soon as you have classic, then you're going to have classic, classic, and classic, like, you get all of these other tendencies to fragments. I don't think the story is over yet. So you were talking about the Bitcoin Unlimited fork. You probably missed the news today. Anybody else catch the news today? Hmm. Oops. So a bug was discovered in Bitcoin Unlimited, which is a remote export that allowed you to take down a Bitcoin Unlimited mode with a single message. So someone went 400 times and took down the entire Bitcoin Unlimited network in an afternoon. What's interesting is if this had happened, this happened now, and a lot of Bitcoin Unlimited people were quite upset about the possibility of someone exploiting this, oh, they should not be upset. They should be very, very relieved. Because imagine what would have happened if someone conniving malicious or just sociopathic enough and decided to hold on to that and launched it 20 blocks into a contentious fork. You're 20 blocks ahead. Let's make a reorg. Down goes the entire majority fork. And you have a big problem. I mean, that would have wiped out millions of dollars, both in rewards and in transactions and caused a big disruption. So it's best to find these bugs early. I think that was another lesson, which is that there are issues with quality of code. And quality of code is something that does not happen by having the best developers. If you depend on having the best developers, then you can't work in the real world. Because in the real world, developers come in a bell curve. And you want contributors. What you need is a QA process that takes that bell curve and produces quality code at the end of it. That way, you don't depend on the developers being superstars. You depend on a process that turns their code into super code, even if they're not superstars. That's a mature system. So what we saw here was a QA system that delivered approximately 1,000 times the bugs for the amount of code written, in the case of Bitcoin Unlimited, compared to Core. How do you fix that? The problem is, the way you fix that is you get 1,000 times better developers. Those don't exist. A 1,000-times skill upgrade is not going to happen. So QA and process matters, as does having a very large, diverse team. And that's another lesson that comes out from these contentious disagreements. In the end, the impact is minimal and Bitcoin benefits. One more bug squashed. Everybody moves forward. So I think the bottom line is that Ethereum has a fantastic opportunity to learn from all of the mistakes Bitcoin is making. And as of recently, Bitcoin had a lot of opportunities to learn from some of the mistakes Ethereum is making. And that's great. That's what an ecosystem does. And it will be good for all digital currencies. That's how we mature as an entire ecosystem, rather than fighting little, internecine battles against each other. Because if we win one of these little battles against each other, the banks are standing by to stomp on the whole space. All right. Thank you very much for coming today.