 Well, I mean, I don't have a crystal ball, but I would anticipate that if so-called digital currencies like Bitcoin, and there are many other brands that are trying to do the same sorts of things as Bitcoin, if they continue to be successful, if they are adopted by more and more people, if they begin to be used by more and more businesses, accepted by businesses, used for more and more transactions, so that they become more like money, I think it's very likely that the government will do everything that it can to try to regulate and control and get its hands into the operation of these currencies. But there's a more fundamental point sort of at stake here. You know, personally, I'm all in favor of these cryptocurrencies. I think they're great entrepreneurial experiments. I wish their creators well. I think it's great if people want to use them. I've even dabbled in some of these myself, but I'm not convinced that the widespread adoption of these kinds of currencies is necessarily going to lead to a dramatic reduction in the role of government in the economy. And here's why. As Mises always emphasized, to get economic freedom, to bring about improvements and economic conditions, we really need people to have the right ideas. In other words, ideology is more important than technology. Unfortunately, at present, most people in the U.S. and other Western countries, all countries tend to have a fairly, they tend to accept a sort of paternalistic interventionist government. Most people believe that government intervention is for their own benefit. The government just wants to help them out. The government is here to protect against market failure, the excesses of capitalism and so on. And as long as people continue to have that mindset, my concern is that they will voluntarily give up control of their private digital wallets and other technologies that they use for transactions rather than use them to bypass the state. They'll sort of hand them over to the state. There was an op-ed in the Washington Post just a couple of days ago about Bitcoin pointing out that the value of Bitcoin relative to the U.S. dollar has fluctuated quite a lot in recent weeks, calling for a central banker for Bitcoin. What Bitcoin and other digital currencies need, according to the Washington Post, is some government planner who can regulate the supply to keep the prices stable and so forth. Now, most of us would scoff at such a recommendation. And indeed, digital currencies were created precisely to prevent that kind of monetary smoothing on the part of a central authority. But as long as most users of digital currencies continue to believe in Keynesian economics and a benevolent dictator role for the state, it's quite likely that they would also embrace such calls for regulation. Now, some of these digital currency technologies don't allow for artificial manipulation of the supply. That's one of their key selling points. But who knows what sort of regulations people would call for or embrace. People, consumers might switch away from something like Bitcoin and move towards another currency that in which the keys are given to the state, in which the Fed has control over the digital currency, because they don't understand the reason for separating money and the state. That's why educational organizations like the Mises Institute are so important. It's great to have available technologies that allow us to bypass some of the state's interventions in the economy. But ultimately to bring about long term social change, we need to change the way people think. We need an ideological revolution and not just a technological one.