 We have coin joints now. We have quite a few implementations of coin joints. Can you explain to us how the coin joints will make their business model irrelevant, and how they won't make any sense pretty much? Thanks. Thank you so much. Coin join isn't really a specific technology. It's a model for doing multi-party transactions. So in cryptocurrencies that use a transaction coin model, or UTXO model, like Bitcoin and many of its variants, you can do a transaction that is a multi-party transaction. A transaction is not from two, with a single party from and a single party to. A transaction has inputs and outputs in crypto, like Bitcoin. And what that means is the inputs which are each signed independently, and the outputs which are each delivered independently don't have to belong to the same people. So imagine as if you write 20 blank checks that are signed by 20 people who control that money. You put them in a big bucket, and then you hand them out to various people you need to pay. And everybody can make sure that the person they wanted to be paid is paid. But eventually you can't tell who paid who, or who was even participating. That's called a coin join. There are a number of different technical implementations for a coin join that allow parties to collaborate. The greatest, largest coin join happened two days ago. It had a hundred participants, so a hundred people paying in, a hundred payouts. And these kinds of things, because of the architecture of the system fundamentally undermine the attempts at analytics, but not enough. Because you can still do statistical analysis on these in order to connect one of these transactions to the KYC endpoint of an exchange, which is a big source of surveillance data, and use that to de-anonymize participants and payments. So coin join isn't enough. And in fact, the European Union has now said that participating in a coin join is illegal. And the other six billion don't give a shit. They've already been called illegals. They've been called illegal people. So if illegal people commit illegal acts, whatever, what are they going to be? Double illegal? When an act like that is the difference between you feeding your children or not, then the law is immoral itself. And I'm not encouraging people to break the law. I'm encouraging people to achieve justice by the means they have at their disposal. Coin join is not enough because we also need to obfuscate the amounts of payments. And that is an entire area of science called zero-knowledge proofs and range proofs, confidential transactions where the actual value of the payment is encrypted. So you can't see how much money is being transferred, which breaks the statistical analysis even further. But in order for these tools to be effective at providing people the universal privacy that we have with cash, which for thousands of years gave people the freedom to transact and apparently did not result in the end of civilization, we need to go further. We need to have these tools on by default in every wallet. And so in some countries, that's going to be made illegal. And those countries are going to rob their own citizens of the basic elements of financial privacy, which is a human right, in my opinion. But they're also going to do is remove themselves from the innovation train of this technology. You can't remove crypto from your country. But you can't remove your country from crypto. And so many of our governments are trying to do exactly that. Don't worry, there's plenty of people in the world who need it and will not pay attention to any silly law, their corrupt governments pass. So coin join, I think only 4% of coins are held in UTXOs that have been obfuscated. And the last answer you mentioned that the regulations would happen on the margins on these on and off ramps. But now we have fat foot coming trying to impose the travel rule on these yes on and off ramps and 20% of coins are held just in Zappo Coinbase Crack in Binance. That's not really the margins. It seems to me that there is an immediate threat of kind of a bifurcation of the network, which has been discussed for years, but seems to be coming at us quite quickly. How do you think that might play out in the coming months or years? Financial privacy underpins the right to freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom of the vote, freedom of assembly. Because without those basic financial privacy rights, if everything you do can be tracked through your payments, your purchases, then all of your associations and all of your expression and all of your acts of freedom can then be punished after the fact severely enough to deter anyone from exercising those freedoms. We've got to think about two aspects of restraint. One is a priori restraint, right, which is explicitly prohibited in, for example, the US Constitution. And of course in the British Constitution, oh, sorry, tough point there, you don't have one. And so a priori restraint is only one part of the picture because expo's facto restraints through chilling effects is just as important. We have a situation in crypto today where privacy hasn't been given sufficient importance. And that's a very dangerous path. I believe that the biggest step we need to make in terms of development in Bitcoin, for example, is better privacy. And we see a lot of experiments happening right now, including zero-knowledge proofs and range proofs that could lead us to higher degrees of privacy. The next few proposed improvements to the Bitcoin protocol actually involve very privacy-centric improvements, and I'm very glad to see that. But the other thing you've got to realize is that one of the elements of engineering that is almost always true is you don't optimize for a problem that doesn't exist yet. And the problem here is that the erosion of privacy and the ability to do statistical analysis isn't visible to the average user. It doesn't affect them to lose their financial privacy because most of them already have financial privilege and they already have very little financial privacy and they're not being actively persecuted. All we're looking for is a couple of direct attacks against people who have lost their financial privacy that way. And what you're going to see is an enormous immune response by the entire crypto space. And it will start developing privacy features faster than you can imagine. We already saw this in the peer-to-peer space with the evolution of Napster. Napster was the friendly cuddly bearer of peer-to-peer file sharing. It was the one that wanted desperately to make a deal with the music industry. But they said no, and they shut it down. So Nutella popped up and they shut it down. So LimeWire popped up and they shut it down. So BitTorrent popped up and they can't shut it down. They evolved decentralization by creating exactly the kind of hostile stimulus than a directed evolution technology that can move and mutate fast enough by the most creative and determined people who you can't hire because they're not interested in money. When that arms race, by evolving and mutating that technology until it can resist the attack, Nicholas Nassim Taleb calls these systems anti-fragile. There are systems that not only resist attack, but in the process of being attacked, evolve strength and become more and more robust. The internet is an anti-fragile system and open blockchains are anti-fragile systems. I'm not worried. We already have privacy-centric blockchains, and those blockchains are leading the path in terms of research in order to help us adopt these in a more generic way across the board. We've learned the lesson of the internet. The internet had insufficient encryption and privacy, and that gave a lot of governments the opportunity to co-opt our information. Hopefully we will not repeat that mistake. And so here's my little prediction. Bitcoin is the cuddly little gecko of cryptocurrencies. If they try to stomp on the cuddly little gecko, it will start evolving. It will start evading. It will become stealthier. It will grow teeth and nails. And one day it will become, or something very much like it, or something that simply has the name, but none of the original characteristics will become the komodo dragon of cryptocurrencies. And if you try to step on a komodo dragon, it will bite your fucking foot off. Now, do we want to play with the cuddly cryptocurrencies by accepting that in free and open societies, the ability of people to transact freely and with privacy should be celebrated as a fundamental human right that protects our freedoms, our democracy, our ability to express ourselves? Or should we be so paralyzed by fear that in order to stop a few bad actors, we engage not only in collective punishment of the innocent, but we then give the levers of totalitarian surveillance to the few who will abuse them. Let the little gecko do its thing. It will bring freedom to the world. It will actually solve many of the problems we have today that we've created through financial inclusion, or exclusion.