 I would like to ask you a question about something that you just mentioned briefly which was the lightning network. Yes. And this is something that fascinates me a lot. And I still remember like the first time I read about Bitcoin and I was up all night just by how fascinated I was by it. And I had the same experience actually. I followed the debate about the scaling debate and everything. And then I read about the lightning network and I thought to myself, oh god damn it, they sold it, they sold it. And because that's really what I felt, what I feel about the lightning network. But that was almost, I think, two years ago now. Yes. And I'm wondering, because I've also read about the Segwit soft fork, I think it's called. Yes. But my current understanding is actually that we can, or not I, but the smart guys, they can implement lightning network on top of the existing Bitcoin network without Segwit. And I'm just wondering. Yes. As you said before, like everyone should have their first experience with making a Bitcoin transaction. Is it actually possible for me right now to have my first experience with making a lightning network transaction just to feel that I'm sort of part of the solution? Without segregated witness, which is a transaction value ability fix, it's an architecture change the way transactions are organized. Lightning can work, but it removes some very useful features. So when you're using Bitcoin, you don't have to be online in order to receive Bitcoin from someone. With lightning, you do have to be online in order to initiate. And then you also have to remain online and monitor the channel to prevent the other party from unilaterally closing the channel in a way that cheats you out of your balance. And lightning has this fascinating market-based game theory where your software is watching the channel. And if the other party tries to close it unilaterally and steal the balance, you have a certain time, about eight hours, to transmit a competing transaction that actually takes everything. So the punishment for trying to cheat in lightning is you lose everything. But in order to apply that punishment so that the other party doesn't try to cheat, you have to be online. Now, if Segwit is passed, there's another way to do this, which is really fascinating, where you can outsource for a fee the monitoring of the payment channel to a third party who knows absolutely nothing about the channel. They don't know how much money you have in the channel, they don't know who the channel is with, and they can monitor for that for you. And you don't have to be online anymore. If someone tries to steal from your channel, they get a little cut of the penalty, make a bit of money on that, and you don't have to remain online. But the only way to do that is if Segwit is running. We need transaction availability fixed to do that. So lightning with Segwit is much better for privacy and for security than lightning without Segwit, even though we can do it. It's much more usable, much more straightforward, much more easy for the users, because then that can be handled transparently. So I would much rather wait a bit. But if you want to try it out, you can try it out on Tesla today. I've already been running a lightning node now for five months, and what happened in the two years since it was first discussed was they built it. And they built it with full end-to-end, multi-hop, onion-routed encryption that will increase Bitcoin's privacy substantially, and make Bitcoin a much more anonymous network and much more difficult to analyze, which is fantastic.