Record on this computer. All right, we are live. All right, welcome to the Sunny Ray Show. Today we've got Jameson Lopp, one of my favorite people, definitely in Bitcoin, maybe on the planet. So Jameson, thank you for for spending some time with us. And yeah, maybe start with an intro. Yeah, good to see you again, virtually, at least. As for myself, I mean, I've been in the space for a while, started getting interested as a hobbyist. Ooh, that was a good eight years ago, and started building some open source projects for a few years trying to better understand Bitcoin and then was fortunate to be able to go full time around early 2015. And really since then have been focused on a very boring problem that I believe continues to persist in the space, which is just how do we make it easier for people to manage their private keys? How do we continue to push forward the fulfillment of Bitcoin's promise of being your own bank? Because it's always been possible, but it's generally been relegated to the people who are technical or who are willing to spend a lot of time and resources learning how to do it right. So if we really want to keep pushing this space forward in a decentralized fashion, then I think we continue to make it easier and easier and understand where the pain points are around key management. Cool. So why don't we start there and get a bit deeper on that topic? Because you're right, I do also believe that it's something that's incredibly important and it barely gets talked about. And so, okay, so let's start with the question of like, why is it important for people to hold Bitcoin? And that might help to maybe even proceed that question with like, you know, why is Bitcoin important? But yeah, we'd love to kind of dive into that a bit more with you. Yeah, you know, there's a few different approaches. You can take the more technical approach, the more philosophical approach. Generally, I kind of take a blended approach to all of this, where, you know, what is the reason that I got into Bitcoin in the first place? And that was because I felt like money as an abstract concept should not be something that is dictated by a small group of people like money, as an open source project fundamentally made sense to me. And I felt like it was humanity's best hope towards making at least a fairer type of monetary system, you know, it's probably never going to be perfect. But at least if anyone who cares enough can give their input, then hopefully we'll get to a system that while it may not be perfect for everyone, hopefully it is at least less harmful for more people because you don't have a few people controlling it at their own whim and to their own benefit. So if we assume, okay, Bitcoin has already done a pretty good job of doing that, of being an open project where anyone who really cares can contribute, then how do we prevent it from sliding back, you know, towards what the current financial system is like? And in order to do that, we need to keep the power as decentralized as possible, as spread out as much as possible. We need to empower the individual. And for individuals to be empowered, they need to be able to take control of what is like the ultimate security model of Bitcoin, which is commonly referred to as trustlessness and permissionlessness. Though you know, there's a whole lot of gotchas underneath those words. But what I really see that as is you are running your own software and you're using your own hardware to verify the entire state of the system and to directly control your private keys so that you're not having to ask anyone for permission to use your money, and you're not having to trust any third party that your mom is actually there. And that means, you know, you need to have your own self custody system, preferably be running your own fully validating node, you know, from a technical perspective. And this is where you start getting into all of the technical tricky things that can turn a lot of people off because the average person just wants to go to a website and click some buttons. And so now we get into this whole issue of, you know, the sort of the spectrum of convenience versus security versus privacy, and all the other trade offs that people make. And, you know, the the freedom of a system like this is that people should be able to have the freedom to choose to trade off security or privacy for convenience. But at the very least, I think we should try to, you know, lower the bar as much as possible to get into a high security posture. And hopefully, you know, the lower we can make that bar, the more people will opt into a better security environment. And the result of all of these different individuals opting into that is that we make the whole system actually stronger and more resilient, because we're not putting all of the money into the hands of a few people once again. So I don't want to spend like a whole bunch of time because we could probably spend like the whole conversation just on these two next two questions. But I think before we can make or before we can dive deep into this argument of like, you need to hold your own private keys, we need to touch on two things. So one is well, you know, you made this this comment that money should be open source, right? And this sounds super weird. But one thing I found is, is that even though most people are like waking up early, going to sleep late at night, getting divorces and wars, and like trying to like make that, you know, cash, when you ask most people, what is money? Like, what really is it? You just like kind of stop there. It's like crickets. And it's literally an infinite number of answers that I've received, which I find super interesting, because it's like, what? How does that even happen? But what is money? You know, maybe in a paragraph or two, you know, if we had to try and really distill it down to its main, main essence. Yeah, and really, I don't expect most people to understand money. I mean, I don't expect most people to understand most things, the world is such a complicated place. And we have a finite amount of time and resources, you can only focus on a few things, you know, this is why humanity has evolved the way it has to construct these hierarchical systems because that enables specialization and specialization allows for greater efficiency. And you know, that's how we become more productive, both individually and collectively. So what is money? I mean, money is just the way that we decide who owes who what, that's, that's the simplest way I can think of to describe it, because that then can encompass any number of different systems and encompass the fact that money is whatever we collectively agree is money. And then of course, you have the whole question of what is consensus? How do we agree upon it? What are the properties that result in humanity in general converging on certain types of systems to be money? But you know, there, there are properties that make money more appealing. And that is things like, you know, having the ability to have some decent idea that the value that you put in the money is going to be somewhat the same at some point in the future as it is right now. There are great properties, such as the ability to pay someone without having to worry about whether or not the money is going to get to where it's going. There are privacy properties of the ability to send it without the entire world necessarily knowing what economic transactions are performing. But, you know, that's getting a lot more into the minutiae. And you can even get into economic arguments about whether money has to have certain properties. Ultimately, I don't think it really matters, you know, whether one specific system fits all the criteria of money or not. Money is money if people use it as such, and it works for them. Very interesting, very interesting. And then this notion of wealth, I mean, there's been many attempts of trying to make money digital, right? I mean, you could argue that my bank account, right, is to some extent is digital, right? I don't really actually handle cash all that much. My credit card seems to work on ones and zeros. So I guess like, I guess the deeper question here that I was wondering is like, when was your aha moment? When were you like, ah, like, yes, like, this can actually potentially work? Like, when was it? Like, did it take a couple times before you were like, yeah, there's actually something here? I'm curious to know your kind of, you know, deep dive story. Well, you know, like most people, I heard about Bitcoin a number of times and dismissed it as, you know, nerd money that was going to get hacked, and everybody was going to, you know, have a story that ended in tears. And so, unfortunately, we'll never remember the first time I heard about Bitcoin, because I know I heard about it several times before I actually looked into it. And, you know, it was probably the third or fourth time that it came up on Slashdot or some other news site, where I actually looked into it, I actually read the white paper. And the computer science side of me was like, oh, you know, this is intriguing. Like, first of all, I never really thought about how money works. And then second of all, I certainly never thought about this Byzantine generals problem before. It's just not something that was in my field of computer science of what I was building with web apps back in the day. And so that's what sparked my interest. And then it wasn't until I actually jumped through all the hoops of sending wire transfers and actually getting some Bitcoin, and then being able to exchange it for other things of value that I realized that, you know, this is actually money, it actually works as such. And it's a project that I think is worth, you know, putting my time into. Interesting, interesting. Okay, so it's okay. So money is, money is, Bitcoin is, and then you have this, I guess, this moment in time. And before we get into that kind of the costs, I want to dig that I want to dig deep into that. And I think there's a lot of stuff that we need to explore. But before we do, I wanted to just ask you a couple of questions. So to me, you know what, you're like a technical guy, right? So you know, the word like unit step function, you know what that means, right? Like zero, and then you go to like one, right? To me, when I, and I was in the financial industry back in the day as well. And so when I first discovered Bitcoin, there was a part of me that felt like it was like this zero to one moment, you know, it was like, it brought all these like different like philosophical and like, you know, whether it's like, economical theory, game theory, you had like cryptography, you had all these like really, really interesting things coming together to solve quite possibly one of the biggest problems, you know, that we've ever faced. But, you know, since then, there's been a lot of noise, right in this space as well. And, and some could argue that it's innovation, right? Some could say, well, no, there's actually like crazy, awesome things happening there. And then you've got this like, you've got Bitcoin, you've got like innovation, question mark, and then you've got like, rujas and like the one coins of the world, right? So how does one who isn't dedicating their life to this, this world to this craft, right? How are they to figure out what's real and what's not? Because there's a lot of projects right in this space. I'm just curious, like you seem like you have a like a moral compass almost that you've used to kind of navigate over the last few years. And I'm just curious to get a bit of pulse on that. Like, what kind of principles, what kind of things are you looking for? And again, like, there's been so much innovation in this space, how come Jameson's not, you know, writing, you know, tweets and blogs and doing podcasts, and why aren't you building your company around that? I'm curious. So what is it? So not so much about the fiat world, I get, you know, how we kind of relate to that, but like, it's whole everything after world, like, what are your thoughts on it? Well, it's it's a very simple breadth versus depth type of issue. And you're certainly when Ethereum came out, I was paying attention to it. I mean, to my own detriment, I am certainly not good at evaluating projects as investment potential. And so I certainly try not to give any sort of financial advice, because I was there, I, I could have put a lot of money into Ethereum, and I didn't. And, you know, the main reason for it was that I read the terms of the Ethereum ICO. And in the terms was a section that said, you know, we're not going to promise that we're ever going to deliver any software, much less working software, much less, you know, meeting any of the grand ideals that we're promising the system can do. So, you know, unfortunately, for me, that turned me off. And I should have like realized at the time that it was just, you know, legalese, you know, cover your butt type of stuff. But what do I do as an approach to all of this? I mean, I simply don't have the time to keep track of all of the new projects that are coming out. You know, you could very easily turn that into a full time job. And there are plenty of people who do and then, you know, speculate based upon their own evaluation of the different projects and the different teams. I would say, you know, I spent a decent amount of time looking at some of the more popular projects that were coming out like during the 2017 cycle. And, you know, most of them were just utter trash. There's plenty of red flags that give away a scam project. And that is usually things like white papers that are word salad or that are straight up, you know, copied from other white papers, websites that are more focused on marketing aspects and, you know, the team of people behind them rather than the actual technology and, you know, innovative functionality that they're building. You know, there's a ton of ways to evaluate different projects. And for me, it's just I don't really think it's worth my time because the vast majority, probably 95 plus percent of them are not going to go anywhere. And so I could spend a ton of time trying to find the diamond in the rough and maybe invest in them or try to help them or whatever. But for me, I see Bitcoin as the one that's, you know, the greatest in the lead. It has a clear vision of what it's trying to accomplish, you know, keeping things simple, trying to be the best money possible. And it's a long ways from being what I would consider optimal money. So we still have a ton of work to do. And I want to continue working to fulfill that singular goal. And, you know, perhaps if we get to the point that I feel like we have fulfilled the optimal vision of Bitcoin, then perhaps I will start looking at other projects in the space, but not necessarily even like the crypto finance space. My objective at a very high level, when I first transitioned from just doing like data analysis for a marketing company to the Bitcoin space, my high goal that I basically set for myself was from that point forward to use my skills and my resources to help empower individuals. And, you know, whatever I feel is going to help with that is what I'm going to work on. So Bitcoin is like the obvious, most straightforward solution to that right now. There are plenty of other technologies that fulfill similar type of objectives, but in different ways. And so that at a very high level is what I want to do. And the reason that I want to do that is because I kind of see it as an issue of power in the world today, where I think too much power has been concentrated in the hands of too few people. And I believe that technology and my skills as a technologist give me the greatest leverage to help try to, you know, reverse some of that flow of power. Very interesting. Very interesting. Okay, so now I'm diving a bit deeper into why, I'm going to say one thing, just one quick thing is that, you know, I'm always trying to think of different ways of explaining Bitcoin to people. And more recently, it kind of dawned on me that what I'm actually, I would say, defeating or beating by buying Bitcoin is time, which I'd argue is maybe all of our, you know, biggest nemesis, right? You know, whether you're like, whether you're thinking about what's happening in the future or some relationship you were in years ago, whether it's like, you know, death, just having like a finite point in time, whether it's fearing old age, whatever it is, I'd say, by death, I mean, generally time is what we're all fighting against. And I always found that when my mentality wrapped around fiat, there was never enough time, there was always, there's always me kind of like running to try and there's always more months than money, as I always say, like, you know, it was like, just never like, whether it's like taxes and inflation, and, you know, just like the, just everything just working against me. And it just felt like I was never gonna get off this treadmill. Whereas as soon as I bought my first Satoshi in 2011 or 12, it wasn't even about like, buying it and selling it, it was more about like this one way portal into timelessness and into a world where I wouldn't have to constantly look, you know what I mean, like feel like I was running out of time. But I find like the decentralized, not the decentralized, but the fact that it's like limited and all that it kind of lends to it. But, but sovereignty, right? So speak to me about key management, speaking about a little bit about, I guess, from a high level, you know, what is casa doing, right? You know, in terms of like, what is the solution, and then a bit deeper into kind of what, like how you guys are actually enabling, you know, sovereignty, how you're enabling people to, you know, become owners of their own future, their own time. Yeah, I mean, money is basically time storage, right? For a long time, I thought of money as just a way that you buy things. But it was also, you know, after getting into Bitcoin that I started thinking of it more in terms of time. And that, you know, the ability actually to buy other people's time is far more interesting thing than the ability to like, buy a yacht or something. So, you know, that actually, it kind of goes back to my point earlier of like leverage, you know, the ability of technology to leverage various balances of power or the ability of money to leverage the really the things that you can get done, actually, I think I just tweeted in the past day or two about leverage of code, where if you think of code as an employee, or I actually think of code as a sort of a manifestation of a single small tiny part of myself, is that when I write a certain script, a certain function, a certain even more complex architecture piece of code, what I'm really doing is I am projecting my will into reality, I thought of something that I want to have happen, and I preferably want to have happen over and over again, and hopefully even want other people to help have that happen. And I turn it into code, I test it. And, you know, there will be of course maintenance required. But once I deploy that code, it is running 24 seven, with very little overhead, it doesn't require to, you know, eat or sleep or, or have, you know, health insurance, or all of the other complex things that make human employees a lot more difficult to manage, it does require different types of maintenance. But in general, you get a lot more bang for your buck, especially over the long term. Now, if you're thinking about leverage, though, in terms of employees, you know, you can leverage other people's time by employing them for various things, then if you combine those two, you know, and you hire employees to write the code that you want to be written, then you're really cooking with gas, you know, it's like leverage squared. I hear you. I hear you. You know, I know this wasn't like a prepared question, but I was very curious about this. I don't know if you know, but I spent like 10 years in robotics. So before I got into Bitcoin, my wife is a mechatronics engineer, I literally helped outfit most of the major robotics labs in the world, including Stanford, Georgia Tech, IIT, MIT. And I work for a company that essentially, you know, built products for these types of labs. And I've been thinking about robotics for a long time, right? So like I got to play with quadrotors, 3D printers, we have a Tesla, like we're all about like the robot renaissance. But you know, lately, there's been a lot of talk about, have you ever heard of the term singularity, the technological singularity, or whatever is it referred to? Oh, yeah, definitely. So Raymond Kurzweil, you've heard of the guy? Yeah. So, you know, more, so I always, like I read all those books, like 20 years ago, or 15 years ago, or whatever, right, and always sounded really fascinating, kind of chucked it to the back of my mind. But then more recently, you know, you've got like, Elon Musk, and Bill Gates, and Zuckerberg, and all these like, super wealthy, like, you know, technologists talking about, you know, this, this like, similar type of idea, right, where we're not necessarily like these narrow bands of artificial intelligence that already exist kind of all over the world, but really kind of a coming together and almost like, you know, humanity giving birth to this, this, you know, something that's far, you know, they can have, you know, way more computations per second, that has kind of the subtleness of humanity, and it's able to interact with us and, and all of that. So I guess what I'm getting at is, is I'm curious to know, number one, I guess your thoughts on, do you think, I mean, and then I'm bringing this up because of what you were saying earlier, is do you, I drive a Tesla, it literally drives itself, it freaking drives itself, people don't even believe me when I tell them, it drives itself, how many people on earth drive for a living? Once two years go by, and it's like, I don't even need to, like, it's literally from my parking lot to the parking lot of this, you know, grocery store, and it drives me up and parks itself, I mean, once it's at that level, it's going to almost like overnight disrupt like a lot of people's jobs, especially people who drive for a living. Are we going to tell those people's, those people to become programmers? And by the way, I don't know if you've seen open AI, and what they're doing with like, you would be able to convert natural language into code, like, oh my freaking God. So even telling someone to become a programmer might not be a long term sustainable solution. Yeah, so I'm looking forward to that day, right? Is that right now, you know, we have a wide variety of programming language, languages to choose from, and there have been great advancements in programming languages over the past few decades, but it is still a huge pain to turn that concept into reality, especially in a way that is robust and doesn't break around edge cases. And so yeah, I really look forward to the day where we have the Star Trek type of thing of like, computer, create a program that simulates, you know, these conditions, and then, you know, a few minutes later, you have everything you could ever imagine. So that that will certainly be great. But you know, even then, you're gonna have to have some sort of meta scientist, you know, who is building those systems, until you know, perhaps we get to that singularity point. But you know, there are there are a lot of scary things, of course, that can happen as a result of all of this, you know, kind of to your point about Tesla. I don't have a Tesla, because I don't trust all the data collection that it's doing, like, I don't know what it's doing with all of that information. I know why it needs a lot of it. But I also know that, you know, gigabytes and gigabytes of information are getting sent back to Tesla headquarters and getting warehoused in a central repository. And while yes, it's being used to make the system better, that data, I consider all data about me to be a toxic waste of sorts. And so there's the question of, you know, is that risk that I'm taking worth the trade off of having a car that comes when I calls or a car that will, you know, drive down the highway and probably do a better job at it than I would myself. And, you know, these same type of issues come up with basically anything. And especially as we approach the singularity, the world is just going to continue to become a weirder and weirder place. And, you know, it is, I mean, I think we're already in a type of early cyberpunk dystopia. There's a lot of dystopian things about the world in 2020, much less when we start looking forward a few decades, it's going to get even crazier. So we have to try to protect ourselves as much as possible and understand as many of the potential ramifications as possible. But there's also just there's so many unforeseeable consequences that I actually believe that, you know, we're in one of those periods right now in a civilization where everything is evolving so quickly, that it's actually one of the most dangerous points in time for our civilization to, you know, go over the brink and self destruct. You know, there are a number of different things that could go wrong and essentially cause a collapse of everything that we have built. Yeah, I'm trying to be a downer. Hey, and I'll stop harping on this topic here. But just curious, as a technologist, this is like more of like a thought experiment. Something that I've been thinking about is like, do you think, so like, you know, that mad scientist you talked about, I'm super scared of that guy. Because like, that's exactly what we don't want, right? Like one dude designing like some sort of AI software. So I was curious, do you think that Bitcoin could be could serve as like the nervous system for some sort of like future artificial intelligence? Like could it? Because you know, I've read a lot of books on AI. And then there's a couple of like major concerns that they have. One is just the fact that it computes at a very like very fast rate, and humans can't even like comprehend how it's coming to its decision. Like it just does it. So we might need to have checks and balances. I sometimes wonder if it's like humanity's role to try and figure out some way to like, give us, you know, the leash on this day, right? And I don't know, like, are there like, you hear about Neuralink, it's like, well, you can't beat them, join them. But like, is there a way to again, I don't know. I don't know. It doesn't mean, have you thought much about AI? Have you kind of looked into this space? Like, have you seen the OpenAI, the GPT-3 project, and some of the things? Was it Marc Marzen or Marc Maros or whatever that wrote that? Did you read that article? Like, it's one of the some Bitcoin guy out of Argentina wrote a book. Anyhow, we posted things on Bitcoin talk. And then you read the whole article at the end of the article, he's like, by the way, this article wasn't written by me, it was written by OpenAI. That was a bit scary for me. And so yeah, so I do, I do, you know, and I know what kind of like what doctors even do. Like, I mean, I think there could be a time in the near future where a nurse is potentially more valued than a doctor, because like, I can imagine computers making decisions, like doctors do far more, you know, better than like a person that needs to relate. Oh, yeah. It's kind of insane, like the amount of sort of data knowledge and retrieval that is expected of a doctor, you know, that's not possible for like the human mind to know all of medical science at this point, like it's just too much. Even if you're a specialist in one tiny part of the medical field, you probably still don't know everything. Or once again, it's like Bitcoin and the crypto space is that even if I'm a Bitcoin expert, it's just it's physically impossible for me to keep up with all the things happening in the space. So it makes sense to use some sort of AI, you know, knowledge retrieval system, because it will be able to pick up things, you know, the instant that they hit the internet, basically, and, you know, merge that into the collective consciousness, if you will, from a like adversarial AI taking over the whole world perspective, you know, I don't think that one of those AIs would like run on a like decentralized consensus network simply because they're so computationally slow. However, what we have seen, even just I think in the past year, novel new uses of even the Bitcoin blockchain as a censorship resistant pointer to information. And specifically, I'm referring to there have been botnets that have used the Bitcoin blockchain as a command and control database, because these these bots can essentially, you can have your bots infect a million different machines. And inevitably, in the sort of botnet space, what happens is the botnet has some sort of centralized command and control infrastructure. It's usually it's using like a domain or IP address or something else, where all of the worker infected machines will go out and ask for instructions of what should I do now that I've taken over this machine. And so when security researchers and government officials and whatever are looking to take down these botnet networks, they go for the head, they just they want to chop off the head. And basically all those infected machines, they'll still be infected, but they won't do anything because they can't get any instructions. So the novel thing that has just started happened recently, is these botnet operators realize that they can spend a very tiny amount of Bitcoin and actually put instructions in the Bitcoin blockchain with the op return functionality that does nothing but link to some website or IP address somewhere else on the internet. It could potentially could even be something like IPFS, you know, some other distributed data store to basically say, all right, you know, go here and get your updated instructions. And there is, as you know, no one in the world who has the authority or the ability to stop Bitcoin transactions from going into the blockchain. Therefore, you now have botnets that are essentially a hydra of you can, you know, you can cut off the most recent infrastructure that is hosting the commands, but all the botnet operator has to do is create another Bitcoin transaction with the right data format, put it in the blockchain and say, all right, your new instructions are now located at this other, you know, completely different part of the internet, some server hosted somewhere else. And, you know, it just turns it into a hydra where no one can, can permanently stop it. And, you know, this is maybe a bit controversial, but I always felt that like, in the future, in the future, I mean, like 10, maybe 20 years out, I think that bots, I think robots will be like, they'll dwarf humans in terms of like, you know, their usage. Like, when I think of, and I agree with you on the concerns around Tesla, I think about that stuff too. But when I picture my automated car in the future, passing yours, right, because that's what's going to happen, right, I'm going to pass yours. But the way it's going to happen is your car is going to send some sort of message saying I've got nothing on my calendar for the next two hours. I've got, whereas my calendar knows I've got, you know, a meeting that I'm late for, and they're just going to not do like a wire transfer between one another. They're going to like just send something that feels and looks like DCPIP. And then your car is going to move out of the way, I wouldn't pass you. But I can't, and whether it's my washing machine talking to my TV telling it to come on three hours later, because it's on, I mean, I just, I can see there being like an economy between machines and Bitcoin strikes me as something that would make that possible. Okay, Kasa, so I want to talk about this. So I'm going to try and first explain what I understand Kasa to be in just my layman's terms. So there's, there's like these exchanges, right, there's websites that people can buy Bitcoin, right. But once you buy, you don't have to hold your Bitcoin sitting on some server that's controlled by, you know, whoever, right. And so for the longest time, Bitcoiners have known that, you know, the best thing to do is to not have your Bitcoin on exchanges, right, the best thing to do is for you to hold your own Bitcoin. And then, you know, whether it's Trezor, or, you know, Opendime, and you know, I love the the Opendime guys, just all these like kind of wallets, hardware wallets, if you will, that look like US E-Sticks, and you can essentially hold your crypto there, they don't connect to the internet, and you're safe-ish. Okay, so I guess, to me, Kasa strikes me as like the next kind of evolution, right? It's like, well, yeah, great, you've done that, you've got the Trezor, whatever, in your box at home. But what if a bad guy comes with a gun, and says, you know, says, hey, well, give me that Trezor. Now, all the security in the world, and all the math isn't going to work for you, because you've got a gun in your head. So in that case, you're going to want to use something like Multi-Seg, or you're going to, I don't even know, this is part of my question is, is like, was it Multi-Seg? Is it Shamir's? Like, you know, how are you guys actually making this happen? But the idea effectively is, is that I would have, you know, maybe M of N, maybe three or five keys, or two or three keys that I'd need to reconstruct to be able to access my Bitcoin, maybe one is in India, one is in Canada, one is buried somewhere in the middle of the ocean, or something, or a field. And, and so I could essentially recreate my keys, but anybody who comes to my house, I essentially can't, because I don't have all the keys, I need to recreate it. So is that essentially the problem statement that you're trying to solve for? Or am I missing something? Yeah, I mean, CASA is the system that I wanted for myself. The sort of background history is, you know, I started working for BitGo in early 2015, was basically running Bitcoin infrastructure for them. They're doing enterprise Multi-Seg, basically helping exchanges and other service providers help to secure their hot wallets, because, you know, they need to be constantly transacting, they need to be keeping keys online, that's the most dangerous thing that you can do, but it's a business requirement for a lot of enterprises. So you need a lot of extra security and sort of processes around managing those hot wallets. So, you know, the way that they improved upon just having a single key on a single machine is they split up the key as a two of three Multi-Seg solution where you need to get signatures from multiple different machines that are secured by completely different type of firewalls and software and human processes, etc, etc. Essentially, you know, making it exponentially more difficult for an attacker because they now have to break into multiple different completely, you know, separate setup systems, you know, they have to find ways to exploit not only one system, but multiple systems. And, you know, this was good, it was certainly an improvement, but it was far from perfect. We still had a few incidents over the years, where usually what would happen is someone would infiltrate the internal infrastructure of a client and basically spoof them and make, you know, API calls that look legitimate and follow the rules and whatever. And so it was still possible for someone to get into the system and steal money. And so what I realized after working there for several years is that I was spending one to two days every year, refreshing my own cold storage setup. And this was an extremely onerous thing for me to do. I have an article that I wrote about it a few years ago, which was like a 15 or 20 step process that would take, you know, a day or two. And what I was basically doing is, you know, gathering all my different wallet data and seed phrases and stuff, and using an air gapped computer to create an encrypted file system that I would then put onto different data storage drives. And I would then Shamir secret share the decryption key, and then, you know, I would spread out copies of these encrypted data drives and give one piece of the Shamir sharing to each of my executors, if you will. I wanted not only a cold storage system that was secure against attackers, I wanted something where if I get hit by a truck, my heirs would be able to reconstitute those keys and actually spend the money. That's actually one of the harder parts to everything is like it's easy to secure your keys. If you want to be completely silly about it, you know, you can basically destroy your keys and they're that's as secure as they'll ever get, no one will ever be able to access them, including yourself. What gets a little bit harder is if you want to secure your keys against everybody in the world except for yourself, well, then you just need to create a much more diverse and robust set of security that makes it almost impossible for anyone who is not specifically you to get through all the different layers of security. But then, what if you want to build a system where you can access your keys, but if you're dead, a few certain other people also are able to access them. That just like explodes the complexity even more and is actually something that we've started offering at CASA. But to kind of step back a bit to like, what did we actually do? One second. Sorry, when you just said that, like they can access it if I die, but doesn't that also mean they can access it if I don't die? Hey, I don't know how to stop that. So yeah, that is why the difficulty in setting up a system like that is so tricky. And that's because it's the Oracle problem, right? It's the same problem that Bitcoin and Ethereum and all of these other things have issues with when you want to do something on the blockchain that is reliant upon an event that happened outside of the Bitcoin network or whatever other crypto network you're running on. Yeah. So just to jump back in. Yeah. So I was going to say, so we're talking about lawyers and my estate getting access to my funds and all that. But I mean, I think about that stuff quite a bit, right? But I think most people, they just care about themselves. So I was just curious, how does somebody use your solution or your system to protect their own Bitcoin so that they can be super loaded one day when they're old or whatever, if they think Bitcoin is going to go to the moon? Just curious. So, and from what I understood, it's that one thing I liked about it is that if I have to rely blindly on Trezor, if something goes wrong with Trezor, which we've seen in the past, not Trezor specifically, but you know what I mean? These wallets, you hear, oh, there's a vulnerability. That scares me a bit. So if I want to maximize my chances, if I use something like Casa, I could use Trezor, use another brand company's wallet. I could use maybe my phone as one of the keys. So can you just talk a little bit about that? I mean, that seems to me like a super intelligent way of securing your own Bitcoins for you. Yeah. We kind of jumped forward to the highest tier, most extreme offering that we have with the inheritance setup. That is a pretty in-depth setup that requires a lot of handholding. And we charge a lot of money for it because of all the time, the hours that go into it. But we have a couple of other tiers, a very entry-level tier, at only $10 a month, where all you need is one or two hardware devices, and you can set up a two out of three SIG. Essentially just plugging in your Ledger or your Trezor or your cold card. And we plan on continuing to add more as we continue to test other hardware manufacturers. But the idea around this at a very high level is to eliminate single points of failure. And so while a hardware device on its own is great, it's far superior to keeping your coins on an exchange. It's far superior to keeping your coins in a single signature hot wallet on a mobile phone or a computer or whatever. You're essentially taking those keys offline. You're creating an error gap so that hackers can't steal them. There's still a ton of ways that you can lose that money. Probably, I would say, more ways that you can shoot yourself in the foot and just lose access to it, rather than having it actually stolen from you. But there are still plenty of other attack vectors where you could be tricked into sending it. We've seen plenty of people lose money to essentially sophisticated types of phishing now, where we've improved the technical security of the keys by putting them on dedicated hardware. So now the attackers are essentially going after what is the weakest link, which is the humans, the brains, where they're hacking people's brains to trick them into sending their money to the attackers. So when we want to eliminate single points of failure, it basically means we want to understand that humans make mistakes and we can't build brittle systems that can have a catastrophic failure where you lose all your money because you made one stupid mistake or you got tricked by one stupid piece of malware, et cetera, et cetera. So by taking keys, putting them on dedicated hardware devices, and then distributing them geographically, we save you from all types of not only attack vectors, but also just loss vectors of things that could go wrong that could cause those keys to get destroyed for some reason. And then the ultimate backup to all of this is that CASA holds a key offline where if you lose keys yourself, then you can go through an authentication process with us to get us to essentially co-sign a transaction and we can then help you restore your key set. So one of the one of the major differences between us and a lot of other multisig providers is that we actually have flexibility and key rotation built into the app itself. So if your Trezor goes missing, is stolen, destroyed, whatever, managing seed phrase for that offline somewhere because that turns into a whole complex issue of physical security for the data that is essentially your private keys because you're no longer keeping it on a special dedicated device. Instead, what we enable you to do in the app is essentially go buy a new hardware device off the shelf, plug it in, and then we walk you through what is really a wallet sweep transaction to rotate out that old key and move your funds to this new set of keys. It's a more flexible way of thinking about multisig. Okay, I don't think I fully understood that. So did you just say that even if I lose all my Trezor and all my keys, I can come to you guys and there's a process by which I can still retrieve my Bitcoin? And if that's the case, how do I protect against mad scientist aka Jameson running away from my funds? Oh, yeah. So it's not all of them, right? So the ultimate, the trade off to self custody is that there will always be a path through which you can lose your money. The way that CASA designs our system is to basically build guide rails into the app to try to steer people down the road of best practices so that we're not assuming that people are reading manuals and spending hours, days, weeks learning about them. Rather, if they just follow what the app tells them to do, they should be in a better situation than 99.9% of other Bitcoiners. So if you're in a two out of three setup, for example, you can either have one mobile key, one hardware device, and then the CASA key, or you can do two different hardware devices in the CASA key. There's trade offs there around, you know, security and trustworthiness. Like some people may not like the idea of having a mobile key. We actually think that the trade offs with the mobile key are great because we can actually back it up in a secure fashion. And we have a blog post about this as well where the key itself is kept encrypted on the device. But then we further create a different encrypted backup of that key that we put in your cloud storage, Apple storage or Google storage, whatever that may be, depending on your device. And the decryption key for that is not stored on your phone. It's not stored in the cloud. It's actually stored on CASA server, also additionally encrypted with one of our hardware security modules, essentially creating like a two of two type of backup, you know, kind of like Shamir sharing, but without all the complexity behind Shamir sharing. The cool thing about that is that, you know, if you lose your phone, if you upgrade your phone, whatever, then all you have to do is log back into your CASA account and the same Apple or Google account. And it can suck down both of those pieces of data and reconstitute that mobile key all behind the scenes. So automated backups, especially secure automated backups, we're a big fan of. What we're not a big fan of is people writing down their seed phrase on a piece of paper and trying to figure out how to physically secure it. Hey, James, okay. So just to be clear about one thing, CASA is obviously a website. From my understanding, I know CASA, you guys used to sell a node at one point, which was like a hardware device. And then there's also a physical hardware device as well, right? That I plug my Trezors into, or am I missing something here? So CASA itself, we don't actually manufacture any hardware. And we had the node, but that was all off the shelf, you know, Raspberry Pi type stuff. Like we've never been a hardware manufacturer, nor do we want to be. The idea behind getting rid of single points of failure is to actually create a diversity of different security for each key. So like I said, every multi-sig setup, whether it's two or three or three or five, we'll have one key with CASA. And we control those keys completely offline. They're never on any online storage. If they're needed to be used, then they get loaded onto a dedicated air gapped hardware device. Then you have the mobile key, which is, like I said, it's either on your iOS or Android phone. It is secured by the secure element that is, you know, in that phone itself to encrypt it and use the various authentication mechanisms that that operating system provides. It could be biometrics, it could be a PIN, et cetera. It's whatever you have configured on your phone for security. And then you have either one hardware device or two hardware devices for two of three, or for the three of five, you have three different hardware devices. And the whole idea around that is once again, it's a completely separate type of like computer storage system. And also if you have multiple hardware devices, then you should use different manufacturers. So, you know, you shouldn't have all treasures or all ledgers or all cold cards because, you know, there could be some supply chain issue, you know, there could be a bug, you know, any number of things. And you don't want to put all of your eggs in one basket. And that's also why CASA itself is not interested in manufacturing a hardware security device because that would put more trust in CASA and we want to have less trust in CASA. Interesting, interesting. And by the way, like I said, I spent 10 years in robotics. So, I came to the conclusion that they call hardware, hardware because it's hard. It's also like, it's very cumbersome. So curious, also interesting. So the Node was just like a bit of a side project. It wasn't really anything that you guys doubled down on. And so by the way, I have, yeah, go ahead, go ahead, go ahead. The Node was a funny thing because it, from a like sheer marketing and branding perspective, it surpassed our security service as a like known thing. And so due to the popularity of the Node, that was what we became known for, even though we had been doing the multisig security service for over a year before we launched the Node. And so now we're kind of having to readjust and like reacquaint people with the fact that we're fundamentally a key management service for people to self-custody their own funds. And the Node was a very, very different type of thing. It was never a high security thing. It had a lot of things that could go wrong with it. And we always told people from the offset, it was even in one of the setup screens that said, don't put more money on this than you're willing to lose because this is a highly experimental project. Funny how the internet works, right? It just kind of runs away with things. Okay, but just to kind of clarify, just to finish up on this, though, is that if you're someone listening to this and you want to partake in this like super high security network or system or whatever, all you need is you need a legit cell phone so you can download the CASA app. You need ideally a couple of like maybe a Trezor, whatever, a cold card, and I want a ledger maybe, right? So I've got all those at home. So you're saying I can essentially, I need to, I can get set up. I don't know why I thought in my head that there was also another hardware that acted as the piece that brought all the different hardware together, but it doesn't. Okay, good. Okay, so anything else on the, before we kind of move over to these last few questions, just curious, like any other things you want to maybe mention on the, anything you want to clear up in terms of confusion or just maybe sharing? I don't know, usually people don't like talking about future things, but I don't know, is there a product that's coming out? I guess you said you do have a blog or something coming out on the weekend, right? Yeah, I mean I'm constantly talking about new topics that I think have not received enough attention. The one thing that we didn't touch on at all with CASA, because we were mainly talking about the technical aspects of it, the unique major difference I would say between CASA and any other self-custody setup, because of course you can, you know, we're not recreating the will. There's any number of other software that you can go out and create your own multi-sig setup for. One of the main reasons that I would recommend CASA is because we have a service component that you're just not going to find with a do-it-yourself solution, and that's one of the other major differences with the different tiers is that when you go up into the higher tiers, it really turns into more of a bespoke, like private client services type of arrangement, where you have a dedicated client advisor that if you have any issues, questions, you run into anything, you can actually get on a phone call with somebody, which is almost unheard of in the Bitcoin space. With a lot of providers out there, if you're using an open source project, then that's all community-driven stuff, like you might post on a forum and hope that somebody cares enough to respond to you. If you're using some sort of custodial service, like an exchange or whatever, then you're probably going to send them an email and hope that they respond. During bull markets, you might not get a response for over a month, and really with us, it's like if you're paying us at a premium tier, then we're going to dedicate actual human bandwidth, where if you want to get on a phone call or video call or whatever, then you'll have dedicated customer support. One of the ways we actually describe that is like at Casa, we're not here to hold your keys, we're here to hold your hand. We're here to help people. It's a great option for non-technical people or people who are new to the space and don't have the time to spend figuring out all of the minutia around best practices. Makes sense. Hey, James, I have a question. As somebody who's spent what, almost eight years in the exchange brokered space, have you figured out a way where, let's say, users of let's say UnoCoin can hold their funds or Bitcoin at, I know it sounds almost like an impossible thing, but maybe not, where I can hold my Bitcoin in my possession in kind of a Casa environment, but then have those Bitcoin in some shape or form show up on an exchange and makes it tradable? I mean, I can kind of think of maybe a couple of ways, but just curious to know, is that something you guys have thought about or come across? We've certainly thought about it and we've even talked to some other companies about this type of, well, it would essentially require two things. It would require a hybrid custody solution where you have one key held by the exchange, one key held by Casa, one key held by the user. If you can think of how that would essentially put you into a setup where- That's pretty sick. Okay, I just got that. Okay, cool. Yeah, so, but that's only the technical part. That's kind of like Bingo, isn't it? Sorry, I don't know about the waters, but it's a bit like that or not really? Yeah, and so, you may remember Bingo had a service called BitGo Instant. And the way that BitGo Instant worked is that you'd have one key at BitGo, one key at your service, and then the third key was with a third party key recovery service. And so, that's just the technical components. What is required, though, to make that work from an enterprise organizational level is it requires legal agreements between the two companies that essentially say, if the user defaults or if the user meets these other situations, then you, other company, are legally obligated to sign the transaction that sends the money away from the user and into my account. And so, it is certainly doable. The tricky thing that comes into play is that usually with exchanges, there's a very like limited time window to actually execute these things and get them done is like when the markets are moving, people need to liquidate really quickly. And so, you would also need to have some sort of service level agreement in there that says, you know, not only will I, you know, co-sign a transaction to send the money to you under these certain circumstances, but I will do it within, you know, this many hours or this many blocks because usually what's the reason why something like that would be happening would be that you got margin called or, you know, you hit some other liquidation trigger that required the money to be sent out of your account and to the exchange and then perhaps to somebody else who was then owed that money. So, it gets a little more complicated and, you know, once again, it's going to involve like humans in the legal system. So, it starts to become more fragile. Well said. Okay. Okay. Okay. So, I had a couple of questions, James, that I wanted to ask you. So, and we touched on maybe pieces that are here and there, but okay, first question is, you know, what is like one truth that you believe that you think most, you know, and we can go one of two ways, either Bitcoin or crypto. Maybe crypto might be the blockchain, we're going to call it, that most blockchainers would disagree with you on. So, what's one truth that you know to be true than most, you know, blockchainers, I hate that word, but we would disagree with you on? I still think, and I think I've been saying this for at least five years, but I still think that is important that we actually come to some sort of consensus around how much it should actually cost for people to be able to transact on chain. And the reason for that is that the sort of second order effect of that is that if it's too costly to transact on chain, then it will be too costly for people to move their funds off of trusted third parties and into self-custody. You know, this is a very complicated issue because it, you know, butts up against issues of how much does it cost to fully validate the whole system and run a full node and whatnot. And so, you can't let it be zero cost because then the blockchain data will blow up and it becomes too expensive to validate. But on the other hand, you know, if it costs hundreds of dollars to withdraw your money to your own wallet, then that's going to prevent a lot of people from doing that. And, you know, maybe second layer solutions will be able to get us there, but I think it's fundamentally impossible for a second layer solution to ever be as secure as a base layer solution. So at least like as it stands right now, I don't foresee people, you know, holding their life savings and a second layer solution. Okay, fair enough. Cool. Cool. I got that. And then the same question as it pertains to like the world at large. You know, I don't know. I mean, there's a lot of weirdness going on in the world right now, but just wanted to know if you had any, you know, again, strong beliefs where you kind of saw the light or see the light and most, you know, people in the world would probably disagree with you on. I mean, in general, I still believe that the like crypto anarchy line of thinking, the sovereign individual thesis and that line of thinking for the general trajectory of the world will prove to be true, though I also don't necessarily think that that is in conflict with a number of other things, especially with, you know, Orwellian nightmare dystopias, where it could very well end up being the case that the vast majority of the populace is not free and, you know, is living in a dystopian surveillance state, which we kind of already are. Whereas the, you know, the financial and technical elite are able to retreat to their citadels, as it were, and, you know, be true sovereign individuals that are, you know, wielding a power that is perhaps on a level similar to, if not eventually exceeding that of nation states. And this is crazy for people to imagine, but like, historically, it has happened before. Like, there have been plenty of times in history where private individuals wielded power that was, you know, even like militarily greater than nation states, for example. It's just not something that we've seen in the past few centuries. Very interesting. Okay, so James, I know I've used up, like, almost my hour and a half with you. Anything else that you want to talk about, you want to ask me, you want to, I don't know, share about just recent events? I didn't really touch on all this, like, DeFi, you know, stuff that's going on and all that. I mean, it doesn't sound like you're too into it. I did see a little bit of uproar about, and again, I don't know if you want to touch on it or not, but I think it's something about some sort of security token offering recently. I'm just curious to know your, I was curious to know your thoughts on whether or not you think that, you know, I'm not going to lie. I wrestle with the idea of Ethereum a lot in my head, because I think what we were talking about earlier in this call, it didn't feel right at the beginning, but I have a hard time justifying that it doesn't have some value to the world in the sense that it is, you know, it does pull in a lot of people into the crypto community and a lot of those people end up in Bitcoin. Okay, so is that such a terrible thing? You know, the Turing completeness, right? As an engineer, that's something that I understand. I get that Bitcoin can do it too, and that most likely it was left out because of the attack vector that it presents, and therefore it never presented something super sexy for me. It's like, okay, well, we can do, you know, while loops and if then, but like, the question is, do you want to do that for money? But they're not trying to design or optimize around money. And I recently had a bit of back and forth with Vitalik's dad on Twitter as well, where, you know, he was pretty much, it was actually in relation to Samson and Vitalik doing an interview where, long story short, you know, Vitalik pretty much admitted that one of the biggest challenges that Ethereum faces is that it doesn't stand for anything. And, you know, I don't know, maybe that's like a good thing in some way, but I struggle to find how that's a good thing in the sense that like, you know, maybe like it's kind of like a Swiss Army knife. It doesn't really stand for something, but you know, a Swiss Army knife does stand for something. It stands for the ability to do lots of things. I prefer kitchen sink protocol. Kitchen sink. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. So yeah, so I don't know. I guess my kind of quick question on that front is, do you think DeFi is like a reemergence of like the ICO kind of, you know, wave or like, you know, DEXs? Like, as someone who believes in decentralization, as someone who's like spent, you know, the last eight years in centralized exchanges, I'd be lying if I said that I didn't, you know, dream about someday, you know, our service being obsolete because you can do it like all on the chain. And so when I do see, you know, glimpses of that, when I see protocols like attempting to solve real problems, not the Bitcoin problem, which is money at large, but problems, I just, I can't, it's hard for me to be like, well, these guys are all scammers and they're like the ruja. It's like, but they're trying to do something that's like legit. So I guess I'll just leave it at that. Like, what are your thoughts? Like, how does one reconcile like innovation with scaminess? So Ethereum, you know, has every right to exist and it is, you know, going back to sort of the crypto anarchy thinking, you know, no one can stop anyone from performing these experiments. Obviously people get pissed off when they think that someone is pushing the line a little too far and like promising too much when it comes to like, what could my experiment potentially be able to offer the world someday? This is, you know, it's almost like a Theranos type of thing where if you saw any of the documentaries around that with like Elizabeth Holmes, I got the impression that, you know, Elizabeth may have diluted herself into believing that, you know, they could deliver on all of the promises that she was making. And from my own experience with a lot of CEOs, you know, founders essentially of startups, you have to have a certain level of delusion that what you're doing is possible because if everyone believes that what you were doing was possible, then someone else would have already done it. It's almost a requirement in order to go out and do innovative things is you have to have not only the belief that it is possible, but you have to have the persuasiveness to convince at least some other people that it's possible so that you can, you know, collectively get your resources together to try to make it happen. And, you know, that's where it starts to get tricky of, you know, making promises or making grandiose statements about what you're going to be able to do, which then may result in people committing resources that they end up losing. I mean, this is this is all just part of the game of trying to build new things. So, you know, Ethereum deserves its chance. Like, no, no one's going to be able to stop it or shut it down. I think the ultimate question will be, you know, will it be able to achieve more of the vision of what the people are working on it are trying to do? Or will it kind of like collapse under its own weight? And will, you know, there end up being more Ethereum competitors that kind of take off different pieces of the functionality that is being built on Ethereum as a generalized machine? And perhaps we have other networks that kind of spawn off and are more specialized and able to do those things better. It's really hard to say at this point, but just from a computer science standpoint, it seems to me like Ethereum is on a roadmap to become more complicated and not less complicated. And so that's the main reason why it's difficult for me to believe that they're going to be able to hit all of the scaling desires that they want to do. But, you know, you can make similar arguments about Bitcoin and second layer scaling. I mean, that's a lot more complicated than base layer stuff, you know, as I've had a lot of hands on experience with doing lightning node stuff at Casa, for example. So that's why it's hard for me to distinguish between what I would consider to be a conscientious malevolent scammer and a person who is perhaps overly optimistic and essentially scamming themselves into believing that a certain thing is possible because they might end up being proven right. I've only called out probably fewer than like 10, what I consider to be conscientious scammers in the space who obviously knew that what they were promising could never be possible. Most of the other folks in the space, I try to give the benefit of the doubt and just look at it as, you know, they're trying to achieve what is currently impossible and they may fail. But you got to let them try. Okay, before I let you go, I got to ask you one more thing. So because you brought this up, I'll just say these two words and let you kind of go, Craig, right? Well, maybe there's more than two minutes worth to talk about there, but how are you so positive that he's not who he claims to be? Well, did you read my 20-page article that I published? I did. So if you had to TLDR it? Yeah. I mean, the reason that I'm so positive, I mean, the TLDR is that he promised multiple times to provide the very simple, straightforward cryptographic evidence that would prove that he was Satoshi. Like that, if he was Satoshi, it would be very easy to do. And instead, what we have is an entirely, insanely complex web of lies and half truths and distortions. And of course, there is some truth sprinkled in there to make it seem like it could all be real. But it's just, it's like the hallmarks of a confidence man. And that what he does is he says a lot of things that inspire confidence in him or make him seem to be far more intellectual than he actually is. Like he tries to act like he's speaking over everyone or speaking at a level at which no one else is able to understand him. But the true mark of being an intellectual is that you're able to distill complex things into simple matters that you can then explain and educate to people who aren't at your level. And I've never seen him do anything like that is always the inverse. And instead, creating a complexity instead of shedding complexity to help people understand. So it all has the hallmarks of a ruse or an affinity scam. It's obviously, it's hard to tell what his actual incentives are, but there's certainly like how did he treat Gavin? Yeah. Well, I believe from what Gavin told us, there was a fresh laptop that got introduced that was like, it was brought in by I think one of Craig Wright's assistants. So that could have been tampered with. I'm pretty sure he was running some other software that I don't believe he ran integrity checks on to make sure that that hadn't been tampered with. In general, the whole key proof process that Gavin was subjected to, we don't really know the parameters of that. It was not a controlled environment. Therefore, there's a ton of different things that could have been tampered with. And that in and of itself, like doing a private key proof session is a red flag in and of itself, because the whole point of public private key cryptography is that you can sign a message that you can then show to the entire world and not be worried about any security ramifications. True, true, true. Yeah. So just a couple of things on this point. So the fact that he said he was going to prove it and never ended up doing it does not prove that he's Satoshi, but also does not disqualify that point. And then also his inability to speak at like, you know, at a very simple pace also, I feel doesn't necessarily disqualify him, right, in the sense that it's probably a signal in the opposite direction. But is it, by the way, we're at the end of our hour and a half. So I guess what I was trying to get at is that, you know, and then could he have other reasons as to why he doesn't want to publicly disclose, i.e. like the tax man or something. I mean, there's always, you know, I've heard about the Australia situation and all that. And so yeah, I definitely don't believe he's Satoshi. I just, I just, I just, I still didn't, I wasn't quite like a hunter for, it's kind of like, you know, like God. I mean, I go to church every now and then with my wife, but I'm not religious. And I don't think God exists. I'll just do it as like a hedge against, you know, I'm completely wrong on this one. So I just, I just ask myself every now and then, you know, like, how do we like prove without a shadow of a doubt? I mean, if you look at Satoshi, whatever his Bitcoin, he's one of the he's one of the top like five or 10. So he's like, you know, doing a great job. I mean, if he is this like hardcore scammer, he's doing a great job of convincing, you know, a lot of people. And he's quite possibly like the best scammer of all time, you know, with like the Rujas. You just literally watch like 30 seconds of their video and you're like, yeah, these guys are smelly. But it's like, Craig has gone like to the nth degree to figure this one out. Well, yeah, I mean, so that's what he's relying upon is that you can't prove a negative, like, it's not possible to disprove that someone is Satoshi. But what we can prove and what I have in my like how many wrongs make a right article on Bitcoin magazine is proving dozens of lies that and contradictions that he's been caught in over the years, including, you know, technical misunderstandings of Bitcoin that Satoshi never would have made in the first place. And, you know, also a very long list of lies like about his academic credentials. And he also has a very lengthy legal history where he has been accused of fraud, you know, not once, but on numerous occasions. Cool. Okay, so I don't want to take up more of your time. I know you probably have something else to do. But Jameson, I just want to say thanks again for, you know, this time really enjoyed it really admire the fact that you're like, it seems like one of a few hardcore Bitcoiners, I really respect that. And yeah, that's all I got. I mean, if you want to just end off on like, where people can, you know, find you on Twitter, you know, your Casas website as well, just so that, yeah, it's easier for people that get there. Yep. My Twitter handle is just lop l-o-p-p. And you can learn all about CASA and our offerings at keys.casa keys.c-a-s-a. Awesome. All right, buddy. I guess we'll talk again soon. Just give me one second. Thanks.