From Decrypt.co, this is The Decrypt Daily and my name is Matthew Aaron. Today, I
invite on Mr. Jameson Lopp to talk some of the biggest stories of 2020. Doing
this show for the past couple months, I've spoken on many, many topics and some
of them still kind of elude me. I have spoken to people that either shilled or
pumped or colored the news and it still left me with some questions. Well,
Jameson is one of those guys I have spoken to probably about over a half
dozen times. I've met him in New York City for Consensus. I have videoed with
him and I have spoken with him on already three different podcasts and I
keep reaching out to Jameson and he keeps talking to me. Well, I don't know why
he keeps talking to me, but I keep reaching out to Jameson because he's one
of those kind of guys that are just straight shooters. He's gonna tell you how
it is without any shill, without any fud, without any color, just this is how it is.
And I've asked him about some different topics that I've covered in the past
couple months to give me some sort of grounding, if you will. Here's my
conversation with Jameson. Enjoy. Jameson Lopp, how you doing, man? Welcome to the
show. Not bad. The space always somehow manages to stay exciting. That is for damn
sure. Look, it's been so exciting that I have a lot to talk to you about today.
I've been doing this new show for about two and a half months and a lot of
things been coming on my plate and I'm trying to struggle to figure out which
way to go, which way to think about some of these things. And you
know what? You're a very objective person when it comes to the space. You're never
gonna be moonshotting coins or shilling any projects. So you're kind of like
my grounding person. So I'm gonna ask you about a couple of these
questions, a couple of these different news items that have been popping up
over the past couple months and I just want you to just kind of like, I guess,
brain dump your opinions about them. All right, I'll do my best. All right, man.
First one, DeFi is the number one, I guess, catchword of 2020 in crypto. DeFi
this, DeFi that. People are just coming up with projects all over the place. It
reminds me of a 2017 ICO hype market money grab. Am I right with that and what
do you think about DeFi and what do you think about the current state of DeFi
and do you think it juxtaposes with 2017? I mean, the things change and yet
things stay the same, right? I mean, history rhymes. It doesn't necessarily
perfectly repeat, but you tend to see patterns in these things. And one of them
is that when we're talking about innovating in the financial space, the
truth of the matter is the vast majority of financial products and services are
just thinly masquerading types of gambling. You know, you're making bets
about different things. And so it made a lot of sense to me to see the cutting
edge innovation, if you will, in various permissionless crypto projects end up
tantamount to different types of gambling. In many cases, what unfortunately
seems to happen is that they kind of shove the risks under the hood and hide
them in a way so that it's not obvious what the risks actually are. And then
people get really excited and it looks like everybody is making money,
everybody is getting rich. And then eventually, of course, the risks get
revealed, the rugs get pulled out from under people, and people's expectations
get reset. And we're gonna continue to see these type of hype cycles happen
where there's innovation and euphoria. And then eventually people have to face
reality, technical reality, economic reality, and we drop back down. But
somewhere along the way, there has been some interesting new progress made. And
then the cycle will eventually repeat. So it's more of the same. It's
certainly interesting in terms of making new types of products and like ability
to swap liquidity in different ways and try to create new exchanges that exist
outside of centralized infrastructure. That type of progress is certainly
interesting. But it's par for the course that a lot of these things end up being
outright scams. And so it's risky to play these games.
Do you feel that DeFi decentralized finance is actually a good idea in
general? I think that any attempt to try to further distribute power away from
centralized entities or small numbers of people is a worthwhile endeavor. So I
certainly am in favor of trying to figure out how to reproduce financial
services in a way that gets rid of middlemen. The tricky thing is with a
lot of these, quote unquote, DeFi services, there are still middlemen in
there, there are still administrators that can control things. But sometimes
it's just made opaque. And people don't realize that until it's too late.
Speaking of middlemen, the DEX decentralized exchanges were kind of
like the holy grail of getting away from or to have security with your coins,
not your keys, not your coins. But decentralized exchanges, you can plug
your ledger in, trade your crypto as needed, swap it out. And you know,
everybody was looking forward to it. You know, DEXs this year have come really
into their into light because of volumes, which kind of are fake and
bullshit. They are rivaling centralized exchanges when it comes to how much
crypto is being flown through them and with liquidity and volume. Do you think
that the DEX has taken on a life of its own that is outside of what we kind of
wanted it to be back back in the day? And it's evolving to be more of that
middleman to what we just said about DeFi as a way to either incentivize a certain
small number of people and kind of, I guess, again, travel away from what we
are really hoping to achieve with this space?
Kind of. I mean, some of the issues here are, you know, who is actually
developing the code? What level of control or administration do they have
over these smart contracts? And then what we've, I think, seen happen more
recently is perhaps instead of having just like a single entity or exchange
that is behind a decentralized smart contract, there might, in fact, be a
group of insiders that is getting in early, you know, perhaps putting in
liquidity, putting in tokens, and they end up getting a sort of outsized
advantage later down the line. I think there was some kind of fishy stuff going
on with some of the recent airdrops, for example, that even though they seem
to be done in a way that was trying to skirt around various securities laws, I
suspect that the vast majority of the airdrop tokens ended up going to
insiders that were essentially part of one logical group. So, like I said,
history doesn't repeat, but it does rhyme. I do think that there will
continue to be things like this, and it's going to potentially become harder
and harder to discern exactly what is going on. And that's kind of a good
thing from a privacy perspective, but it can make it trickier for people to
figure out, you know, what is a legitimate project and what is actually a
scam or, if not an outright scam, a project that has been built in a way
that is weighted towards basically paying off a small group of people.
When it comes to centralized versus decentralized exchanges, for me, it's
like if I'm going to use a decentralized exchange, I'm going to look to see if
it is compliant with certain KYC AML, if it is, you know, complying to
government regulations within where I live, the United States, to know that I
have that security. When it comes to the decentralized exchanges, what do you
think are some of the boxes that should be ticked? And I don't even know if
that's your opinion about centralized exchanges. You can please, you know, tell
me what you think about centralized exchanges as well. But for
decentralized exchanges, what do you think are the boxes that should be
ticked when looking into which one you should use? Because, I mean, Uniswap,
sushi, whatever new food decentralized exchange that they're going to make,
taco, McDonald's, Big Mac, decentralized exchange, whatever they're going to
make next, what boxes should there be tickings to know that, hey, yeah, I
could use this. When it was very simple before, a decentralized exchange, smart
contract, plug in your ledger, you go. Now it's very convoluted and complex.
What's your criteria?
Well, there's no hard and fast criteria. What we're really talking about is
reputation. You could have some criteria that, you know, for centralized
actors says, oh, they appear to be complying with local laws and regulators
and I place, you know, some faith in the existing framework. That's not really
something that I personally care about. I would and have before, you know, used
exchanges that were essentially run by anonymous people and they were still
centralized, but they had built up a reputation over many years, which made
it fairly unlikely that they were just going to exit scam with everyone's
money, fairly unlikely that they were going to get hacked and lose everything.
But the, the real problem when you're working on the cutting edge and when
you're playing around with these smart contracts that are only hours or days
old, there is, you just don't have enough time to build reputation there.
In many cases, there have not been any good audits of the code. And so
regardless of if you're looking at a centralized exchange or decentralized,
it's, it's really a question of, can you understand what they're actually doing
or is it just a black box? And when it comes to centralized exchanges,
they're generally going to be a black box. And the only thing that you can go
by is, you know, how long they've been in business and what's really the
existing users and community have to say about their own experiences with it.
When it comes to using a smart contract that has not been around for very long,
you have to scrutinize the code extremely well. And I think the tricky thing
now is that it's not necessarily just like looking at that one smart contract,
but also trying to figure out what the ramifications are of that smart
contract in the context of the greater ecosystem, because now we have all of
these different type of protocols that are interacting with each other,
like on Ethereum and creating much more complexity to the point that I can't
tell you that I understand a lot of what's going on. I think it would be a
full-time job to really understand the intricacies and interactions between the
different pieces of running code in the ecosystem now. So it's like anything
else. You have to do your due diligence. And I think the downside to operating in
a really fast-moving, innovative environment is that people are going to
cut corners and they're not going to do the due diligence because they're
essentially FOMOing and they're afraid that if they wait too long to do the
due diligence, then they will have missed their opportunity to make a lot of
money. So it's a risk and reward for you.
I have fell victim to FOMO once or twice in my crypto career. You said due
diligence. If Jameson Lopp doesn't understand some things, I really pity the
average consumer coming in to try to do their due diligence. But moving a little
bit from decentralized exchanges to centralized exchanges, the indictment of
BitMEX the other day was big news. A lot of people are moving their
cryptocurrency finally off the exchange, which they should have anyway. But you
tweeted something about that and you said, now we get to see if BitMEX's
multi-sig setup is nation-state resistant. My two questions is, what do
you think that the BitMEX indictment is going to do for the other centralized
crypto exchanges that most people use? I mean, if we're talking about Binance,
Kraken, Gemini, Coinbase, maybe they're in different leagues, you can explain that.
And second, do you think with that statement, with that tweet, that BitMEX
should fight the government for what they're requesting?
Yeah. So, you know, these are at the very least two different classes of
centralized exchanges. I would throw Coinbase, Kraken, and Gemini into the,
you know, we're going to play by the rules as much as possible and actively
worry about protecting ourselves legally by working with the regulators in the
existing system. Coinbase and Gemini seem to do that mostly by having really
close ties with existing regulators, including New York State and whatnot,
which is really the most stringent of all the states when it comes to financial
services. But Kraken is interesting because they're still kind of aloof.
Like, they didn't take the direct obvious route. Rather, you know, they've
spent a ton of time in Wyoming helping craft new regulations and statutes and
such that are actually favorable for moving forward as a kind of new hybrid
business that can operate as a bank, but can also operate in the crypto sphere.
So they're doing an interesting thing, kind of like straddling both worlds,
but trying to do something more innovative on the legal side. Whereas
from my understanding, it seems like Binance and BitMEX take more of the
approach of, you know, let's do everything that we can to steer clear of
all United States regulatory stuff and try to operate, you know, completely
outside of that sphere. And it's an interesting tactic, which is, it's risky
because, you know, Team America World Police tends to extend its reach around
the entire world. And so it's very hard to steer clear of U.S. policies when it
comes to financial stuff. So I would be surprised if we don't see a similar
type of thing happen to Binance. I know Binance has an American arm, which they
perhaps will use as justification that they're complying with the laws there.
But, you know, if there's any way for American citizens to use their
non-American service, then I would expect they're going to have some legal
issues eventually. BitMEX is, I would say, a unique case in the sense that, you
know, they've only ever actually dealt with Bitcoin. So, like, they've never
touched fiat rails. There seems to be a strong argument that they
shouldn't have to be compliant with a lot of traditional financial
regulations. But, of course, now various U.S. agencies are coming in and
saying, you know what, everything that you're doing is still going to fall
under U.S. financial guidelines. So that's going to be a very interesting
legal battle to play out. From a technical standpoint, though, what my
tweet was referring to seems to have played out pretty well, where I think
only one of the three BitMEX founders was in the United States. And there was
actually a post that came out just a day or two ago from, I think it was Coin
Metrics that was analyzing the use of the multi-sig keys for BitMEX cold
storage. And it looked like they had made a pretty good job of guessing of,
like, which keys belong to which founder, because, like, during the time
period that Samuel Reid, the CTO, was under custody, that key stopped being
used, but the other keys kept being used. And my understanding is, you know, the
other founders are basically on the other side of the world in Hong Kong or
who knows where else. So it does seem like, at least for now, BitMEX is able
to steer clear of at least having their service completely shut down. Then you
get into all of the sort of legal intricacies of the relationship between
Hong Kong and America, which apparently has soured recently. So that actually
might be a good thing for BitMEX if they're looking to continue operating.
I'm just going to jump straight into the next question, because I have no clue
how to segue it, but Bitcoin's code update that is scheduled to be a really
big change. I did not read into that today because that's just dropped today
on Decrypt. I was just wondering if you could just walk us through what is the
changes and why make the changes?
Oh, well, I mean, I think the expectation is that the next version of Bitcoin Core
should be coming out in December if everything goes to plan. And there's
going to be a ton of code changes in that. But what you are referencing, I'm
assuming, is the merging of the Taproot code. And this is something that has been
long time coming. I think it's been a good two or three years of work,
essentially, to try to get this next major change in the Bitcoin protocol.
And really, what we're looking to do is, once again, improve the on-chain
privacy and scalability of being able to do like more complex Bitcoin
transactions. It's certainly difficult to describe this simply without getting
too technical. But the idea is that we're going to be able to leverage a couple of
different cryptographic tricks to do more of the computation outside of
consensus, outside of the actual blockchain data structure and network
itself. And one of the things that is going to be leveraged is Schnorr
signatures, which is essentially a way to do multi-SIG in a way that happens
off-chain so that anyone who's validating it, it only looks like they're validating
a single signature. That is helpful for both the privacy and amount of
on-chain data that you're using because it's just a smaller amount of data,
fewer actual on-chain signatures. That is actually being rolled out in
conjunction with this thing called Taproot, which is a new way to use the
existing Bitcoin scripting logic, but to construct those scripts in a way that
you don't have to reveal the entire script when you go to spend. So one of
the problems right now with Bitcoin, both privacy and scalability, is that if
you are doing something more complex, like say doing a script that requires
multiple signatures, maybe it has different time locks built into it, the
logic and the amount of data that that script takes up grows larger and larger
as it becomes more complex. Also, when you go to spend it, you have to put the
entire script on the blockchain. This is not great. Even for CASA, for
example, we provide a multi-signature-based wallet. That means that our
users are having to spend more in fees for their transactions than people with
single signature because it's just more data going on the blockchain. It also
creates a more uniquely identifiable fingerprint, which is not great for
privacy. But with Taproot, instead of having to put the entire script on the
blockchain, we're actually able to use another cryptographic mechanism called a
Merkle tree, which essentially allows you to break up this script into many
different logical branches. And then you only have to reveal the specific set of
logic that you are using when you are going to go spend. So now you can have a
potentially infinitely complex set of different possible spending conditions,
but you don't have to throw them all on the blockchain when you want to go spend
that money. Instead, you can only put in, you know, these three or four logical
branches that you actually want to use to say, hey, you know, this Bitcoin belongs
to me and this is proving that it's a valid spending condition for me to be
able to move it now out of this address. So even that was a fairly, I think,
complex explanation, but the short version is better privacy, better
scalability. I'm hoping to see improved things like CoinJoin, for example, is one
type of mechanism that could potentially gain improvements from this because now
you'll be able to hide more of the transactions that are, or more of these
signatures that are happening, you know, when you're creating these large
transactions, basically pooling people's money together.
Does this have anything to do with stale blocks? Look, I don't know anything
about a stale block. That was the big news over on around September 30th. If
you could, what is a stale block? Does this upgrade have anything to do with
the, I guess, rare occurrence of two stale blocks so close to each other?
And will the hodler, the Bitcoin hodler, the average person have to do anything
once this is upgraded, like the new wallets update anything? What do we have
to do? Or do we just kind of like just let it roll out and we're good?
Yeah, so orphan blocks or stale blocks, if you will, that's a completely separate
type of issue. It's more of a like a network propagation of block data
problem, which is completely tangential to all of this. I suspect that was
probably like some BitMEX research because they have a service that is
constantly monitoring that. The main story behind orphan blocks is that over
the years, the improvements to the like fast block relay networks that have
mostly been done by Matt Corallo have increased the speed at which blocks
propagate through the network so much faster that we used to see orphan
blocks on basically a daily basis. And now I think we only see them every
few weeks. So an orphan block just happens when two different miners find
a block at almost the same time and they both put their block out onto the
network. And that basically results in a propagation race throughout the
network. And eventually, you know, only one block can make it into the
permanent blockchain because every block can only be connected to one previous
block. And it's a substandard type of thing to happen because you might
believe that, you know, you have a confirmation on your transaction, for
example, but then if that block gets orphaned, then it's possible that it is
essentially the confirmation gets undone. In most situations where that happens
recently, your transaction will just get put into a future block pretty soon
anyway. So it's not something that users really even notice anymore. So the
taproot and associated stuff that's going to be happening with that, the
address format was actually already rolled out with segwit is the Besh32
style addresses. So this will all be, quote unquote, native segwit
scripting. And that's been out for several years. And I know there are
still a few services that complain and don't allow you to like withdraw to
Besh32 addresses. But I think it's pretty rare. And we've already got pretty
widespread support, at least on the sending side of things from a Bitcoin
wallet or Bitcoin service development perspective, changing your validation to
be able to send or withdraw to new types of addresses is really trivial.
It's usually just a few lines of code. On the other hand, changing your logic to
construct new types of receive addresses is a lot more work. You have to basically
implement the whole new scripting logic and address creation. So that is what
tends to roll out a lot slower. And from the user perspective, it'll really
depend on how the services do this. So I would expect a lot of wallets will
probably end up displaying it as a user option of saying like, do you want to
enable this type of address and switch over to using it? Because that's what I
think a lot of wallets did for the segwit rollout. On the other hand, wallets
that are already doing native segwit and using Besh32 addresses for anything,
they could potentially roll this out in a way that the user doesn't even notice
and just switch the logic that they're using under the hood, because the user
is still going to continue seeing the same type of address. And as a UX
focused company, for example, that's certainly the type of thing that we
would prefer for us to be able to offer to our users and for most services to
do. We want to keep that friction as low as possible. A lot of the stuff
that we've been talking about today is not really things that I think the
average Bitcoin user should need to concern themselves with. So the more of
this complexity that we can keep abstracted away from people, I think the
better it is for Bitcoin. Agreed. My next question is looking at the
recent couple months with as we just spoke about DeFi and decentralized
exchanges, SUSE swap, Uniswap. One thing that we did see through this whole
thing and now that we're talking about Bitcoin update is that Ethereum is
being stressed very much so and their fees are becoming astronomical. Do you
feel that one, when do you think that we're going to see a new version of
F that can handle what's happening with that protocol with the network? And
two, do you think that the limitations of Ethereum is slowing down the whole
industry and maybe hindering it because of the lack of usable, cheap, quick
infrastructure that makes people kind of take a step back and go maybe this
isn't the future? So two questions. When went to F2.0 and do you think that
not having an F2.0 is hindering the growth of this industry? I think a lot
of people are going to have to do some hard thinking and come to terms with
exactly how long it's going to be before the F2.0 vision is fully realized. I
mean, it's going to be years. I think Vitalik has mentioned something to that
effect recently where this is a multi-stage process that they have laid
out and I've seen so much hype around F2.0 phase zeros going live soon and
it's like these people don't even understand that there's going to be no
user facing consequences to that. It's not going to actually enable any scaling
improvements. It's only like step one of who knows how many steps. I can't
even keep track of it either because I mean, the plans are constantly
changing and I'm trying to keep my focus mostly on Bitcoin but I think a more
short-term plan is we're seeing more people talk about optimistic roll-ups
which is a different type of scaling. I would consider it more of a vertical
scaling where you're basically putting more data in the blockchain or just
using the blockchain more than it has been before. You could potentially say
it's kind of like SegWit. This is going to be an ongoing issue I believe in any
public permissionless popular network and I think it's interesting to look
back over the past three or so years since the end of what I would call the
scaling wars to really see what happened. What happened to the networks that
prioritized keeping validation costs low at the potential expense of having
higher transaction costs and what happened to the networks that did the
opposite and prioritize low transaction costs at the potential expense of high
validation cost of the entire network and really what we've seen is all of
these networks that have been pitching themselves as being basically free
slash really really cheap to transact have not gained that much adoption. I
was actually kind of hoping that some of them would so that we would get to see
some like real world stress testing of of what would happen to these networks
but I think that you know this is a narrative that is being proven false at
least currently and today is that you know this cutting edge technology does
not really seem to be getting adopted by the people who are extremely price
sensitive. I think there's some obvious explanations for that which is the
people who are extremely price sensitive probably have more important things to
be doing like figuring out how to put food on their table and keep a you know
a roof over their heads. They're not going to be playing around with this
these crazy speculative games that seem to be attracting more of the wealthy
elite nerdy type at least currently and and that's fine I mean that's how
technology progresses. It gets adopted by wealthier people who have free time and
have disposable income that they can throw at these things and that has
always been the case when it comes to technology. I just think that we're a bit
too early to be pitching this technology as like the savior for the third world
for example. I do hope that we will get there eventually but I think it's still
going to be a number of years. So I don't think that these higher fees are
necessarily turning a ton of people off you know obviously they're going to be
pricing some people out of the system but this is part of what we're going to
have to continue to monitor you know in every popular network is the the
trade-offs of you know who are we empowering and who are we
disenfranchising you know as the attributes of the networks continue to
fluctuate. My last question is first I want to say thank you for your time
today but I want to kind of like get away from crypto for one second and talk
about one of your other favorite topics the United States government. What do you
think about the upcoming election? I guess in general but I'm talking more
about voting security trust as we are both inside a well hopefully trustless
system of blockchain and decentralization we are putting a lot of
trust into this next election November 3rd when it comes to absentee ballots
mailing in-person voting the risks associated with that and the fact that
our two-party system might be doing a kind of you know unsavory business on
both sides to try to restrict the vote or in one way or the other to maybe one
side or the other. What is your opinion on all that and do you think that one
we're gonna have a an election that could be that we can trust with results
that we can trust and if not what do you think could happen on a tech side that
we can help push a trustless system through for the US government to conduct
elections in the future? Yeah I mean I think the whole thing is a shitshow and
it's potentially worse than it has been previously but I think that you know
we're seeing more of the same when it comes to politics. Politics is a dirty
game where the people who play the game tend not to be too hung up on you know
doing what it takes to win because you're playing for power is this is like
the ultimate form of money right is actual power over not just money but you
know all of the resources of a nation and so the difference I think is that
now with the information age it's harder to keep things secret and so we're we're
just being bombarded with more of the shenanigans that are going on. We're also
seeing the results of you know what the information age enables which is massive
disinformation campaigns and really being able to sway people's sentiments
in a way that wasn't really possible before. I mean the age of you know
broadcast media certainly changed the ability and the speed at which
politicians could sway public sentiment and now with the internet and social
media it's just you know kicking it up into hyperdrive so it's more of the same
but just overload such to the point that I think people who get sucked into it are
potentially you know wasting a lot of their lives just worrying about this
stuff and you know I I kind of watch it from the sidelines it's impossible not
to hear anything about the political situation of what's going on but when I
sit down and try to think about well would I prefer to live under a
Republican or a Democrat controlled you know president or other body of
government you know for me they they both have their own unique downsides and
so it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense for me to worry about which which
particular downside I'm gonna have to deal with because eventually I'm gonna
have to deal with something so it's it's crazy and I think that the most
productive thing that people can do is to not worry about it too much because
it's mostly outside of your control now we could try to institute better systems
you know one of the the problems with voting and I think one of the reasons
why a lot of people don't trust it is because when you cast that vote whether
you're putting it in the mail or touching a screen on an electronic
machine you don't really know what happens to it after that you know you
never get any sort of follow-up or feedback that ensures that an audit
happened that your vote was actually counted towards something so you know
these type of strong auditing systems that blockchain type data structures can
enable would certainly provide some better transparency for that but we'd
need to build a whole lot of infrastructure around it certainly not
gonna happen for this election cycle maybe in a few election cycles the
government or at least the the private sector will have caught up to the
possibilities of what blockchain style databases can actually ensure for
people I don't see a whole lot changing anytime in the near term even even when
it comes to thinking more optimistically about that stuff I have to assume that a
lot of the incumbent politicians would probably push back on it because they
might perceive better auditing of votes to actually be against their interests
and I mean that's that's why we see things like gerrymandering that's why we
see things like political battles over which ballots get to be thrown out for
whatever stupid reasons and the whole process is corrupt because everyone is
just vying to do what is in their best self-interest to gain as much power as
possible I'm just assuming here when when I asked that question that we think
that blockchain tech because you know hammers and nails you have a hammer
everything looks like a nail do you really think that blockchain tech could
help create a more trusted system of voting and governance if implemented
properly well that's the key word if implemented properly and so I certainly
believe that it could but I'm highly suspicious that you could get a neutral
body or a sufficiently bipartisan body of people together to build it in a way
that I would consider verifiable and trustworthy and so you know any such
system I would say would need to be built in the same way that public
permissionless networks are built where it's all done in the open everyone can
audit the source code everyone can view you know the entire public database of
the votes like there can't be any potential exploits where you know
shenanigans could occur because there's you know some level of lack of
transparency and in any part of the whole process so that's why I'm
pessimistic about it you know obviously optimistic about the technology and its
capabilities but still pessimistic about the humans that would be tasked with
building it in their own incentives is there any solution to that that
pessimism then then the human aspect I mean look the the reason that I think
Bitcoin worked is because this is this is a concept that transcends borders and
nation-states and so you can have people in from completely different cultures who
live in completely different environments who are all sharing the
common goal of building you know optimal form of money but when you start to try
to build a project that is limited to you know a certain locality a certain
jurisdiction then politics inevitably comes into play and becomes a lot harder
to extricate yourself from all of the complexities that come with that right
on man well thank you for that and Jameson I want to say thank you very much
for your time today and for helping me summarize my last two and a half months
of crypto news thanks for having me thank you for listening to this episode
of the decrypt daily tomorrow Bitcoin gold or silver can Bitcoin unseat take
the place of our precious metals that's the question I want to get to and for
that I invited on David Morgan author of the silver manifesto of which I have
three copies to give away after tomorrow's show and I'll tell you how to
do that I'll see you tomorrow.