Ep. 115 - Simon Dixon on Bitcoin, Epstein, and Whether BTC was Hijacked

Okay, I'm joined here with Mr. Simon Dixon. Um, we have not yet met and I was uh I'm pretty burnt out with the crypto space to be honest. I've been around for uh a long time and have I've seen that there's almost no good faith left in crypto and it's been that way for many years. And then uh with all of the Epstein stuff that's coming out and the hijacking Bitcoin narrative that uh that is seems to be taking off, I saw some of your videos being shared around and I'm like, "Okay, I'll click. Let's see. Let's see what this guy has to say." And uh I only watched a couple videos, but what was very clearly communicated in those videos was that this is somebody who is trying to have intellectual integrity and give their uh unique perspective on Bitcoin having been around for a long time. So that's that's very very rare as I'm sure you know, you've been around for a while. I'm sure you've seen many of the same patterns. So, I really wanted just to talk with you and get some information exchange because you um you're saying that, you know, you in your perspective were missing part of the story here, maybe a big part of the story about what is being called the hijacking of Bitcoin or the appearance of uh hijacking Bitcoin. And um I thought, well, let's hear this guy's perspective. He's been around for a while and he's trying to be intellectually integrous. So, thanks for coming on the show and it's nice to meet you. >> Oh, pleasure. Yeah. Look. Um, so I think, uh, you know, I spent a bunch of time going through what we learned about Jeffrey Epstein's communications. Um, and so I was kind of going through them in real time. And um you know I I've been so I joined Bitcoin in 2011, spoke at the the conference in Prague um that was hosted by Airaki um and uh you know um invested in about 100 different Bitcoin companies. Um and so I kind of got a lot of the inside track. Um and uh at the same time um you know when you when you learn these different things I've been devesting from Bitcoin companies uh for as much as I can because you know as this industry became more and more Wall Street um and uh became more you know degenerate gambling and all sorts of leverage and stuff like that. Um I I kind of still am I find a you know retreat in just Bitcoin and self-custody. Um and so you know I'm kind of going back to that that purious side after being around the block so to speak. And so, um, yeah, I think it's it's interesting, uh, because we we're seeing people that feel a bit vindicated, uh, because they're seeing things and then everyone's connecting their experience. Um, and I think it's best to actually understand what actually happened because my end conclusion, I'll give a spoiler, uh, there was a very clear divide and conquer strategy that involved multiple infiltrations. And what people I think are doing is they're picking the one that they want want to be vindicated by uh channeling on that and then painting a narrative around it. To a degree we're probably all doing the same. >> Yeah. >> Um but uh when I when I try and look at it from the perspective of you know what what what is real here and what tried to happen um I think the whole community was played and um I think it's worth exploring what we've learned from it. >> Yes. And I think that makes uh the value of uh possible information exchange here that much greater. So um u if people aren't aware of just a short introduction on my end, I also started learning about Bitcoin back in 2011. I was at Amis's University conference in Auburn, Alabama where people started talking about it. I was writing articles about it back in 2013 and then wrote my first book on Bitcoin called What's the Big Deal About Bitcoin in 2014. And then most recently I helped Roger Ver write hijacking Bitcoin. Um, so also been around the space for a while and part of the motivation, I've said this multiple places, that part of the motivation actually for me personally helping with Roger on this project, um, is that I I I felt like I couldn't leave Bitcoin and the crypto industry with a good conscience with all this information. The story that almost nobody people nobody has has heard. Somehow we had a the dominant perspective that was in Bitcoin uh, evaporated and then nobody nobody wrote it. somehow we la you know lasted several years where nobody even has encountered the other other side of the story and I felt like I want to get out of this space because I see a lot of the patterns that you're describing but I wanted to you know it was like a voice and exit concept before you leave you say your voice and then you leave um that was kind of the uh the motivation here >> yeah uh one of the ways I want to structure this is um you know when we when we're exchanging information it's um technical points will come up and I really want to try to avoid getting lost in technical weeds though we have to have some exceptions because some of the technical points end up mattering greatly. Um and I know this is you know this is one of the you know the I don't want to have any debates um to the to to the extent we can avoid it um about tactical matters unless they're necessary. Um but what I what I wanted to do is sync up with you on what you are perceiving with let's say um what appears to be the case that there is a a roll out right now of uh of digital dollars uh CBDC's that uh was brought in perhaps on the coattails of Bitcoin that people got really excited about crypto and they're like yeah this is the future and then the world that we are in right now is like custodial bitcoin which sort of undermines the whole idea of bitcoin plus tether and CBDC's and if we agree on that then we can maybe start retelling the story of what we think exactly happened. So you are seeing this pattern is that correct? Oh, absolutely. Yeah. I mean, um, you know, we've often been told like some people believe that, um, Bitcoin came from the intelligence community. Um, and and I believe there's an element of truth, but not the truth that a bit more nuance there. Um, I think, uh, the project was open sourced from those connected to the intelligence community. And I do think the cipher punks to certain degrees uh you know work because you know a lot of the cryptography and technology does come from you know military let's face it um and so you know you I think a a resistance within projects that were probably involved from you know in intelligence and they obviously wanted to create what is being created right now which is a you know a digital programmable uh artificial intelligence connected social credit score 1984 Orwellian nightmare version of fiat currency. Um and that is being built as we speak. There's no doubt about that. Um but I do think that uh from in you know the intelligence community there was a a runaway element that opensource this project published a white paper um called called themselves Satoshi Nakamoto um and uh and I think one would ask what are the reasons why you know the NSA or intelligence might be interested. one one obvious thing that people will say is there's a back door and then when you understand the technical architecture you realize that's just a very amateur argument. Um but the other one which I think is true is that it's a gateway drug um to uh the architecture that would service this digital dollar uh nightmare that that we're going through right now. So I do think um that there was an attempt to you know uh even if you look at digash and the privacy options and various other things that preceded this I think it's clear they wanted to create what is being created now and I do think this was an offshoot from that and I think the reason for it was uh to use Bitcoin uh it's out there it's in the sphere um and then there were adjusting to that reality But the gateway drug I think is the plausible story of why intelligence might be interested in this tech. >> Okay. Let me ask you one uh one question here. So when you say you know what they're rolling out now is this surveillance coin surveillance system. Um it's very terrifying. In fact Roger Ver I heard in one of his interviews he he said something along the lines of we're building the financial prison walls around ourselves. And I was like that's a that's quite a phrase. Um and I see that pattern in lots of projects. The most obvious of which are Tether and stable coins. However, the first question would be uh let's imagine a future in which um Bitcoin remains capped in terms of its scalability on the first layer. So we end up with uh Bitcoin as it is at present, BTC as it is at present. uh uh the same uh fundamental structure and design is fixed for 15 20 years from now. Do you see that as also part of the dystopia? Because one one might say well in a world in which people are are only operating on second layers that are all custodial. Even if BTC is technically the this the supposed uh asset that's underpinning these transactions, if it's custodial anyway, you're already in dystopia land. So, we don't even have to go to Tether and CBDC as terrifying as those are. But custodial Bitcoin is also like as uh we we coined it some years ago, panopticon, a pan a panoptic coin already [snorts] if it if it's just capped as it is right now. What do you think about that? >> Yeah. So I I think we got to So firstly, custody is the attack vector. No doubt about it. Um so but then when you're talking about custodial services, I think we've got a a nuance there that we need to understand. So I assume you're talking about um those that have lightning layer 2 custodial setups. Um, so Lightning would lightning would be an example, but even more uh more basic would be somebody thinks that they're owning Bitcoin, but it's it's via PayPal or it's via an institution, a Wall Street institution that owns it on their behalf. >> Yeah. So, let's say the unregulated custodial, which I think is a technical debate, it's a bit nuanced and, you know, um, around layer 2. Um, but then you've got the actual just straightforward custody. Um and uh yeah, custody is the attack vector and and if you look at the story of gold, it is that you created the ability for you to own your own bearer asset which was gold and it's so clunky, big and expensive um that you have to store it at a at a custodian and then that custodian creates paper contracts that leads to the creation of fiat currency. Um, and then with that they use that power in order to lobby and change law so that it's completely legal to do so. And then you have a derivative complex that pushes people into degeneracy. Um, you have more paper contracts than gold. Um, and then you build this entire complex that becomes larger than the entire supply of gold in custody. Um, and then it becomes systemic. And so, you know, um that that is the the history of what happens when you do custody. >> Yeah. I mean, people who were calling for a Bitcoin standard seem to forget that the gold standard failed. Okay. So, if you're going to try to recreate a Bitcoin standard and instead of gold, it's going to be Bitcoin like the gold standard failed and it failed for the reasons that you're describing because there's a separation between the actual underlying asset and then promises of access to that asset. >> Yeah. Exactly. So, you know, the the reason a gold standard will always fail and a Bitcoin standard will always fail is because um it's a paper contract that relies upon law and trust on top. Um and in times when it's systemically risky to the empire, uh the empire will default on that promise. That's the that's the history of empires. >> Okay. Uh let's just hang here for one more minute because I want to I want to hear your vision. And I want to see your vision of what custodial Bitcoin looks like because we could say, you know, what are the problems with fiat money? One of the issues is uh you may not own your assets if they're uh you know, if um for example, you've got all your money in the bank and JP Morgan says you've got $10,000 um but then you said something naughty and so they're going to pause your funds, you no longer have access to that money. So the there's the custodial problem which is obviously a massive enormous problem. But there are other problems too. there's problems of surveillance, of censorship, which don't necessarily result in um confiscation of of assets. So, so here's one criticism. Um and I'd like to hear your your uh your what you think about this. Um the system as it is, even with custodial Bitcoin. uh if it does if nothing changes fundamentally then let's say in 10 years time then all of the on-ramps and off-ramps to BTC all already through regulated exchanges. So if you have money that technically can't be confiscated but the government and the the uh regulatory authorities know how much you have. They know what account it's in. how much h how empowered are you just because they don't necessarily they can't necessarily confiscate those assets in a straightforward way but they can say well if you're you know if you're going to use it to buy anything or purchase anything then they say okay well you know make sure you play by the rules um you know everything's going to be KYC you're going to be taxed on it like what benefit of that what is the benefit of that system >> well I mean it's you know what what does it actually do so firstly You've got the ability to own your own money, self-custody. Um, but if you can't do anything with it, obviously they can hinder that. Um, you got the ability to spend it in an innocent until proven guilty system. Currently, the banking system is a guilty until proven innocent. Um, you know, if you want to send a large transaction, uh, you have to prove that that's for innocent purposes before they let you send it. Um and uh particularly [clears throat] >> sorry but just on that if they if you send a large transaction on BTC that's it's going to be flagged anyway. So you may it may not be that the transaction is prevented technically although we could talk about blacklists and that is still conceivably possible. But let's say the transaction goes through but it's already flagged and then you get you get agents knocking at your door three days later. >> Right. >> Yeah. um what all of these are legal enforcement um challenges. So to step outside that system um you know whenever you're dealing with a fear on ramps and a fear off-ramps everything's going to encounter this issue. Um so you know this is the system is designed in order to ensure that that that actually is how it is set up. Um >> and uh and you know there's there's there's nothing that can stop that um in terms of legal enforcement or you have to operate outside of the law and operating outside of the law is is is a niche because most people don't want to >> well let's say u for example the the the movement for privacy coins like people think that you know but people's idea of what Bitcoin is if they don't really know what talking about is like a Monero. It's supposed to be an, you know, an anonymous thing or that that you have real financial privacy. That would be an alternative that would be even if you're not doing anything illegal with it, it would still be outside of that system, right? I if if the goal if the ultimate goal is we're going to empower people financially to have an alternative money if it seemed like a big concession to say well you're not actually opting out with Bitcoin because all the onroads and offroads are already controlled anyway so why is it an alternative >> yeah I mean if you want to be like I I know that in my everyday life I am significantly freer with my Bitcoin than I am with my bank. Um, and now whether it's perfection, whether they can subpoena an exchange that finds out my history of purchases, um, that's just reality. Um, but it doesn't mean that I I feel that I live in a country where I can own as much Bitcoin as I want. I feel like I can leave that country with my private key. um I feel like I can transact with anybody but if I become a target of intelligence and I start engaging with sanctioned people >> um I know that I am creating an immutable record and I will face the full wrath of the law at some stage or I will and I will have to face that consequence. So it doesn't change it doesn't change the law the legal system is still there. Yeah, I think the strongest argument there is that specifically with the idea of being able to to leave a country that that there there is a unique value proposition I suppose in the fact that it's digital that is going to allow you to leave if you're in that circumstance where you feel like you need to leave. But that I think that's I think that's a valid argument. But that only applies to like a fraction of a fraction of a percent of people. people aren't the idea that people are going to like when the time is right up and move to a different country because they fear, you know, legal persecution and they're going to move their money with Bitcoin. That just I think that not that doesn't really apply. That's not that's not freedom for the masses, right? That's like for the ultra ultra wealthy, ultra elite, ultra flexible who could do something like that. >> Yeah. Um and you know that there is a reality. I mean, I made a a transaction today, sizable transaction, multiple millions of dollars. If I tried to do that with a bank, I'd still be here in probably 3 months. >> Yeah. >> Prove that that's a legitimate transaction. >> Yeah, that's fair. And uh and if it is a legitimate transaction, um then maybe you don't have to expect uh somebody knocking at your door. Um so, yeah, I think I think the the idea that, you know, for ultra high net worth individuals, there's still going to be a unique value proposition, that's fair. that is not, you know, I don't think that's what most people got involved, you know, at the beginning about. That wasn't sort of the vision of, you know, peer-to-peer cash that's an alternative to state money. But, uh, yeah, I I could see that still being a a valuable use case. Um, let let's try to get more of the story here. So, um I think you and I are going to agree that uh there's uh uh state and financial interests that were involved early on and paying attention to Bitcoin early on because the prospect of the alternative uh currency is is uh could be very disruptive to their business model uh to put it lightly. Um, from the from the hijacking Bitcoin perspective, we say that, you know, now, especially with the new uh emails that we have, as early as 2011, people like Epstein were uh asking questions about Bitcoin, trying to speak with the Bitcoin guys. I believe it was in 2013 or 2014, we have Adam Back and Austin Hill visiting Epste on his island. And 2014 is also one of these years that's pointed out in the book that seems to be there was sort of a shift in the culture of uh of uh Bitcoin. It started to move from Bitcoin is meant to be digital cash that's an alternative currency to Bitcoin is digital gold and you're not really supposed to move it or use it. Um uh so so we look at that we look at these emails that are coming out as evidence that in fact we were tracking things correctly. Um, and there's a b there was always a bunch of smoke around the company Blockstream. I that that was sort of the arch villain in the uh in the big blocker narrative. And then it comes out well Blockstream uh uh did take money from Jeff Jeffrey Epstein that um uh uh I believe Brock Pierce was also uh involved. Howard Lutnik um is involved via Tether. So Tether was directly uh investing in Blockstream like the you know a bunch of people were saying there's a bunch of smoke around blockstream and then now it appears like yeah there's a bunch of fire in around blockstream as well. Is that your perspective also? >> Uh that's half the story. Um I think there's a load more that we get from so we we should probably go through them in a chronological order and um >> okay >> get what what we think we can learn from it. Um but yeah I do think there was yeah multiple in f firstly I think it's worth defining what we think Jeffrey Epstein was and is. Um so my understanding of Jeffrey Epstein is that there are thousands of Jeffrey Epsteines. It's not a unique case. Um he is a compromised agent and this is how power works. M >> if you want to climb the ranks of power, the higher you want to go, the more compromised you have to be because it's a a self-inforcing network where everybody is compromised and therefore no one deviates from um power structure and then once you deviate or you are no longer useful to power, you switch from an asset to a liability and you get taken out. Um and um you know that is what I believe Jeffrey Epstein was and >> okay >> um and I do believe that Brock Peers was somebody that tried to grow within that power network and so you know here's here's how I think it works um that if you want to rise to power firstly you have different levels of infiltration the very first level is that you try and invest or fund um and then you see what they're willing to do and as they're willing to do you try and invest and fund more and make someone more subordinate. Um and then maybe you have physical meetings and maybe you try and honeypot someone into escorts. Um and then as you climb the ranks it gets ever more degenerate where suddenly you're trying to invite them to an island um and get compromised with miners and various other things. Um, and that's how I think the these types of networks work. But as Jeffrey Epstein, who works for greater power, you know, um, you have to prove your utility to power. So, you're always trying to bring new um, assets into the compromised network. Um, and somebody like Brock Pier that would hang around with someone like Jeffrey Epstein, he's trying to climb the ranks. And so he's trying to prove his utility to someone like Jeffrey Epstein. Jeffrey Epstein is trying to improve his utility to someone higher up in intelligence. And you just go higher and higher up. But it's like a mafia where you can never leave. Um because if you if you stop being an asset, then there are all uh there all ways of uh making you disappear. Okay, let's um so uh we'll return to your uh then uh your interpretation of the timeline. I do want to sort of comment on this. So I think that's a reasonable hypothesis about uh Epstein and his network and how the game is played. I do think that's part of what's going on. I also think there's a possibility here that um uh so while there there might be I don't think I would say there are thousands of Epstein I think there are thousands of Epstein aspirants who would like to be Epstein I think functionally there's a lot of low-level players I suspect that at that level there probably aren't that many Epstein I think he was ultra elite just by what we've seen um from the emails I also do think that it's hard to say so he was obviously working for people as an information dealer. But uh it it also could be that he that um let's say the the that level of power and influence is very incestuous. Um anyway, so I'm not sure how many more levels above him there need to be. I'm not saying that there aren't, but um I do think he was already hobnobbing with the rich what we know of as the richest and most powerful influential people that there are. And so whether or not, you know, he is an asset of a of an intelligence agency, it's obviously that's part of his network. But I don't want to rule out the possibility that this is just sort of the the type of incest that we see, not even necessarily through compromise, just through, you know, relationship building, through money moving through. Even in some of these emails, it's uh it's women sharing there. They appear to have, you know, there's a there's an assistant that Jeffrey is with and then somebody else is with as as well. So, they're sharing money, resources, women, and I'm not sure that it's all in the compromise uh uh picture. It could also just be this is what those types of people do. Um, okay. So, that's that's my take, but I I think Go ahead. Well, well, I I think it's worth saying and we'll move on, but um yeah, I do agree that, you know, there is um the supply side and there is demand. So, the people that demand these services um should be called out because [clears throat] you know, it's not like we forced you to do this. It's that you are willing to do this. Um you know, so there's there's that part to say. Um, and if you look at specifically Jeffrey Epstein, um, you know, we we found who the different co-conspirators are. Um, that was released by Thomas Massie this week. Um but Jazain Maxwell um you know she was the the daughter of Robert Maxwell and Robert Maxwell was connected to MSAD and Israeli intelligence and Jeffrey Epstein was uh manufactured to look like a billionaire financier at Bear Sterns but he was in fact um the trustee and manager of Lex Wexner's um wealth and Lex Wexner um via Victoria Secrets had a whole grooming gang. >> Um, and so yeah, you've got >> And one more note on that. I think this is very important for people as they're thinking about these networks. I I it would be a mistake to think that somebody like Epstein has a net worth. So I think the way that these systems operate is that there it's shared wealth. So to say how much of Lex Westerners's uh whatever his last name is, how much of his estate is owned by Epstein, I think it's more fluid than that. So I think there's a big network all over the world of people that are do scratching one another's backs. They don't even know what their net their their total assets are because there are you know mutual legal claims on the same piece of property but there were unwritten contracts about what the expectations are. So I think it's I think kind of the the lines between you know whose bank who who owns what is very blurry in that world >> and that is a Bitcoin story as well because net worth you know we think of these high net worth individuals a lot of it is financialization and securitization um and there is loans against those paper assets and there are multiple rehypothecated claims on those assets um and so in the end. It's not like these high net worth people, you know, their billions and billions are in Bitcoin and gold. You know, their billions and billions is is paper wealth. Um, and paper wealth can be manipulated and you can wipe out someone's wealth if they're leveraged um in a heartbeat. And that is a that is a compromise vehicle to wipe out someone's net worth. >> Yes. And also not just paper wealth, but also networks and untapped networks. So for example, if we if we were to ask the question, how much could Jeffrey Epstein raise in the context in which he needed to raise X billion number of dollars? Well, I don't know what that number is, but when he starts calling in those favors, that might be hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars or more for all we know. So that's not it's not that's not in paper wealth. That's not designated to him. That's sort of in the latent potential of the network and the relationships that he had built. >> Yeah. Correct. All right. So, let's let's move on from that. So, looking at the Epstein files, >> um there were a bunch of fake stuff saying he was Satoshi. >> Um that was all BS. Um you couldn't authenticate any of that in the DOJ website. >> Um so, people were deliberately engaging in market manipulation or narrative building. Um, but the very first communication we do have is that in 2011, that was the year I joined Bitcoin. Um Jeffrey Epstein clearly was trying to figure out who's the who in Bitcoin, you know, and um if you were around in 2011 like you were, you'll know that kind of initially Amir Taki got connected to Bitcoin on the BBC and media because you know because he he he was a type of character where you could connect drug usage to Bitcoin and the media loved that and there was a whole you know thing around Silk Road, Bitcoin coin and and all that type of drug usage and he lived in a squat and various other things. So um and then at some stage it was apparent that you know Amir Taki shouldn't really be the face of Bitcoin because people would consider him the CEO at that point. >> Yeah, I was going to say there's there's a lot of evidence that uh a lot those stories were true of air, right? of it being involved in uh uh I don't know how to describe it but unsavorable activities and environments. >> Well, he he would proudly say it on TV. He was very young, you know, um you know, he would go on TV and say, "You know what is great about Bitcoin? You know, you can launder money and buy drugs [laughter] and he he would say it." Um so then kind of Gavin Andre became a little bit of the face of Bitcoin. So he was the first developer um that Satoshi handed the the project over to um and you know he they um there was communication um and then obviously Roger Ver became an investor and he started um advocating for Bitcoin and became very public and so really those were like in 2011 the different faces um you would find if you were looking to find out who's the who in Bitcoin. >> Okay. Um and so Jeffrey Epstein um attempted to contact Amir Taki. Um Amir Taki um said uh you know go and meet my partner in a project. I remember he was developing dark wallet which was a wallet that would kind of use what later became like coin joins and anonymity and stuff for Bitcoin. Um and then apparently what he said he publicly responded to this on X. Um and he said that uh they were going to go get funding. His partner in the project met him and then came back and rejected his funding. Um there was communications where um Gavin Andre um just said I'm too busy to meet. >> Mhm. Um, and so that was, you know, the the first attempts to try and communicate with people and figure out. So the way I interpret that is Jeffrey Epstein um wanted to engage in compromise of key figures in Bitcoin because it's an emerging technology and either he wanted to figure out whether this is useful for some of the activities that he would engage in um or he started to figure out whether he could um network with the key people, compromise the key people um and and be useful to power uh in this one addition here. So, I believe I'm going to get the time right, timeline correct. U people can correct me if I'm incorrect. This is all based on um recent emails. So, um I think it was in 2011 that um Gavin was asked by the CIA to give a talk about Bitcoin and he makes a post saying this, saying like, "Hey, they've asked me to do this. this means we're on their radar and I want to I want to be out in the open that I'm going to go do this so that people aren't concerned about possible uh compromise. And I believe and this this is the new claim that um it was shortly after that like or I believe it was like a month later that that's when Epstein starts asking if he can start if he can meet with the Bitcoin people and and try to figure out who the the Bitcoin guys are. So, it's conceivably possible that I mean obviously they were uh Bitcoin was on the CIA's radar back then that that's why they reached out to him. But it's conceivably possible that Epstein >> was tasked with trying to figure out who the key players are after this meeting with Gavin. chronologically that would fit at least and and to Gavin's credit >> he did at least in the record the records that we have he did decline to meet with Epstein and then we have an email from Epstein simply saying oh yeah Gavin is clever right and this I believe this was right after he declined to meet him so there's a you know there's a Epstein did meet with some of the developers he didn't meet with Gavin and there's a question at least in my mind also still is Gavin a legit player or was he possibly uh not was he possibly compromised? And I don't know. I'm like I'm like at least 80% I think he's legit. I've never met him. I've never spoken with him, but >> I get a little I get a little suspicious vibes from him. I'll be honest, but like everything that I've seen, I think he's legit. And the fact that he did snub Epstein to me puts more points in his favor. >> Yeah. So if we if we look at the timeline um you know Gavin Andre becomes the first developer that Satoshi gives commit access to. Um then in 2011 we had that timeline where Jeffrey Epstein so um Gavin Andre says publicly on the Bitcoin talk forum um I'm going to go meet the CIA. Um Satoshi says I'm leaving the project. >> Well that's not quite right. No, that wasn't No, the because there was an intermediate step there where when Satoshi I believe the last thing we have from Satoshi is when they're talking about Wikileaks. >> There's somebody says in the thread like uh there was like some news article about Wikileaks accepting donations in Bitcoin and then Satoshi says, "Okay, I think this is a bad idea. You're going to you're going to sort of kick the kick the wasp nest and they're coming after us." And then he leaves. So, I don't think it was after the CIA thing. I think it was after the Wikileaks thing. >> Yeah. Do you know the um from memory, do I don't know if you know, do you know the time difference between the Wikileaks CIA? >> I don't. >> Okay. So, that's worth looking into in the comments. They can do the DD. >> Okay. >> Um but but like we're working from memory. I haven't like done that. >> Yeah. It would be in 2011 or couldn't be less than >> around the same time. >> Yeah. >> Um then Satoshi left. Um, and from my perspective, um, I speculate that the most likely candidate to be Satoshi is somebody called Len Sassimon >> and and he, um, committed suicide one month after that after Satoshi left. >> Okay, just a point of clarification, I just Googled here. It looks like the last known email was sent April 23rd, 2011. >> Okay, that I don't know if that's 100% true. That's just what the AI tells me um in real time. So So this this is tracking what you're saying here. >> And when was the CIA Gavin Andre? >> I I exed out of the the thing. I'll I'll I'll pull it up again while you're talking. >> Okay, cool. Yeah. [clears throat] Um so that that timeline is worth just nailing down because I think it's very interesting. >> Um and uh so so that's what we you know we got confirmation of in the in the Epstein files. um whether we believe they are true as well. These could all be red herrings. You know, everything's crazy. Um then I think I I think it's really important to fast forward three years to 2014. 2014 um for anyone that was around was it was kind of like if if you went through the FTX year, that's what 2014 was like, but 10 times worse. you know, 2014 was on so many levels a disaster to be involved in Bitcoin. Um, and this is when we I think we really start to see um the character. So, from my memory um I I was a shareholder in um Bitay >> and uh Bitay was pitching for finance. Max Kaiser and myself invested in Bitay. Um, and the at the time if you were a developer, you'd put up a QR code and people would fund and people would contribute. Then Bitay agreed as a corporate entity to pay some of the developer uh funding and everyone was complaining about a company paying for developer funding at the time. Um, and so then people were like, well, what's a better structure? And so this is when we get the Bitcoin Foundation. Um and then the Bitcoin Foundation comes along where all the Bitcoiners could give some Bitcoin. And on the board were the who's who of Bitcoin. You know, that included uh people like Charlie Schwam who created Bit Instant, a gateway into Mount Gaus. Um that included people like John Matonis who was the later chairman. uh Roger V, Mark Capellis who bought an exchange from the creator of Ripple that was missing 80,000 Bitcoin. Um and uh uh who else was there? You know, there was um uh Gavin Andre as well, I believe. Um and later came Brock Pier. Um, and so Brock Pier already had a background uh from public information where he was involved in Hollywood as a child actor. I don't think that, you know, that's a bad thing in itself, but we know what Hollywood is about as a childhood actor. You can imagine what type of circles you're in. Um, we also know that during the com boom and bust, he had a tech startup um that was meant to go public and then failed. Um, and there were allegations and settlements around miners that claimed that there were sexual I'm careful with my language on YouTube, you get the point, this type of um, degeneracy. Um, and I believe that those problems went away and there was settlements. Um and so we know that he already had this type of background. Um now when he came into the Bitcoin Foundation, he came with money. Uh and and at this point there were you know there were no VCs. There was this was such a different place. Um round you know Roger Vera and myself were investing in companies and we it was because we both did well with Bitcoin. He did well in entrepreneurship prior to that. Um but there was no money in this industry. Uh you know and um so the Bitcoin Foundation became the place where you could contribute and then it was more decentralized than just Bitay uh because there was a bunch of companies and a and a and a not for-p profofit and a and a more decentralized structure. Uh but Bitcoiners being Bitcoiners we don't trust anything. And so, you know, they they they everyone was always angry at what the Bitcoin Foundation was doing. >> Let me put a little bit more nuance on that. So, there was still factions in the Bitcoin Foundation world. So, there I know people like Amir Taki, Cody Wilson were saying, "Abolish the Bitcoin Foundation. Good riddens in principle. We can't have any centralized development." There were still others uh like Mike Hearn for example. I mean my current was critical afterwards who was trying to say look you have to have some formal industry. You have to have some formal structure. Let's not kid ourselves and saying like somehow there's just going to be this purely emergent thing. So not everybody was uh was necessarily critical of the bit Bitcoin Foundation. One more question. Do you remember when Brock Pierce came in as the head of the Bitcoin Foundation? This might end up being an important part of the storyline here. >> Uh [snorts] yeah, we'd have to check that one. Um, >> okay. >> It was later. My my memory says it wasn't from from the beginning. >> Okay. It would be that would be fascinating if it was, especially because of the Epstein connections with Pierce and you saying that um or or what we what we know that uh after the failure of the Bitcoin Foundation uh development financing move to MIT >> which uh Epstein also did contribute a little bit of money to. Um, one more thing before we get off track. There's a I was pulling up the dates for the Satoshi Nakamoto emails, and I do think this is actually uh this is uh this this is intriguing. You and I were both incorrect here. So, um, on April 23rd, we've got an email from Satoshi saying, "I've moved on to other things. Um, the project is in good hands with Gavin." on April 23rd, 2011. April 27th, four days later, is when Gavin says, "I was asked to uh to do a talk um at the CIA." Now, now I think a reasonable there's that this is very intriguing. I think a reasonable speculative precision is that Gavin was not asked on the 27th. Gavin was probably asked to go earlier and then OB, I would imagine he would tell Satoshi about that. So, it's very plausible that those two things are connected that that Satoshi decided to leave before Gavin went to the CIA knowing that that was going to happen and he didn't want to be uh he didn't want to be involved. >> Mhm. Yeah. >> Um Okay. So, we were in we're at the Bitcoin Foundation now. >> Okay. Yeah. So um before the Bitcoin Foundation went bust, I think there's a bunch of things that need to be explored there. Um so the first thing is we get confirmation that Peter Thiel um you know who's uh you know ex connections to PayPal Silicon Valley um he was uh messaging Jeffrey Epstein and talked about how yeah the Bitcoin community is a bit confused there. Jeffrey Epstein was saying they don't know if it's a store of value, a median of exchange, unit of account. I'm I'm paraphrasing, but words to that effect. The Bitcoin guys are all crazy. Um, and there was some wording around Peter Thiel saying, "Is this part of the um I can't remember the word. I got to get the word right. Destabilization campaign or something or >> um there was communications between Jeffrey Epstein and Peter Till that implies there was a deliberate deliberate campaign um in order to discredit Bitcoin um and then Jeffrey Epstein was talking about medium of exchange unit of account um whether it's a currency or anything like that. So, >> but we we do have in 2017, I didn't know this, uh, man, I wish I knew this before I help with hijacking Bitcoin, but we do have a the only thing that I've seen ever seen that Jeffrey Epstein wrote publicly about Bitcoin is uh is a is from an interview at the next.com. Have you seen this from 2017? >> Uh, no, I haven't seen that one. >> Okay, I'll have to send it to you. It's uh it's actually I can't believe it's been hidden, but um uh he's essentially making the case that Bitcoin is a supposed to be a store of value and it's not really a medium of exchange. So he was sort of repeating the store of value line in public in 2017 when he was interviewed. >> So that's another interesting Yeah. interesting piece of the story here. >> Yeah. So Peter Till and Jeffrey Epstein were communicating around what appears to be a deliberate campaign um and the debate was around store of value, unit of account and and all this type of you know this type of debate. I I interpret that as that there was a a deliberate campaign to split divide the community. >> Um and the narrative was being formed and I think it came from Peter Till um and Jeffrey Epstein was somebody that was um you know involved in those communications. Uh so that's 2014. Um what else happened in 2014? Uh so Brock Pierce uh funded the create uh a project called Realcoin um that later rebranded as Tether and was sold to Bitfinex. And so Brock Pier was the founder of what later became Tether. >> And uh and it should should be noted that Tether was also um Tether and Bitfinex are have essentially the same seuite. They were directly investing hundreds of millions of dollars into Blockstream. They have raised hundreds. >> We got to get We've got to get the timing of that right. So, I'm not sure which round they came in, whether it was seed or later round. >> This was later. >> I know it came. Did it come seed or later? >> No, that was later. That was later. Yeah. >> Yeah. Later round. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So, then uh Brock Pier, who appears to me to be trying to become useful to Jeffrey Epste. Now remember 2008 he's a convicted, you know, he's he's Jeffrey Epstein's already been convicted. So everyone knows what Jeffrey Epstein's about if you've done any, you know, Google will tell you what he was about in 2008. And so Brock Pierce was in those circles. Um, and he appeared to be trying to I feel like the relationship was Brock Pierce was trying to be useful to Jeffrey Epstein as a as a higher up in the hierarchy. Um, I could be wrong. That's just what I speculate. Um, and he uh was seeding funding to Jeffrey Epstein and affiliated entities like Digital Garage. Um, one of them was an introduction to Coinbase. Um, one of them was um a venture capital fund that was set up. So Max Kaiser and myself set up Bitcoin Capital and Brock Pierce set up Blockchain Capital um with other fund managers. Blockchain Capital invested in everything like everything you know kind of like digital currency group and Barry Silbert. So this this made up the the kind of the venture capital entrance and Peter Thiel via founders fund invested in Bitay if memory serves me well and started making some investments. So round about 134 15 you got the entrance of Silicon Valley. Um and then >> another another player we should mention here is Reed Hoffman. Reed Hoffman co-founder or or founder or co-founder of LinkedIn all throughout the Epstein emails. He was the individual that led the seed round for Blockstream back in 2014 I want to say it was and then was also on the board. I think it was also in 2014. So he is another one of these players here that appears to be um a you know very friendly with Epstein. >> Yeah. So anyway, Blockstream factioned off some of the key developers and key people in the community, put it into a corporate shell um and uh you know it it was raised a chunk of money that was oversubscribed um and started to be this connection between Tradfi, Silicon Valley, you know, Legacy Finance with like Axer and various others um and started to become one of the key corporate entities that had um paid um you know major characters in the in the core de in core development via blockstream. Uh then we had Coinbase which was a key company in the block war debate on the big blocker side. Um but uh and then we had Bitay who was on the big blocker side and then Blockstream on the small blocker side um what later became the debate. So to me there was infiltration across every every side of the corporate entities >> and then obviously Barry Silbert as well was on the big blocker side as well. >> Let me uh let me present a alternative picture here. So, um, the way that I'm making I'm trying to make the the easiest explanation in my mind for what h was happening with Blockstream is, uh, uh, who the people who hijacked Bitcoin had in their mind that we're going to transition from digital cash to digital gold where you actually hold it and we're going to get a Bitcoin standard where you're going to go through institutions to access your Bitcoin. And this is the way that traditional finance can come in dto Bitcoin, make it just another asset people hold and it loses its uh its revolutionary uh value. Um, and so when I when I'm uh thinking about Blockstream being the key player here in in hiring several of the key developers that insisted on not scaling Bitcoin the way that Satoshi designed Bitcoin to scale, um, there was there always been an open question in how uh how do they get paid? What's the final payoff? One laughably suspicious uh um way that they make money is by offering their own alternative blockchain. They have a proprietary blockchain called the liquid network which it appears that they were trying to get nation states on boarded to the liquid network. And on the liquid network they would make 100% of all the transaction fees. And we have an email from I want to say it was Austin Hill saying that he's got all these world improving projects. He's going to make the world a better place and give free healthcare to people and it's going to be financed in part by taking a small transaction fee on uh on entire nation states cash float. Um okay. So that's that's that's part that's one like hamfisted way that Blockstream can profit is by just saying we're going to give you an alternative to to to Bitcoin even though they were hiring Bitcoin developers. However, I think in hindsight, just in the past few years, uh, Blockstream has raised hundreds and hundreds, in fact, it's over half a billion dollars that they've raised. And my interpretation of that new money is as payoff. If it was the case that Blockstream's job was to ensure that Bitcoin did not scale the way that it was designed to scale and ensure that we transitioned into this custodial Bitcoin world, then the promise is uh delay long enough so we can roll out CBDC's and digital dollars and then what we're going to invest in your company to the tunes of uh hundreds of millions of dollars. And that is what we've seen. And who are the who are the late comers that paid those hundreds of millions of dollars? Go figure. it's tether the uh and and also I just came across an article um recently. I'm trying to verify this because I because uh some of the links that were in the article were broken and it was from I want to say it was from CoinDesk and from last year where they said that Blockstream had secured multiple billions for uh creating some type of a fund that was going to be you know backed with bitcoins multiple billions. Now, if that's true, then I feel like the payoff theory has a lot of credence to it that you broke this technology, you delayed it long enough so the the big wigs could come in and uh and now you're making uh you're not just making hundreds of millions, you know, you're making you're making billions. So, al alternative theory that people should entertain as they're listening to the story. >> Yeah. So, um I I disagree with the framing. I don't think they broke the technology but um if we look at the things that they they did they were advocating you know for the as an influential voice in the argument that um in order to remain more decentralized uh we need a fee market and we need nodes that are trivial to run and then we get into the the debate which I don't think is worth having but you know just cuz you you framed it in the break bitcoin I personally don't believe they did break Bitcoin. Um, >> let me just ask you one question so we don't argue about it. Um, were it the case that that technical vision doesn't check out and in fact the the vision of everybody's going to run your own node, if that doesn't actually work and it doesn't actually scale, would you in in that world? I'm not saying that that's the world even though I believe it to be the case. Would you then think one could interpret their actions as breaking Bitcoin at the technical level? >> No. Well, I mean, we got 25,000 nodes and running nodes are the only people that are getting a vote in this not versus core debate right now. Um, so the whole concept of a user activated soft and a resistance against the miners I think is a very important feature and is proving to be an important feature right now. >> So, that's one of those we're gonna we have to have that conversation, but we can't have it now because we're going to get sidetracked. Maybe we that one's one where that we have to talk about that and we have to do a little bit of technical argument but let's let's try to put that at the end. >> Yeah. Okay. All right. So um but you are quite right there um different types of technologies that were created within the corporate shell of blockstream um like liquid. And what is liquid? It was a federated network of banks essentially um where you could launch shitcoins um and uh you know it was a a more centralized federated network um you know and that existed on top of Bitcoin. I don't think that really means or matters much um to Bitcoin itself but you know those technologies like anyone can launch a coin on anything but you know that there was that federated network that's very suspicious in terms of the actors that were running you know those nodes within liquid it it shows deep connections to banks and financial institutions um the billions that they you may be referring to is that they did launch products for Bitcoin mining And so they created security tokens or something. >> This is different than that. >> Okay. Um >> and um so anyway um a company with a very questionable business model. Um you know brought in a bunch of the Bitcoin core developers under a corporate rapper. Um and once you have a corporate rapper you are subordinate to your shareholders. Um and those shareholder you have fiduciary duty to those shareholders. um and no shareholders. Um you know, one of the investors was $500,000 um introduced, I believe, via Brock Pierce um through Digital Garage into Blockstream. Um and so that's where that's where you had um Blockstream. Now the important part here is um you know we then have further confirmations um that somebody called uh there was a message to Amir Taki I believe it was 2014 2015 um check this fact check this um from Jeffrey Epstein saying that back and not Adam Bach um has uh will be visiting the island. are you still involved in Bitcoin? And so Jeffrey Epstein was trying to invite Amir Taki knowing that somebody called Andy back was coming to the island. >> Oh, that's that's Annabbeck. Yeah. So, we have emails on both sides of that exchange where um where the I'm going to get the details wrong, but the general concept is um that he's asking uh you are you still involved in in Bitcoin? I'm going to have Adam back. He says Andy back, but I don't know if that's intentional or or not. Um, and then there's a there was a response from Austin Hill who was referring to scheduling details about them coming to the island and he refers to Adam and that group of people that were coming to the island. >> Yeah. So then the Blockstream co-founder Austin >> Austin >> Adam back this time. >> Yeah. >> Um, so I think it's very reasonable to say that was the same thing. >> Yeah. Um now what's interesting is um Adam back publicly confirmed uh as this revelation came out that they received Blockstream did receive funding um via Digital Garage and a Jeffrey Epstein affiliated entity. Uh they did confirm that there was meetings with Jeffrey Epstein. So it was known that it was Jeffrey Epstein. It wasn't like via a hidden shell. um and they took the money anyway, even though in 2008 it was known if you did your due diligence then you're not allowed to receive that type of money um as a financial institution or whatever it may be. Um and um and then he claimed that there was a devestment process which is very strange. There was communications around uh conflicts of interest because um Jeffrey Epstein also invested in Stellar and Ripple. Whether that means the coin, the entity, I got no idea. Um but there was communications to say that that's a conflict of interest. Um and that and so you know we we the investments were made. Um but no communication, radio silence around um Adam back confirming whether he went to the island and what was the purpose and whether he was duped, whether he wasn't. Um very very suspicious that that's not being talked about. >> Yeah, you have to address that. You certainly do, especially when um you've got a whole faction of big blockers who've been around for a while um who've been pointing to the corruption here and then we have a node of the corruption being Jeffrey Epstein himself and this network. Like that's obviously something that would have to be addressed. So I'm listening to your your uh uh recollection of events and then it I'm going okay well that seems like there's a bunch of red flags everywhere. So, how do we So, so and I so far I think I agree with the most of um uh what you've said. So, then what so this is also all of this stuff I I wish could have been in hijacking Bitcoin. It's not because we didn't have the we didn't know some of the details say the tether is not mentioned in the book once and yet I think this is going to end up being a critical part of the story in hindsight because of of of the connection through Brock Pierce with Blockstream. >> Yeah. Yeah. And the Epstein thing obviously isn't mentioned because we didn't have any of the emails. So I look at it and I go, "Okay, we are not just partially validated, we're like hyper validated here, but but you're saying there uh there's a piece of this a big piece of the story here that we're missing." >> Yeah. So um you've got I mean the corporate entities at the time were on the side of the big blocker side. So I was shareholders in Coinbase um you know all of the blockchain.info, info, Bit Pay, Kraken, um, Bit Stamp, you know, I was >> shareholders. >> It was, it was now, now may maybe you'll find this an exaggeration. I'm trying not to exaggerate here. I would say it was the overwhelming majority of the industry, big corporate, small corporate, the there were a few exceptions like Blockstream, like Bitfinex. Outside of that, almost everybody else was on the side of big blocks. and the corporate side. Absolutely. So, it was the the corporate position. >> Yeah. >> Um within within the community, there was lots and lots of debate around how to scale, what it should be, what it looks like, different implementations. We had Mike Hearn as well. Obviously, we're talking about Mike Hearn from my memory. Um I can't remember. I think this was 2015. Um I can't remember. Um but Mike Hearn his big obviously he was involved in his scaling solutions and different um you know implementations. Um but he left when he was talking about his big gripe was centralization of mining in China. >> Um that's part of the his his big gripe was that he thought uh Blockstream essentially took over control of the the development. I mean he wrote copious amounts saying that development is captured, development is captured and I don't want to involve myself in this project. And part the the connection with uh this mining centralization is he says if you if you understand how Bitcoin the network was designed the miners are supposed to be the ones that are calling the shots about how the network upgrades. They're the ones investing tens hundreds of millions of dollars not like a small disconnected group of developers. And so part of his legitimate gripe was that there's so much mining in China, there's so much hash hash power in China. If they're too timid, either for cultural reasons or whatever, whatever the reasons are, they're scared about the great firewall at the time, maybe because there's some latency problems, whatever it is, that that's where the criticism of the Chinese miners came from. It wasn't because of mining centralization generally speaking. it was that the uh mining centralization in China has resulted in a a type of pacificity with regards to Bitcoin development that will break the project. >> Yeah. Uh but it's worth I think it's worth pointing out that he ended up um doing a very public I'm selling all my Bitcoin. I'm leaving the project. The main thing he was talking about was centralization of mining in China. >> That's not that's not the main thing. That's definitely not the main thing. That's one one of the arguments in in a in Yeah, [clears throat] I would strongly recommend everybody go back and read my current I think he was the second best mind we ever had in uh in crypto. >> Okay. And then he left to go to R3 and create central bank digital currencies for banksters. >> Um so that was his next move. >> Is that is that correct? I don't know that part of the story that he central bank digital currencies. I know he he created an alternative blockchain for some period of time but I what was that how was that connected with CBDC? R3 was the bank's blockchain and so then he joined R3 and started working for the bank's blockchain um you know which is iterations that became CBDC's and all of those so you can connect that to the whole tether story >> okay >> you know there was um there was a a a a dramatical exit there was competing implementations um and then there was um you know an exit to basically doing the stable coin banks blockchain KYC chain and I remember I was at a I was at an event and his suggestion was to put KYC on chain um and he came to London to present and I still remember it very well because he got such a >> push back from it. >> That's interesting. So he was pushing the KYC and by you know hashing your passport into the Bitcoin blockchain um and making it KYC chain. >> Wow that's interesting. Uh yeah I don't know I don't know this part of the story what the details of what Mike Hearn did after he left. I do know that he had a lot more um realistic perspectives on the relationship between law and crypto than essentially anybody else at the time. He was like way way ahead of the curve. you know, earlier in this conversation, you're saying Bitcoin doesn't get you outside of law, >> and that's just that's just a fact of the situation that we live in. He was making that argument way ahead of time. So, I it's it's definitely plausible that he would, you know. Yeah. Go ahead. >> Yeah. And again, you can you can see narratives because we have our version of events and I'm trying to be But if you want to create a an alternative reality to your reality of Mike Hearn, >> he came from Google. He tried to create KYC chain. Um he was on the bid blocker side. He complained about mining centralization. Then he left and he went to work for the banks on KYC chain. You know that's my current story. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. We definitely have to I have to update on the uh on the minor centralization thing. that really wasn't that was that was uh it's important because what he identified also in the uh BCH world people asked him in I think 2017 or 2018 hey what do you think about Bitcoin Cash and he said look I think it's the same problems this reminds me of early uh Bitcoin and you guys are going to run into the same development problems and so it's not a serious project because you've not you've not dealt with the issue of how do you finance uh and structure and organize development on your chain and and unless you've solved that problem, it's it's going to fail. And he was he was kind of correct on that. So So yeah, I I I it's not there's the it's I'm not going to say it entirely tarnishes his uh his reputation to say that he went and said, "Okay, good rins with these these silly non-serious uh people in Bitcoin. Um I'm going to I'm going to go work for, you know, official and actually try to build something that works and scales." I think that's thematically I I could see that. Yeah. >> Yeah. Um I think some other points. So um round about this time I I went to meet all the Chinese miners. I was at like the scaling meetings, the Hong Kong meetings, um all those different meetings. Um and I remember meeting Jihan Woo at Bitmain. Now I can't remember the timing, but I think it's worth factchecking when Sequoia Capital invested. Um so we we had you know um venture capital funding coming into Bitmain and obviously Jihan Woo from my memory was the the entity that uh sponsored the creation of Bitcoin Cash and he called it Bitcoin ABC and he had a blog of it on Bitmain and then he later took it down and then kind of other people became the face for the project. uh but I remember it was very much a Jihon Woo le initiative. >> So uh I can I can speak to some of that. So the situation was um uh the the industry the the wider if you want to call it the corporate side of a crypto but the the Bitcoin industry that was developed at that time kept running into issues with the Bitcoin core developers because they weren't scaling in the most obvious way that Satoshi designed the system to scale. And so uh there were multiple attempts to try to get them to change. They had the Bitcoin core developers made agreed on multiple occasions to particular increases to the block size limit, but they failed to execute on multiple occasions what they had promised. And so why uh Bitcoin ABC was created was as a as a backup option just in case the SegWit 2X agreement failed, they wanted to have an option that didn't have SegWit in it and was al and also had a block size increase. So the idea was we don't trust Bitcoin core developers to follow through on their agreements because we've been burned. So now we have a backup option to get around them in case SegWit 2X failed. That was that's where the origin was. Yeah. >> And I remember it very well. The Hong Kong agreement like it was you know the miners were there, the core developers were there um and SegWit 2X was the agreed path. >> Um I I remember that very well. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, and then that that failed and so that's why a lot of people started switching to Bitcoin Cash that because that was the version the implementation the of Bitcoin that people thought they were building towards in the industry for the prior several years that like we care about digital cash. We care about low transaction fees. Satoshi designed the system to scale this way. So, that's why we're going to switch over. But if you also remember almost no, I can't think of anybody off the top of my head who who was a major player that wanted Bitcoin Cash over SegWit 2X. >> Everybody, I know Roger included, was like, "Listen, we're that's a backup option. We want we want to keep the industry together and this is only in case core doesn't uh follow through with their end of the bargain." So yeah. >> Now um okay so you know to recap we got Peter Till and Jeffrey Epstein talking about infiltration what it looked like to me um around unit of account store of value medium of exchange all that type of stuff. Uh we had Brock Pierce enter the fold through venture capital the creation of what later became Tether. Um we had uh introduction to investments across Blockstream and most of the corporate entities that were big blockers. Um and uh and then we had the bankruptcy and the discrediting of um almost all factions of the Bitcoin Foundation. So we had the taking out of Mount Gaus, [laughter] you know, we had the Willie bot that was developed. Um, we had the fact that uh and I remember Mark Capellis saying it wasn't Mount Gox, it was the code and so he started blaming the code transaction malleability for the issue with >> that. Yes. >> Yeah. >> Um, we had Charlie Shrem arrest I think it was that year as well. >> Uh, this is so this is earlier. This is like still 2015 2014 era you're talking here. >> Yeah. Yeah. uh from the court records like Roger V dealing with his um tax thing right now. I think if you look at the records 2014 were the kind of transactions where I think he was restructuring. Um I can't talk to any of that but you know um it appears that there is leverage on Roger Ve to do with tax. I don't know what the case is what's happening right now. Where does that come from? >> Well, if you if you look at the court documents, I think they're looking back to unpaid tax from and again, this is no opinion. Um, I maintained relationship with Roger Vera. I'm not trying to tarnish anyone's character here. Um, but I think the fact that he has recently, you know, been effectively taken out for transactions centered around tax from around about this time. um is another interesting part of the equation. >> But what when you said do you think that he some they've got leverage on him? Where do I'm just I don't I don't know about this. What is where do you get that idea from? >> Um well the tax authorities clearly have leverage over Roger V because he's now they're deciding whether he goes to prison or not. >> Oh well he he has been they did settle so he is he is free. Thank god he Yeah. >> Great. So again, >> oh, sorry. Sorry. Let let me let me just try to rephrase. I just want to be clear. Is the is what you're saying that um that uh Okay, I think I see what you're saying. That Roger Ver might have been compromised as early as 2014, 2015 for tax reasons. And so when we saw what happened with the block size war um unravel the way that it did, that might be connected to Roger having had, you know, that US government has leverage over him in some way. Is that the claim? >> Yeah. I mean, these are very weak connections. Um but I'm just putting it out there that okay, >> was in prison. a compromised technique is to allow prison sentences to go away and therefore you have to they cash in on their leverage. Um and if you suddenly get taken out again, it may be that your leverage you're not performing whatever leverage. >> When you say he was in prison, you mean about the >> the pre- Bitcoin firecracker BS? >> So So you So I just want to be clear about your position. you're saying that the he served I don't remember what the time was. I think it was like a year maybe that maybe it was less than that some number of months uh in prison and the fact that he went out implies that maybe he made a deal with them that would then be leveraged in during the block size wars. >> Yeah. Again, I'm I'm coming from um so my personal relationship with Roger is a >> Yeah, I'm not trying to I'm not trying to attack you. I'm just trying to understand what the the claims are. So because that cuz you know I've interacted with the guy you know and I helped write the book like obviously I >> I don't get that impression. I don't see any evidence of that at all. He you know he could he could be acting but there's another Yeah. Yeah, >> it's kind of just piecing together that if you look at leverage in intelligence, you know, they have multiple ways um you know, there is funding, there is prison sentences, there is leverage over multiple aspects um that they might utilize their leverage. And so if you look at all these different players, if we're being fair, uh we need to look at all the different leverage points across all these multiple potential compromise layers um that could happen here. >> Okay. Yeah, I definitely think that one is a is a stretch. You know, I don't I don't I I the idea that that first, you know, conviction he's like making a deal to get out and then they hold it over his head or something. I definitely I mean it's logically possible but uh I don't see any ev I think any evidence evidence of that and overwhelming evidence that he really was serious about trying to get big block Bitcoin >> to make the world a better freer place like uh do super >> remember how these things work as well people make value calls and judgment calls >> many people don't know who they work for many people are affiliated with somebody else that may be compromised You know, so this is how these plausible deniability operations work. They they they break them up into layers and most people have no idea who they're working for. >> Fair. Fair. Um, okay. So, >> agenda is pushed down, you know. >> So, so let's keep let's keep going through this timeline. So, so we have uh So, give me your take then. So, so we established in in that timeline, maybe Roger was compromised and was working for somebody that, you know, maybe he was to use a phrase that to put words in your mouth, playing the role of a useful idiot in the sense that he doesn't know who he's working for and he's advancing interests that are actually count, you know, contrary to, you know, the spirit of Bitcoin. Um, so, so that's that's the that's the beginning of the alternative timelines in 2017. Keep keep playing it out for us. >> Yeah. Yeah. So um and then obviously we have the what we know was revealed around um the MIT digital currency initiative um and uh the bankruptcy of the Bitcoin Foundation. So almost everybody that was on the board was effectively discredited and taken out in 2014 to have massive reputational damage um and tarnishing based upon lots of different things. Um, and so we end up with this bankruptcy of the Bitcoin Foundation in 2014. >> Okay. >> And the players that kind of are left over is John Matonis and Brock Pierce. Um, and uh, Bruce Fenton. I'm not sure when he exited. Um, but kind of the key players that are left over are Brock Pier and John Matonus. Okay. >> Of the Bitcoin Foundation. Then we have um, you know this new funding route on emergency uh where MIT um you know becomes a source of funding for three of the developers um Vladimir, Gavin, Andre and who's the third one? I can't remember now. >> Um >> um was it Vanderlon? >> I think it was Vanderland. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Um so three three of the developers anyway. Um and um then one of the initiatives that was an offshoot so Jeffrey Epstein put some funding into this MIT initiative. Then there was the digital currency initiative. Um and one of the things that they funded as well as CBDC projects what later Gary Gendler ended up joining who's chair of the SEC um and um the uh the the the Bitcoin developers. So, so now you had funding via DCI, you had Blockstream, you had Silicon Valley infiltrating various corporate entities or investing in various entities and then Brock Peers that seemed to create this Tether offshoot and then what Brock Pierce and Gavin Andre and John Matonis and all these people did next um is another part that I think everyone's not talking about. >> Dot dot dot. What is it? Okay. So, um I remember um Brock Pier when I was at a Bitcoin conference uh cornering me into a room, inviting me to parties, which thankfully I didn't participate in, but I know others that went to those parties and what happens at those parties. Um and they're things that no one wants to be associated with. Um, and I have stories that are horrific. [laughter] Um, but Brock Pier tried to persuade me um and spent three hours trying to persuade me uh to give public support that Dr. Craig Wright was Satoshi Nakamoto. Um, and uh, John Matonis introduced Dr. Craig Wright as Satoshi Nakamoto and Gavin Andre uh said that he has cryptographic proof that Dr. Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto. And so while you had funding if you want to connect the dots there into Gavin Andre um then you had an offshoot that put an air of credibility around Dr. Craig Wright being Satoshi Nakamoto. Then I confront this is all on YouTube. When I confronted Dr. Craig Wright, he was pushing the whole big blocker narrative, but he refused to state that he was affiliated with Bitcoin Cash, but I pushed him on a public video. If you put in Simon Dixon, Dr. Craig Wright uh where he effectively said that um Bitcoin Cash was the project that he wanted to push for and then he very publicly uh became a part of the general people um that were pushing uh for Bitcoin Cash as the hard fork. >> Okay, this is this is really interesting. Um let's let's take a lot of time here because this is where uh we really need to exchange information. All right. Um, let's say I think we're in agreement that Brock Pierce is a very suspicious character. Yes. >> Yep. >> Okay. Um, we're not in agreement about Gavin. So, so there's two two things. Let's talk about what happened with Gavin here. One, it should be noted that Gavin was effectively pushed out of being the lead developer when that was happening at MIT. his position was changed from being the lead developer to being the chief scientist which meant that he wasn't actually making decisions about what goes into the code and what doesn't go into the code. So this would be so uh let let me try to paint an alternative picture here and then say how that fits into the puzzle. Alternative picture is um they wanted to keep Bitcoin hijacked to keep block small to make sure that it didn't scale to delay until we get the roll out of digital dollars. They have a problem. Let's entertain the idea that Gavin is in fact a good egg and Gavin is technically competent and would and knew that the way to scale Bitcoin was in fact to raise the size of blocks. So when you have the failure of the Bitcoin Foundation and you have some of the main developers go to MIT, if one of them is trying to push for big blocks, you have to figure out what to do with him, especially when he's the guy that has so much credibility because Satoshi handed the project off to him. Well, one way you would do this is by changing his position. Well, Gavin, you're doing such great work, but you know, why don't you look at more of the theoretical side of things? Why don't you read some of the scientific research, some of the literature, and then you'll be more of a of a scientist researcher line rather than managing managing the code, which is indeed what happened. Um, now with the with the Craig Wright situation, okay, so I want to get your claim clear so then I can ask some more questions about it. is the idea that the fact that Gavin said that he went through a signing uh uh event with Craig and that Craig had cryptographic did a cryptographic proof of having ownership I believe it was of some very old block or maybe he signed a message cryptographically with a key that was from one of the really old blocks that he that he the fact that he said at means that he's disingenuous and a bad actor that that there's our evidence that he's lying. In effect, um whether he's lying, whether he's not, these are all values and judgment calls. Um but the sequence of events that I remember is John Matonis introduced Dr. Craig, right? No one believed him. Um, Brock Pierce did a covert operation in order to try and persuade anyone who's influential to publicly back and Gavin Andre was the reason why people started to believe. >> Yes. Yeah, I think all of that's correct. >> Yeah, I think that's correct. Okay, so this is this is going to be really fun, right? Because now we got to talk about what the hell happened with big block Bitcoin because we have two alternative narratives. one is big block Bitcoin was always um a fraud in some way and it's always a distraction and uh and really the small block Bitcoin it was always Bitcoin. Um another alternative is that big block Bitcoin actually is the what Bitcoin was supposed to be as we understand it from how Satoshi designed the thing. And so if once you have uh Bitcoin Cash forking off, you then have a you have a threat, you have the the maintenance of a threat to the establishment. And so there has to be an attempt to infiltrate and divide and destroy Bitcoin Cash because otherwise it actually is uh as threatening as the original Bitcoin to the existing financial players. And so so one in one one uh reasonable interpretation when playing the story out is to say yeah Craig Wright was in in fact an op that was divine that was designed to split Bitcoin Cash in two which which it actually did. So I would say that would be consistent with my story. Um I'm not >> but also an I believe to introduce Bitcoin Cash in the first place. Uh, how okay not to say here's Satoshi's vision, here is Satoshi, here is the number one developer that Satoshi introduced. >> Oh, no, no. Okay, that that one's definitely not right. So, Craig Wright didn't really come on the scene. Wasn't really that relevant at that time. His he really uh became prominent when there was infighting within the Bitcoin Cash world. Um and and so so so the reason that Gavin most reasonable explanation that Gavin came out and said uh Bitcoin Cash is um what was the project I got involved with uh originally? That's the Bitcoin I was excited about. >> Do you agree who who was the initiator of Bitcoin Cash? I believe it was Jihon Woo and Bitmain. Uh so the so Jihon Woo and Bitmain paid for the de paid Omar Sacha to create Bitcoin ABC as a backup option if SegWit 2X failed. >> Yeah, >> SegWit 2X failed and so they've started pivoting then to to Bitcoin Cash. But the the hope was to keep the network together from all essentially all the big blockers. >> Yeah. And and when I had a private meeting with Ji Hong Woo in his office in China uh during around about that time um he he was suggesting to me that Craig Wright was Satoshi and he was asking a lot about core. >> Yeah. >> Um and yeah and so that that was >> yeah my my private meeting with Jihon Wu in Shanghai. >> Okay. So, it sounds like you're putting a lot of weight on uh Craig Wright being evidence that big all the big blockers or or let's say this the that the big block movement was um always based on a false >> you had multiple credibility. You had the credibility of Roger, the credibility of Gavin Andre. >> Yeah. >> Uh the claims about Dr. Craig Wright. >> Yeah. Um, and you know, this kind of made up like the people that and then you had this Blockstream narrative. And so you had Blockstream saying here's here's what the small block side look like setting the narrative >> and then you had this group that set the narrative for digital cash. So then you set the whole thing of the digital cash versus digital gold. >> Okay. So, uh, what what about this possibility? Um, Gavin didn't lie. Gavin was tricked in a in a in a very simple and straightforward way that he sort of talked about or hinted at or or pointed at, which is that uh when they did this key signing, the the people that were doing the performance in front of him brought their own they used their own laptop. They like they they claimed, "Oh, we got a fresh laptop from Best Buy or whatever." They open it up, they did the key signing, and if the actual hardware was compromised, then then the cryptographic verification is completely out the window. You can prove whatever you want to prove if the laptop is compromised. So, it very well could be the case that if we're dealing with an OP here, Gavin Andre was actually telling the truth that this signing did in fact happen that the way Craig was talking could be consistent with the way Satoshi was talking because Craig was clearly a big blocker. Satoshi was clearly a big blocker. Mike was clearly everybody, you know, who was asking those questions at that time, who'd been around that long, they all understood you have to raise the the size of the blocks. >> And so, that was the op that they got that I agree. John Matonis himself didn't have the credibility. Brock Pierce certainly wouldn't have. I I had never heard before that uh that he was going around trying to pitch Craig as Satoshi. That's extremely suspicious. But also, why couldn't Kevin just have been the uh could have been tricked? Wouldn't that be a easy explanation? Uh yeah, but um it's also equally uh suspicious that someone of that caliber that understood more than anyone else. Um >> not at all. No, he actually wrote about it in his BL. People were asking him immediately uh >> Sure. He's got he's got his story and [laughter] >> No, no, no. Well, but hang on. Hang on. He's he's admitted to this. People ask him immediately >> he was tricked. Yeah. >> Well, no, specifically about the laptop. They said, "Okay, he's Gavin is saying the such and such happened." And they asked him, "Well, was it your laptop or was it laptop that they brought?" And people said, "Well," and he he said it was a laptop they used. And then they asked him, "Well, could that have been compromised?" He said, "Yes, that could have been." >> So, he has he has his cover story, right? We we whether we have to assume we don't trust anyone. That's the whole point of Bitcoin, right? Don't trust. >> Yeah. I don't think that's I don't think that's right. I don't think that works. I think that's a I think that's a narrative. That's a story of what we wanted Bitcoin to be. That doesn't that doesn't >> Everything we're talking about is a narrative. Um the fact that Gavin Andre got tricked and he had his story of how he got tricked. We either believe him or we don't believe him. That's it. Um but there was the potential to either have been tricked or been in on something been compromised. There's there's no doubt that those are two options. It >> it's certainly true. It would seem like if he if this was a scheme, you would imagine he wouldn't admit that it wasn't his laptop. He could have literally just said, "No, I brought my laptop. I did my laptop and I made sure that the the the USB drive was fresh. That's all he needed to do." It would be very weird. >> Intelligence agencies set up a movie for for their opt, you know, like we we can either believe or we can just say these are possibilities. Well, I'm just I'm just saying if we're going to entertain the idea that Gavin was in on it, a critical piece of the story that you're telling is the fact that he came out and said such and such happened and this is why I believe >> that's the key thing. >> Yeah, but he said >> Yeah, he but and he also said and admitted that it wasn't his laptop. So, so like it's sort of like, you know, if this is a if we're talking about the great heist. >> Yeah, but how do we know? >> Just cuz he said that's it. That's all we got. hear his say >> if we're in court. >> But this but what I'm saying is it would be such a terrible up if you've got this grand scheme that's been laid out over 15 years and then the critical trust node which is Gavin. He really was the guy that uh there was a bunch of people who took Craig seriously because of Gavin because he he did seem to be trustworthy. >> If that's a critical piece of the puzzle and he comes out and says, "Oh yeah, I didn't even use my own laptop." Well, then the credibility sort of gets uh undermined very easily. Like you could literally just >> based upon what he said. >> Yeah. I just Why would >> you compromise? Do you trust what he says? >> But because because he could because he literally could have sidestepped all of that by just saying, "Oh, no. I of course I used my own laptop. I'm not a fool." And people would have trusted that he used his own laptop. Right. So, so it's like, >> yeah, but he he Yeah, he Well, he needed his plausible deniability or he or it was what happened. Who knows? >> But all I'm saying is that if we're going down these these different routes, my personal belief, my my my belief here is that there was a divide and conquer operation and it went it infiltrated everything. >> Yeah, I think that's true. >> And some people are saying, "No, no, no, those were the bad people." And the other people are saying, "No, no, no, no. Those were the bad people." When the reality is is that if you want to create a gateway drug for a central bank digital currency and you want to factor this community because essentially whether this was an intelligence project or not and it became open source, then divide and conquer is 1,000% the exact strategy that every military playbook uses. create separatist movements, fracture them off, um, and then, you know, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Like, this is playbook how they destroy countries. >> I I think that's totally reasonable. I'm just saying. Um, it would seem like that is entirely consistent with the idea that uh the op was uh Craig and not Gavin. So if in in that story which >> they could be compromised networks is you come at it from every way you can. When you're trying to compromise a jury, you try and get every jury member. Um when you're trying to compromise a judge, you get all the judges. Like this is how work. >> Sure. But we do have evidence of Gavin uh turning down Epstein. So there's a little bit of evidence of at least him having some resilience to that. and also whether or not Gavin is a a live player or a part of the compromise network actually greatly changes the picture of the history of what happened to Bitcoin. So suddenly it would be we would say okay well maybe Gavin then was caught in it. He was actually look the fact that you know he admits I didn't it wasn't even my laptop that's embarrassing like if he's >> that's part of your plausible deniability story like you got >> I just think there's a >> well okay so if if that if my story is correct I think that's the easier interpretation then it also would vindicate somebody like Roger because I think I I don't want to speak for him I am assuming that he like others put a lot of credibility in what Gavin had to say so Roger then was Actually, it doesn't necessarily vindicate. You could We don't know where the trickery happened or or who was in on the trickery, >> right? >> What I'm saying is we're entertaining two hypotheses. And in in the one story, >> which I currently believe to be the accurate story, um Craig is probably somehow an op. Gavin was not. Gavin was actually a good actor who was tricked by intelligence agencies who who who intended to divide and conquer as you were talking about. But also that means there still are good guys. There still are good guys and bad guys in the story. Like if the big blocker >> good and bad is the wrong way of framing. You're adding your emotion. It is >> no asset or compromise. And that's not good. >> No. What? Let me say why it's good or bad. So, it's good or bad in the sense that if the big blocker story is correct, that in fact, Bitcoin was designed to be peer-to-peer cash >> without intermediaries and it could do that, it could scale uh and in fact it was hijacked so that it couldn't scale to push people into second layers. I'm going to say the spir the the Satoshi spirit, those are the good guys. We want to have a real alternative currency uh that is used as an alternative to the fiat system that you don't need to go through third parties. I'm gonna say [clears throat] those are the good. Right. So >> that's 100% confirmation bias based upon your belief around what the mission was and we're still in the same debate and we're not going to have that debate. But my point is digital currency, digital gold, divide and conquer, uh multiple operations, multiple infiltrations, um in order to eventually end up with what you really wanted, which is everyone's Bitcoin in a custodian with Black Rockck, everyone's Bitcoin in a custodian with Coinbase, except you still have the escape vows for the elites that want to in Bitcoin and self-custody. You then create the whole derivative complex and financial industrial complex that they've already built through people like Michael Sailor and Treasury companies and ETFs and banks on, you know, Bitcoin on bank balance sheets. And there is nothing unique about Bitcoin that wouldn't stop that from happening from whatever became the number one coin. Like there is nothing about Bitcoin cash that would have stopped. You know, I remember very well when Bit Thumb was used in order to manipulate the price of bit um Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash to try and scare the out of people into thinking they should sell their Bitcoin, buy their Bitcoin Cash. I remember all the spam bot attacks. I remember trying to really push up all the transaction fees, all the games that were played. >> So, sorry. >> In order in during that whole debate. >> Okay. Okay. Well, let's talk about some of those because those are going to be historically uh relevant here. Is the is the idea that the high transaction fees on Bitcoin that was that was part of a of an op that wasn't because the tech wasn't scaling correctly. >> Well, a little bit of both, but I believe that there was the the whole debate around spam transaction fees and the whole debate which I just don't think we should necessarily have because everyone's we've we've litigated all of this. Um the point the point is is that there were two visions of how to scale Bitcoin and I think both of those were sufficient evidence that there was compromised networks in order to divide and conquer and to say that just because I believe that Satoshi's vision was here my personal belief is that who I believe Satoshi was released Bitcoin And whatever his vision is is completely irrelevant to where the project ended up going. The project ended up going because there were an open-source project with ops in order to uh try and push people in different directions and everyone went in that direction and bitcoin wasn't hijacked because there is consensus around the different layers of bitcoin and its construct whether it be miners whether it be mining pools whether it be nodes whether it be open-source development that we are still in an open-source boardroom of the most decentralized project with pockets of centralization and compromise that exists in the world today at the level of security that we currently have. H >> how is it decentralized? Like can you explain what that word means? uh because there are different parts of the ecosystem and every time one of them gets too close to being too centralized and there is a risk factor out there then different parts of the community can pivot off in a different direction um and we still have this the most secure and the most decentralized we can have with lots of problems. So, so is the idea that what keeps it decentralized is that projects can fork off. >> Well, at every layer of compromise, we're developing more and more systems like knots versus core, you know, alternative implementations on um nodes. We've got multiple mining pools and we've got examples of when a mining pool becomes too influential, people can move it. We got technology that means mining pools can have different um you know layers and different innovation. You've got multiple examples of when mining gets centralized in one country, one structure. You know, we got private companies, public companies, we got countries that hate each other mining at the sovereign level. Um you've got all these different um you know, types of things. And then we've got now a bunch of developers that when people draw too much attention or push too much attention, some of them lose their commit access, it changes. And so when you put all of these pieces together, you've got what Bitcoin is today. It was never hijacked. Uh Bitcoin is continually attempting to be hijacked. >> Yeah. I guess we got >> it. It seems like so I'm I'm going to draw like the opposite conclusion of a bunch of those examples. So when you say people are losing their commit access, that's not an organic thing like there there some people have commit access and some people don't and there's like a handful of people that make those decisions. That's when when Gav So if you recall when Gavin came came out actually uh said that he thought Craig Wright was Satoshi, that's when they formally stripped him of his uh of his commit access. >> Right. So that was a decision that was made by some individuals. So, so it's what I see is the opposite. I see you already have massive centralization of binding everywhere. >> You have mass centralization of of node development. There's one serious uh node implementation and there's one new competing alternative. But if there's disagreements and the way and the way that decentralization is preserved is by one group forking off, well, that's already what like that's already what happened with uh with Bitcoin Cash. So you'd already have you'd have BTC, the chain that can never innovate, can never upgrade, can never do anything because the handful of people with commit access are the ones that are actually calling the shots. I just don't see decentralized. >> Yeah, but we we know that there's more than just a bunch of developers saying it. There's there's narrative, there's rallying, there's user activated soft fork, there's hard forks, there's miners, there's mining pools. All of these people make up the ecosystem of what eventually gets consensus. There is definitely pockets of centralization that are less than perfect. >> Yeah. >> But that's not solved by by someone else having a more centralized version of that. >> And if that became the number one, it would still suffer all the same types of attack vectors. >> Yeah. I think this idea of consensus is uh is the is the word here that that I I just completely disagree with. I think that's a mirage. I think uh this is a tool. So, so what wound up winning was um a veto power veto power wins or or functionally that's what happened. You you could have an the entire industry, the corporate industry if you want to call it that outside of Blockstream and Bitfinex that decide we this includes in fact some core developers saying yeah of course we need to increase the block size to two megabytes. That absolutely poultry concession wasn't made because hell was raised to prevent any changes from happening. So, so I don't I don't the idea that there's consensus the uh the you know the Hong Kong agreement was the closest thing we ever got to consensus in Bitcoin. That was virtually the entire industry agreeing that this is the thing we're going to do. And yet the veto card was played >> by the people that that control core development. >> Um well, wasn't there a user activated soft fork? Wasn't there massive um pockets of lobbying? Weren't the venture capitalists all trying to pull together? Didn't Barry Silbert try and put together like there were multiple layers. There was no chance you could say that of course core had a voice. >> There was a lot of work. So it's sort of like politics, right? There's a lot of people debating things. There's a lot of people saying things and doing things, but most of it doesn't matter. Like I if there's a handful of people that have commit access that determine what goes into Bitcoin software and what doesn't, you can have all the things you're describing and they're not really related to the the the decisions that a handful of people are making. What goes into the software or what doesn't as we've seen as demonstrated perfectly what what happened during the block size war, right? That would be the example of mass centralization that it turns out to be the developers are the ones that are calling the shot and then by extension the people that are funding the developers are the ones that are calling the shots. >> But that's not the whole that's not the whole piece there. Like there are developers right now that are going in different directions looking at soft forks looking at alternative implementations and they're all debating right now and they're saying this one's compromised, that one's compromised. >> Yeah. >> And this is the open-source boardroom that we have. >> Yeah. But but there are these are humans that are flawed because they can be compromised and they can engage in censorship and there are brutal games that are played and and many of those games were played and all of them are deployed. Um but to say that this is hijacked and that there is just the core developers um that control this project in its entirety is just not the reality. other people who are connected to them. But I'm saying the people that are calling the shots are obviously the core developers. There's a bunch of talking and a bunch of hooting and hollering >> in terms of one part >> in terms of the what goes into Bitcoin's code >> which controls the the the structure of the network at the most fundamental level. What is including >> what's an alternative model to that? So that's an excellent question and I think what we have to do is grow up and realize that you're always going to have centralized development. >> You can't you can't not have centralized development. The problem is that uh is actually a measure of of competence of the people who are calling the shots in the development teams. Uh uh uh competence and compromise. So if you're going to say that there is a hierarchy here and there are people who are calling the shots, that's just how the world works. Then the question is, okay, let's examine who's calling the shots in in Bitcoin. It's Bitcoin core developers who have decided we're going to pivot away from Satoshi's design unambiguously. They've like admitted this is the case. >> That's that's narrative. Like what part's narrative >> again? Like making changes was the whole debate. You know what that is? Whether that's Satoshi's vision, whether it's relevant that it's >> Satoshi's. Do so just to be clear, you don't think it's clear that Satoshi envisioned Bitcoin being used as a current as a peer-to-peer currency even in examples like using it in a vending machine. >> Uh, yes, I think that's clear. Yeah, I think that's what Satoshi originally wanted. >> Okay. So then that's what I'm that's what and and do you think it's also clear that Satoshi intended Bitcoin to scale with block size increases? >> Uh yeah, I think that's clear. >> Okay, then I I don't what's the narrative? All I'm saying is that >> and what did the what did the community end up doing in this whole open-source boardroom in a mechanism where there are different players? >> I I don't buy the I don't buy the open source community. You believe that Satoshi Nakamoto in its original design had figured out all the problems that whenever you develop technology, you inevitably find out as you as you decide where this project goes next. >> Uh, no. >> So, I I don't think he was perfect. However, if you if if you were talking about like network design, it would be uncontroversial and obvious that the that the whole way Satoshi envisioned the system of of working was not everybody's running their own node and he literally talked about that. It was you're going to have big blocks and you're going to have what's called SPV, which means that you don't have to run your own full node because obviously that network that network wouldn't scale. was just a matter of fact that that type that network design doesn't work and it doesn't need to work because that's not what Satoshi how does Satoshi designed it to work and he was like unamiguous about that. So that so it's I don't buy the idea that it that it's a it's an organic process. It's an open source community at all. We had we had uh Satoshi who was the leader of the project calling the shots and then it was Gavin and Gavin gave gave his commit access to several different people. Those people eventually kicked him out of the project and the people that are calling the shots are those that have the commit access to the Bitcoin core repository and almost everything else is just chatter and and irrelevant. A great example of this is some of the stuff that's happened in Bitcoin right now where ironically there's a new civil war that's uh that's happening. You know, is is Bitcoin going to be um spam spamified or not? Are you gonna have you know a bunch of data and op return or not? Ironically, the Bitcoin a lot of the Bitcoin core people were are now making making the arguments we were making 10 years ago and in fact they made some changes >> healthy, right? That that's not a hijack project. That is people saying >> that they're advocating for what you wanted years ago. >> No, no, I would say I would say it's the so it's the opposite, right? Unfortunately, the technical details are going to matter here, but the concession that in fact the big blockers were technically correct on this claim as well uh is kind of hilarious in hindsight, but I I bring it up as an example to say um there were there were these naive souls that thought they they were part of a decentralized uh decision-making process. They're a part of the community and they feel very strongly that oper is spam and they're node runners and they don't want to have uh operturn data in their nodes and so they're going to voice their opinions and they were using the arguments that they had heard from small block folks a decade ago. So in that sense they're sort of like bless their heart >> one can argue that maybe they're compromised in the direction that Craig Wright was compromised. But the point the point the the the funny point in all of this is none of their arguments mattered at all because they actually core made decisions despite there being community disagreement. It it doesn't matter that at the end of the day it's a handful of people that are calling the shots of what goes goes into the code and what doesn't and people's you know talking the the meetings of what happens on Twitter and the different power players that turns out really not to matter because of the way that the the GitHub access works. It it it does because there is minor power and there is node power and that is the that is the mechanism and the checks and balances and and the system that we have. >> Okay. But >> there is venture capital power there is corporate power and there are lots of power structures and power factions. Well, but didn't we see that the with the minor like with minor power for example, didn't we see during the block size war doesn't matter because we had you know more than 80% of the network was signaling block size increase and then it didn't happen because the core developers didn't didn't code it in. So that power can't be that great. >> Okay. Well, we have but what I'm saying is we still have the most decentralized and secure project that has checks and balances pockets of centralization in perfect structure in perfect decisionm but I still have a project where I'm able to own my own money and self-custody, spend my value, leave the country, do whatever I want and a monetary policy that I believe will never change. >> Why don't you believe the monetary policy will change? Could it change? >> Uh, in theory, it can, but there's a lot of layers that are required in order to change that monetary policy. And if that monetary policy does change, uh, that's the end. That's that's my that's my point of saying I'm out. >> Are you aware that Peter Todd >> the mechanism for getting that monetary policy to change I think is virtually impossible. Are you aware that Peter Todd, for example, the core developer who played a role we say in the hijacking of Bitcoin, has already proposed on multiple occasions changing the 21 million limit? >> Yes. And Peter Todd, in my estimation, is a bad actor, a compromised actor, somebody that not ideologically aligned with. So would it be true to say that this that given that even parameters like the 21 million limit are are changeable that you're trusting that for a set of reasons and a set of incentives you're trusting that uh that those changes won't happen because you trust some individuals that have power you think that will uh that will prevent that >> trust there is trust at every part of the network but in its entirety and our very well-defined process C. We're about to see the soft fork process. Um, we've seen the hard fork process. Um, and at every every layer, we've seen what happens when a mining pool gets too much power. We've seen what happens when the community split. We've seen all of these different things. But to say that Peter Todd on his own as somebody that was compromised could change the monetary policy of Bitcoin is impossible. >> Yeah. I I I'm not saying that that the reason I ask is because most people aren't even aware that that variable can change and what I have seen empirically speaking and being in Bitcoin for any project. >> That's right. Most people don't >> but but most people don't understand that with Bitcoin, right? You have got a bunch of people that think Bitcoin is some the some system that's outside of the power of humans. Nobody can change it no matter what. That's what gives it its value. But in fact, it's a social thing and all of the variables can change. And the reason I bring up Peter Todd because he did turn out to have uh influence then I think does have some influence now. But if you if we play out a scenario in which more than it's been more than >> I think I think Peter Ted you know I mean from my perspective we're all dealing with human perceptions here but Peter Todd is severely discredited. >> Okay. Well so what I have seen is that this it was also severely discredited back in the day to think that the block size limit was never going to be increased. Nobody had that position. Greg Maxwell didn't have that position. Adam Back didn't have that position. That was like a wild a wildeyed idea. And yet that's what we wound up with. And for example, it's a better example than Peter Todd. So um Michael Sailor is somebody that has a lot of influence. Um and he has proposed um funding core development. He wants to fund core developers because he thinks the current set of developers are too reckless and he wants the protocol to be set in stone. Okay. Well, let's imagine a circumstance in which he can fund a billion dollars uh or plus he and his uh his extended network into uh funding core development. So instead of Bitcoin core that had their funding from whatever source oops it's a Bitcoin sailor and uh and then they end up having commit access. Okay, now play it out 5 10 15 years. the idea that actually this is quite realistic. Um they're going to run into a security problem which is uh you know how do we fund miners to continue mining on the network when the block rewards have gone away and there is there aren't uh enough uh uh uh transaction fees to pay for mining. So that's going to be that is an inevitable problem that will that Bitcoin would be facing in the future. It's completely reasonable to think that one of the possible solutions that uh sailor core developers will come up with is simply having a indefinite emission of bitcoin because in fact that does solve the problem and this is why Peter Todd has has proposed it is because it actually does solve the technical issue. So why wouldn't that that seems like that's an entirely reasonable story um to tell then that that would imply that this is not a a decentralized system that's just centralized based on who is funding the the important developers at that given time. >> Yeah. So but that would go through the process. There would be resistance against that. There would be alternative funding. There would be different team. There would be everything that we've already seen whether it's the soft fork process the hard fought process the user activated soft fork what whatever we whatever process we would go through I would resist that community members would resist that I'd use my influence over certain companies to resist and everyone would do the same and um and that's the process >> do you think the network would fork >> do if if um what do what if he specifically wanted to >> yeah if he said um so we have a we have a real problem which is that we don't have enough transaction fees to pay for minor security and so we're going to solve this by having indefinite tail mission of Bitcoin. So technically it's not a 21 million limit but >> it would be a a massive heated debate. Um, I think that it would be very very hard um to get that and I think we'd go through a similar process to what we're going through now where people would be calling each other out and people would say you're compromised and we go through this this this whole process. Um, and so again, I'm not saying this is a perfect system. I'm saying it's the best system we got. >> Okay. Well, um, so I think there's a lot we could a lot more we could, uh, talk about on these lines, but I want to, you know, I want to be respectful of your time and, um, I'm I'm proud that we didn't get wrapped up in any in too much, uh, technical detail. I thought that I thought we would, and I'm glad we haven't. Um, is there anything else that you want to say in terms of the alternative picture that you're painting? Because right now, um, what has been proposed is that maybe, uh, Gavin and Roger are compromised people. And so that's where we get the big the big blocker thing is based on compromise. They aren't the good guys, let's say. Um is there are there other pieces of the puzzle here that you think people are missing? >> No, I mean we we could go into the future around like what happened with um Gary Gendler and Operation Choke. 2.0, but I I don't think I don't think we should. I think, you know, this is this is the the the key thing. Um, and if I were to speculate, I believe that Adam Bach is a bad actor. >> Brock Pierce is a bad actor. >> Agreed. >> I think um, uh, you know, and I, and I think we should, uh, Dr. Craig Wright is definitely a bad actor. >> Yep. >> Um, and the I personally think Peter Todd is a bad actor. >> Yes. You know, >> strongly agree. Um and um I think the rest it's up to debate the layer of how autonomous they are, their real opinion, what really happened. I think it's all it's all open to interpretation. Um but I'm I'm pretty confident in saying those people are bad actors. >> Yes. And um though we're going to end up disagreeing about many things, all of I agree with that list. So uh I think that's I think that's a great note to end on. And um yeah, I really appreciate your time and this is an unfolding story, right? We don't know what else is going to be uh discovered here and uh you know, I get the impression that you've got an open mind and are still trying to figure things out. So I I respect that. >> Yeah, absolutely. Um and yeah, as I said, it's it's nice that we um we can respect that. Um and and there's only one thing that matters to me in the end is accuracy. Um there are things that are opinions. Um, there are things that are inaccurate and and accurate. We're gonna find out in the end, but I I'm not ready to give up on this project. >> Okay. And I am. [laughter] So, fellow fellow Bitcoiner. Okay. You we we agree on a lot. We have a we it sounds like, you know, there's a lot we're going to disagree on, but I think that we're going to agree on a lot more. And I do think it's over. I mean, just per my personal opinion is like I crypto entirely as an entire industry might actually be over. Um, there's a couple of exceptions maybe with privacy coins, but I just think all signs point to it was co-opted and digital dollars on crypto rails. That's the future. Unfortunately, devastating, heartbreaking, but I think that's the world we're going into. >> Oh, we're definitely going into that world. But the question is, is there an exit? Um, and I believe that um that there is an exit. I think I live that exit. Um, I think other people can live that exit. Um, and I think Bitcoin will give more power to power. Um, Bitcoin doesn't fix everything. Um, there are people that can engage in crimes against humanity using Bitcoin and there are people that will use Bitcoin for good and this whole financial industrial complex. I believe Bitcoin in custody is co-opted. Um but the ability to own Bitcoin in self- custody, run your own node, um is I think uh the best that we have. >> Okay. One as a one question. One question when you say I was like totally I was going to say great way to end and signing off. Okay. But you said and the ability to run your own node. So what what is it that you think you gain from running your own node in particular? >> Um I well I think the user activated soft fork is a thing. Um it is a a layer of um defense. Um I think having 25,000 nodes being able to verify my transactions uh being able to do that um trivally um and um you know and back up my copy of um the blockchain. >> But you can verify your own transactions without running your own node. >> You just can't verify other people's transactions. Yeah, there's alternatives, of course. >> Okay. Well, yeah, I I don't want to crack open that door um because I think we've had a very productive conversation and and again, I appreciate your time. Is there uh so for for people who who uh who don't know about you, where can they go to uh to learn more and see more of your content? >> Yeah, and again, I really focus on geopolitics, attack vectors, macroeconomics, where Bitcoin fits into the world of tech, this whole surveillance state um that's being built. So, um I I go live on um YouTube every Friday for about 4 hours following money. >> Um I spend about 5% on Bitcoin, 95% on monetary flows. >> Okay. >> Um I'm regularly on X. Um and uh I've got my website, simonixonom.com in case I get taken out from any of these more centralized services. >> Okay, great. And um if uh if people don't know also for me, if you're interested, um steve-patter.com is going to be my website where you can check out the different projects I'm involved with there. All right, thanks again for your time, Simon. >> Thank you. Cheers, Steve.