BTC Sessions - Bad Bitcoin Takes Abound: Private Keys and Block Size EP010

Episode Date: January 21, 2020

SHOW TOPICS: What the hell is going on? Peter Schiff irresponsibly loses his private keys, blames Bitcoin https://twitter.com/PeterSchiff/status/1218911797626847234 Binance CEO suggests keeping funds on exchanges https://cointelegraph.com/news/binance-ceo-suggests-crypto-exchanges-are-safer-than-keeping-ones-keys Trace Mayer endorses Bobby Lee’s Ballet Crypto wallet https://twitter.com/TraceMayer/status/1219003646685278208 A look at Bitcoin Block Size https://bitcoinmagazine.com/guides/what-is-the-bitcoin-block-size-limit John Carvalho on What Bitcoin Did discussing Defending Bitcoin https://www.whatbitcoindid.com/podcast/defending-bitcoin-with-john-carvalho Post-mortem of Segwit2X https://www.coindesk.com/2x-called-off-bitcoin-hard-fork-suspended-lack-consensus Bitcoin Core contributors list https://bitcoin.org/en/development#dev-communities Breez Lightning Wallet tutorial https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_4b-y4T8bY SUPPORT THE SHOW: Visit LEDN to check out getting a bitcoin-backed loan https://platform.ledn.io/join/0a00cca3dd61dea5909c95cd41f41685 Get Wasabi wallet and enjoy your privacy https://wasabiwallet.io/ Wasabi Tutorial https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECQHAzSckK0 Check out Rise Wallet – the easiest way to onboard your pre-coiner friends to Bitcoin! https://www.risewallet.com/ Rise tutorial https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2VUjj6wPM0 Get NORDVPN to protect your online privacy. 75% off a 3 year https://nordvpn.org/btcsessions

Wasabi wallet. I'm fairly private. What's up everyone? Ben with the BTC sessions here and this is your daily session. Hodel their Bitcoin. Before we dive in, of course, shout out to sponsors of the show. Ledden.i.o, this is where you can use your Bitcoin for a variety of different services. They've got their Bitcoin's savings account where you can earn interest on your Bitcoin paid in Bitcoin. They've got their Bitcoin-backed loans where you can use Bitcoin as collateral to obtain a Canadian. to obtain a Canadian or US dollar loan.

So if you're in a pinch, you need dollars, but you don't want to sell your Bitcoin because you think it may go up. Well, this could be an option for you. And finally, they've got their B2X offering where you can get double the exposure to the price fluctuations of Bitcoin. If you want to check out any of those,

there's a link in the show notes down below. And if you use the link to get a Bitcoin bag loan, they'll actually give you an additional 50 bucks worth of Bitcoin into your account. And secondly, we have Rise Wallet. This is a Bitcoin gift card that you can pick up at a corner store near you. It is super easy, super idiot proof,

and I think it's a fantastic resource for onboarding new users to Bitcoin. The reason I think so is because all you need to do is once you grab the card, you can gift it to anybody, and the person just needs to download an app, they scratch and scan a code on the back of the card, and instantaneously, it creates them a brand new Bitcoin wallet that they hold themselves

and sends them an on-chain transaction for the face value of the card. card. I've gifted it to a whole bunch different people. I think it's fantastic. So head over to their website, risewallet.com, click on locations to see where you can pick one up. It is currently in Canada only at the moment, but they are looking at expanding. And if it happens not to be near you, you can always head over to coincards.cai to get one delivered. And with that, let's dive into the news. So this episode today is very much going to be focused on what I consider to be bad takes and two two kind of focuses in general one is i mean peter schiff is just full of bad takes you know

that i already framed one of his tweets from the beginning of the year and put it up on my shelf but this one happened just over the weekend he tweeted out i just lost all my hashtag bitcoin i guess he really wanted to get some eyeballs on this i just lost all all the bitcoin i have ever owned. My wallet got corrupted somehow and my password is no longer valid. So now not only is my Bitcoin intrinsically worthless, it has no market value either. I knew owning Bitcoin was a bad idea. I just never realized it was this bad. And he has a screenshot here of what appears to be blockchain wallet and it says you've logged out. There was an error decrypting your wallet file. Enter your password below to log in and then it just says password is check that your

is correct and I mean obviously the response to this on Twitter was was hilarious because everybody of course you got Bitcoin meme hub making hilarious images everybody tweets stamping it everybody all these replies are going to be good tons of gifts people laughing yeah it's just it's kind of ridiculous and so just for context here of course if you don't know who Peter Schiff is he He runs Euro-Pacific Capital. He's a huge gold bug and he's super anti-Bitcoin. I believe partially because if Bitcoin is successful, it largely cuts into his business model.

Interestingly enough, he does accept Bitcoin on his website for gold. So take that at face value for what you will. Anyways, the history behind this is him and Eric Voorhees, the CEO of Shapeshift. They had a debate online and on a, I can't remember this. Soho forum I think and after the debate Eric Voorhe has actually set up Peter with a Bitcoin wallet and and sent him I think 50 bucks were the Bitcoin this was quite a while back and then you didn't really hear much about it after the fact so it seems like this is maybe one of the first times Peter has gone back to actually look at it I'm not

sure but with blockchain wallet just so you know the way it works is you actually have a wallet identifier and then a password that encrypts your data with blockchain. So it's not like a regular wallet, but you can actually, I believe blockchain, you still can write down your seed phrase. So clearly what has happened here is that Peter Schiff either one incorrectly entered what he thought was his password the first time in setting it up and never checked. And two, he likely also never wrote down his backup seed phrase regardless because I'm sure Eric Voorhees encouraged him to do so and it appears that yeah he's just he you know

shit out of luck now he did get messaged from a blockchain wallet after the fact and they said hey your funds are secured DM us and and we'll figure something out so I believe what happened here and Francis Puli from Bull Bitcoin made a guess as to this too is that he actually logged out and didn't have his wallet identifier like his login credentials but his password was indeed correct um but he didn't know how to get back into it or have this particular wallet worked um either way super bad take from peter obviously uh but then you had people weighing in on on binax here you have uh CEO of binance saying that actually because of peter shift he's pointing out and saying you know what people encourage people to hold their own private keys, but I think that online exchanges are

much safer for most people, which is again a terrible take. I don't know how many times this guy's going to say it. I mean, obviously he's got a vested interest in people leaving funds on his exchange, but yeah, there it goes. He goes again saying, he says, most hardcore crypto organizations advocate storing your own keys. But the truth is today most people are not able to secure a key even from themselves losing it. A trusted centralized exchange is hashtag safu-er, for most people. The numbers speak for themselves, need to work on wallets.

I think this is a bullshit, awful take, and that by and large, again, we should point out that Binance itself got hacked. They're just lucky that the hack wasn't large enough to largely affect their customers and require a haircut to all their accounts. CZ, the CEO of Binance, was also actually suggesting trying to walk back the Bitcoin blockchain and selectively undo the transaction, which also the whole Bitcoin community blew up over,

not to mention that it wouldn't even be possible, but just the idea that he was thinking about that is total bullshit. So terrible, terrible take there. And on the subject of private keys, another bad take, unfortunately, because I love this guy, but unfortunately from Trace Mare. And so what's happening here is there's a tweet from Bobby Lee originally here, which was retweeted by Trace Mare. Now Bobby Lee is now the CEO of Ballet Crypto, which is more or less like a paper wallet,

like a printed wallet, in which Ballet Crypto, the company creates the private keys for you before they send them to you as like a physical like metal card or a plastic card depending on what you order and and so there's no way to 100% verify that they have not kept a copy of your private key or that there hasn't been key logger somewhere or whatever that there hasn't been some form of copying of your private key in the process of creating this physical card and mailing it to you not to mention if it's mailed through physical mail you could have man in the middle of it attacks where somebody tamper's with the packaging or whatever. Anyways, the tweet from Bobby Lee reads, great to meet up with TraceMare and showed him the easy, safe, and reliable ballet crypto

wallet. He liked it. It's truly a great way to gift crypto and easily allow the recipient to control their own private keys. Hashtag proof of keys. And then TraceMare retweeted it and said, ballet crypto is a great tool for new users or troglodytes like Peter Schiff. I mean, good dig there, but oh my God.

Thanks for the interview, Bobby Lee, and the Bitcoin Knowledge audience will like it. Bitcoin Knowledge is his podcast. But it's kind of mind-blowing to me, given that Trace Mayer has been advocating, he doesn't even like hardware wallets. He doesn't like Treasor or Ledger or any of those where you keep your keys offline in a dedicated device.

he's been trying to push the Glacier Protocol, which is incredibly, incredibly secure, but for him to then be going so hardline on securing private keys, but then to endorse ballet crypto, I just find it very unfortunate and completely at odds with what he said in the past. So I don't know what's going on here, but the response on Twitter has been not kind. So just going through a few of the responses. What the actual fuck, Trace Mayor. This wallet is pure trash. Just use a mobile hot wallet at that point. At least you own your private key. Shame on you, Trace. Even the rich have a price I see. Trace, what are you doing,

man? Ballet Crypto is an awful thing to suggest the use of. Please stop. Trace Mayor, you should know better. Trace is nothing but an arrogant Bitcoin LARPER. Seriously, pre-generated Bitcoin private keys aren't safe at all for our users. And one who's been in the space for many years knows that. Yeah, and I mean, it doesn't get better. You keep on scrolling down and it's just everybody who is shitting on this take. And it is, it's, I don't know what the deal is with this, but like I do not like ballet crypto.

I've been pretty critical of them on Twitter. a lot of people have and I mean I'm not saying that they don't have the right to exist they sure do but also I think that they have the right to be called out by a lot of people who don't see it as a secure option and see it as there's much better options it's better to just make your own paper wallet to be honest rather than paying them to get them to make your paper wallet and then mail it to you there's so many attacks that could happen in between there versus just making it yourself. So yeah, I don't know. It's unfortunate. But I mean, I think this is just a bad call by Trace Mayer. I think that, you know, it's unfortunate.

He did champion proof of keys, which again calls on a question why he would champion Ballet Crypto, but he has contributed a lot. So I, you know, take proof of keys for what it is and disavow these other developments that are less helpful to people. And moving from keys and crypto storage and Bitcoin storage and all of that to block size. Now why in the hell am I talking about block size in the year 2020? That's an excellent question and I'm asking myself that right now, but it seems to keep coming up. For some reason, this old debate that has since been settled in my eyes is being dredged up by a number of people. And I'm not bringing this up to call out the specific people.

You know, I'm going to refer to a couple tweets here just to give examples of what people are saying. But then I kind of want to go through and dissect a few points that I think should be made at this point. So one of them is Omar, who I've met in person. at I believe a couple different events now. Super nice guy. I've chatted with him before, but I just, I don't agree with this take at all. And so what he did is he took a tweet from Adam Back, and Adam Back was talking about, in the context of this, was talking about tradeoffs between Lightning Network and Liquid Network and Main Chain Bitcoin. So that was the context of this. And so Adam Back had been talking about Lightning Network and what the actual tradeoffs were

with Lightning. So it's, easier to lose via the Lightning Network than liquid due to accidentally closing channels. If you're offline during a hostile close of a channel, then you could be susceptible. Without watchtowers, that is, there's a Lightning Network hot wallet risk at the time at the moment. Low value is less concerned to many users and Lightning Network retail freeze by liquid seems unlikely given the small size. So yeah.

He was pointing out a few things where Liquid might be considered more useful than Lightning depending on what you're trying to do. But Omar said rent, this is rent seeking at its finest. This is the CEO that crippled Bitcoin to make Lightning seem attractive until he could create a more profitable product. Create a problem, keep block sizes small so that you can proffer up the solution. Liquid, classic marketing tactic. to before I dive into other reasons why I think this is a bad take one other example here.

So that martini guy said unpopular opinion lightning network is never going to get adoption, just increase Bitcoin block size. If my parents can barely figure out how to use Bitcoin, they don't stand a chance at understanding the complexity of the Lightning Network. BTC needs bigger blocks. I'm going to read the rest. The childest tribalism exhibited by Debs in Bitcoin Core community astounds me. Who cares what the What some guy wrote on a paper 11 years ago, times changed, technologies adapt, why limit the use of the tech? Satoshi gave his project to the community to help it grow, gave his, I suppose, to help it grow, bigger blocks. And the dumbest idea that Bitcoin is the only thing that can survive and everything else is a scam is just horse boot.

Maximilists are closed-minded. They are generally a maximalist because they are salty around getting wrecked in 2018 on alts these people are far from geniuses I think also this is a terrible bullshit take but let's get into a little bit of that first let's touch on the the childish tribalism and attacking back and forth because we just saw that in the previous in the previous topic here so I'd like you guys if you get the chance to listen to an interview of John Carvalo on what Bitcoin did and he's talking about defending Bitcoin and how Bitcoiners are kind of like the white blood cells of the

ecosystem because there's no real governance structure. So individuals with very hardline views end up being kind of what draws Bitcoin back to like a happy kind of safe medium and doesn't get dragged out by people that are promoting alternatives with different incentives. We'll just say to keep it kind of, I don't know, middle line here. But anyways, he's talking about how since there is no governance structure where people can, where somebody is in charge, which is exactly what we're wanting, individuals take on that responsibility for themselves. So if they see something that they see as destructive to Bitcoin or that could be put into the

protocol, that could be a negative for decentralization, they're going to call it out and they're going to do it very, very voraciously. So, yeah, I completely agree with his stance in this interview. So first, take a listen to that if you get the chance, because it does talk a lot of a lot about this so-called toxic Bitcoin Maximilist headset. I guess, you know, how Bitcoin maximalists approach things. So, so, yeah, take a look at that. Now, what I want to outline first is, is the fact that block size has very much already been explored a lot and has been presented as an option and failed to gain consensus, not once, but many, many times.

Okay, I'm going to read a few implementations that have been presented, allowed to be downloaded and just failed to receive enough. consensus around it. So there was Bitcoin XT. That was Mike Hearn and Gavin Andresen. There was Bitcoin Classic. That was also Gavin and Dresen. There was Bitcoin Unlimited. Peter Risen was the chief scientist of that. It still exists as an implementation that can be used for Bitcoin Cash now. And then finally, there was Segwit 2X, or some people just refer to it as 2X, which was a doubling of Bitcoin block size. So all of those failed to receive consensus. XT, classic, Unlimited, all just no, didn't work.

Unlimited, forked with Bitcoin Cash to become an implementation of that and is now used there, but not on Main Chain Bitcoin. Now 2X was 2017, we were implementing Segwit, and there was supposed to be a second half of that where there was a doubling of Bitcoin's block size in a hard fork, which was backed up by a lot of major Bitcoin companies or Bitcoin related companies and a ton of Bitcoin miners, but the users opted out, they ran their own nodes and said, no matter what you do, we're not going to go along with this. And so whatever you say Bitcoin is, we're not going to recognize it. And so you'll be transacting on a separate chain. There was also futures markets launched around that, at which point

the 2x fork of Bitcoin would have been worth about 25% of what regular Bitcoin was. So it failed to achieve consensus from users, but also economically just people saying that, hey, I'm willing to pay less for this because I don't think it's going to work out. Now, it was called off prior to launching, but somebody still did launch it to see what would happen. And it actually stopped. The chain stopped dead because there was a bug in the code because there was only one individual. implementing and having eyes on it and there was no peer review to this really whatsoever so now since it failed to achieve consensus on Bitcoin's blockchain

and Bitcoin did not adopt a block size increase there are other options so it should be obvious that light coin was a very early option for faster block times and and being able to do more transactional throughput because their blocks times are every two and a half minutes. So essentially you have four times the amount of space. They also implemented Segwit, which also gives them a little bit more block space. So one, you've already got Lightcoin for more on-chain transactions. Secondly, Bitcoin Cash did fork off.

They have options. You have larger block sizes there. And thirdly, you had Bitcoin Cash that also split into Bitcoin SV. So if you want larger blocks and you want them now, go use one of those. I don't understand why you're saying that it needs to be on Bitcoin. Lots of people are still using Bitcoin. They're happy with it the way they are. And they're utilizing secondary layers, which we'll get into in a second.

Why do you feel the need? Just because these other coins have forked off and haven't been able to get to top spot because nobody really cared or wanted them? doesn't mean that you should force a protocol change, nor that you can force a protocol change on Bitcoin. That's just not going to happen. So not only did it fail to achieve consensus four times over, but you have other options elsewhere,

and I'm mystified as to why people are still complaining about Bitcoin block size if they've got their other options. So go use something else. Secondly, let's talk about this. this this I would say conspiracy theory here so so he's talking about Adam back who is the CEO of Blockstream now a popular narrative tends to be that Blockstream there's some sort of a conspiracy with them they've been co-opted by the banks and Blockstream has thus co-opted Bitcoin development to cripple it and then

implement things layers on top of it that they can charge fees for and I don't know put it into the banking. I don't know exactly what the narrative is there, but basically block stream bad. It has done things to prevent Bitcoin growth and then put in middleman solutions to monetize it. Okay, so that's the theory. So here's the thing.

First, block stream. Let's take a look at the Bitcoin developers. This is a list of Bitcoin core contributors. You can scroll down, Damn, there's a lot of them. There are a few blockstream employees that contribute to Bitcoin. But by and large, most of these contributors are not block stream employees. In fact, take a look, even number four here.

Gavin Andresen, who was championing Bitcoin XT, Bitcoin Classic, Bitcoin, basically every block size increase, is still the fourth most common contributor to Bitcoin Core. He's no longer a contributor, but he still maintains the number four spot for a number of commits to Bitcoin Core. So obviously that they don't have full control over the Bitcoin Core contributions. Now secondly is if my point here is if you believe that a single company can take over Bitcoin development and cripple it, why did a consortium of all of the top Bitcoin companies and most of the miners, why were they not able to implement a block size increase? Is that one block stream company so powerful that they were able to outweigh all of

these other companies? I don't think so. I think it's just that people did not want want that change and they didn't go along with it so that's kind of it you know the people decided this is not what they want just because it's not what you in particular want it does not mean that you are in the majority for sure um so moving on uh people think that sometimes block stream is beyond uh beyond the reach of the community and they're not going to get the the ire of the community if they do something wrong which we've we've seen is totally untrue So Blockstream has something called the Liquid Network, which is a federated side chain. So it's trust minimized, but it's by no means trustless.

And they had a blog post that was talking about the trade-offs, but they did not, the social media manager at the time, kind of slipped up and they used the word trustlessly. Everybody lost their goddamn minds. So here's Peter Todd saying, Exhibit A, Exhibit B. If I don't even call open timestamps trustless, there's no way in hell that Blockstreams should be calling liquid trustless. It's ultimately just really a fancy bank. And everybody kind of shat all over Blockstream for this particular tweet. You saw a developer Matt Corallo saying that this is just complete lies. And then Adam back indeed did have to come out and clarify and in multiple interviews said, it's not trustless. It is trust minimized, but it is a federated model for specific

use cases. So, you know, blockstream is not beyond the, you know, the eyes of the Bitcoin community. And as we've seen, we crucify our leaders if they step out of turn, right? Gavin Andreessen, back in the day, everybody loved him. He was the lead developer of Bitcoin Core. Well, what happened? Well, when he started promoting stuff like the block size increase and people started saying well what are the trade-offs and and a large number of the community understood while they did not want to implement what he wanted to do whether it be xT or classic or unlimited or 2x or any of those um and he very much was kind of those ideas were were not liked and were kind of shunned and did not make it into the protocol we just saw earlier trace maire one of the

most beloved bitcoinsers just shat upon by all of bitcoin twitter for making a bad call on recommendations for a wallet. So nobody is beyond this scrutiny when it comes to the Bitcoin community. Bitcoiners are just looking out for the protocol. So now that we've kind of taken a look at this, it's to me clear that people are going after ideas, not people, and individuals. So then why, why?

Why are we worried about not having large blocks and not having hard forks unless it's an emergency? Well, a few things. Number one, Bitcoin is built on hard promises. The idea that you know for sure there are only gonna be 21 million Bitcoin, that you know how the protocol is going to run, that you can audit it at any time. And so when you start to make those base layer promises malleable,

then it puts up in the air, well, okay, could they change? Could they change the limit of coins if we start willy-nilly changing the base layer protocol for block size? You know, and it gets into the question of if we're going to quickly do that every time, who's actually calling the shots? How do you quickly pivot a network to have a consensus change all the way across the network and quickly execute that if it's not centralized? Secondly, when it comes to accessibility, so a lot of people say, well, a small block size limit wouldn't be a big deal, which maybe not, maybe not.

But the thing is, again, it sets the precedent of malleable base layer rules. It also, if we set that precedent and it just keeps on being bumped instead of pushing for optimizations and layer two solutions, well, then it does get into. a situation where you cannot easily self-verify. You can't easily run a node, which I do. I'm running a couple nodes myself right now. Many people are, and the more people that are, the more decentralized it is, and the less likely you would have a number of companies try to change the protocol

and get everybody to just go along with them. You have to remember, if you're not running a node yourself, you're using somebody else's. There's no such thing as using Bitcoin without going through a node. It's just whether or not it's your node or someone else's. And so if it's somebody else's, you are pushing the responsibility of what is Bitcoin? What are the rules of Bitcoin to somebody else? And who are, am I verifying my own transactions? You're pushing those responsibility to somebody else.

If it's for a small amount on your phone, probably not a big deal. if you're if you have life savings and stuff sitting in bitcoin you know you might want to consider doing this and I know it's a bit of a step it's getting easier but um it is something to consider and for me the more people that are capable of doing it and the easier it is for me to do that myself the better um again like with the example of segwit 2x with a ton of companies trying to take over the protocol I get to say no to that if I'm running a node if I'm just running a wallet on my phone run by whatever company, I get to do whatever the company decides to do. And if I was running a BitPay wallet or if I was running Coinbase or something like that in that time,

well, tough shit, I'm out of luck. I get to do whatever BitPay decides. And finally, let's look at layer two solutions like the Lightning Network. So with Lightning Network, it is indeed trustless in that you're not actually building like an IOU on top of BICT. You're actually using Bitcoin, but what you're doing is you're locking up Bitcoin into what are called channels and it's kind of like an abacus where you can drag beads from one side to the other It's built on that kind of a model where you can be transacting and kind of creating a network where where you can bump funds from one person to the next to the next in the next in a network that completes payments for you without actually having to settle to the main chain until whatever point you deem necessary in the future and you can settle settle

those individual connections at any time so technically you could have millions of transactions settled with a single on-chain Bitcoin transaction and when it comes to the Lightning Network we have again this tweet from the Martini guy where he's saying if my parents can barely figure out how to use Bitcoin they don't stand a chance at understanding the complexity of Lightning Network well that's assuming that Lightning Network is a static technology and that it's not going to become easier. And as is the case with Bitcoin, it's gotten so much easier. In 2014, when I started, the first thing I had to do was, again,

download Bitcoin Core on my computer and wait days for it to sync up with the network so that I could actually see the transaction that I had sent to it. I didn't understand what was going on. I just thought I lost my 50 bucks that I had bought and turns out no. just the entire blockchain wasn't yet synced to my computer. Now we have easy SPV wallets where you can be on your phone or you can link to a node at home. There's a lot of different options available to you. When it comes to Lightning Network, that launched at the beginning, in early 2018. And I did a video back then of a Lightning wallet and kind of showed opening channels and everything.

A lot of that, the complexities of Lightning Network are starting to be abstracted away just like with Bitcoin. And so if you want to see an example of how it's getting easier, I did just do a tutorial on a lightning wallet called Breeze, where most of the complexity is starting to kind of go away, and you don't really see a lot of it, and you can actually just start using it. And so I encourage you to check out this video of Breeze wallet, because again, it's a non-custodial Bitcoin Lightning wallet,

but it's pretty easy to use, and you can also pull Bitcoin from the main chain onto the Lightning Network and from the Lightning Network back out onto the main chain into a different Bitcoin wallet. So check that out, but the point is, is that Bitcoin is scaling. It's optimizing through things like Segwit and other things coming down the pipe and then it's optimizing transactional throughput by using secondary layers like Lightning Network and yes indeed the liquid side chain. Now of course that's not fully trustless. It is a federated model, but it depends what you're using it for and it's important to realize that everything has tradeoffs including

increasing block size which by and large the users of bitcoin decided that tradeoff they didn't want to take and they'd rather abstracted away to other layers where you can trade off without compromising the base layer usability and so with that I'm going to wrap it up there I know this was a long rant but I just, it was bothering me that I keep on seeing in 2020 people still saying we need a block size increase for Bitcoin when it's been rejected time and time again for years and now there's plenty of other options. If you don't like it, use something else and if that's something else does not obtain a large market share and is not performing as well, then don't come bitching back to Bitcoin and saying that Bitcoin needs to do something that you've

tried and failed. End rant. That is it. Okay. Guys, thank you so much for watching and excuse my rant, but I just get tired of hearing the same arguments for years and years. Anyways, if you're watching and listening, please do hit like, subscribe, and share. And if you're on the podcast, then of course share that on your social media.

Nice to see more people listening. And if you're enjoying this on your ride home, then fantastic. Of course, if you want to help with the show in another way, you can always hit up the sponsors down below, Leiden and Rise Wallet and of course with Saobu Wallet if you want to check out a way to enjoy more privacy with your Bitcoin. And finally, if you want to help out the show, you can check out NordVPN. This also in the privacy vein. It hides your IP address, encrypts your browsing data, and has other added benefits like

unlocking geoblock content. So if you click the link below or if you go to NorvPPN.com and use the code BTC Sessions, That will get you a special deal where it's only $3.49 a month, which is pretty damn good. I use it all the time. I love it. Anyways, with that, I'm going to wrap it up. Have a wonderful rest of your evening, and I will see you tomorrow for your daily session.