The Last American Vagabond - Mark Goodwin Interview - Was Bitcoin A Government Operation & Can It Still Be Used To Fight Back?

Episode Date: January 17, 2025

Joining me today Mark Goodwin, former editor of Bitcoin Magazine, author, and current writer for Unlimited Hangout, here to discuss what has become a very contentious topic, Bitcoin. Long has the origin of Bitcoin been a topic of discussion, debate, and even drawing lines in the sand. The reason for this is largely due to the justifiable concern that the enigmatic "Satoshi Nakomoto" -- the pseudonym that we associate with the founding of Bitcoin -- might be nothing more than a thin veneer hiding a long-planned government operation. That debate alone has caused major shifts in the blockchain/cryptocurrency communities. Then there is the next important question to ask: Even if this was started as a government operation (similar to many tools we use to fight back today, such as the internet itself) can it still be used or possibly altered in order to fight back? We cover this and much more today as we dive through the history of Bitcoin, the many ways that it is currently being used by the incoming Trump administration, and what the future may hold down that path.Source Links:(18) markgoodw.in 🥪 (@markgoodw_in) / XLummis Introduces Strategic Bitcoin Reserve Legislation » Senator Cynthia LummisThe Bitcoin-Dollar – Bitcoin MagazineThe COVID Coup: The BlackRock Takeover Of American InterestsNew Tab(44) markgoodw.in 🥪 on X: "how PayPal built the microsoft of payments, which would mature into the bitcoin-dollar system, explained long before bitcoin was built: https://t.co/0wSoVIQFsp https://t.co/zBJBU8472K" / XGgX-aUrWsAEemrM (1545×1599)(29) markgoodw.in 🥪 on X: "how PayPal built the microsoft of payments, which would mature into the bitcoin-dollar system, explained long before bitcoin was built: https://t.co/0wSoVIQFsp https://t.co/zBJBU8472K" / XDavid Sacks cryptocurrency interviewFV Bank expands stablecoin services with PayPal USD integrationPeter Thiel Offers Theory on Finding Satoshi Nakamoto, Bitcon's Founder - BloombergPalantir: The PayPal-offshoot Becomes A Weapon In The War Against Whistleblowers And WikiLeaksThe PayPal wars : battles with eBay, the media, the mafia, and the rest of planet Earth : Jackson, Eric M : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archivenash_letters1.pdfParallel ControlThe Keynes vs von Hayek Debate: A False Dualism with Malthusian CharacteristicsNew TabThe Chain Of Command: How Facebook's Libra, Bank Regulators, and PayPal Built A New World CurrencyBreaking (Down) The Chain: An Investigation Post-mortemNew Tabbitcoin.pdfNew TabTrump Embraces the “Bitcoin-Dollar”, Stablecoins to Entrench US Financial Hegemony - Bitcoin Magazine - Bitcoin News, Articles and Expert InsightsThe Co-Opting of Bitcoin: BTC Nashville, Peter Thiel, Donald Trump, and RumbleNew TabSam Altman: Artificial Intelligence, the Bilderberg Group, and WorldcoinNew Tab(5) markgoodw.in 🥪 on X: "hahahahah" / XNew Tab(8) Whitney Webb on X: "The JPM-Epstein relationship makes more sense once you know that Jamie Dimon is absolutely a product of the same network as Jeffrey Epstein, as reported by Unlimited Hangout in past investigations: https://t.co/A6TauutW8M https://t.co/45A6nXjYcX However, as part of the JPMorgan" / XThe Quiet Transition From DARPA's XAI To Elon's xAI & Haaretz Exposes Sadistic Nature Of The IDFEarn and Borrow Crypto | World Liberty FinancialBlockchain 51% Attacks – Lessons for Developers and Trading PlatfBitcoin Donations Are Appreciated:www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/bitcoin-donation(3FSozj9gQ1UniHvEiRmkPnXzHSVMc68U9f) Get full access to The Last American Vagabond Substack at tlavagabond.substack.com/subscribe

Welcome to The Last American Vagabond. Joining me today is Mark Goodwin, author, writer for Unlimited Hangout and former editor of Bitcoin magazine to discuss a very important and contentious topic, Bitcoin, which is interesting, right? Because this has been a long, this conversation has been evolving. People have been learning about this for a very long time, myself included, even more so recently than never. And it's so interesting to see how this has evolved. And people who once were very much supportive of it are suddenly very concerned about it.

And I think rightly so. But I'm still trying to juggle this conversation. myself and trying to do the same conversation we've had about a lot of different things along my journey of independent media, which is, you know, a hammer is a tool. They can build a house. It could bash your head in. Right. So is that what we're dealing with here? Is Bitcoin something that is a government operation? Was it started by somebody who wanted to fight the government? Is it now being used in a way to suppress us? And even so, if that's the case, can it still be used to fight back? Is there ways that it'll be used to surveil us? Is it going to overlap with

artificial intelligence? It's a really interesting and quite frankly terrifying conversation. but I think it behooves us to understand where this goes, the technology itself, and truly whether it is still a internet-type case where it will ultimately be the tool we use to fight back, even if it's used to suppress us. So, Mark, thank you for joining today. It's a pleasure to have you on the show. Hey, thanks so much, Ryan. Yeah, I'm super happy to be here.

I can't possibly echo enough of those sentiments right back at you, you know, as someone who's been in the space now, you know, for close to a decade, not quite, but we're very close, you know, 24-7 basically. A lot of those questions, I don't know the answers to yet, you know, but I'm happy to be here and discuss them and we'll figure it out together, hopefully. Well, thanks, brother. And I really appreciate the way you started there because the truth is we don't. You know, I'm really, I'm getting increasingly frustrated and tired today of how many people

pretend they know exactly what's going on in every story when it's quite clear that most of us are trying to make sense, you know, read the tea leaves and kind of make sense of limited information because that's really where most of this ends up. So I'm right there with you. I think there's a lot of people that really want to believe in it. And I would, with the positives that I can see potentially, I'm there. Like I want to believe it's possible. But at the same time, I can't stop seeing just the overwhelming nonstop examples of how

this could be used in very dangerous ways. And that gets into Bitcoin itself, but also just is blockchain in general, but we can go through all this stuff today. I say we start with a very, you know, the crux of the point, which right now, I mean, I argue my audience is more familiar, I think, with crypto, Bitcoin than most. But even myself, again, we're still kind of on the. the early stages of this, the point being that I think they're pretty aware of how this has gone so far and our coverage to this point. I recommend someone like James Corbett, for example,

or Mark himself to understand more about this long-term history. But let's start with the main point, is this, or in your mind, Mark, your research has shown, is Bitcoin itself, was it started, was Satoshi himself, was this a government operation? And I will start with something you wrote, just saying Bitcoin, like money itself, is simply a technological tool. This tool has many differing properties depending on whether it is wielded by an individual of the state itself. And so that kind of sets the tone for the ideas that you seem to see it as either way. So if it has started like that, that's an interesting statement to take it on. So let's start with that point.

Is this, in your mind, started as a government operation? Yeah, totally. I mean, again, just to get back to the, you know, anyone that says they have 100% an idea what's going on is selling you something and it is lying to you because no one knows. And I think the Satoshi story is like a perfect example. of that because there's really no direct evidence either way, you know, and hard evidence that either this was, you know, released by some, you know, anarchist, crypto, shadowy coder, you know, some young, you know, maybe Western European American guy, you know, it seems like, you know,

English was his main language, but or, or if it was, you know, you know, directly coming out of, you know, a DARPA or even like an American fintech. And I think the answer is even more confusing when you go to look at, well, like, what does, what even is modern intelligence anymore? You know, it's not really what it was in the 40s and 50s of, you know, you know, guys with pocket protectors and kind of, you know, sitting in offices and doing things. You know, it's really completely gone into and merged, you know, maybe after, you know, Operation Underworld, you know, figuring out, you know, all of this, you know, the, the mob basically merged, obviously, you know, and Whitney Webb has obviously covered this extensively and has

literally written the book on this, and her book actually starts with that. You know, the intelligence merged with the mafia basically, you know, in wartime to figure out, hey, what's going on at the docks? You know, we need more information on who's, who's outside, who's in the waters, who's coming in and out. And the people that had that information were the data brokers of the time that were, you know, the mob, the people kind of bootlegging and doing all these things on the ports. So intelligence merged with, with the mob. And there's a lot of paper trail for that. And then in the next decades, the ensuing decades, that merger kind of kept going further and further into the private sector.

And we saw that, you know, specifically with the Internet. You know, it came out of DARPA. You know, it was called ARPA net at the time. The advanced research project. And we saw a lot of the technology that was built in Silicon Valley, you know, accepting grants from the NSA. the CIA through Stanford, through Caltech, through Harvard, through MIT. And a lot of these, you know, things we kind of take for granted as like, oh, these are the biggest American private companies. These are, this is free market capitalism working. It's like, well, no, they kind of hid,

you know, that there was this really large government intelligence influence in creating these projects. I have a piece coming out tomorrow about the militarization of data brokers. And you can look at, you know, where these projects came and, you know, how Google was, you know, built on computers that were given to Sergey and Larry at Stanford directly from funding from the NSA and the CIA. Does that mean Google is from the government? It's hard to say. I mean, it's just what the answer is.

But when you look at how it's being used and what kind of the outcome is, same with the internet. I think you can kind of make a case that it is. At the very least, we should ask that question is the point. Nobody should ever be considering that that's not the case with how clearly that overlaps. Like that's my point. Exactly. And I think I get a lot of shit for this in the Bitcoin space because I just simply

propose the fact that, hey, we should be able to ask this. Like, and I think that, you know, there was a threat I had recently that I, you know, I phrased it very particularly. I was like, if you perhaps can't consider that maybe this came out of, you know, because you got to be able to sort of objectively look at, you know, your bags, sort of, right? all these people have invested more than their money. I mean, it's really a personality. It's a borderline cult, frankly.

And I say that with love for a lot of the cult leaders and best things in the Bitcoin space. But there's so much identity and, yeah, like a personality that's associated with this protocol. And I think people are, it's really hard for them to consider that maybe they were sort of tricked. or there was a Trojan horse here that this was a project that actually came out of intelligence. It's real quickly, it's very similar to the partisan field right now, right? Like, where there's the same, almost another extension of that, where they have identified, like, personalized this, that this is who they are. And we'll get into the point about whether this, you know, whether or not it was this way,

could it still be used to fight back? But it's interesting that it is such a personalized thing. And it's the same with partisan, the ideologues and everything else for seeing that they're incapable of standing back and going, like you're saying, is it at least possible that he could be that way? And they just, the wall comes up. You know, and I think what we're starting to break through a lot is people that, whether we all have those walls, but we're being able to become more open in pointing those out on in the partisan field, I would say. Bitcoin right now is the thing one, you're really breaking down. The people need to stand back and go, you know, it's okay

to consider that. We don't have to blindly accept it, but consider whether it could be. That's, that's question everything. That's what we do here. A hundred percent. And also, it's like, well, does it really matter? And that's the other thing that I think is very confusing about Bitcoin is because, you know, I've sort of created this thesis or the sort of idea that, you know, and have been kind of slowly pushing it out since like 2021 and fall 2021. You know, obviously COVID was a big waking up for a lot of people, the government lockdowns. Now I know a lot more and I feel more solid in, in my foundation for this thesis. But, you know, fall 2021, I released the first kind of Bitcoin dollar idea. And I was like, hey,

There's actually a lot of evidence that the Bitcoin is going to benefit the United States more than it will benefit anyone else. And that's what's important. At the end of the day, it's like the Internet. It doesn't actually matter that DARPA made it necessarily because it is what it is. It's this open protocol that the Internet has some control levers and some things that do sort of lean towards the United States with ICANN and the certain things. But that's a whole other discussion. But Bitcoin, it doesn't necessarily matter who made it. What matters is who benefits from it.

And so I think that quote that you talked about where at the beginning here about how this is a technological tool that can be used to empower individuals, that's great. But also the modern state is an individual. It is a corporation. Now there's literally people out here trying to put Bitcoin on the books of the federal government and basically turn the government into a hedge fund and speculate whether we're, It's with seized funds or taxpayer funds using to buy Bitcoin or even crazier, you know, selling all of our goal to buy Bitcoin. When you look at something like that, you know, especially the selling the goal aspect, not to get too into macro here, but I think this is an important crux of this, you know, how does the U.S., you know, why would they do this, create this neutral internet-based protocol that is a deflationary system that sort of takes away theoretically the ability for the state to debt pardon. because they can't print more Bitcoin. There's a finite supply, right?

But in actuality, it actually might create the perfect opportunity for the U.S. government to debt pardon. And when you look at the gold, sorry, go for it. No, sorry, I can say more than one way, in my opinion, but go ahead. Of course, absolutely. And that's what's been kind of interesting and fun about the Bitcoin dollar thesis, is it's evolving in a lot of different ways. There's a lot of ways that they could do it.

And one of the ways that's been kind of thrown out there by, you know, senators, Senator Lomas out of Wyoming has, you know, has written. you know, literature basically waiting to get Trump, you know, Trump to get sworn in and seven days or whatever and push this forward, this idea of, you know, let's sell all of our gold. And what that will do is demonetize gold. And then we can use it to set the price of Bitcoin, buy up the price of Bitcoin, all of the, you know, countries around the world that hold gold. Now all of a sudden, you know, their gold is demonetized and worth less. You know, the U.S. has a serious debt problem. It has $36 trillion in debt.

We're at this point right now where the tax receipts are not nearly enough. We're not getting nearly enough money in from taxes. The interest rate on our debt. So, you know, you take out a big loan. You know, you have to pay the interest that doesn't actually go against the principal. You're just paying to service the loan, right? Our just servicing the debt that we have is actually greater than the money we spend on our defense now. And that's a very important, like, axiom when we pass that point.

So we're actually paying more to service the dollar than we are to pay for our military, which is supposed to sort of protect our dollar in this, you know, petro dollar system. So if we, you know, demonetize gold and an opportunity where normally, you know, we would be able to just say, hey, a gold, an ounce of gold is $30,000. We 10x it. You know, we're holding billions of dollars of gold. Now we 10x it and we have enough money in gold. You know, we reset the price in dollars.

We can pay off our debt tomorrow. We could do that 100%. But what would happen is every other country that holds gold would then be able to come to the United States and sell gold for 10x the price. And they would be able to get out of all of their debt issues too. Exactly. Exactly. So what's very interesting about the Bitcoin play is that the majority of it is in the United

States already. Right. through significantly through these ties to early Bitcoin having this heavy, heavy tie to Silicon Valley, PayPal Mafia specifically, maybe even coming out of PayPal, we'll get into that. But there's there's this ability for the US to basically reprice Bitcoin by buying up a ton of Bitcoin and sort of skipping that debt default scenario, which is what typically happens to world reserve currencies every, you know, 300 years is normally the cycle that they get to live for. And we're hitting that. that right now. And we should be sort of weakening. We should be dealing with our debt problems. And there should be some other superpower coming in to sort of step up and take the place. That's why you hear a lot of talk of de-dollarization, of bricks, of China and Russia doing their own digital plays, their own gold plays. But, you know, if I've learned anything from Vietnam, from Afghanistan, you know, from the petrodolar system created, the U.S. is not

going to let the World Reserve currency go. They don't care if they have to inflate and actually lose the individual purchasing power of the dollar. They don't necessarily care about that. But what they care about is that the dollar is stronger than everyone else's currency. Right. And it's the de facto currency that everyone wants to hold and save. I would simply argue that has to do with foreign policy and more so about the potential

globalist technocratic encroachment around the world than their immediate benefit off the financial situation. Like that's what it seems like to me. That's more important to them to be able to financially sanction, for example. Like that's what that would highly. Sure, sure. And, you know, again, getting back to the COVID stuff, I think COVID was really, you know, you could argue, you know, a very large misdirection operation where they basically, you know,

set us into these two false narratives, which again, I picked one and I'm glad I did, but basically COVID became entirely about pro or anti-vax. And I think there's a lot of issues with the vaccine and all that. and we don't have to get into that here. But really what happened was, you know, in fall of 2019, Larry Fink is meeting with Donald Trump and they're putting together this plan to do this going direct plan, which is where they printed, you know, trillions of dollars

and just handed it right to Wall Street. BlackRock really specifically with absolutely no ability for that stimulus money to go to Main Street at all. And then, of course, you know, six months later, they shut down the whole country, gold, oil, Bitcoin, everything completely collapses. Oil literally goes negative, right? There was that sort of famous moment in the second week of March 2020 where gold futures went negative, where, you know, if financial markets were, you know, were exactly, you know, honest, they were basically saying, you know, we'll pay you $150 to take a barrel of oil from us.

Obviously, it's futures market, so it's a little more nuanced than that. But, you know, I'm sort of a 9-11 kid, you know, I'm in my 30s. And, you know, all I've ever known is the U.S. getting into military operations to, you know, perpetuate the petrol dollar. And then here all of the sudden, oil is negative. There's no buyer. Why is that? Why did demand all get crushed? You know, why did the working class get crushed?

Why did gold go down so much? Oil go down so much. The central banks of the world all coordinate and bring in. interest rates down to zero. And then what happens is Bitcoin 20x is that year. By the end of the year, it goes from being around $3,000 to $60,000. The U.S. raises rates faster than ever and breaks all the bond curves basically of the world and create this scenario basically for the U.S. to have an incredibly strong dollar and also have this supposedly internet-based neutral. asset that's actually predominantly held in the United States wildly appreciate.

And obviously, you know, now BlackRock has officially come into Bitcoin. Trump has officially embraced Bitcoin. He wants to be the first Bitcoin president, all this stuff. You know, he lied to us like he does. He's, he's, everyone always pays attention to his rhetoric and never to his policy. Right. And what he did and he's setting up in his first administration, he brought in Steve Mnuchin, former Goldman to run the Treasury.

And Steve Mnuchin brought in his former One West bank partner Brian Brooks to run the Office of the Comptor or the currency, which is basically the highest, you know, it's one of the oldest financial institutions in the country. And it's basically the head, like regulatory position in the U.S. for banks. And so he signs a bulletin that says, you know, banks are allowed to hold crypto assets and specifically stable coins. And he basically sets up this whole precedent for establishing the U.S. as the crypto capital of the world while Trump is going on Twitter and going on this whole thing about, hey, I hate Bitcoin. It's trying to fight the dollar. You know, the dollar's king, blah, blah, blah. And everyone is like, oh, my goodness. And Bitcoin sells off and all this stuff. But in reality, you know, his team knew exactly what they were doing. They set up, you know, basically what we're about to see now with him coming in. Bitcoin. is at 100K.

And we're seeing more regulatory push for, you know, direct action of the U.S. government holding Bitcoin and, you know, all these things. But if you were really paying attention to his policy right before COVID actually happened, which, of course, he leaves, you know, right, you know, more or less right after, you know, a lot of the severe COVID policy starts.

And Biden comes in, becomes basically the fall guy. And now Trump comes in as this rehabilitated hero. who's, you know, saving America and using Bitcoin and literally says, I'm going to cut a little crypto check and pay our $36 trillion in debt. If you were paying attention, he set this all up his first administration while tweeting about how he was doing the opposite. And that's what he does. That's his politicians in general, but specifically Trump is, you know, he's a king of misdirection. As much as I think he's, you know, obviously a member of the swamp. But I mean, you got to give him some credit a little bit here for sort of his debt.

based, you know, manipulations. That's his whole game. That's what he's always done. He's a pretty savvy businessman in plenty of ways. I've always given him that credit for sure. Absolutely. As you say,

in very dishonest ways. And I just want to point out that time in a first administration, you can clearly argue that that was one of the many times that they've undermined it, dropped it, and then scooped up the many of the much of the market, you know, more than once to where we are today, you know,

and we can get into that. 100%. 100%. And that's why I think the, you know, it all started to kind of, click for me, you know, as I was sort of sifting through the COVID mess, because COVID was interesting where, you know, I was in Northern California at the time, you know, we were locked down.

And then even when lockdowns were over, because I chose to not take a medical treatment, I wasn't allowed to go anywhere. So I spent a lot of time just digging and researching and finding out about all this stuff and being like, oh, wow, like Steve Mnuchin should have been prosecuted or prosecuted for what he did in the 2008 crisis at One West, where he worked with Brian. and Brooks and he was supposed to go to court in California. Who was the DA at the time? Kamala Harris, she just throws out the court. You know, I'm just, you just start finding all of these.

Oh, wow. You know, there's actually this really large, you know, network of people, basically, behind, you know, how we got here. And so I argue that the birth of the Bitcoin dollar was basically that week in March of 2020, where they completely imploded the markets. And, you know, and then again, right, another, another point here, you know, we pull out of Afghanistan, you know, right after that, which again is sort of to this axiom that maybe we're moving away from the petro dollar system and moving towards this new Bitcoin dollar

system. And I'll just quickly explain sort of the petro dollar idea. So money is a technological tool. It's used basically just to express volatility between like two bartering parties. It's, it's, you know, you could think of, you know, hey, I have an apple, you have a bike. the guy with the bike is really hungry. He wants to eat the apple. The guy with the apple needs to drive somewhere or go somewhere. So they do a trade. And it makes a lot of sense at first.

You know, the guy that eats the apple is feeling good. The guy with the bike is going to his place. But then after, you know, 45 minutes, the guy that now has the apple is stuck there and he needs to get home. And he wishes he had his bike. And, you know, the guy that has the bike is now hungry. So there's these variable outcomes that are happening in the barter system that are, you know, can be mitigated, these these unwelcomed outcomes can be mitigated by using a technology that, you know, can act as a, as a way to express kind of the volatility between two,

to bartering people that doesn't necessitate, you know, a transfer of goods, right? Does that kind of make sense? It's sort of a quick overview, but. Yeah, or are we touching on, on, no, you're not, we're not even getting in cryptocurrency yet. You're simply just talking about. Yeah, just simply money, right? Yeah. But so, so once, once you bring it. in the element of time into barter, then those outcomes start to spread.

And then you get the guy that just traded his bike that actually needed it to run his paper route now can't work and all this. So as you get further away from the moment of barter, you know, you start to have more issues with, you know, successful outcomes. So money was basically invented as this way to kind of scale up, you know, human interaction beyond just, you know, localized tribes, really. And there's a lot of economics there. talking about Dunbar numbers and how you can kind of scale the tribe up from, you know,

to more and more. But basically that's the crux of it. Two bartering parties, they're trying to express volatility because they want something else. The money itself isn't necessarily supposed to be valuable. It's just a way to get something that is valuable. And to be clear for those listening, he's not referring to the Fiat dollar today. He's talking about like currency as a historical concept, right? I'm clear.

Okay, go ahead. Exactly, exactly. So because those outcomes over time would, you know, really rapidly move away from me, other where one side of the party of the trade would actually, you know, usually end up being in a much better position over time than the other. They decided to tie money to energy because it allows it to be harder to be debased because it's harder to be sourced. So, you know, the old idiom of, you know, money doesn't grow in trees. If money did grow in trees, you could just run out to trees and grab a bunch of money and then, you know, your currency unit, you know, really devalues

really quickly because you can source it very quickly. So gold, you know, develops, you know, naturally in many different places around the world sort of independently as this thing that's really hard to source and takes a lot of energy to pull out of the ground. Obviously, at the time, energy is literally just, you know, pickaxes and people, you know, panning in the river or whatever. But it takes a lot of time and a lot of energy. So the debasement of the currency, you know, takes, it's not just pulling leaves off trees. You have to, you know, send people to the mine and get these things in it. So the inflation rate of your currency is now tied to this basically an energy commodity

that is gold coming out of the ground because ultimately it's how much energy can you put into getting it out of the ground. So the gold standard kind of becomes the standard for currency because it's a really, it's a really nice way and that in modern times, you know, two and a half percent, three percent gold a year is coming out of the ground that increases the supply by two to three In the 70s, the U.S. very infamously goes off the gold standard. This thing called the Nixon shock. There was a whole lot of things that happened before then.

Charles de Gaul come in demanding gold, the London gold pool exploding. Go check out a lot of that stuff. There's a lot of interesting things. The establishment of the Fed, the Bretton Woods Agreement. But basically in the 70s, we go off the gold standard because the issue, so they say, this was the reasoning behind it, the issue with having a slowly and and currency based on an energy commodity is that your growth is now limited in your economy to this two and a half, three percent of money coming out of the ground.

You can't grow your economy more. You can't make more dollars because it's directly tied, you know, 30 to one or whatever ounces of gold. So you're actually, your growth is limited. Yes. So a bunch of people, but it is real. Exactly. Exactly.

Exactly. Well, this is their argument, not mine. No, I know. I know. I'm following. I'm making a joke. It's funny. We're talking about limiting growth, but it's like,

like, well, that's like reality versus virtual reality in my mind. You know, that's the ultimate we're talking about. Exactly. And that's where Fiat, you know, comes from is sort of this Latin phrase for just like, you know, it is because I declare it to be. Right. That's not exactly the Latin. But, you know, that concept is just like it's from a decree that we're just calling it valuable because it's valuable.

So the Fiat standard really kicks off, you know, worldwide. And in 71 when Nixon takes us off, you know, officially. And so, you know, the U.S. Citizens can't, you know, go turn in their dollars for gold anymore. And now we actually have this highly inflationary period in the 70s where they can just print dollars. There's nothing stopping them from printing dollars because they don't have to meet any sort of arbitrary ratio that's tied to gold. But what happens is that we have a highly inflationary environment. And so your value of your individual purchasing power of your dollar is really rapidly decreasing because they're printing so many more dollars.

So what they ended up doing, and you can, you know, this is just, you know, of the record, you know, the U.S. immediately starts going into the Middle East and doing our imperial thing and basically establishes this. Kissinger was a really important part of this, but it establishes this relationship with the Saudis and, you know, some other players in the Middle East to basically say, hey, we will give you military support and protect your refineries. if you make it so that every single person in the world that wants to buy oil, which was a necessity for the 70s, you know, Europe and Asia, you know, if you wanted to industrialize, which everyone wanted to do,

you had to compete on the global stage with, you know, these post-war superpowers. The U.S. is so far ahead of everyone else. You want to compete with the U.S. You need to buy oil to industrialize. It's just a fact, not that many people are oil rich. So we established this political agreement and say, anybody that wants to buy oil has to buy dollars first. So what that does is it creates artificial demand for dollars.

So now as we're in the U.S. just printing all these dollars and all these dollars, and the way you actually print dollars is you make these reserve assets that back the dollars, you sell them into private banks, they create dollars in your bank accounts. These reserves now have a buyer, a constant buyer, because everybody that wants to buy oil has to buy dollars first. So Russia, you know, everywhere in the now EU, the Eurozone at the time, you know, all of these countries, they have to buy U.S. dollars first. We have a buyer, and we're able to basically shovel the inflationary effects of printing

money into the Eurozone and into Asia. And suddenly this, you know, we're able to basically pay our deficits, pay our budgets, service our budget, because we have a buyer of someone that will buy our debt because they need to to buy, to buy oil. So that kind of it works for a good deal. We're able to sort of get out of this inflationary period a little bit. Works for the government for sure, but devalues are currently. Exactly. Exactly. But the people get really hurt. And that's sort of the story here, as always, is that the U.S. will do what it takes to, you know, perpetuate empire and serviced our debt continually sort of at the behest of the people that hold dollars. Now as we're globalizing the dollar, forcing countries around the world

to buy dollars, now we're devaluing everyone's money. It's not just the U.S. citizens anymore. It's everybody's. The dollar gets globalized, and we have this huge dollarization trend. And we actually see all of this, you know, in the 80s is kind of the first time we see this coordinated central banking. We see this thing called the Plaza Accord, which interestingly was, there was a meeting of the G5 at the time in this hotel in New York, owned by Roy Cohn, interestingly enough.

But I'm sure that's not important. And they all come together to basically, you know, make a plan to devalue the yen, or sorry, to devalue the U.S. dollar against the Japanese yen. I believe it was, it was France, the UK, Japan. Yeah, it was the G5 at the time. So this group of, you know, then Eurozone, you know, pre-Euro. And they do this coordinated central banking. And the U.S. actually devalues their dollar significantly after raising interest rates incredibly high throughout the inflationary period that they saw in the 70s.

The way that you fix inflation is you raise interest rates really, really high. You could look at interest rates as, you know, if we're paying you more money to hold our debt. So the higher the interest rate is, the more you're interested in owning our money. So if interest rates are at 10%, you know, we're paying you 10% to hold our debt over a certain duration. Whereas if rates are 0%, we're paying you zero. So it really changes the whole dynamic of the dollar-based system. It makes lending really hard when rates are really high. Anyway, all this stuff is happening.

It's the first example of coordinated central banking that happens in 85 at the Plaza Accord. So everyone's on the petra dollar. They're buying dollars to get to oil. We kind of have this good thing cooking. And then the next time in history where we really saw that same issue happen of like, hey, there's a global crisis that could really occur here if we don't get this under control. There's a couple moments a little bit in the 90s where the U.S. did some kind of interesting manipulation stuff to Mexico, with NAFTA. and a couple of things, but really it was 2008.

That was really the next time we saw like, you know, central bankers sort of looking at each other and being like, oh, shit, what's going to happen? This is bad. So, of course, 2008, you know, there was, it was all kind of basically taking new financial products that were based on mortgages and turning them into these collateralized debt obligations and slinging them around these highly speculative, you know, trading patterns. And then the bubble bursts. and who gets caught holding the bag. It's the homeowners. So again, they devalue and hurt the homeowners, but they bail out the banks,

and the U.S. Empire is fine. The banks are fine. People that own homes across the world are crushed. The stock market's crushed. And then what do we see happen right after 2008? Obviously, we see a split between the party. So Bush leaves, Obama comes in. So the Republicans blame Obama.

The Democrats blame Bush. No one learns anything. And then every time. And then in Halloween 2008, some anonymous person releases a white paper on the cypherpunk forums. And it explains the idea of this neutral energy-based asset that it lives on the internet. And that's Bitcoin. So Satoshi, this figure, releases it in 2008.

And, you know, it kind of chugs along as sort of this, you know, it's just for gamblers. It's just for poker players. for pornographers, it's drug dealers. And interestingly enough, I actually, you know, I was in San Francisco, not quite at 2009, but by, you know, 2011, 2012, I was there. And I was working in bars, and that's what I did for the majority of the time I was there. And a regular at my bar was this guy, Blake Benthal, who actually took over for Ross Oldbrick when he got arrested for running Silk Road, literally like the next day Silk Road 2.0 pops up in 2014 and he takes over, you know, kind of being the DPR 2.0, the dead pirate Robert, which was the pseudonym that Ross used.

Ross was also arrested in San Francisco at the library right near my house, interestingly enough. But so he, he sets up this, you know, new drug market. And so he actually explained Bitcoin to me in 2014, just as a regular at my bar. he never once explained that there was an element of appreciation or speculation. It was 100% entirely about peer-to-peer anonymous, which is not anonymous at all, as they all found out because they went to jail, this currency that you could use to buy drugs online on Silk Road. And so I didn't really think too much about Bitcoin. I used it, you know, a couple times around that time, literally not knowing there was a price somehow, not knowing that it was something that could appreciate. But that was the early vibe of Bitcoin.

It was it was it was really anarchist. It was really. Hey, we're circumnavigating payment processors, PayPal, you know, WikiLeaks gets debanked. Let's have them use Bitcoin. You know, there was all this really kind of cool, interesting stuff going on. I wasn't really connected in the scene at all, but that was sort of my primer was, oh, it's this anonymous peer-to-peer cash system. That's pretty cool. Right.

Then, of course, it gets to 2017, the start of 2017. I see a headline that says, you know, Bitcoin crosses, I think it was a thousand bucks. I think at the start of 2017, something around there. And I was like, oh, it can go up. And I really didn't know that there was this speculative sort of commodity element to it. I really literally just thought it was a way you put dollars in, you get, you know, dollar amount out. and then you can send it and buy drugs with it. That's literally what I was taught because that's what the guy was doing.

That was the community. Of course, people understood it earlier on that it was going to be something. There's some pretty infamous price predictions, you know, within the first couple weeks of Bitcoin coming out of saying this will be worth millions and yada, yada. But that wasn't really the premise of the community. 2017, it really kicks off and becomes all about speculation. I kind of study it and get kind of swept in and have been kind of in the Bitcoin space. sense. But I think it's really interesting that, you know, we see the speculation bubble come

at 2017. And then it hits 2020. And we start to see, you know, this, you know, we see this huge bubble explode everywhere in financial markets with the COVID shutdown. And then immediately we see Bitcoin 20x. So there's a couple of things. I know I've been ranting for a while, but there's a There's a couple of things I want to explain about Bitcoin that's very important in regards to why that change happened. And please, what you're saying is very important, by the way. Like this entire, the background to this really does bring it to a very clear connected point for people that, you know, half of some of what you're saying, I wasn't even aware of, right?

This is important stuff. And so please continue. Thank you. Thank you. So a very important crux, like thing happened that is hardwired into Bitcoin. That was a big reason why Bitcoin. changed from being this peer-to-peer, you know, cash-like system into this kind of more of a speculative commodity. And it's not just that it was hijacked by the CIA and a lot of the things

that a lot of people perpetuate, you know, kind of infamously in this Roger Verre book, hijacking Bitcoin. I think there's a few things Roger Verre definitely gets right. And I hope the IRS doesn't fuck with him. But I don't think he's completely right. There's some technical reasons why I don't think he's right. But anyways, going back to one of the things hardwired into Bitcoin is this thing called the having. And so we talked earlier about, you know, gold coming out of the ground. It was a good method to not have your currency debased because, you know, it can only come out of the ground, you know, relative to its total supply, two and a half percent more supply

can come out of the ground. That's only how much we can pull out, right? So there's a cap on growth. So it's a hard money, even though it is inflating. Technically, there's a hard money because it's inflation is capped, whereas the dollar system we've now found out, you can just print $8 trillion in a year and just blow everything up. And it's fine because there's nothing. It's just political.

It's fiat. There's nothing, no technology, no math, no sending miners to the ground and hacking. There's nothing that's permitting or preventing the dollar from inflating other than literally financial action, political action. Bitcoin has a happening in there. So at the beginning when Bitcoin was launched at the start of 2009, it was inflating, 50% of the total supply that will ever exist in Bitcoin was printed, was made in the first four years of Bitcoin. So there's this thing called the happening cycle.

So Bitcoin is the blockchain is all these blocks that stack together. It's on average every 10 minutes. Every 210,000 blocks, the blocks are these little data sets that have all the transactions in them. But they also issue new bitcoins. So you've heard of Bitcoin mining. The Bitcoin miners are building blocks. And they are creating new Bitcoin that's issued by the protocol. So in the first four years, the first 210,000 blocks, every 10 minutes, it averages out to

about three and a half to four years. In the first four years, 50 Bitcoin were mined every block. Bitcoin was worthless when it came out. There was literally no price, but 50 Bitcoin were coming out every 10 minutes. It was a highly inflating currency. 50% of the 21 million that we hear, you know, this hard cap came out in those first four years. Every 10 minutes, 50 more Bitcoin, 50 more. Really quickly, for those that are confused.

We touched on this a bit in one of the last interviews as well as some of the things we've discussed, essentially the people mining get a reward essentially by solving the cryptographic puzzle for each block, essentially, and the amount they get diminishes over time. And so what you're highlighting there is that the amount that was mined essentially is, I mean, that's because there's ultimately a limited amount. Is that what you're getting at, like, in the amount of Bitcoin. Yes. Yeah.

Right. So hard-coded into the protocol is this asymptotic approach to zero, where it starts at 50% in the first four years. And then there was a halving event. So in 2012, there was a halving. Having as in, like, halving, like cutting in half. And then that block reward goes from 50 to 25. So in those next four years,

from 2012, by the way, right? Exactly. Yeah. Exactly. So now there's a bit of a price. There's, you know, there's, it's, you know, Bitcoin's worth a few bucks or something. I'm not exactly sure. I'm not always the best historian on Bitcoin sometimes.

But 2012 to 2016, 25 Bitcoin are coming out every 10 minutes. So that's a 50% relative reduction of inflation from the previous period. So hard-coded into Bitcoin is this idea of we are de-heavalable. deflating. It's a disinflationary monetary system, not deflationary yet, disinflationary. So it's at 50, 50 Bitcoin every 10 minutes. Then it goes to 25. Then the next having cycle that happens, you know, in, you know, right at 2020, right when this, you know, Bitcoin dollar system, the COVID stuff is all happening in May 2020 was when the next happening, the third happening, would bring it down to, you know, 12 and a half.

So the interesting thing about that 12 and a half is relative issuance to the total supply finally brought Bitcoin down to being below the 3% of gold coming out of the ground and below the 2% that the U.S. government is aiming to have Bitcoin, or sorry, the U.S. government is aiming to have the dollar. Like our target inflation is 2%. That's like the Fed's mandate is to, you know, to hit that 2%. So, so mathematically, economically, our monetary policy of Bitcoin is getting harder and harder and harder and less and less inflation is occurring.

And what, give me the relevance of that in regard to what we're talking about, is that better or worse for the government and better or worse for the person? Well, what it means is that mathematically you could argue in 2020, 2009 to 2012, Bitcoin is a highly inflating currency. There's not really any reason to value it very much necessarily, unless you're really thinking far ahead because it's a highly inflating, you know, 50 Bitcoin are coming out every block. There's, you know, there were 10, basically 10 million Bitcoin made in the first four years. Right. But then the next four years, there was only five made, five million. And then after that having, then it goes down to two and a half. Then it goes to one in a

quarter, you know, 1.25 million are made. And eventually it goes down and, down and down and down after 32 halvenings, they just round it down and then they just stop issuing new Bitcoin. Oh, see, that's interesting. I haven't heard that before. I was actually just going to make a point about this, that it's, I was like a philosophical point because if you're only ever having something forever, it doesn't ever really go away. Right.

Smaller, smaller. So is there actually a point where the decision, two questions. There's a point. Is there a point where that it goes down to zero? And was that part of the original Satoshi white paper plan? 100%. Interesting. Yes.

Okay. Explain there was. Mm-hmm. So, yeah. So, you know, Ryan's exactly right. It's the whole, you know, frog jumping. If the frog jumps half the distance of the table, how many jumps will it take to reach the end of the table?

It will never reach the end of the table. So that's this asymptotic approach to zero. It will continually approach to zero and get as close, close, close, it goes, but it will never actually technically touch zero. Bitcoin does a funny thing. You know, it's a protocol, right? It's software. So there's a lot of, you know, numbers that generally are used in software just because of

the way that, you know, bits and bytes work. And 32 is one of the more used, you know, software numbers because it's a really nice, even bit, you know, 32 bits, basically. So it's a terrible explanation, but I hope that makes sense. It's a number that was chosen because it sort of makes sense. It's easy to code that there's this nice mathematical, you know, okay, right at 32, we just cut the tail off. in the 32 happening in the 32nd epoch they call them where we're in the final stage where there is technically issuance

but very very little it is so far below a bitcoin it's like 0.01 it's barely uh and you know a 10th of a bitcoin or something not even um that comes out every block so it's very very very very small so as that happening happens and goes and goes um you know it it gets so close to zero So, Satoshi made a decision at 32, we'll just cut it. When we hit the 33rd epoch, you know, we go to zero. And then Bitcoin will sustain itself entirely from financial transaction fees. So miners, instead of getting new Bitcoin issued, they will just get the fees of people trying to put their transactions in blocks.

How did that work, though, for the miners who are involved with the actual CPU-powered mining operations who may not, unless I'm under misunderstanding something, be involved with the actual transactional aspect of it. How would they make revenue from just mining? How does that work once that goes down to zero? Well, actually, you know, very soon, you know, in the next eight years or so, maybe 12 years, I mean, I would certainly argue that that will probably happen already where, you know, there's a thing called the block reward, which when Bitcoin started, it was 50, then it was 25, then it was 12 and a half, now it's 6.15. That's what I was saying before about the prize for kind of solving the crypto

for each block. Exactly. But as that shrinks and shrinks and shrinks, the amount of transactions that are going in the block, if you want to send a Bitcoin transaction, what you're basically doing is trying to hail like a taxi. Like you're like, hey, miner, you know, put me in the block. Put me in the next block. The block size is limited, right?

So each block, every 10 minutes, a new block is added, is around, you know, know, two to four megabytes, kind of depending on how you look at it. Technically, it's a megabyte. They introduce these new weight units. It's this whole thing. We don't need to get into that. But basically, there's a limit to how many transactions you can fit in a block. So if you want to make sure that you get in the next block, because it's very important for you to make this transaction, you pay a higher fee.

Got it. So as you pay higher fees to, you basically are bribing the miners. Man, that seems wildly. complicated. I can see so many ways in which that screws up the entire process, like where you may be, you know, like eventually if people start, because I had an issue a while back, and this is not really with the point of today's conversation, but where I got kind of stalled in trying to cash something out because the fee was low and it was everybody was going higher than it. And it just kind of continued that way for almost like a month. And I was like, I'd have somebody actually helped me fix that.

And so if hypothetically you get to a point to where people are bidding above it, it just caused complications for like the actual transactional aspect of it. Because this is where this is where it gets into the point of whether this was, you know, this is so far away from the original vision of peer to peer without a financial institution, now to the point to where you necessitates those things. Like you have to have this coordinated financial middleman or arguably. Anyway,

the point is just that that seems wildly more complicated to me. Do you see that as, as, I mean, let me ask it like this. Do you think, how did Satoshi see that going forward, especially if the mindset, again,

under the guise that are, I guess, considering this as maybe not an origin point from the government or however you want to see it, designed in a way hypothetically that was meant to circumvent financial transactions or financial institutions, rather. How did he see that going forward after that point? Because it seems like you need something like that, unless I'm missing something. Yeah. Well, I think the idea was either Bitcoin is going to be worth a lot of money and people are going to want to transact and settle on it or they're not.

So either there's going to be a user base that are transacting. and if that's true, then those users will, you know, sustain the miners by paying them enough that you are actually encouraged to stay in the system. There's a lot of debate about this. There are people that are hardcore bitcoins that think Bcash is stupid and BSB is stupid, and they think that they're still an issue here. There are hardcore bitcoins that think we should add some things called tail emissions, where we actually add, you know, a slight reward.

at the end of the protocol where, you know, it's just a, hey, you know, there's 0.01 Bitcoin gets awarded every, every block still or whatever. And technically the supply inflates. But it relatively, it is still, you know, deflationary or disinflationary because, you know, relative to the supply, if you're adding a stable amount to the end, you know, your supply is getting bigger, your amount staying the same. The percentage wise is shrinking. So there's the sort of tail. emissions idea. There's a privacy coin called them Manero that's decently popular, even with some bitcoins, although they won't tell you that, that uses tail emissions. It's very controversial, though. There's also this idea of Demiers where they actually take coins that have been sitting

in wallets that haven't moved in 15 years, and then they start to break those down. I disagree with that entirely. But again, this is also a really good point here to break and say, This is an experiment. Yeah. This really is an experiment. So there's a lot of people that should experiment and try different things, right? So that's where you get the B-Cash element and the B-SV element. B-Cash says, hey, Bitcoin's supposed to be a peer-to-peer.

It's the first line in the white paper. Why do we have a tiny block size that makes it harder for Bitcoiners to spend and have cheap transactions? You know, what is actually truly world-changing about this is we can, do Bitcoin transactions that don't require a trusted third party. And so let's increase the block size. But we'll increase it, but limit it. And that would be original vision from Satoshi's original white paper. Well, that's what the B-cashers say.

Everyone is trying to sell something, right? That's the thing that's really hard about this is that everybody has their bags and they have things. But that's what they claim, right? But then the B-caster split off again. And then the Satoshi visioners come in and they say, no, no, no, no. Satoshi actually never wanted to have a block size at all. Let's have dynamic blocks that the size is only limited by the amount of people that want to transact at that moment.

So fees will basically be zero forever, right? So there's a fork that occurs where the B cashers go to, you know, I forget exactly, maybe like five megabytes or something. And then BSV comes in and forks off that and they go infinite blocks. And we can go huge, right? Yeah. Which can rival Visa as far as understand it. if you really want it to implement it in a real transactional process?

Yes, but there's an issue with it, which is the thing that's interesting about Bitcoin is that you can run a node by myself, I can run one, and I can validate all the way back to the first block that has ever existed, and I can with a raspberry pie, and very soon with a smartphone, verify every single transaction with 100% fidelity back. to the very, very, very beginning. And I don't have to trust a single fucking person. And I can look at every single transaction and every single block. And I can send a block or send a transaction and put it in the next block.

And I don't have to worry about a single point of failure because I can do it on a tiny bandwidth cell phone service plan with a tiny hard drive and a really shitty computer, a really bad CPU. And I can process all of these tiny one megabyte blocks, and I can process all of them back, all the 800,000 blocks or whatever, go all the way back to Genesis with complete fidelity. And I don't have to trust an internet service provider. I don't have to trust basically complicated hardware. I don't have to have a really awesome computer. And so you have this sort of, you know, anybody with a smartphone, basically, or slightly better than today's modern cell phones, can validate and run their own node

and don't have to worry about anyone when they want to make a transaction. As you increase the block size, that's no longer as true. Because you now have to have, if say like a BSV, every block is a gigabyte, you have to store every single block.

800,000 blocks that are a gigabyte big is a humongous strain on hardware and probably more importantly, bandwidth. Because you have to download an insane amount of gigabytes every day. That is not necessarily something that an individual can do, right? So when you increase the block size,

you actually create more opportunities for centralization because who actually has a super fucking computer that can crush and validate, you know, a gigabyte blocks and download them every 10 minutes, a very small amount of people. So the BSB blockchain has a very small amount of validation, sets. There's a very small amount of nodes that can actually do it. Bcash as well. It's a little bit easier, but still pretty bad. Bitcoin has a ton of nodes. It's very easy to validate. Now, again,

it's an experiment. It's a choice. I understand why people are interested in exploring that. But I think that those centralization points, especially bandwidth, are absolutely worth talking about. And I think that people kind of skate over these things when they talk about BSP, because they're Like, well, we can compete with Visa. Sure, you can. But you're centralized like Visa when you do it. Well, because blockchains are clunky and they suck. They're really shitty technology on purpose.

Like, it's a really difficult thing to create a blockchain. You know, it's really, it's slow. It's kind of slow on purpose because you want to have this trans, you know, this distributed, decentralized immutable chain of data that can't be, you know, rolled back. You know, you're, it's a bearer asset. No one can just come in and mess around with the, you know, no party can kind of come in and centralize the protocol. Now, that said, there's still a lot of issues with small blocks. But I get why Bitcoin has stayed with that.

And then I want to say one more thing before you jump in. I'm sorry. But there was this block size war that was fought in 2017 where these issues of, hey, we're kind of starting to hit, you know, where it's kind of hard to get transactions in blocks. we're looking ahead and we're seeing that we're going to have this choke point of throughput. So how do we maximize throughput? So they establish this thing called the Lightning Network that allows you basically to create a payment channel between two people. And then you can infinitely send transactions back and forth. And then you can close it when you want and you can trustlessly close back to the main layer.

And it gives you this transactional output that's almost literally infinite within the channel. but then of course there's still a lot of issues of well you still have to send a transaction to open the channel and then send one to close so if there's a huge you know the bottlenecks or traffic can still be really expensive and have a lot of issues lightning has some issues but it's still very interesting in the block size war they came you know there was a whole bunch of people that got together there were all these closed doors meetings and all these businesses and the miners were one group and some businesses were another group and, you know, all these kind of factions came together. But the thing that's lost is that people think that it was small blockers and then big blockers.

But in reality, it was big blockers and bigger blockers because what ended up happening is we did raise the block size. Objectively, on Bitcoin, BTC, the block size did increase with the Segwit soft fork. So block sizes or increases are the only provable way we know to really scale blockchains. And BTC has done that themselves. So I'm not ruling out that there might not ever be a block size increase in the future as, you know, Moore's law kind of hits. And, you know, the idea that the the cheapness of storage space and of computation space, it gets more efficient and more and cheaper. So you can now buy, right, like a three terabyte like micro SD card. I mean, it's insane what you can do now for like not that much.

As that continues to happen, as bandwidth transact, a throughput continues to increase on the whole, whether it's through satellites or broadband fiber optic, you know, we might end up seeing a block size increase because it wouldn't actually cause a centralization, you know, choke point because the technology that is dispersed around the world with. ISPs and with hardware providers is at a certain point where it's okay. So we could see that. Now, there are also people in Bitcoin that argue let's lower blocks so we can, we can transact with ham radios, you know. I mean, it's all, it's an experiment. It's a philosophical thing. This is so fascinating to me. Like it comes down to the idea of what you truly believe this is meant to do, even amongst the people that are really of the mind of the, you know, the origin, peer to peer transaction with no financial institutions. There's even deviations within that

community about, you know, like, for example, especially today where it, as I think you've covered, where it intersects with the Trump administration conversation, where you got people that are saying, no, no, no, let's use this and just digital goal. Let's just hold it forever. And that, well, that directly kind of contradicts the main point of how this system was meant to work, but the system was ever meant to be like, you have to transact. It's just that you could, but so it's like an interesting deviation between the two. But to the point you're making, like, you made excellent points right there. And even what the more I learned about this, the more I completely, and I already did when I first stepped into it, but day by day, you see why this

becomes so contentious. Like there's so many deviations, so many different points. And billions and billions of dollars behind the choices. I mean, that's the thing that that really colors a lot of the philosophic, because I agree, it is philosophical. It's also technical, but it's also economic and investing in speculative. And, you know, there's people that have put huge amounts of money behind one fork or the other. There are people that have lost tons of and money supporting one and not the other. So anytime you have a philosophical conversation about an experiment and then there's billions, if not trillions of dollars involved, I mean, it's very hard to know for sure. And I think this digital gold argument is really interesting because

this is where I have now kind of formally split myself from where I'm like, I don't think Bitcoin was hijacked at all. I think it was designed to do exactly this. And it was designed and it was released exactly at this moment. I mean, we did a very abridged, the Goodwin abridged economic history from 71 to 2008. But this idea that it just pops off in 2008, you know, after, you know, the U.S. has this huge, you know, mortgage crisis that basically spills out into everywhere. It's hard for me to think that that's just an accident. And then now that we're seeing this huge pivot, you know, I think Trump is very obviously. this sort of, you know, he's a Trojan horse kind of candidate himself where people just sort of,

you know, ideologically are like, oh, that's my guy. We got, you know, but then he's ushering in, I think, this technocracy at a rate faster than, you know, anyone has done in the past. And so I think when you look at how Bitcoin has now become an essential part of his platform and his answer for solving the biggest issue that the U.S. Empire faces. which is its debt problem. And he has created a narrative that, you know, these Bitcoiners that were all about and the Fed are now literally saying mend the Fed. Right.

Let's fix the U.S. debt problem with Bitcoin. Let's cheer that BlackRock is pumping our bags. And a lot of the, I think the ethos of the community was hijacked. But I don't think the protocol was. I think that that, you know, that deflationary, disinflationary monetary policy, it was supposed to become this asset, this neutral asset that we could use, that we could inflate the dollar into while we hold all the Bitcoin, and then we become the Bitcoin winners of the world, and we basically extend our Hedgeman another 300 years, maybe even longer,

at the most important technological axiom crux, whatever moment in history as AI and all of these things are popping off. It's like, I don't believe in multipolarity anymore really after COVID. I really think that it is. We are in a one world empire context, unfortunately. And I think the U.S. Silicon Valley tech oligarchs are that group. They run the Trump administration, frankly. I hope I can say that. And yeah, sure. And I definitely agree. And Bitcoin came out of that group, I think. I'm sure a lot of people would disagree. But I think. that it's very clear when you look at the primordial goop that Bitcoin came out of. These guys are very clever.

They knew to release it with Soak Road. They knew to release it with the poker players and have it come out in this way that made it seem this total anarchist drug dealer, pornographer kind of thing, criminal thing. And then, you know, 14 years later or whatever, it's solving the U.S.'s debt problem. Like, I don't think that's the U.S. if there was really a threat to the United States Empire, there's no way they would, they would just literally be assassinating people. They would be doing much more extreme things.

They'd be flexing more levers that they have over the supply chain of hardware and over their internet service providers. Who owns all of the fiber optic cables under the ocean? It's Facebook, it's Google, it's Amazon, it's Microsoft, it's Silicon Valley. They have an entire surround, they surround Africa with fiber optic cables. Who owns all the satellites? You know, it's the same group of people. If they really wanted to, you know, make it really hard to use Bitcoin, they would.

And they wouldn't just use lawfare. They would do other things. And I think that the fact that they haven't really done that is another feather in the cap of, well, maybe this is to their advantage. And if they're really going to start buying millions of Bitcoin and not millions of dollars, but millions of Bitcoin and selling gold to do that, that. I don't think there's any doubt in my mind that I don't think they there's no way they just woke up and went, hey, we can use this. This is good for us. No, I think they, I think they, they created it. I tend to lean. I mean, it's hard because I agree, everything you're saying is completely accurate, you know, it's, but it's like, what the picture you've laid out really well,

you know, is that clearly it is still, even with what you're highlighting something that almost seems to in a way, which we'll get into, I think next, undermine what they seem to be building. But as you highlight very well in your chain series as these two things that seem to be different come together, it very much creates this new monetary system, which is as you're highlighted very well from Trump's administration forward or even before that, it seems very coordinated with the very people that seem to be pretending to fight back right now, which, you know, that's where I was really getting the philosophical part of this is so important because as you're highlighting, like let's just even say for sake of conversation and we'll get into next like the whole PayPal

overlap and that what you're highlighting right there is that this is clearly something that is, if not the very beginning, has immediately been used and hijacked and manipulated the size and everything to keep it in a place that would lead to this point. And so it's very easy to kind of just throw the baby out with the bathwater, right? But it's clear to see like with the blockchain, the forks with Bitcoin cash and BSV and the differences between all of them, it feels in a way like each one is striving in its own way to try to meet that. But I get the sense that like Bitcoin BTC itself is ultimately the least close to that mindset.

But at the same time, you pointed out that there are different aspects of it that could benefit in other ways. And, you know, so at the end of the day, it's kind of the same ultimate point. And so, I mean, at first I felt like in BSV being Bitcoin Satoshi Vision, so clearly they feel like that's the original idea. But as you highlighted, the idea of the lack of, rather more centralization potential, as you highlighted after that, though, is like we seem to be rapidly inclining, again, in a technological direction that I'm afraid of, but where, you know, moments ago we had little flipflones and now we have phones that have more. capacity than we went to the moon with, you know, in that conversation. Sure. The point being clearly that we may very shortly be able to do that. And so it's just so convoluted.

And so I want people to walk away at this at the very least so far with the idea that, you know, the same idea here is that it seems to be without question being utilized by the government, wonder whether it started that way as we're going to connect. But please do not think you as, even like Minero, for example, there are ways that it seems that we could start to fight back on this. And I think that's very important. And I just want to jump off that really quick before we get into the PayPal stuff is that you are 100% correct. Again, this is an experiment. I like to look at it as a game.

I think finances, you know, financial systems are games. If you look at John Nash's kind of work that he was doing at Princeton, you look at Von Neumann. You're supposed to be running the Manhattan Project is releasing books at the height of the Manhattan Project about game theory via the Princeton Press that sort of established a lot of the sort of idea of, you know, that that grew into the game theory, you know, field of study, all coming out of America, by the way. But all these people kind of coalescent to Princeton, Albert Einstein's there, Neumann's there, Nash is there. And they start working on all of these, you know, game theoretical works.

And John Nash specifically, you know, had done a lot of work on things that you really directly could connect to Bitcoin, which I think is very fascinating. And that's sort of its own, its own chestnut there. But I think the idea that it's still a game and it's still being played is the important thing that we need to remember here. Because the U.S. government can only use Bitcoin to debt pardon and only use it to extend empire in very specific ways. if Bitcoin becomes a way that becomes a protocol that we sort of can encourage not, it doesn't necessarily have to be transactional throughput. We don't need to spend Bitcoin every day to buy our coffees and all these things.

I don't think we necessarily need to do that. We can use other protocols to do that. But if we can still monetize Bitcoin and maximize the amount of people that can hold Bitcoin, that's really the issue of the throughput to me is that if, If there was all the reason in the world, if there was currency failure, mass currency failure across the world and billions of people wanted to come to Bitcoin, they wouldn't be able to tomorrow. They wouldn't be able to hold their own coins without a trusted third party because there are

limited amount of transactions that can go in a block. If you want to onboard 8 billion people onto Bitcoin, you damn well better have some really clever ways to do it because maximizing block space is very difficult. So the way that the Bitcoin system is set up right now is there are these things called stable coins that basically work as the liquid money market, the transactional money market for Bitcoin for people to trade, for people to transact in. And so these stable coins, which are very importantly backed by U.S. debt, treasuries, they are the fastest growing market for U.S. debt. They are rapidly outpacing national buyers of U.S. debt and these things called T-bills, Treasury Bills, basically securitized debt that the U.S. government sells that backs dollars. Things like Tether now have $150 billion of debt.

They've only been around for a few years. They only crossed $10 billion of debt in 2020. Now they have $150-plus billion. For reference, China and Japan historically are two largest debtors. or creditors rather, they have, you know, just under a trillion. Or sorry, yeah, just under a trillion in debt. So already tether, this tiny firm that has like 50 employees basically has, you know, over a tenth of the share of the largest nation state that holds our debt.

Howard Lutnik, who's the incoming commerce secretary, owns a percentage of tether. And, you know, we're seeing, you know, a possibility, basically, that not only is Bitcoin basically this Trojan horse for the new petro dollar system, we create this Bitcoin dollar system. Or rather than forcing people to buy dollars to buy oil, we force them to buy dollars to use Bitcoin. Tether is sort of, I mean, it's called Tether. I mean, come on. But Tether is basically this mechanism that allows the PetroDolar to evolve into the Bitcoin

dollar. And when we saw on March 2020, you know, six weeks before there's another happening and Bitcoin, its relative issuance goes below the dollar. It's 2% target inflation rate goes below gold coming out of the ground. We see COVID happen. We see oil go negative. We see Bitcoin go to $3,000 at 20x is that year. The stable coin market explodes. It goes crazy.

You know, they tack on $140 billion of treasuries, you know, in the last four and a half years. They're now, I think it's like, I don't know, it's crazy. They're so far up in like they're gobbling up of treasuries. It's well past almost every nation state in the world, which is typically who you would think you would sell your debt to. Now we're selling it to lick little tech firms. And so if we don't allow Bitcoin to become something that billions of people can hold, we are going to see people get forced onto these systems where they are central.

They do have blacklist capabilities. The CIA, the Secret Service, private versions of the CIA, like chain analysis, which was funded by Incutel, which is the CIA's venture capital firm, are all onboarded onto Tether's system. So they can seize and surveil, you know, these private issued government-backed dollar stable coins that are on public blockchains. It's the worst of all worlds for us. It is the CBDC. We are all so afraid of CBDCs coming from the government because why? Because we're afraid of programmability, surveillanceability, and feasibility. Well, guess the fuck what?

It's that, but worse, because it's private entities. They don't have constitutional protections saying you can't do this to a person. They're private companies. They can do whatever they want. No shoes, no shirt, no service. They can do whatever they want. So I think that there's this sort of sly roundabout way that they've created this Bitcoin dollar system where if we don't push Bitcoin to allow it to be something that can

service billions of people, who does it actually service and who does it empower to bring this back to the top of the conversation? It empowers the U.S. empire. And it has now become a way for us to service our, our meaning the U.S. government, not that I really identify as a U.S. government member, but hey, the U.S. government is allowed to service their debt by the stable coins buying up, you know, all of these. treasury. So if Bitcoin goes to be a $100 trillion market, and then we have 10% of that, 20% of that being met in treasury demand from stable coin providers, because that's how you

make it liquid. That's how you, you know, transact with Bitcoin. There we go. We've got $20 trillion. We've basically solved our debt crisis by selling it to this one tech firm. Then you go to look at the tech firm, perfect transition into PayPal. Then you get to look into the tech. tether firm and you look at these people and they have incredible connections to the incoming Trump administration and the PayPal Mafia. So yeah, I'll pause there. Well, no, I mean, that's pretty much where we're going to go next to this point. But so what's interesting is, so I think the background of tether is connected to this very conversation. I was kind of just going to get into briefly about, you know, what does you think is kind of the background of tether? Because I don't believe

that this is some, like, same with like the Bitcoin point. Like I believe there's more going on around these things than just a company that starts up to try to make some money, you know? And so I think in this case, you, as you mentioned, Dr. John Nash going back to what the 50s and 60s it looks like, and the conversation of that through, you know, like you said, like game theory and like the conversation throughout using, I guess as he frames this bad money versus like it, even like an interesting reference to like the Kenzian conversation, like this like Malthusian mindset. It's very interesting. You guys could read through that. But we'll get this will be a five hour interview if we go through. Yeah, yeah, for sure.

To start with the PayPal point, go ahead and just, I'll just briefly laid out. So explain, you know, how PayPal in your research is connected to Bitcoin, you know, BTC, and how Heather plays a role in that ties to Peter Thiel and the current Trump administration. So it's a great threat, I'll include in the show notes, by the way. Yeah, thank you so much. Yeah, I think, yeah, the John Nash is its own podcast on its own, and I think it's extremely interesting. And just to leave a breadcrumb for everybody, he's a little bit of a difficult person sometimes,

but there's an incredible writer who I think is one of the best economists and writers and thinkers in the Bitcoin space. He goes by Jall. His handle is Soker underscore Potoshi. And he has basically written out this sort of, you know, he's really set the standard for the Nashian view of Satoshi, you know, whether or not he is John Nash is sort of irrelevant. And I think he would say that himself. But he really establishes where all of these points that Bitcoin draws from, really can draw back down to Nash in his work with the RAND Corporation and the NSA and his work at Princeton. So I highly recommend checking out his stuff and then just read Nash. I think Nash is one of the most, you know, it's scary to read game theory and mathematical stuff because you think it's going to be really difficult.

He's so smart that you're able to read it and it's very accessible. So I highly recommend checking that out. There's some links obviously in this thread. But then we get to this Bitcoin dollar system. And so, you know, what I found, you know, really interesting, I got kind of, I got a nice tip from Stavreola Pappst who has written for Unlimited Hangout before. A great, great researcher and writer who's done a lot of work on Pallantier and sort of the incoming technocracy state. And she gave me a sort of, you know, knew I was writing the chain series and, you know, gave me basically a tip of like, well, have you ever looked into like the really early PayPal stuff, like what they were trying to do? And, you know, I've always been very, well, not always, but since looking at a lot of the stuff the last few years, I've been very wary of Peter Thiel and the PayPal Mafia, but I hadn't really looked into early PayPal history.

And I read this book. I actually have it right here. I will show this guy, Eric Jackson, he was an early marketing employee at PayPal, and he wrote this book called The PayPal Wars. That's a book that just explains kind of the foundation of the formation of PayPal. and in it he talks about this meeting that he had as soon as he got hired. And Teal calls the group together. There's like 20 of them at that point, you know, and he calls the group together and he explains why PayPal, like what PayPal is going to do. And what he says is that we're going to establish this new world currency.

And the way we're going to do it is we are going to allow people across the world using the internet and the digitalization of the dollar to give citizens of the world of other nation states the ability to opt out of their national local currency, which is, you know, hyperinflating or, you know, having all of these issues, debanking issues, will allow them with an internet connection to have access to the U.S. dollar system. And we're going to give, it's going to be this altruistic, amazing thing. Well, we're going to, for the first time ever give the citizens of the world. financial freedom by using a centralized U.S. dollar, right? I mean, it's totally insane when

you really think about it. Yeah. But there was this idea of, hey, you know, this is an altruistic thing we're doing. And yeah, we're going to make a shit ton of money. But really, we're here to save the world from fiat currency, which is so bad and is waging hell on all of these people. Well, the dollar is Fiat, obviously, and PayPal is the centralized system where they can seize your funds. And, you know, when you peel back a little bit more of the foundation of PayPal, Max Leibgeon did this very illuminating talk with Charlie Rose, where he says, when I was making PayPal, I worked with every three and four-letter agency, and they were some of the most fruitful business partnerships I ever had.

So really started digging into early PayPal, but immediately from that meeting that is talked about in this Eric Jackson book, I realized how similar that was actually to the proposition of tether. And this is something that the stable coin issuers say that they're like, you know, hey, you know, any of your criticisms about tether are just your financial privilege showing. And people around the world want dollars because it's the best currency. And you're in Argentina and you're going to tell an Argentine that they don't want to have dollars because the U.S. empire is bad or blah, blah, blah, like, how dare you? It's kind of the same

argument. Right. You know, this idea that dollarizing the world is like an altruistic good because we're allowing people to be onboarded to U.S. banking systems and use the dollar. Well, I reject that premise entirely. I don't think it's unbanking the banked. I think you're charging the citizens of the world, the fee to use your bank account that you just onboarded the CIA and the NSA and the Secret Service and chain analysis on and you can seize their money at any point. And it's not like the dollar isn't debasing rapidly too. So what are we talking about here? So I noticed this really crazy parallel between early PayPal and this idea of creating a new world currency and got this great hint from this great hint from Stavrola to look at this.

So I did. And I dug more into the founders of Tether, specifically this guy, Brock Pierce, who's kind of this infamous figure who, you know, he is a really dirty history. He was connected with, he was the youngest member of this group of three guys that started the digital entertainment network, which you guys might have heard. I believe there was a pretty famous documentary about it, like the secret or the open secret or something about kind of Hollywood pedophilia and abuse cases. And so these three guys, this older gentleman, Mark Collins Rector, his basically,

basically groomed boyfriend, Chad Shackley, and then Brock Pierce, who was this former Disney star. He was in Mighty Ducks 2 and the first kid or whatever was Sinbad and some of these early Disney movies. He like moved into this mansion with them and they started this early streaming website before there was broadband and any of these things invested in by Microsoft. There was an Enron connection. All of these kind of strange weird, weird connections. but the older two gentlemen ended up getting arrested for abuse and huge stashes of child porn and a lot of things. And Brock was implicated in some of it as well. He managed to sort of escape the stink of that.

And when he was basically in his, you know, not in jail, but sort of under, you know, house arrest, basically, he got really into online gaming, really into like EverQuest and World of Warcraft. and he ended up starting a new company called the Entertainment, the Internet Gaming, the IGE is what it's called, Internet Gaming Entertainment, or I'm not an exchange, I think is what it was, exchange. And so he created sort of the first, you know, well-known and successful digital assets, digital goods market, where he was selling gold from World of Warcraft and from EverQuest for real money

and goods and items. So him and his crew basically created this ability to farm, get people to work for them and play hours into this game, kind of like Bitcoin mining, and have these people mining and mining gold in Warcraft and establishing these huge amounts of in-game currency and then selling it for real dollars. So what happens is he's really young when he establishes this.

Steve Bannon of Goldman comes in and buys up the company and becomes the CEO of the company, and becomes Brock's right-hand man, basically, and they establish this kind of empire in the digital asset space. And interestingly enough, he becomes the largest merchant on PayPal for three years. And while working there, he's on the PayPal advisory board,

and he actually gets PayPal to develop, so this is early 2000s, he gets them to develop right after they went public, They sold to eBay in 2004. So around like 2000 to 2004, this is that era. And he gets them in those three years to develop what's called Project IGE, which ends of being their credit card processing system. So he's heavily connected with PayPal, again, their largest merchant for three years.

So they know damn well what's going on. The Goldman is in there. Goldman is a heavily associated intelligence, you know, speculation firm. and obviously Bannon has huge connections to Trump administration and Cambridge Analytica and through Facebook and a lot of other things. But he establishes this like, you know, kind of chokehold on the digital asset space and becomes really connected with PayPal. Ends up starting in a digital gaming venture firm called Clearstone Gaming. Clearstone is actually a spinoff of an incubator in California called, ID labs that was started by Bill Gross and this guy, Bill Elkis, who were the first institutional

investors in PayPal. Interestingly enough, Bill Elkis was also a trustee of the Jay Epstein Foundation. But again, that's a conversation for another time. Brock Pierce ends up becoming this really important player in the digital asset space before Bitcoin happens. As the years go, Bitcoin happens. And he happens to be one of the first Bitcoin evangelists and happens to be someone who gets connected to Bitcoin before it has a price even, basically, you know, in the in the 2010, 2011. At the same time, he's going to the mind, you know, conference with Epstein and, you know, is connected to a lot of these currency speculators, which Teal was.

The real first investor of PayPal was Teal himself from Teal Capital taking, you know, I think it was like $100,000 from his currency speculating that he was doing at Stanford. Stanford, of course, was one of the members of this MDDS group, which was where the CIA and the NSA and DARPA were funding. You know, they funded Page and Bryn to start Google. And so Stanford was a part of this group. So, you know, all of this stuff is kind of kicking off. And the digital asset space is really popping off. And Brock comes out basically as one of the early Bitcoin evangelists. and very quickly on comes up with this idea for creating other assets to exist on Bitcoin.

So he does this thing called MasterCoin, which ends up developing into Tether. And him and a couple other guys, one of the guys is Craig Sellers, who is sort of the CTO, the technician. I generally think he's a pretty cool guy. I think he's okay. I like his takes. He seems to sort of understand the state. here. But some of the other guys in there, William Quigley, who was connected with Clearstone and some others, not so great. And they ended up establishing Tether. So kind of even before Bitcoin

is really monetized at all, you know, the first real pump of Bitcoin where it really kind of got monetized and people paid attention was in the 2013, 2014, which is right when Tether comes out. And they establish the first dollar stable coin. And it is actually literally runs on Bitcoin at first. It runs on this thing called the Omni layer. So within the blocks, there was such a little transactional output on Bitcoin because there was 10,000 people using it, that they were able to put other assets, you know, within the ledger basically of Bitcoin.

They could store other assets in there. You can still do that. But it's harder because there's a lot more competition for block space. But at the time, they were able to basically bootstrap a digital dollar. right on Bitcoin itself. And this is a company that Brock Pierce starts. Again, I think Tether was another one of those. Let's sort of, you know, it's an infamously hated business,

where it is routinely made fun of or not having audits, routinely being referred to as money for human traffickers and launderers and it's Chinese real estate paper and, you know, they've never passed a formal audit in the Wall Street Journal and, you know, just New York Times. Just everybody is always sort of attacking tether for saying that they're not legitimate and they're going to pop at any moment. Once they do, Bitcoin is going to collapse. And they've been supporting Bitcoin because every time Bitcoin goes down, they print, you know, a couple million dollars of tether and pump the price of Bitcoin back up. And that's been this gambit for, you know, a decade now, right? That tether is going to implode once it does Bitcoin implodes.

But what actually happened? The largest primary dealer for the New York Fed, Cantor Fitzgerald, which was started, actually not started, but the most important person in the company's history who's run the company essentially the entire time, Howard Lutnik, the income and commerce secretary, runs this primary dealer, Cantor Fitzgerald. They're the largest trader of U.S. debt in the world, well, in the U.S. anyway. And it turns out that they're holding all of the paper behind Tether. And not only are they in the most legit place custody that they could in the entire world, he owns a stake of the business. And now they're coming in with this amazing opportunity to basically, you know, get, you know, any legal action that had been taken against them.

them or, you know, they can be basically redomal side, you know, into the regulatory arm of the United States, you know, due to this political coziness with the incoming. So they painted this, you know, incredible picture that tether was this incredibly fraudulent operation. But now they're crucial and critical to the survival of the U.S. debt system. It's a similar to the way they dealt with Bitcoin, right? where they up until the moment it was clear it was going to become the thing. It was we were all being told by those same people that it was a bubble that it wasn't real.

And it's the same dynamic. That's important. Exactly. And so when you see these things happen in parallel and you see that literally PayPal wanted to create a new world currency, they come out and say, you know, Bitcoin survived or successfully created a new world currency where we failed. That's a quote from David Sachs. Guess what? He's the incoming AI and crypto.

those are for for uh donald trump um here's the first um product manager or or uh yeah i think product manager of um of uh pay pal uh c o excuse me yeah so uh you know he he he's now one of the most important people theoretically in the government for setting the policy here um and both crypto and artificial intelligence, by exactly. Important. Exactly. And so there's a lot to get into with the chain series. And again, that's a whole other chestnut. And we don't have time for that. But, but you look at that that there was this, this slight of hand, this misdirection of Bitcoin specifically. And then of tether of this, you know, Trump is coming out there being like, you will never get a

CBDC under me. And all the little seals are clapping in the front row being like, yeah, hell yeah. But what is he doing? He's, he's pushing private bank issued. stable coins, which again, we've already covered, are just as programmable, surveillance, seizable, and actually worse than if it was directly a government, arguably, because constitutional protections don't exist. So we're seeing this total PayPal mafia takeover of the incoming government. And there's this weird sort of dynamic where, you know, the U.S.

intelligence, you know, community basically went into Silicon Valley and established the internet, established PayPal, Facebook, Google. Now they're coming back to Roost to Pennsylvania Avenue. And these people have billions, if not trillions of dollars of reasons to promote Bitcoin and Tether. Or what I think is really going to happen with stable coins is PayPal just released their own stable coin that was issued by this issue or Paxos. It's a very interesting company. But they're going to do their own stable coins. So what I think is going to happen is we're going to see banks and these fintech firms, but really banks adopt stable coins as the underlying currency of their whole financial system internally.

So we're going to see Bank of America and Wells Fargo and J.P. Morgan. All of these banks have cryptocurrency plays here, right? They're all doing their own little private things, whether it's a fork of Ethereum or whatever. But all these banks are going to issue stable coins. We're going to see all these private banks come in and do stable coins. I think ultimately tether probably won't be the biggest one, but they certainly set the standard and quite literally tethered Bitcoin to the U.S. dollar system. And perhaps fatally so, not that Bitcoin will collapse, quite the opposite, but probably prevented in a lot of ways, a lot of the social. capital and just literal capital is now going into developing Bitcoin-based stable coins and how do we

get dollar instruments on Bitcoin. And that's sort of just seen as the way to scale Bitcoin rather than scaling Bitcoin itself. So if they're successful in that operation, basically, then I think the U.S. has found a way to pay off their debt, a way to create a CBDC in effect without creating a CBDC and dealing with that headache. And find a way basically to extend. then Hedgeman, while other countries scramble to buy up Bitcoin and infrastructure to, you know, mine Bitcoin and have some sort of say in the validation of transactions on the network. So when I really look at it really zoomed out, I mean, I think the U.S. government played one of the best misdirections possible and are really set up to dominate, again, the most important sort of technical evolution. you know, that we certainly will see in our lifetime. I think it's an important time, you know, having just said that to sort of, well,

does that mean we should just sell of our Bitcoin and say fuck Bitcoin and become anti-Bitcoin activist? And I don't think that's the right answer either. Well, before we go there, though, before we go with the, the, because I mean, we did in a way start with the, you know, it can still be used in good ways. But we can, I'd like to end on the positive note, too. But let's make sure we talk about, I want to, before we go to the surveillance part of it.

I don't want to miss that. I think it's super important. to where this, you know, again, the point we're making today in general is that I think it's clear that what you just laid out, it's a very valid question to ask whether or not this was started as a government operation. I mean, it's kind of hard to not see how clearly you just put that together with Tether, with, you know, PayPal and the PayPal Mafia and the current administration. And I would like you to show me how Teal falls in with that and how that connects currently what's going on and what they're rolling out and even with like the technocracy direction.

But I think what's interesting is to see that even though that is kind of clearly the case, it is still, as you've made many arguments for, something that can still be used potentially to push back on what they're doing. And I think that is a lot of the ways they're trying to set this up so that becomes impossible. At least that's how I'm reading the way this goes forward. So go ahead and tell me about Teal's connection to all of that

and how Palantir, which was essentially a CIA cutout, is kind of worked its way into that conversation. That becomes kind of the AI connection to all of it. And let's, you know, end on that. How is this potentially going to be used if, you know, worst case scenario with the way the Trump administration or really, in my opinion, for those paying attention or maybe new to the must platform, whatever puppet president was doing this.

It's not sure. The partisan side, but what they might do with that worst case scenario for surveillance, for tracking, you know, carbon tracking, artificial intelligence, kind of dynamics, you know, walk them, walk me through that. Sure. So I think there's two important things there. One with the AI, which I think is really interesting, is that Bitcoin is arguably the first financial system ever created that you do not need to be here.

human to use. You can have self-driving cars that have a Bitcoin wallet that get, you know, you use your app and you order an Uber and the self-driving car, probably a Tesla, comes to your, you know, front doors and you get in the car and you pay them Bitcoin or cryptocurrency in general, but, you know, Bitcoin started it. And you pay them Bitcoin and the car itself has a wallet and it drives you to its place. And then when it drops you off, if it needs gas or charge you. it can go to a place and pay directly.

It's a self-contained agent. It doesn't need a third party. You could actually have a car, basically, that's a corporation on its own rather than a fleet or whatever. So from the AI standpoint, you know, we've basically given them, them being AI, a financial system that they can use. So, you know, you could theoretically have an AI that,

puts out an ad on Craigslist that pays a developer in Bitcoin to make it better or develop more things for it or I can't even begin to talk about the how my there's a hundred and 50,000 different directions that could go in right now. Yeah. It's terrifying. Sure. Sure. Go ahead. Absolutely. But but I don't I don't necessarily think that's like, you know, the the main fear of Bitcoin, right? Like I think theoretically they could find ways to do that anyway, but it isn't exactly. It is an interesting, like to me, as you pointed out, it's interesting that David Sacks is the crypto and AI czar. It's interesting that they're combining them together. But really, if you look at sort of the two pillars of the incoming technocracy, it really is AI and in digital currency and

cryptocurrency. And I think one of the things that, you know, just sort of triangulates those two pillars is digital ID. And you know, you go to look at, you know, well, what's Teal's involvement with a lot of this? Poundeer really is a very advanced AI system that is fed on the best data sources possible. And, you know, who created the first digital ID? Facebook. It really was. It basically was the sly round about Trojan Horseway for us to create our own digital identity system.

We created a profile. We put our picture up there. We tagged the fucking squares on the faces to train the LLMs. And, you know, we added the things that we like. And, you know, we tagged where we were. And, you know, we built the monster really ourselves. And, you know, Teal was obviously introduced, I believe, to Zuckerberg through Ron Conway, who was kind of the handler of like Sean Parker, who was the Napster creator,

who was a big part of, you know, the file sharing revolution. and, you know, I've written a decent amount about that, about, you know, well, maybe file sharing was a way to also roundabout us to create bandwidth on the internet so they could launder our surveillance, because you could very easily, if there's a microphone in our computer recording everything we're doing and they're uploading it, but we don't have any peer-to-peer uploads on our system and on our routers, it'd be very easy to see. But if we're all downloading and uploading and sharing all of these, you know, streaming videos and there's massive amounts of content being sent around, it's really hard to see the data

being sent from our devices. So perhaps, you know, maybe the system was established to create, you know, basically the launder surveillance data through the pipes of the internet, right? That's kind of a separate conversation, but interesting to think about. But the first identity systems online really was Facebook. And then you could argue Google also with Gmail and some things. And then even PayPal a little bit. And when you look at, you know, how you sign into web, websites, right? It's like you can sign in with your Gmail. You can sign in with your Facebook. You can use your PayPal on all of these different websites to sign in. And so you start to look at the intersection between ID, digital ID and, you know, surveillable financial systems and how we created that on the internet. You know, Teal was really there at the beginning of all these things. Or certainly Stanford University was there at the beginning of all these things with with the Google Boys. And then you even go. a little generation back, you know, the Sun Microsystems guys that really built Eric Schmidt came out of Sun Microsystems. But Sun Microsystems was, you know, they took the counterpath

to Microsoft. Microsoft was personal computing. Sun was networks. They were like, it's all going to be on networks. You're never going to process anything on your own computer. It's all about network switching. So we're going to go build out the modern internet. And then they did. And Andy Bechlestein, I think is his name, who was the founder of Sun. Sun, Sun, Stan. for Stanford University, I forget what the N is, but the Sun and Microsystems is from Stanford University because it was from a research project that was created on campus. And he was the first person to fund the Google Boys. So Teal is kind of doing all this stuff at Stanford and is pulling all the best and brightest.

David Sachs wrote for the standard review for him and all that. And so he creates PayPal. And then what they find is that the main thing that you have to deal, with when doing digital currency is all the fraud. It's just an incredible amount of fraud. So him and Max Levchen, who is the founding CTO, and in my mind a very possible Satoshi candidate, he's a very big cryptographer who spent his entire time at college in Illinois working on distributed networks. And literally there's a quote that he pulled up earlier of Teal going to the beach and Ingilla basically saying,

I met Satoshi there. And while at that conference, Levchen did a talk where he showed the math of creating an open transparent financial system and that the way to do digital cash isn't transparent or sorry, isn't anonymous. It's transparent. And then that was kind of what they did with PayPal. And so, you know, they are creating all these anti-fraud algorithms, you know, the CAPTCHA that you use to get on the websites or whatever. That really came out of PayPal in a lot of ways. It was certainly popularized for you via PayPal.

In 2004, they realized they have something really big there. And they created this anti-fraud algorithm that was named Igor that was named after this Russian antagonist who kept just kind of being like na-na-na-na-na-na-na-to PayPal and stealing all this money. And so they created this whole system to keep one-upping him. And eventually they did. And they built this really incredible anti-fraud system. So in 2004, they basically, you know, teal. was like, hey, why don't we use this system to, like, go track down terrorists? And so he privatized basically this DARPA cutout total information awareness.

Yeah, sure. Do you think that's actually what you think that was just, he's like, hey, let's start a business. Or do you actually think this was more of a, you know, CIA facilitated direction? Of course. Of course. Of course. I don't know. I don't know what your research shows because I just, I mean, it certainly could be that he just thought of it. And then he got co-opted by the CIA. But do you think it was going to? No, I think it was very directly. Whitney Webb is.

written a ton about this about, I believe his name was Point Dexter, who, you know, basically came to them and was like, you know, hey, we've been working on this stuff, you know, we call the total information awareness TIA and then we change it to terrorist information awareness to kind of do the post September 11th sort of, you know, well, let's build the surveillance state, but say it's about, you know, terrorists and then the nationals, the seals will fucking clap for it again. And it worked really well, right? And so I think there's basically this privatized version of this otherwise shuttered DARPA project.

And I think that there's a lot of evidence of the paper trail that really connects directly there. Whitney also wrote this amazing article about the military origins of Facebook. That's kind of the same thing that there was this DARPA project called LifeLog that shuttered the same day. Facebook started. And both of the universities that these schools, that these companies, companies came out of, we're connected as part of this MDDS system that I'm releasing a piece on tomorrow. But regardless, so, yes, I do think it was directly from the CIA. They were their first clients for the CIA for a really long time. It was, you know, mainly CIA driven. And so T.U. Yeah, basically created this,

you know, Panopticon, basically in the private sector at the whim of the U.S. intelligence community that now had basically a digital federal reserve with PayPal behind it. A big part of intelligence and certainly why a lot of intelligence went out into the private sector is because funding is really hard to come by when you're doing Blackbook operations. So that's why you see a lot of drug running and gun running because that's a really easy way to get cash. That's off the books. Bitcoin really fills that role in a very interesting way. and digital currency fills that role in a really interesting way,

where you can pay people just like it's cool that I could pay you right now and no one could stop us and that's sweet and you could go pay it locally with something and there's literally no one that could stop you. An intelligence broker could buy a cache of data on like Etsy or something of like the people that are buying things on Etsy and then they have a whole cash of users and they can feed it into an air or whatever. you know, Bitcoin, you know, works that way as a blackbook money also. But ironically, Bitcoin is transparency technology.

Every single, there's no encryption in Bitcoin. Ironically, everything is open. You can see every transaction on the blockchain forever. Every single transaction that's ever been made on Bitcoin, I have on a copy on my node right over there, every single one. So I think there's a great use case for, well, let me say one more thing. I have every transaction on a note over there on a hard drive. But it's useless to me because I don't have intelligence level analysis capabilities

of being able to triangulate using other data of IP addresses and other things, people posting on social media being like, I bought Bitcoin today. And then you go and you look at when and then you say, okay, they bought this much. So when combined, when this transparency technology is combined with a program like Pallentier, every single transaction that gets made on Bitcoin, 99.999% is able to be parsed by these chain analysis companies. Incutel, which was a founder or a funder of Pallentier, also funded chain analysis, which is a data analytics firm for blockchains. If you don't have basically nation state level analytics of the blockchain, it doesn't necessarily mean much to you.

Like I can't really do anything with the blockchain. I can look at some things through a block explorer and look up, you know, oh, Ukraine donations from FTX or, you know, I can look at some things. But I need to know a lot about the data that's given to me by other sources. There's no way that I can really triangulate, you know, who was sending it initially and all these things. But a group like Palantir and a group like, you know, just government intelligence. chain analysis, they really can do a lot of damage with Bitcoin at the ISP level. So Bitcoin being a transparency technology, when combined with AI that can parse all of this stuff, and when combined

with data brokers like Poundtier that have huge caches of information on not just American citizens, but the world, your privacy is nil to none on Bitcoin. There obviously are a lot of people working on stuff. There are ways to scale in layers that can be more private. You can use e-cashments. There's a couple interesting things. But generally, as Brian McNeely from Sun Microsystems once infamously said, get over it. Nothing's private on the internet. And he's kind of right. And it's a scary position when we go to see that, oh, actually digital ID and their future financial system is going to be entirely online. It's very scary. So even if it's not a CVDC and the system actually does play out as I've outlined with the Bitcoin and stable coins, it's one of the most transparent financial systems that could exist.

It is way worse than cash. And they're pushing cash away at the same time as adopting these private issued tokens on public blockchain. So I think it's really important for Bitcoiners to just like or anybody really like if you understand this this change is coming. Bitcoin will probably monetize like crazy if the U.S. government wants to pay off their debt with it. It won't have to appreciate immensely. I'm not a financial advisor. I don't think, you know, do whatever. You make your decisions for yourself.

But there's a great possibility that there could be an extreme outcome where Bitcoin appreciates immensely. But it doesn't necessarily bring a lot of freedom to the world. It brings a lot of freedom to the U.S. Empire and extends their economic hedgment. but that might not be good for me and you and some other people. So understand the risks of Bitcoin and that, you know, it's not private. And, you know, there's a lot of ways that it can use, it could be empowering the state and the surveillance state immensely paying blackbook operators and AI agents and these privatized, you know, intelligence data brokers. and in effect kind of, you know, making our entire financial system, you know, a buffet, you know, feeding it, feeding our data on a silver platter to them. Yeah.

I mean, it really, it's, you answered a very big question for me right there that I was kind of going to get to after you explained all this, which is ultimately the concern about the privacy aspect. And, you know, my point has been, and now you've evolved my understanding of this is, you know, that, yes, it's transparent. And that is, that's actually one of the reasons the system works the way it does, but it is private. when it comes to who is making the transaction because of the cryptographic address and whether that's able to be circumvented with something we currently have, I think the argument is basically no. But what you highlighted is that when you intertwine these things, which it seems you laid out very well, that that was almost the way it was designed to be, the intersection with, you know, also tether, but with Palantir and artificial intelligence that they can use outside sources,

what I'm doing online, what I posted about. And of course, if I stupidly post my, this is my new address, you know, which I've done, but because I wanted to be public, right? That connects it with your name online, but they could use this to find out that information. Now, that's just like an early step of privacy. But as you're highlighting, the way that these continue to intertwine, I mean, we highlighted the most obvious, you know, right, you highlighted the most, you know, one people, your mind can make sense up right now. But as I'm sure you've highlighted another work, where this can go with artificial intelligence

and track carbon tracking and, you know, this horrifying overlap with what you just outlined, you know, as we're watching the administration, whether they know it or not, pretending to fight the very thing they seem to be rolling out. And that seems to be like a common tactic right now. All of this becomes very clear back to the kind of the point we started at that I think it's very obvious that this is being used against us. And you have really opened my mind to a few different points that make that even more clear right now, even the one thing, some of the things I thought maybe were positives. But at the same time, the real positives still seem to exist. Whether you want it with Bitcoin or Manero, that these things still seem to have a way to eventually circumvent this,

maybe even right now. So I just think this is such a fascinating conversation. And really, Some of the stuff you went through today, I think a lot of people are going to benefit from the way you laid it out to understand the timing of it, like the very clear track of how this came together. And whether you want to think that it was designed that way, like I said, with teal or not, or ultimately just used after the fact, it is still ending up in the same position. And so I think what you, your coverage today is going to help a lot of people. And I really hope people will continue to check out what you've done so far. And I think we should do another follow up to this if you'd be down in like a couple of weeks or more because I think, there's so many more ways we could get into how this may be used and how it goes forward. But, you know, let's just go ahead and put it in pin it there for now because I think the

real picture here is the way that this is going to go forward and that I think we should be standing up in droves to try to fight to maintain. I mean, I know we all have different opinions on how it should be, but I think collectively the community still has a generalized idea that this is not supposed to be pro-government, pro-US dollar outside of those that just want to make money off of it. So I say we lean into that and try to find ways to use what you're presenting to push back. So thank you for being here. today, brother. And, you know, anything else you want to lay out to, you know, last notes or upcoming events or anything you want to discuss before we leave today? Yeah, well, thank you so much.

Yeah, it was a lot of fun. I, um, I think just to, just to not, um, just to leave on a little bit of a, of a positive note of the idea that, you know, I do think that this is still a game and still an active thing that, um, you know, a lot of people, um, including a very, you know, the save Vinina Moose, who wrote the Bitcoin standard is like, you know, kind of attacked, not attacked. It wasn't, it wasn't mean. But basically it was like, what you're doing is preventing people from, you know, going towards Bitcoin and being involved with Bitcoin. And that's really the only thing that can save them.

And I think that that's wrong. I don't think anything is a, is a silver bullet here. There's a lot of things that can save us depending on what we're looking at to be saved in, you know. And I think, again, it's exit build and find a life that, you know, is really fun. for you and really fulfilling. And I would not literally be here talking to you or in my life or where I am if, if, you know, the Dread Pirate Robert 2.0, the Silk Road guy didn't come into that bar and explain Bitcoin to me. And it's opened my world in my mind in a whole ton of ways.

And I've learned so much about financial, economic, monetary things about my, about myself. You know, I personally was at the time working in bars. I had a lot of substance issues and a lot of things and I finally found something that I wanted to put my money and time into that wasn't just partying. And, you know, there was a lot of really good things that happened to me because of my exposure to Bitcoin, including being able to say, you know, see you later when I, when I came up against some issues at my former employer. And, you know, I can have a beautiful life and a beautiful family. And I'm very excited about that. So I think, I think the Bitcoin game is not to be ignored. I think it's to be really considered. Just do it safely.

and do it correctly and, you know, understand that, you know, again, everything's a tool and find, you know, money is one of the biggest tools. It can be used to control and it can use to empower and free people. And so I feel very empowered and free because of Bitcoin. And I understand that that's not going to be the case for everybody moving forward, the next eight billion people that probably won't be true for. So I think that it is my responsibility as someone that was able to take advantage of this sea change to warn and hopefully push this game towards in a direction where I can leave it as permissionless and as empowering as it was when I found it. So I think that, you know, there's a lot of pushback now, especially I think since,

you know, a lot of independent media people have been kind of pushing back on the Bitcoin narrative since Trump pushed it back, that it's like, hey, it's this terrible thing, ignore it. I think it can be a Trojan horse and all of these things and also still be something that's really important to consider. Because you can use Bitcoin as a way to exit the system, even though it is now becoming the new system. So it's just an important axiom to consider it.

I hope people do. And yeah, Ryan, thanks so much for having me. It was an absolute blessed. Yeah, thanks, brother. I think that's a great way to end it right there, is that really, you know, like cash, for example, which clearly is the tool of, you know, or any other element like that. You know, you can clearly still use that to find ways to free yourself from it,

as you eloquently put. And I think that's very clearly something we should consider, as always pointed out. And I will end with a point that I think is important here, guys, that as Mark's laid out, as Whitney's laid out, as plenty of other people, like whether with total information awareness to Palantir, it seems to be a pretty obvious common game right now for them to transition some, I mean, it seems to be pretty consistently a DARPA project, but a government project into something that is,

Now, you know, public face, totally not the same thing. In this case, literally XAI, explainable AI from DARPA ending in 2021, must advise Twitter in 2022, months later, you know, names, well, I guess right out of the gate, calls it X like X.com, then starts XAI, a totally new artificial intelligence program. And if you read into this, it is exactly the same program. This overlaps with terrifying things of using social media to send up, you know, train it's out, what he's telling you publicly, using Twitter to train this thing. And then using, you know, conversations like this.

digital twins, and by the way, something we should talk about next time we talk. But I think the point here, guys, is to see how this is clearly this game. You know, I'm not question everything, including that I could be wrong. But I'm just like, like Mark is saying, just ask whether you think some of these people are unwittingly rolling you out into something that may not be in your best interest, or maybe even that they know that. When you see teal and carp and the rest of them actively involved on either side of whoever won the selection, now you have a Zionist technocrat, packed administration,

all rolling out all the things that we 30 seconds ago were telling the world. were the problem. You know, and just ask yourself whether you are being, you know, it's a shell game or, you know, whatever, whatever you want to call it that you're being played. So thank you, Mark, for really laying out some fantastic information today, and I'm looking forward to talking with you again. Cheers. Same, Rand. Thanks. And as always, everybody out there, question everything. Come to your own conclusions. Stay vigilant.