Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: What matters now is not belief, but endurance. Bitcoin does not promise comfort. It does not promise justice. It does not promise to save anyone. It offers one thing, a set of rules that do not bend to price, politics or persuasion. Whether that is valuable depends entirely on who is holding it and why. The mathematics will almost certainly hold long enough, but the question has always been whether we will the best in Bitcoin made Audible I am Guy Swan and this is Bitcoin. Audible.
What is up guys? Welcome back to Bitcoin. Audible I am Guy Swan, the guy who has read more about Bitcoin than anybody else. You know, we are jumping right into part two. If you have not listened to and or read the first part of this or honestly the article at all.
This is a kind of a combo of a few different things.
A piece by Hugh Henry on wait, which was is this one's the problem of Bitcoin and the Hardness Problem, I believe. Yeah, Bitcoin and the Problem of Hardness is the one that's posted. But there's actually an excerpt at the beginning of part one from Bitcoin and the Problem. Excuse me, Bitcoin and the Human Problem also from the same author, Hugh.
And this is posted on Zero Hedge. But if you missed the first part, we are jumping right into the middle of this.
So definitely go back and listen to part one and then I will have a guys take to follow because I've just got tons of stuff say from this and ideas that I want to expand on and places where I think Hugh just hits the nail on the head and then also where I kind of want to push back on some of the largely the conceptual justifications for Fiat because I think they are misunderstandings of responses to fiat. It's the fiat response to the Fiat problem, but we're not going to go into it in this episode. We're going to. We're going to really devote a whole Guy's take episode to really kind of unpacking this. And another shout out to Hugh for those who don't know his work. This was just fantastic. And I've gone and started exploring a lot of the other stuff that he has written just because I like this one so much. So with that let's go ahead and just jump right into part two of Modern Money Only Works by Cheating.
Jumping in on the section titled Abundance and the Exception.
What happens to scarcity in a world where almost everything else becomes abundant?
Over the long arc of technological progress, the dominant trend is collapse in marginal cost. Compute becomes cheaper, energy becomes more efficient. Bandwidth expands the manufacturing scales. Even intelligence and creativity, once thought irreducibly human, begin to look reproducible.
The direction of travel is clear. More output, less input, more capability, less cost.
This abundance is not evenly distributed, but it is relentless.
The consequence is that scarcity erodes almost everywhere.
Goods that were once expensive become cheap. Processes that once required labor become automated. Advantages that once persisted collapse under replication. For capital, this creates opportunity. For labor, it creates displacement. Entire categories of work can disappear faster than societies can reassign income, status, or purpose.
This is not a policy failure. It is a feature of technological speed.
But abundance sharpens the value of what does not scale. As more assets become reproducible, the appeal of assets that are deliberately constrained increases not as replacements for fiat and not as solutions to inequality, but as anchors, reference points, stores of value whose scarcity is not a function of demand, innovation, or political discretion.
Gold has played this role for centuries. Its scarcity leaks, but slowly enough to remain legible.
Bitcoin proposes a different anchor, one whose scarcity is not discovered over time, but enforced from the outset. In a world where almost everything responds to incentive, Bitcoin is constructed to refuse it.
This is the context in which Bitcoin should be understood not as a bet against fiat, and not as a utopian alternative to modern states, but as an engineered exception in an environment of accelerating abundance. Its relevance increases not because fiat is failing, but because fiat is succeeding. In a world where the primary challenge is managing transition rather than enforcing discipline, scarcity is collapsing across the economic landscape.
Where it persists, it does so either because physics enforces it, as with gold, or because rules do, as with Bitcoin.
That distinction sets the stage for the central question the market is still wrestling with. Not whether scarcity matters, but whether scarcity enforced by human process, can command the same confidence as scarcity enforced by nature.
The risk is not mathematical.
At the heart of this paper is not the price of Bitcoin, not the narrative, but the thing that actually makes it scarce. In practice, the lock.
Bitcoin supply is only as hard as the mechanism that enforces ownership. That mechanism is encryption, not trust, not reputation, not authority. Mathematics. Ownership is defined by the ability to produce a valid cryptographic proof.
If you can produce it, the network recognizes you as the owner. If you can't, the coins don't move. There is no appeal, no administrator, no override, no discretion. The rule is absolute.
This is what gives Bitcoin its hardness. Not belief, but enforcement. The lock itself is built on a key space so large that ordinary intuition fails. Bitcoin's current security rests on 256 bit cryptography. That number sounds abstract, but its meaning is concrete. It implies a universe of possible keys, so vast that guessing the correct one is not merely unlikely, but physically meaningless. The standard analogy holds because it is accurate. It is equivalent to predicting the outcome of 256. Perfectly fair coin tosses. Correctly in a single attempt, the number of possible outcomes dwarfs the number of atoms in the observable universe, not by a margin, but by orders of magnitude.
This is why Bitcoin's scarcity feels real, not asserted, not agreed upon. Enforced by a wall that cannot be climbed with any conceivable amount of classical computing power. Brute force did not fail slowly here. It fails categorically.
But no wall built from mathematics is eternal. And this is not heresy inside cryptography, it is orthodoxy. Cryptographic systems are not laws of nature. They are assumptions about what is computationally infeasible, given the machines that we can build.
Quantum computing, if it matures to sufficient scale and reliability, does not gradually erode those assumptions. It invalidates them. In principle. Certain mathematical problems that are intractable today become solvable. Locks that once looked cosmological become penetrable. This does not mean Bitcoin is vulnerable today.
It does mean that its hardness is not geological.
It is conditional.
This is where discussion usually collapses into nonsense. Critics speak as if Bitcoin is on a ticking clock. Moments from cryptographic collapse. Advocates respond with hand waving, invoking bigger keys or future upgrades, as if the problem dissolves on contact.
Both positions miss the point. The reality is more disciplined. Cryptography is not out of tools. Alternative ways of securing digital ownership already exist. Increasing security parameters does not linearly increase difficulty. It explodes it. Problem spaces expand faster than attackers can realistically pursue. Even under aggressive assumptions about future machines, there are known constructions that push feasible attacks back beyond plausible horizons.
The constraint is not mathematics. It is coordination.
Engineering disciplines do not harden systems today against threats that are distant, speculative, and underspecified.
Doing so imposes costs now for dangers that may arrive differently or not at all.
But good engineering does preserve optionality. It builds systems that can migrate. It avoids dead ends. It leaves room to move without tearing the structure apart.
Conservative choices, minimal complexity, maximum headroom.
The lock wasn't chosen because it was eternal, but because it was overwhelmingly strong relative to any foreseeable attack, while leaving open a path to adaptation. If the world changes, the mathematics are formidable, probably sufficient for decades, perhaps longer. The real uncertainty does not live inside the encryption itself. It lives in whether a system that enforces absolute rules, can coordinate calmly when those rules eventually need to change.
This distinction matters because it reveals where the real risk lies.
Coordination without a conductor, Bitcoin's greatest vulnerability is not that mathematics will suddenly fail. It is that adaptation requires agreement.
Cryptography can be upgraded. Rules can be amended, but only through a slow voluntary process that depends on human coordination.
Software can change.
Can people.
The market understands this intuitively. It doesn't price Bitcoin as if its code were fragile. It prices Bitcoin as if its governance were untested, under existential pressure, not because the tools are missing, but because the process has never been forced to prove itself in extremis.
Power in Bitcoin is negative, not positive.
The ability to say no matters more than the ability to say yes.
Control is distributed through indifference rather than command.
Participants who care deeply must persuade participants who often do not, that asymmetry is intentional. It makes capture difficult, but it also makes change slow.
There is an old joke, best told by Monty Python, about revolutionary movements. Everyone agrees on the enemy. Everyone agrees on the objective. And yet the room is full of factions who despise one another far more than they fear the empire. They claim to oppose the People's Front, the Popular Front, the other front that split off last year after a disagreement about principles. The comedy works because it is painfully familiar. Shared goals are easy. Shared coordination is not.
[00:12:16] Speaker B: Otter's noses. Ocelot spleens. Got any nuts? I haven't got any nuts, sorry. I got Ren's livers. Badger spleens. No, no, no.
Otter's nose. I don't want that Roman rubbish.
[00:12:26] Speaker A: Why don't you sell proper food?
[00:12:28] Speaker B: Proper food? Yeah. Not those rich imperialist tidbits. Oh, don't blame me. I didn't ask to sell this stuff.
All right. Bag of otter's noses in. Make it two. Two.
Thanks, regardless. Are you the Judean People's Front? F off. What?
Judean People's Front?
Well, the People's Front of Judea.
Judean People's Front.
Wankers.
Can I join your group now? Piss off. I didn't want to sell this stuff. It's only a job. I hate the Romans as much as anybody.
[00:13:04] Speaker A: Are you sure?
[00:13:05] Speaker B: I. Oh, dead sure. I hate the Romans already. Listen, if you wanted to join a pfj, you'd have to really hate the Romans. I do.
[00:13:16] Speaker A: Oh, yeah?
[00:13:17] Speaker B: How much?
A lot.
Right, you're in.
Listen, the only people we ate more than the Romans are the fucking Judean people's fat and the Judean Popular People's Front. Oh, yes. Splitless. And the People's Front of Judea Splinters. The People's Front of Judea. Splitters. We're the People's Front of Judea.
Oh, I thought we were the Popular Front. People's Front.
Whatever happened to the Popular Front?
He's over there.
[00:13:56] Speaker A: Bitcoin's existential risk looks uncomfortably similar.
The empire in this case is not a political power, but a technological one. Quantum computing. The objective is clear and universally protect the lock, preserve the scarcity, keep ownership unforgeable. Nobody disputes that. And yet beneath that agreement sits a familiar fragmentation. Different camps, different thresholds, different definitions of danger. Some insist the empire is decades away and not worth acknowledging. Others want to mobilize immediately. Some fear that any coordination is betrayal. Others fear that delay is suicide.
Bitcoin will not be tested by whether quantum computing arrives tomorrow or in 30 years.
It will be tested by whether a system built to resist authority can still recognize an empire when it appears and act together without collapsing into its own. People's Front of Judea.
Rome in the sketch above barely needs to intervene. The factions do the work themselves. Bitcoin's challenge is to prove that it can do the opposite, that a system built on voluntary consensus can still recognize a real threat, act deliberately, and preserve its core rules without fragmenting into rival truths.
That is the real hardness test.
Not whether the locks are strong enough, but whether the people guarding them can tell the difference between principle and paralysis when it finally matters.
Quantum as a social Stress test if quantum computing ever becomes relevant to Bitcoin, it will not arrive as a cinematic rupture. There will be no single moment when the system is broken. Instead, it would surface as a gradual erosion of a specific assumption that only the holder of a key can authorize the movement of coins. The threat is not to the ledger itself, but to the exclusivity of ownership. That distinction matters. Bitcoin does not depend on secrecy in the abstract. It depends on the idea that control cannot be impersonated. If a new class of machines were ever able to reconstruct ownership credentials from publicly visible information, the system would not collapse overnight. But ownership would become contestable. And contestable ownership is where scarcity begins to blur.
Such a threat would not arrive evenly. Bitcoin ownership is not a single uniform thing. Some forms of ownership already expose more information than others simply by how they were created or how they have been used. Coins held in older address formats, coins that have reused addresses repeatedly, coins that have moved through transparent scripts, or coins sitting on exchanges necessarily reveal more public Data about the conditions under which they can be spent.
Other coins are quieter coins held in newer formats, Coins that have never been moved. Coins protected by more conservative spending conditions disclose far less information to the outside world. They would remain safer for longer, not because their owners are more virtuous, but because there is less surface area to attack. The result is that pressure would build asymmetrically. Some coins would become attractive targets earlier, While others would remain effectively untouched. The system would not fail all at once. It would experience localized stress, visible theft attempts, and contested ownership at the margins. That asymmetry matters. It is precisely what would force the system to confront change before catastrophe rather than after it.
At that point, Bitcoin's challenge would no longer be mathematical. It would be procedural.
The first step would be agreement on the thread itself.
Not philosophically, but operationally. What does quantum capable mean in practice? How powerful would such machines need to be? How reliable? How accessible? How much warning time would exist between theoretical vulnerability and real world exploitation?
Without consensus on the threat model, there can be no consensus on the response.
The second step would be the introduction of new ownership rules, A new kind of lockdown. Bitcoin does not replace its rules abruptly. It adds them cautiously. New rules are typically introduced in ways that allow voluntary adoption before anything old is disabled. This bias toward gradualism is deliberate. It reduces the risk of fragmentation, but it also stretches timelines. The third step, and the one that dominates everything else, would be migration.
Bitcoin cannot move coins on behalf of their owners. There is no administrator, no emergency authority, no recovery desk. Holders would need to upgrade wallets, generate new addresses, and move their coins deliberately. Exchanges would need to adapt. Custodians would need to adapt. Hardware manufacturers would need to adapt. This would be a multi year process under the best of circumstances.
And then comes the question Bitcoin has spent most of its existence trying to avoid.
What to do about the old rules?
Leaving old ownership rules valid forever preserves neutrality. It ensures that coins valid under the rules at the time remain valid indefinitely.
But in a world where those rules are compromised, it also leaves a permanent attack surface. Disabling old rules protects the system more aggressively.
But it strands anyone who is slow, offline, confused, or dead.
There is no solution here that is clean. This is where the existence of lost coins becomes unavoidable. It is widely believed that Satoshi Nakamoto mined roughly 1 million coins in Bitcoin's earliest days and never moved them beyond that. Several million more coins are thought to be lost owing to forgotten keys, destroyed hardware, or owners who have Died estimates vary, but something like 15 to 20% of the total supply may already be permanently inaccessible.
Those coins cannot migrate. They do not upgrade. They do not respond. They simply sit.
In purely economic terms, this creates a tempting argument. Disabling old rules would freeze a large share of supply. The remaining coins would instantly become more valuable.
Incumbents would benefit. Attentiveness would be rewarded. Scarcity would tighten mechanically. From a price perspective, it looks clean.
But Bitcoin is not priced like a system that optimizes for incumbent profit. It is priced like a system that optimizes for rule legitimacy.
Retroactively invalidating ownership that was valid under the rules at the time crosses a line Bitcoin has been extraordinarily careful to avoid, not because it is sentimental, but because once a system demonstrates a willingness to forego legitimate ownership for convenience, every remaining holder must price the risk of being next.
The question shifts from how scarce is this? To what future behavior might disqualify me?
That uncertainty does not announce itself as outrage. It shows up as a higher risk premium, as hesitation as capital, demanding optionality rather than commitment.
History offers guidance here, but only if the analogies are used carefully. The gold confiscation of 1933 is often cited in these debates. It is relevant but frequently misunderstood. Gold did not lose its status as a politically neutral store of value globally, and over time, it retained it. What changed was the monetary regime attempting to bind itself to gold, not gold itself.
The United States abandoned gold because the standard had become too rigid to absorb trauma.
Deflation was crushing the economy. Unemployment was mass. Legitimacy was failing. The choice was not between fairness and enrichment. It was between preserving individual claims and preserving the system itself.
That was a regime change, not an opportunistic confiscation.
Bitcoin's quantum problem, if it ever becomes real, belongs in that category. Not discretionary loss within a stable framework, but a question of whether the framework itself can survive without resetting its assumptions.
That does not remove the legitimacy cost. It explains when such a cost might be tolerated.
The bar, however, is extremely high.
Any decision to disable old rules would create visible losers. Estates, early participants, long term cold storage institutions with slow governance. People who played by the rules as they understood them at the time.
History shows that such losses can be judged necessary, but only under existential justification, never economic optimization.
This is why Bitcoin has been so resistant to discretionary changes. It will tolerate loss. It will tolerate dead keys. It will tolerate entropy. What it resists, almost to the point of paralysis, is retroactive punishment by rule change.
This is the real stress test. Quantum computing represents not whether new cryptographic tools exist. They do not. Whether mathematics can scale. It can.
The question is whether a system built on voluntary consensus can coordinate early enough, calmly enough, and at sufficient scale to protect its own scarcity without tearing its legitimacy apart.
That answer will not be found in code. It will be found in human behavior.
And that, more than any algorithm, is what markets are still trying to price drawdowns and temperament Bitcoin is down roughly 50%. This is not unprecedented. It has happened before, roughly four times, and in several instances the drawdown extended to 70 or even 80%.
These episodes are often described as failures. They are better understood as stress tests of temperament. When major assets halve in value, the correct response is not moralization, it is allocation. This is true of equities, bonds, property and commodities. When the S and P falls 60%, long term investors do not debate its legitimacy, they buy it. When long dated treasuries lose half their value, the instruction is the same. Systemic assets occasionally experience violent repricing and then persist. Bitcoin, if it is to be treated seriously, cannot be exempt from that logic.
This does not mean Bitcoin is risk free. It is not. It carries idiosyncratic risks that traditional assets do not. Protocol risk, governance risk, technological risk. Those risks are real and they are reflected in the price. They don't nullify the asset. They explain its volatility.
The mistake is to confuse volatility with fragility.
Bitcoin is not protected from pain, it is protected from dilution.
Supply does not respond to price. Losses cannot be offset by issuance. Drawdowns, therefore, must be absorbed entirely through repricing.
That makes them feel extreme. But it also means that recovery, when it occurs, is not undermined by structural expansion.
This is where temperament replaces ideology.
And what is unusual is the emotional intensity attached to these moves.
Bitcoin doesn't behave like an asset that allows gradual accommodation. It confronts holders with repeated tests of conviction. Sharp losses followed by long stretches of waiting. Certainty about the long term supply combined with uncertainty about near term price.
That combination is psychologically demanding in a way most assets are not.
This is not a bug. It is the consequence of a system that refuses to smooth outcomes through discretion.
Volatility is the price of rule rigidity. Markets understand this intellectually. Individuals struggle with it emotionally.
This is the point at which ideology tends to collapse. Narratives fail, communities fracture. People who articulated the thesis most clearly are often the first to abandon it under pressure. Not because the thesis changed, but because holding it became economically Intolerable.
Bitcoin's drawdowns, then, are not evidence that the system is broken. They are evidence that it is still being held by humans. That distinction matters as the argument turns to psychology, belief and the limits of human endurance in the face of certainty, combined with del.
Belief, mispricing and the human discount.
If Bitcoin were only a mathematical object, its pricing would be straightforward. Fixed supply, known issuance path, no discretion, no response to price scarcity, enforced mechanically rather than culturally. In that world, valuation would be an exercise in discounting time and adoption, not temperament. But Bitcoin is not held by mathematics. It is held by people.
This is the gap the market continues to price. Not uncertainty about the code, but uncertainty about human behavior under stress. Not whether the rules will hold, but whether holders will. From inception, Bitcoin was framed as revelation rather than instrument. The hardest money, the chosen alternative, the end state. This framing attracted capital, but it also attracted devotion. And devotion is not a stable pricing mechanism. It produces extremes, euphoric bids followed by violent repudiation. Certainty on the way up, disgust on the way down.
Markets are comfortable pricing scarcity created by geology. They have centuries of experience doing so. Gold does not ask holders to believe anything. It does not demand patience under explicit stress. It does not confront its owners with countdowns, halvings, or visible issuance cliffs. Its supply leaks quietly over centuries, impersonally. Nobody has to watch it happen.
Bitcoin is different. Its scarcity is pristine. But it is also theatrical. The issuance schedule is known. The halving dates are calendared. The future is visible. And humans do not handle visible certainty well, especially when the reward is delayed and the price path is violent.
Behavioral finance has names for temporal discounting, loss aversion, cognitive dissonance. But labels are beside the point. The practical outcome is simple. People sell not when the thesis breaks, but when holding becomes psychologically intolerable. This is why drawdowns cluster around moments of structural clarity rather than structural failure. The halving does not damage Bitcoin. It clarifies it. Supply tightens. Expectations rise. Volatility follows. And under that pressure, the weakest element in the system is exposed.
The weakest element is not the cryptography. It is not the supply rule. It is not the network. It is the holder.
This is not a moral judgment. It is a structural observation. Bitcoin asks humans to do something they are historically bad, tolerate long periods of stagnation and drawdown in exchange for a future that feels intellectually certain but emotionally distant.
Gold went through this process over decades, from 1980 to 2011. It failed to make a real high. The thesis did not change. The environment did. But those who were right too early experienced 30 years of indistinguishable wrongness. Many abandoned the asset not because it stopped being scarce, but because waiting became unbearable.
Bitcoin is compressing that experience into years rather than decades. Its adolescence has been marked by repeated brutal repricing and each one framed as terminal, each one survivable. The speed intensifies the stress. The transparency magnifies it. This is why the valuation gap between Bitcoin and gold remains so wide. Gold scarcity is enforced by physics and tolerated by human indifference. Bitcoin's scarcity is enforced by code and tested by human psychology.
Markets price that difference. To say Bitcoin may be mispriced is not to claim inevitability. It it is to observe that the discount applied to it appears to be dominated less by doubts about mathematics and more by doubts about the human process required to endure it.
Whether that discount narrows over time is not a question of code. It is a question of who ends up holding the asset and for how long.
The transition from narrative driven ownership to process driven ownership is slow, but it is not hypothetical. It has happened before.
Equity markets in the early 20th century were dominated by individuals reacting emotionally to the price. Today they are shaped by institutions, mandates, and machines that do not care how a drawdown feels, only how it fits within a distribution.
Bitcoin appears to be moving through a similar maturation, compressed in time and amplified in volatility.
Early ownership was ideological, then speculative. What comes next is procedural. Assets that survive long enough tend to shed believers and acquire custodians. This shift does not eliminate volatility. It changes its character. Drawdowns become less about loss of faith and more about rebalancing flows. Price discovery becomes less theatrical and more mechanical. The asset stops asking to be believed in and starts being held.
Because it fits hardness, elasticity, and what the market is still pricing, it is worth returning briefly and soberly to first principles.
This is not an argument against fiat, nor is it a plea for monetary purity. Fiat is not a mistake. It was a response. It emerged from the wreckage of the 20th century, shaped by mass death, political collapse, and the recognition that rigid systems amplify trauma rather than absorb it. Elastic money was not designed to be virtuous. It was designed to prevent societies from tearing themselves apart under economic stress.
By that standard, it has largely succeeded. Again and again. In 1929, the 1970s, in 2000, 2008 and 2020, Fiat absorbed shocks that would otherwise have produced mass unemployment, institutional collapse, and political extremism. The cost has been inflation, moral hazard, and periodic outrage. But the alternative was worse. History makes that clear.
Bitcoin does not exist to replace this system. It exists alongside it, asking a narrower and more uncomfortable how much hardness can a monetary asset sustain without breaking its holders?
Gold answers that question geologically.
Supply responds to price. Scarcity leaks slowly. Nobody has to endure explicit tests of faith.
Bitcoin answers it mathematically. Supply is fixed, issuance is known. Scarcity is absolute, and the burden of adjustment falls entirely on price and psychology.
This difference matters for valuation.
Gold's total market value is roughly $45 trillion. Bitcoin's is under 1. Geology is not 45 times more convincing than mathematics. But geology is indifferent to belief. While bitcoin requires humans to live inside its rules, markets price that difference aggressively.
Bitcoin's challenge has never been proving its hardness. It has been surviving the consequences of it. Repeated drawdowns are not evidence that the system is flawed. They are evidence that its constraints are real.
Scarcity enforced without discretion produces volatility.
Volatility tests holders. Most fail. A few persist over time. Ownership concentrates in hands that can tolerate the process.
This is why the asset still looks mispriced to some observers, including myself.
Not because the mathematics are uncertain, but because the market continues to apply a heavy discount, the human process required to hold it. That discount may persist for years. It may narrow slowly. It may never fully disappear. None of those outcomes invalidate the structure.
Bitcoin was framed early as revelation rather than instrument. That framing attracted devotion, and devotion made the journey harder than it needed to be. Gold's history offers a cautionary parallel.
Being right too early feels exactly like being wrong. Conviction held without relief curdles into capitulation.
What matters now is not belief, but endurance. Bitcoin does not promise comfort. It does not promise justice. It does not promise to save anyone. It offers one thing, a set of rules that do not bend to price, politics or persuasion.
Whether that is valuable depends entirely on who is holding it and why.
The mathematics will almost certainly hold long enough. The question has always been whether we will. And that, more than code or cryptography, is what the market continues to price.
Hue really loved this piece and, and I thought it was a fantastic expansion on something we've talked about on this show about. The real test of Bitcoin is not.
It is partly about mathematics in the sense that, you know, like, does the system stand up against quantum computing? And does the cryptography withstand the test of time. But the mathematical test is one of coordination. As Hugh, I think, does a fantastic job of laying this out. It's really about the consensus mechanism is, has Bitcoin found the sweet spot between resistance to change and ability to adapt? Because pure hardness, something that is so hard that it cannot change at all, will eventually break under a changing environment.
And despite the intolerant minority dynamic and the defense, the heavy defense leaning power structure, where it's easier. And I love the way it was put in this. It's more important about being able to say no than being able to say yes. But that asymmetry is exactly what protects Bitcoin. But it's also what makes coordination so difficult.
And that is the test is, do people understand, do people trust the underlying consensus system and how Bitcoin is able to evolve? And will people be able to come to some sort of lowest common denominator agreement about how to move forward to protect Bitcoin when it is put to the test? And I think we have had smaller or kind of like micro examples of that. And that's why I thought the block size war was actually such a critical part of, of Bitcoin's history, because it did set the precedent of exactly how we can reach agreement under vicious, vicious disagreement on what to do. So that's why I want to devote a guy's take episode to really kind of digging back into these ideas and addressing some of the things that he brings up. So shout out to Hugh Hendry for this and to Zero Hedge and I'll catch you guys on the next episode. Until then, that's my two SATs.
Imagination does not become great until human beings, given the courage and the strength, use it to create.
Maria Montessori.
