Share on social media:

Episode 1199 of Bitcoin And . . . is LIVE!

Topics for today:

• Bitcoin Treasuries Enter "Phase 2" 
• Strategy Gets 'B-' Credit Rating 
• BIP-444 Gets Worse
• Trump Provides More Fuel to Opponents

Circle P:

SoapMiner
 Product: Tallow Soap
 Website: https://soapminer.com/
nostr Profile: https://nostrudel.ninja/#/u/npub1zzmxvr9sw49lhzfx236aweurt8h5tmzjw7x3gfsazlgd8j64ql0sexw5wy
Twitter Profile: https://x.com/soapminer1
Discount code: Use "BITCOINAND" in the Cart's Coupon Code box for 10% off total purchase

Today's Articles:

https://www.theblock.co/post/376464/metaplanet-share-buyback


https://atlas21.com/france-proposed-law-for-a-national-reserve-of-420000-btc/


https://bitcoinmagazine.com/bitcoin-for-corporations/strategy-mstr-bitcoin-backed-credit-rating-milestone


https://cointelegraph.com/news/f2pool-co-founder-refuses-anti-spam-soft-fork


https://bitcoinmagazine.com/builders/human-rights-foundation-1b-satoshis


https://decrypt.co/345886/coinbase-disrupts-bitcoin-backed-lending-low-bar-servicing-americans


https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2025/10/28/trump-media-taps-crypto-com-to-launch-prediction-markets-on-truth-social


https://cointelegraph.com/news/elon-musk-s-grokipedia-goes-online


Get You're Free Comfrey Owner's Manual Here:
https://www.bitcoinandshow.com/the-comfrey-owners-manual-is-here/

Find the Bitcoin And Podcast on every podcast app here:
https://episodes.fm/1438789088

Find me on nostr
npub1vwymuey3u7mf860ndrkw3r7dz30s0srg6tqmhtjzg7umtm6rn5eq2qzugd (npub)
6389be6491e7b693e9f368ece88fcd145f07c068d2c1bbae4247b9b5ef439d32 (Hex)

Twitter:
https://twitter.com/DavidB84567

StackerNews:
stacker.news/NunyaBidness

Podcasting 2.0:
fountain.fm/show/eK5XaSb3UaLRavU3lYrI

Apple Podcasts:
tinyurl.com/unm35bjh

Mastodon:
https://noauthority.social/@NunyaBidness

Support Bitcoin And . . . on Patreon:
patreon.com/BitcoinAndPodcast

Find Lightning Network Channel partners here:
https://t.me/+bj-7w_ePsANlOGEx (Nodestrich)
https://t.me/plebnet (Plebnet)

Music by:
Flutey Funk Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

[00:00:02] David Bennett:

It is 08:35AM   Pacific Daylight Time. It's the October   2025.   This is episode eleven ninety nine   of Bitcoin and   bit four four four.   We're gonna talk about it. I'm not gonna go into depth about   the   parameters   of it.   I'm gonna   touch a little bit more on the   social side   of it because we've been here before.   We're we're we're finally here. I hadn't been worried about it, and I'm actually still not worried about it. I guess what I should have said, I haven't really seen this whole   knots versus   Bitcoin Core   as   an actual   issue   until now, but only on the social side.  

I'm gonna be speaking from experience   in the 2016,   2017,   2018   time frame when Bitcoin Cash   came into play. There's a lot of similarities there.   This one's slightly different. In some ways, it's worse. In some ways, it's better. I'll get to it.   But I want to be very clear.   If you're worried about this,   don't.   Just   don't.   We are gonna talk about Meta Planet,   and we are gonna go over to France.   We are going to touch   on strategy,   formerly MicroStrategy.   And then that's when we get into the BIP four four four issue.   But I wanted to I wanted to speak on that, like, right out of the gate   because this this is important.  

I'm not worried about it, but it is important   because it's going to inform us   how we move forward because I can guarantee you when this mess is cleared up and it will get cleared up one way or another,   it's gonna happen again   and again and again. It is a social   attack   vector   that is ever present   in Bitcoin.   What's that surface area?   Human beings.   It's not Bitcoin itself.   It's the human factor.   And humans are always fallible.   We are always,   always   blinded by our own   immense levels of bullshit.   But that's the attack vector right there. Then   in the second half of the show, Human Rights Foundation,   baby,   game on.  

And then Coinbase is in the news as well as the Trump Media Group,   and   I will have some parting words about Elon Musk   and his new launch. But first, we're just gonna do Meta Planet.   And this is important because this is going this is sort of like   watching an experiment   unfold   into its next phase. The first phase was, hey. Let's buy Bitcoin, put it on our balance sheet, and everything's gonna be fine,   unless not. And Meta Planet seems to be the first people that have broken   to the downside.   And what I mean by that is with this headline,   Meta Planet starts   share buyback program to address MNAV   decline. Danny Park from the block   hit the ground running, baby. Japan's Bitcoin treasury company, Meta Planet,   disclosed plans to repurchase   up to a 150,000,000   common shares, equivalent to 13% of its total issued shares, excluding treasury stock. The company said the repurchase program seeks to improve the capital efficiency   and moreover its declining market to net asset value or MNAV,   which measures the value of the enterprise itself   compared to the value of its Bitcoin holdings. Quote, we recognize that due to rising market volatility   and a decline in MNAV,   our stock price currently does not adequately reflect our intrinsic economic value, Meta Planet said.  

While its stock is, in fact, up 43.4%   year to date,   its current price of 499   yen, Japanese yen, is 73%   lower than the peak   closing price of 1,895   yen recorded June 16   according to Yahoo Finance.   Meta Planet's MNAV reached a high of ten and one third   times   or x, if you will, on February 13.   It currently stands at a mere 1.03   x recovering from a low   of point eight eight.   On October 17, quote, in light of the situation,   the company has established a share repurchase program as part of its disciplined capital allocation policy,   particularly   effective when MNAV falls below   one point zero is what they say this program is geared to be.  

Particularly   effective.   For the execution of the program, Meta Planet's board of directors has approved the establishment of a credit facility   within a maximum borrowing capacity of $500,000,000,   which will run for a year starting 10/29/2025.   The share repurchases will be made on the Tokyo Stock Exchange. Since launching its Bitcoin strategy in April,   the Tokyo or April 2024.   The company has accumulated 30,823   Bitcoin valued at 3,500,000,000.0.   In a Tuesday disclosure, the company reiterated its goal of reaching   210,000   BTC by the 2027.  

Alright. So then they go into market and to net asset value as a as a general   as a general definition. We don't need it. We know what it is.   They're valuing the company   based solely   on the Bitcoin holdings.   Not cash that they have, not revenue that they can generate,   not payroll, not not anything else, not even their debt structures.   Just the Bitcoin. That's what MNAV is. If I've got one Bitcoin   and a $100,000,000   in revenue, let's say, a year,   That $100,000,000   in revenue a year doesn't count on MNAF.   It's only to my Bitcoin holdings,   which I believe is a not a   not a good indicator of what's going on. But be that as it may, what's the experiment here?  



[00:07:03] Unknown:

What's phase two of the experiment?   Buying back their stock.  

[00:07:09] David Bennett:

Will it work?   Is there a way that they can adjust their MNAV   not solely by buying Bitcoin and depending on Bitcoin's price, but to somehow squelch the volatility   of their stock price   by either selling shares of their stock into the public pool or   buying that stock back from the public pool?   Is there a way that they can put a squelch mechanism   on the volatility   of their stock price   relative to the volatility of the Bitcoin price?   That's phase two. And m em planet Meta Planet seems to be the first people to actually launch out of that gate. Will it work? Who the hell knows?   Probably.  

But there's one other thing in this story that I think is glossed over here.   For the execution   of the program, reading again,   Meta Planet's board of director has approved   the establishment   of a credit   facility with a maximum   borrowing   capacity of $500,000,000.   So they're gonna borrow money   to buy shares   to somehow or another alleviate the pressure on their stock price   that is having problems due to the fact that they've been buying Bitcoin   with debt instrumentation   like   strategy has.   See,   I that that right there,   that is problematic.  

It's just more debt instrumentation   to take care of problems caused by debt instrumentation.   Baby, it's turtles   all the way down.   Let's run to France, however,   where these dudes want some Bitcoin of their own or at least some of them do because there is a proposed law for a French national reserve   of 420,000   Bitcoin.   $4.20, baby.   I have a feeling automatically   it's not that this bill is tongue in cheek, but I don't think it's gonna pass. I think it's gonna be viewed as a little bit more memetastic   because of the number four twenty. But, hey,   it is what it is.  

From Atlas twenty one, according to the big whale, a legislative   proposal focused   on Bitcoin and other digital assets is set to be introduced in the French parliament.   The UDR party led by Eric Ciotti   or Choti, I don't know how to pronounce it, plans to present a bill that could position France at the forefront   of institutional adoption for digital assets.   The core of the proposal centers on the creation of a national Bitcoin reserve with the stated goal of accumulating 420,000   Bitcoin equivalent to 2% of the total circulating supply   To manage the initiative,   the bill calls for the establishment of a dedicated public administrative entity.  

Let's have a blue ribbon council. We're we're putting together a blue ribbon council, y'all.   Responsible for building the reserve gradually over seven to eight years.   The strategy is presented   as a means of diversifying France's national currency reserves. The financial plan envisions direct Bitcoin purchases   through government savings programs   with an estimated   €15,000,000   per day allocated   for wow. €15,000,000   per day   for Bitcoin acquisitions,   which is roughly 55,000   Bitcoin per year. And part of the proposal involves   acquiring Bitcoin through public mining   operations.  

Two pronged approach,   The plan aims to capitalize on the country's   excess nuclear and hydroelectric power   offering a favorable tax regime for minors, and this strategy would allow France   to organically   accumulate BTC.   In parallel,   the bill identifies   a second source of Bitcoin supply,   coins seized   during judicial   proceedings.   France has already confiscated cryptocurrencies   in operations targeting dark web markets such as the now defunct Dfast platform.   Beyond Bitcoin, the bill promotes   the use of euro denominated   stablecoin,   mhmm, as a regulated practical alternative to debt or debit card payments.  

It sets a €200   tax free transaction limit and allows tax payments in Bitcoin and Stablecoin.   The proposal also seeks to ease certain MICA regulatory constraints at the European Union level,   facilitating stablecoin issuance by European banks and corporations,   the text explicitly   opposes central bank digital currencies,   labeling them as a threat to financial freedom. The bill envisions favorable tax and energy treatment for mining facilities,   including flexible taxation regimes for dedicated data centers.   Additionally, Bitcoin could be accepted as collateral   for specific categories   on bank loans.  

Well, despite the ambition, the proposal faces   slim   chances of approval. Yeah. You got that right. Given that the UDR's   parties or the UDR party's limited representation in the National Assembly,   Only 16   members of parliament   out of a total of 577.   It's not going anywhere, but,   hey, hats off. Thanks for trying.   You know, take the party's over. Take the party. Your your little swag bag and and and go away is probably what's gonna happen. But still,   you know, points for trying y'all.   You know, at least at least you've got   at least you're, like, throwing in mining,   you know, throwing in some, you know, some other   other items other other than the fact that they wanna take stolen money. I don't like that part at all. But,   you know, that story said that there was,   that the second approach was, you know, mining was the first approach,   using confiscated   cryptocurrency as the second approach.  

They that was wrong. There's actually this is a three pronged attack. They want to actually buy Bitcoin using euros.   They want to mine Bitcoin with mining,   and they want to take   stolen cryptocurrency   and put it into their reserve. That's a three pronged approach. There's not two, but   but three. But   we've mentioned strategy, so we might as well start right here with strategy earning   standard and poor's   b minus rating,   marking a major milestone for Bitcoin backed credit. So yesterday,   this was bad. Today, it's good. Out of Bitcoin magazine, Nick Ward is writing   for the first time in financial history, baby,   a major credit rating agency has formally evaluated a company built on a Bitcoin backed credit model.  

In news covered by Bitcoin Magazine,   the S and P Global Ratings has assigned Strategy Incorporated   a   b minus issuer credit rating with a stable outlook,   recognizing not just the company, but the emergence of Bitcoin as collateral   inside   the credit system.   And it marks a watershed moment for corporate finance. Bitcoin backed credit is no longer theoretical.   It is now a rated financial reality until now.   Bitcoin had been accepted by equity markets, ETFs, and corporate treasury conversations,   but   but   credit markets remained   untouched.  

Credit markets are where legitimacy   is ultimately decided because they determine who can borrow   at what cost and against what asset.   By Rating Strategy Incorporated,   S and P has implicitly acknowledged the following.   One, Bitcoin can underpin structured debt and preferred equity. Two,   a Bitcoin backed credit strategy can be modeled, rated, and priced using traditional frameworks.   Three,   Bitcoin is shifting from speculative asset to recognized collateral within corporate capital structure.   This is not a marketing milestone.   It's more structural than that.  

Bitcoin has entered the language of risk adjusted return, yields, and covenants.   The rating is a speculative grade, but the stable outlook, that   the stable outlook label is critical. It signals S and P's belief that strategy can continue to service obligations   and access capital markets without selling its Bitcoin reserves, a foundational principle of Bitcoin backed credit.   S and P's analysis   mentioned several possible weaknesses,   high concentration of assets in Bitcoin,   low US dollar liquidity and negative risk adjusted capital under S and P's methodology,   currency mismatch, like long Bitcoin short US dollar debt obligations,   and limited operating cash flow outside software revenue.  

However, they also credited   strategy with unique structural strength.   No near term debt maturities before the year 2027   through 2028.   Proven access to capital markets in both equity and debt,   a capital stack purpose built to accumulate Bitcoin without diluting shareholders.   Dude, I'm pausing to say they've diluted shareholders.   Okay. I don't know where the hell they're getting that one over here at Bitcoin Magazine.   Yes. They have a stack that's built to accumulate Bitcoin without diluting shareholders,   but they still do. Alright? So let's let's let's not   I was about to say something really nasty. I won't.  

Let's not pat ourselves on the back or rather break our own arms patting ourselves on the back because that shit just ain't true.   Finally,   they credited strategy with active liability   management via convertible debt and preferred stock instrumentation.   Strategy Incorporated   met the S and P 500 inclusion criteria and profitability and market capitalization,   but was passed over in 2024,   widely believed to be due to its Bitcoin heavy balance sheet. And that decision   now appears   less defensible.   With a formal credit rating,   the company shifts from unrated anomaly to rated issuer. For institutional   capital, that distinction matters.  

Index committees can now reference a risk rating.   Treasury teams and insurers   can benchmark exposure to Bitcoin backed credit against traditional corporate debt,   and this increases, although not guarantees,   the probability   of future index inclusion and passive capital flows.   Bitcoin entering   equity indices   begins   with Bitcoin entering the credit models   behind them.   This rating does more than validate strategy.   It validates the architecture   of Bitcoin backed credit as the superior evolution of corporate treasury management.   Phase one was equity funded Bitcoin accumulation,   high growth, but shareholder dilution.  

Phase two introduced convertible debt and preferred equity, allowing companies to acquire Bitcoin through capital markets rather than operating earnings. And phase three, which is now underway,   is a fully institutional   recognition   of Bitcoin backed credit   rated,   benchmarked, and capable of scaling.   Now   they can use capital markets to borrow in fiat.   They can use proceeds to acquire Bitcoin. They can service liabilities   without selling reserves.   They can increase Bitcoin per share over time   without issuing new common stock.   Pausing again to say they can,   but they don't.  

We'll see if they continue to actually print more common stock shares.   Time will tell. The rating does not compel companies to adopt Bitcoin, but it does remove the claim that Bitcoin cannot be integrated into   into traditional   credit systems.   Because now   and from now on, Bitcoin can be factored into risk weighted capital models and treasury policies.   Credit and liquidity committees   are gonna have to understand how Bitcoin backed credits   affect financing costs, refinancing   risk, and balance sheet leverage.   Investors can now compare Bitcoin based capital structures against other high yield or hybrid debt strategies,   and boards can no longer dismiss Bitcoin as unreadable   or unclassified.  

What what makes this moment different isn't that other another institution has acknowledged Bitcoin.   That's happened before with ETFs,   gap accounting changes, and treasury allocations.   What's different here   is where the recognition now occurred, not in equity,   not in payments,   but in credit,   the very foundation of corporate finance and all monetary systems.   With a credit rating agency like S and P or when they evaluate a company built on Bitcoin, it does three things that have never happened before.   It forces Bitcoin into risk modeling.   It legitimizes   Bitcoin backed credit,   and it signals to other corporates   and lenders that they must now understand Bitcoin not as an investment,   but now as collateral,   as a credit instrument.  

This rating does not mean the model is risk free. It means the model is real enough to underwrite stress test and lend   against. That is the real inflection point.   They are forced to measure Bitcoin.   That's, that's the whole thing about this S and P rating coming out of strategy. That's the end of the article.   That's the the   the pivotal moment.   We we there is a river that we have just crossed,   and a lot of people are not even seeing it.   But S and P rating strategy   with Bitcoin   as large as a capital structure on their balance sheet as it is   means they're actually rating the risk,   the Bitcoin,   the credit,   the potential,   everything about that company   based on Bitcoin. So now Bitcoin has   entered   into the big leagues. Now we've we've already said that on several occasions when the ETF came out. Everybody's, oh, we're finally in the big leagues.  



[00:22:28] Unknown:

Not really.   This one is it.  

[00:22:33] David Bennett:

This is the Rubicon.   It's more important than people are giving it credit for because it's all about entering the credit market.   I hope that that's very clear by now. And if for whatever reason you feel a little funky because of it, you can take a shower using my friend, Soap Miner's soap. Get your soap at soapminer.com.   That soapminer.com.   He's got all kinds of soap, except it all boils down to three main ingredients.   100%   brass fed beef tallow,   lye,   or also known as sodium hydroxide,   and distilled water. Everything else is, like, organically sourced or or or, like, you know, something like that.   Like, for for instance, his cedarwood tallow bar starts with those three ingredient ingredients,   and there is, like, maybe a little bit of colored sand in there to give it some color and some organic cedarwood   essence, you know, like a like an essential oil or something like that. That's how they do all of their soap.  

These bars of soap will last like a month. I got a family of four.   I have half a bar   or well, yeah. I guess half a bar left   of the Earl Grey tallow soap   as a hand soap in the bathroom   by the hand sink.   It's been a month.   That bar is gonna last me in a family of four for two months. If for whatever reason, you go to soapminer.com,   that soapminer.com,   and you go,   well, I I don't wanna pay $7.50   in Bitcoin for a bar. So, dude,   it's gonna last you, like, well over a month. I got a family of four. I'm getting, like, two months usage out of a bar. Really?   $3.25?  

I can't come up with $3.25   for a month of hand soap? Really?   Nah, man. Plus, you can get goat's milk, lemongrass, orange clove, lavender,   tea tree, peppermint,   Earl Grey, redacted. And then he's got body balms. He's got deodorants. He's got two pages   of product.   Go to soapminer.com.   Grab yourself a bar of soap. Use Bitcoin and in the coupon code, get 10% off of your entire purchase.   And that also lets SoapMiner know that I made the sale. And then he, under the value for value advertising model, which is the this is the only place you'll find it, gets to make a decision how much he thinks me making that sale was worth to him, and then he will get me Satoshis   on the other side of that. It's the circle p. It's where I bring plebs just like you with goods and services to plebs just like you who want to buy said goods and services with Bitcoin. Because if you're not selling it in Bitcoin,   you're not   in the circle p.  

Let's move on to this BIP four four four   nonsense,   And it is complete   nonsense.   Let's just read it first. Adrian Smutsky from Cointelegraph   says, f two pool cofounder   refuses   BIP four four four Bitcoin soft fork. Says it's a bad idea.   It's bad. It's a bad idea. It is a bad idea. But Chung Wang,   cofounder of major Bitcoin mining pool f two pool, pushed back   against a proposed   temporary   soft fork aimed at limiting data spam on the Bitcoin network. Let me just pause.   Yes. I talked about this yesterday. I am going to end up talking about this again.   Right? Because this is an unfolding situation,   and the best way to be armed against   sheer,   utter walls of bullshit   is to be armed   with rain slicker so that the bullshit just falls right off of you and when you're done and on the other side, you can strip off the rain slicker and all your clothes are nice and clean.  



[00:26:34] Unknown:

I'm telling you, man.   Not feeding the   fire. I'm giving you what you need to know   because I've been here before,   and it was ugly.   I didn't think it would get to this point this time.   I was wrong. I can admit it.   It's ugly.   But I know one thing for sure.  

[00:26:58] David Bennett:

It'll be fine.   It will be fine.   Continuing,   Wang wrote in a Monday expos that BIP four four four is a bad idea.   He added that he and, presumably,   f two pool   are not going to soft fork   anything,   whether it's temporary   or not. He said,   feel sad that some devs are moving further and further in the wrong direction, end quote.   Bitcoin improvement proposal   BIP four four four is a temporary soft fork proposal for the Bitcoin network aimed at restricting the inclusion of arbitrary data, which its proponents view mainly as spam.   The soft fork would limit non transactional data, which enables alternative uses for the Bitcoin blockchain   to 83 bytes among other   limitations.  

BIT four four four appears to be a response to a late September update from leading Bitcoin node software, Bitcoin Core.   The update in question removed the 80 byte cap on op return,   a part of a transaction script that allowed users to embed arbitrary data.   Many have viewed the change as corporate capture of the Bitcoin blockchain since it allows companies to build layer twos   and other infrastructure   on Bitcoin.   Furthermore,   some argue that allowing more arbitrary data on chain results in faster increases in blockchain size,   higher node requirements, and greater centralization.  

Others pointed out   that this is part of a debate that dates back to the very early days of Bitcoin itself.   Additionally,   proponents of the change highlight that it is hard to ensure   miners enforce a rule that goes against their own incentives.   A January 2024 review revealed that miners, such as f two pool,   were already including non standard transactions   that exceed op return limits.   The BIP submitted by pseudonymous   developer, Dathon Ohm,   is called a reduced data temporary soft fork and suggest   to temporarily   limit the size of data fields at the consensus level.  

The limit would last until Bitcoin block nine eight seven four two   four or about one point two seven years from now.   In a dedicated mailing list, the creator explained that the idea is to strongly reaffirm in consensus   that Bitcoin is money, not data storage.   After one year, the soft fork expires,   giving us time to come up with a more permanent solution, they say.   BIT four four four is a temporary soft fork that would close most data embedding paths on Bitcoin, including stricter size caps on outputs and pushes,   bans on annexes,   unknown witness versions,   deep taproot trees,   op underscore success,   and conditional branches.  

This limits ordinal based non fungible token creation,   large data payloads,   and complex   scripts   while keeping simple monetary   unaffected. I think they meant keeping simple monetary   attributes unaffected.   The BIP text argues that with modern data compression, it is possible to embed   objectional images,   often illegal to even possess   in as few as three to 400 bytes.   This would allow a malicious actor to mine a single transaction with illegal or universally   abhorrent content   and credibly slammed that Bitcoin or claimed that Bitcoin itself is a system   for distribution. Jesus.  

Bitcoin developer and cypherpunk, Peter Todd, on the other hand, stated   that the approach is also ineffective in achieving its intended goal.   Todd demonstrated this by embedding the entire bit four four four text   in a Bitcoin transaction that would be compliant with the soft fork.   Still,   the proponent of the change   highlighted that sending it cost over $100 in fees and argued that if embedding illegal data is made harder, it would not make sense to hold node operators legally responsible.   They explained, quote,   if Bitcoin provides an officially supported method of storing arbitrary data,   node operators could conceivably   be held responsible   for possession   and distribution, end quote.  

Still,   some view the distinction as arbitrary and unrealistic.   One x user demonstrated the idea   by sharing two different commands   that would gather data from an image stored on the Bitcoin network,   highlighting how scarce the differences are in practice,   and they actually put in the tweet. But honestly, it's it's unless you want me to, like,   repeat gibberish like x x d hyphen r hyphen p s forward Slash t m P. If you want me to do that, I'll read it, but I don't think you want me to do that.   Let me do this next one   first, and then I wanna have a discussion about this. With the drama oh, by the way, this is out of Noster,  

[00:32:24] Unknown:

and this is from Waxwing.   Waxwing states,  

[00:32:29] David Bennett:

with the drama of BIP four four four, I've seen a lot of people confused about the nature of soft fork   versus   hard fork, and this might help.   Back in the block size war, we had a lot of similar confusion   mostly because it isn't really very clear cut. Some people talked about evil   soft forks to try to get rid of simplistic,   the simplistic notion that soft forks are much better and hard forks are much worse, which   tends to persist.   The problem is that whether a fork is contentious or not is much more important   than whether it fits the soft or hard   technical definitions.  

When a fork is not contentious,   then the soft versus hard distinction   really matters a lot because passive network participants   imagine a piece of hardware that will never get updated to a new Bitcoin version in the extreme,   will be fine   with the first and not the second.   When a fork is contentious and miners following economic incentives   end up choosing different rule sets to support different Bitcoin users,   then the chain   genuinely forks into two completely separate histories.   The fact that one rule set is more restrictive than the other is part of the story, but doesn't   change the fundamental point that we have a chain split.  

This, of course, did actually happen meaningfully   with Bitcoin Cash in 2017.   The term   evil soft fork   was some people trying to shake others of the misconception that a fork that if a fork is soft, is not coercive and not forcing action on anyone.   That's definitely not true if the fork is contentious.   Okay. So with all that said,   the first thing that I wanna hit is they keep saying the word, and I'm when I say they,   I mean the people that are trying to push through bit $4.04 4.   They keep saying   it's temporary.   Where   in monetary history,   the kind of monetary history that forced the emergence   of Bitcoin's existence   itself,   where did where we heard that?  

What was said? What was temporary?   It's only temporary.   Well, a,   the correct answer is   every   temporary   United States   government   anything.   And a lot of other governments too, but let's stay in The US because that's where I'm based.   Two,   specifically,   1971   and Nixon were temporarily   closing the gold window. That thing never   opened back up, did it?   No.   It didn't, in case you're wondering. It was temporary   but more permanent. So yes, but no. Sort of that the the pirate meme there.   Right there   is your very first red flag of BIP four four four.   It is not temporary.  

Oh, David, so you called Peter Todd and and Luke Dasher and all those people and you had it? No. I didn't. I don't need to. Not on this one.   I know where this goes. I've seen this song.  

[00:35:57] Unknown:

I've seen the play.   I've seen the movie.   Been there and done it.   There is no way this shit is temporary.   And even if it was, they're just gonna introduce in that 1.27  

[00:36:12] David Bennett:

timeline that they're talking about that is, quote, temporary.   They'll come up with something either worse or something just as hair brained. It doesn't matter.   But here's the other red flag, and I talked about this yesterday.   The notion that this is all about   child sexual   was CSAM's child sexual   abuse material,   CSAM.   Nothing else.   No. Just   CSAM. That that is the only   thing they keep talking about.   And I could be funny about it and say, do you got a problem over there with I mean,   you seem to be talking about it a lot. You know, methinks thou doth protest too much, lady Macbeth.   I could go that way, but I'm not.  

Because I I honestly,   I I first of all, I don't care, but my gut feeling is, no. They they don't really have a problem. They're they're not doing the whole Lady Macbeth thing.   The   problem is they know that that is a fundamental   fear.   And like I said yesterday,   the fact   that they are using fear based rhetoric   to push a change   is your second but even larger red flag   than the use of the word   temporary.   Everything   about this smacks   of Roger Ver   2015,   2016,   leading into 2017,   and the actual hard fork   of Bitcoin   into what we have today   and the failure that is Bitcoin Cash, this will be no different.  

What surprises me actually, it it it shouldn't surprise me because back then in 2017   and 2016,   given what I knew and I was a I was a freshman.   I was I was you know, September   2015   was when I fell down the rabbit hole   completely,   fully, solely, never to return.   I was definitely a freshman   slash sophomore   in this world back then.   And from what I had already known about Roger Ver, I was   I was stupefied   that he was pushing for this fork,   this Bitcoin cash fork. He wasn't calling it Bitcoin cash at the time, but it it sort of it it became that, like, very soon, like, a few weeks right up to the push   and then the actual fork and then right after. And by that time, the brand Bitcoin Cash had stuck. It's still an utter failure.  

I mean, he he lost a lot of money on that deal, but   I was surprised because he was such a solid proponent   of Bitcoin up to that time. And we're seeing the exact same thing   with Luke Dasher.   What's scary is that Luke Dasher is firmly   under the sheets with Ocean,   which is Jack Dorsey's deal. Am I I'm not gonna get conspiratorial.   I promise you. Not putting on the tinfoil hat. I'm just I you know, at this point, I am kinda Charlie at the at the pin board with a bunch of ribbons, but these are connections that are undeniable.   It is not undeniable   that Ocean and Luke Dasher   are very close together.  

I mean, Ocean is one of Luke Luke's deals.   But Jack Dorsey   is part of that whole deal. Square is part of that whole deal.   And the fact that Jack Dorsey hasn't said anything is a little bit concerning.   He's got a lot of weight to throw around, a lot more than Luke Dasher.   But getting back to to the problem at hand, it doesn't matter who this is.   What's the red flag?   The use of the word temporary   and fear based rhetoric   to push a change.   If you don't do this,   you're going to get in trouble.   There will be CSAM   on your hard drive, on your   node, and and and you're gonna get arrested for   it. Why isn't it anything else?  

There's a lot of stuff   that I can that I can save   as a digital copy,   which I could embed   into a Bitcoin transaction   and   as far as Luke Dasher is concerned,  

[00:40:34] Unknown:

And it's illegal too, and it has nothing to do with child sexual abuse material.   Right?  

[00:40:41] David Bennett:

It could be it could be a short video of I I think it's actually and I may be wrong. I think it's illegal to possess,   a video of somebody actually being murdered.   It certainly   it would have to be illegal to possess a video of somebody getting raped.   It would definitely   be illegal for me to   outline how to build a dirty bomb   out of stolen crappy, I don't know, CZ and one twenty four or whatever the hell it is. That's definitely illegal. But I could put those plans. I could digitize that. I could put that. Why why are we not concerned with that?   Why are we not concerned with using Bitcoin blockchain   to coordinate,   I don't know, terrorist attacks?  

This entire argument   falls apart almost immediately when you start looking at what the here's the question.   What other things   that are completely illegal to possess   that are also able to be fully digitized   and sent through an email or a Bitcoin transaction,   what else exists that's illegal that way?   Because there's a lot more shit that's illegal that I can represent that way than CSAM.   Why   CSAM?   Because it's the most contentious,   the most   fear   instilling.   And that's why this is such a fucking problem   that these people   are not looking at you and me like other humans that need to be treated with dignity and respect.  

No. They're just saying, how the hell can we scare the piss out of as many people as we can as fast as we can so we can get this shit done? And that brings up my third red flag.   Why now?   Why is it critical now?   We could have put we had rare Pepes   on Bitcoin   in 2014.   It's a digital representation of an image.   We already know   that there's child pornography   on the Bitcoin blockchain.   We already know it's there. There's other things there too. Why now?   Why   right now?   Again, I'm not gonna tinfoil had it, but I sense an urgency   that I did not actually sense in the b cash Bitcoin  

[00:43:12] Unknown:

fork.   Right? There was an urgency there, but this feels different,   and that worries me.  

[00:43:22] David Bennett:

Parting words on this section.   Do not be afraid. We've been through this before.   It will rectify itself.   The worst thing that can happen is we get a hard fork,   and you get Bitcoin, a different kind of Bitcoin, from that hard fork.   You can choose to sell it. You can choose to keep it. You can choose to do whatever the hell you want with it. It will not affect whether or not the original Bitcoin chain mines a new block.   If you keep that in mind, then it doesn't matter what Luke says.   It doesn't matter what mister Ohm   threatens with federal court and prosecution.  

None of that shit matters.   The only thing that matters is TikTok,   next block, let's run the numbers.   CNBC futures and commodities and energy is in the hole, so it makes me wonder what the hell orange man said this morning.   Brent Norcey down two points to $64.28   a barrel. West Texas Intermediate down 2.1   to $60   and 2 pennies.   Natural gas is down 2.6%.   Gasoline down point 47%   to a buck 91 a gallon, and Murbaughn crude is down 3.5,   $65.56.   It's palindrome oil, boys and girls. Metals are not having a good day either.   Palladium is down point 9%.  

Peter Schiff's favorite, Petrock, is down 1%.   $3,976.   It hasn't been above 4,000   since yesterday.   Platinum is actually up a quarter of a point. Silver's up point seven to $47.18.   Copper is down, but only slightly.   Ag is fully mixed today. The biggest winner seems to be   the soybeans. Oh, soybeans.   Oh, because China agreed to buy our soybeans. So soybean is rallying   1.57%   to the upside today. The biggest loser is chocolate.   Actually, it may be cattle. No. No. Cattle looks good. Chocolate, 2.91%   to the downside.   Live cattle is in the green, but barely,   barely.  

Lean hogs down a half. Feeder cattle are getting hit two and a half percent to the downside.   The S and P moving sideways in the green. Nasdaq is up a half. The Dow is up point is up point 4%,   and the S and P Mini is down two thirds of one point. Meanwhile, at a $114,720,   Bitcoin has a market cap of $2,290,000,000,000.   We can now get 28.9   ounces of shiny metal rocks with our one Bitcoin of which there are 19,941,026.16   of.   Average fees per block are low. Again,   hasn't changed.   0.02   BTC taking the fees on a per block basis. There's about 40 blocks carrying a 127,000   unconfirmed transactions waiting to clear at high priority rates of four sats per v byte. Low priority is gonna get you in at three.  

And hash rate remains the same as yesterday. 1.13   zeta hashes per second. That's all the security   I could need and more from   Fear Chain,   which was yesterday's episode of Bitcoin. And rev.hodl   says,   not only do I maximize hodling, nodding, and mining, I also   40 HPW.   Fuck fiat, run Bitcoin, earn Bitcoin, mine Bitcoin, spend Bitcoin with Bitcoiners, and listen to at least forty hours of Bitcoin podcast   per week. This amazing discovery was made by at bugle underscore news,   and then there's all   a whole list. Oh my god. This is massive   list of podcasts.  

Holy shit.   I should I should do my brethren justice.   There's Bitcoin and at the top of the list. Pod two fifty six, Bitcoin and again.   What Bitcoin did, two angry cuts, Sound Coffee, Bitcoin and, Ungovernable   Misfits,   Rabbit Hole Recap, Pleb Chain Radio, What is Money, Ungovernable Misfits, Steven Lavera, Bugle Weekly, Slacker News Live, Telepathy Tapes, Survival Podcast, Bitcoin Audible,   Survival Podcast again, Bitcoin and again. It just goes on and on and on and on and on. That's a lot   of podcasts   to listen to. Jay with sixteen fifty says,   the last name Gee, first name great made me laugh. The name's Gee.  

Great Gee.   Psyduck with seven fifty eight says  

[00:48:19] Unknown:

Psyduck.   Nick Dose with a 101 says, cheers.  

[00:48:24] David Bennett:

Joey D or Joey D D with 5,000. Dude, says nothing.   He says nothing and gives me 5000¢.   That's like $5, bro. Actually, it's more like 6.   Thank you, Joey. I appreciate that. Psyduck with another   5, $7.57   says   Psyduck. And if you want to hear   your boost to gram read live here on the Bitcoin and podcast,   then you need to boost me. Donate to the show.   Make me feel like what I'm doing has some value.   That's the weather report.   Welcome to part two of the news that you can use. Bitcoin Magazine's Mike Zimmerman   starts us off right   with Human Rights   Foundation   grants 1,000,000,000   Satoshis to 20 Freedom Tech projects worldwide.  

The Human Rights Foundation has announced a new wave of funding through its Bitcoin development fund,   distributing 1,000,000,000 satoshis to 20 projects   around the world.   The grants awarded to developers, educators, and activists span Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Europe,   and aims to strengthen Bitcoin's role as a tool for human freedom.   HRF has a mission to empower the more than 5,900,000   people living under authoritarian regimes.   Dude,   did you mean billion?   Because I don't I think there's more than 5,900,000   people are living under authoritarian   regimes.  

Anyway,   they wanna help that through open source technologies   enabling private communications,   censorship resistant finance, and decentralized coordination.   Since launching the Bitcoin Development Fund in 2020,   they've been at it for almost for five years. Actually, almost six.   HRF has provided more than $9,600,000   of Bitcoin to 319   projects   across 62   separate countries.   The foundation's approach merges human rights advocacy   with technical development,   supporting builders who are creating practical tools for dissidents, journalists, and ordinary citizens.   Quote, Bitcoin is more than just monetary innovation.  

It's a survival mechanism for billions. There we go. Billions of people   living without political or economic freedom.   So who gets them?   Here's the list.   Nymius,   Bitcoin's transparent ledger.   There's Daniella   Brozzoni,   Bitcoin nodes. Let's see. Reveal user metadata with   whatever. Actually, I guess that's what she's working on. Build on Bitcoin   builder's   residency   has been funded. The twenty one forty foundation was funded. Cash you for community sovereignty.   Bahatiya,   I'm I I   Bartaiya,   b h a r t I y y   a Bitcoin   got funded. Bitcoin education for Lebanon's liberty and empowerment,   Bitcoin Arusha,   Bitcoin for fairness,   ExileHub,   Alberto   Gorgarosa,   Want Clue,   Peter   Tionum,   BitScript,   Code Orange Dev School, Demo Lab, Nostr under autocracy. There's my Nostr guys. Yeah, baby. Colonel Kind, Eric Holguin,   Craig Warmke, and Troy Cross. Sweet. They both got funded. Bitching, dude.  

HRF   is a powerhouse in this space, and nobody gives them that much credit for doing what they do.   I'm kinda sick of it. Honestly, it's the Human Rights Foundation has been around for a very long time,   and they were like,   I keep trying to figure out when the hell Alex Gladstein, the the one of the head haunches up there,   I I still can't find the beginning of his rabbit hole.   I don't know when he got into Bitcoin. It's almost like he's always been a Bitcoiner.   And therefore,   HRF has somehow ingested that DNA   and a Human Rights Foundation is now fully Bitcoin and has been for   years. Okay?  

Years.   If you wanna give   if you if you need something to give to that you need you wanna get, like, a tax credit or something for tax purposes,   purposes, don't give to NPR or PBS.   Give to the Human Rights Foundation.   I'm just saying. Now, Coinbase, I know everybody's   most favorite company to hate in the space,   disrupts bitcoin backed lending with   a low bar for servicing Americans, and I ask you,   what could possibly   go wrong?   Andrei Bogansky   out of Decrypt.   As Coinbase leans into its Bitcoin backed lending product, the exchange is offering customers competitive rates   by connecting them   with very   lightly   vetted pools of capital,   which don't require people to provide personal information before funds are dispersed to Americans.  

Although the exchange's competitors have attained state by state licensure to provide similar services,   Coinbase's product   isn't subject to the same potential barriers because the company is acting as a technology   provider   and not lending customers assets   itself.   A little bit of firewall there. Instead of doing business with Coinbase,   the exchanges customers   through Coinbase's   mobile app are actually depositing funds into a decentralized   finance protocol called Morpho.   On Morpho's platform, they can post Bitcoin as collateral for loans in Circle's USDC.   Alternatively,   those same customers   can deposit   USDC into Morpho   to earn what?  

Yield.   This is my favorite word on this show. In The US,   lenders are required to abide by KYC and AML regulations to ward off financial crimes, and these requirements include obtaining   personally identifiable information from their users, like names and addresses. But a permissionless   protocol,   like Morpho,   wasn't designed to oversee transactions like most financial institutions   do.   In DeFi, infrastructure is designed to let capital flow freely between individuals no matter who they are. Multiple industry observers told the cryptic dynamic   that that dynamic likely makes Coinbase's product more lucrative,   but it also raises compliance concerns. That is   Coinbase's customers are subject to a primary defense against money laundering and terrorist financing while their lenders face a much lower bar.  

That includes entities depositing USDC   into vaults   on Morpho,   which are managed by a firm   called   Steakhouse.  

[00:55:44] Unknown:

You know where steak comes from?   A slaughterhouse.  

[00:55:49] David Bennett:

I'm just saying, man, the flags are flying all over here, man. Those depositing   USDC into steakhouse's   vaults on Morpho, for example,   represent   and warrant   that they are at least 18 years old   just by using the company services according to steak house documentation.   And those users also indicate that they aren't on, quote,   any sanctions or restricted persons lists   covering countries like, you know, North Korea, Russia, Iran, and Steakhouse says the users   must not use their vaults if they do not meet those requirements.   But it doesn't appear to have a standard verification process in place. Still,   Steakhouse says it can suspend access through third party platforms and interfaces. Quote,   any Coinbase user who deposits their USDC in a Morpho Vault is fully KYC'd   in addition to Morpho's own geographic and sanctions   screening, a Coinbase spokesperson told Decrypt.  

Quote,   pair that   with Circle's ability to blacklist   any address deemed illicit,   and there are several factors at play to make this architecture   unsuitable   for bad actors.   Pausing to say this is unsuitable   for anyone.   Alright? The fact that that   that Circle can just shut down   your money,   you're not using   you're using a CBDC.   I'm sorry, but you're using a CBDC.   Is the same true for Tether? Yeah. It is. It it just is. They can shut down your shit too, man. So let's not let's not play favorites here. They both suck, especially in that regard. Anyway, Morpho   Association, which is a French nonprofit entity, can restrict access to, quote, some components   of the protocol at their discretion   according to Morpho.  

Among several reasons,   that includes legal and regulatory requirements.   The New York Department of Financial Services   approved   a limited implementation of Coinbase's   Bitcoin backed lending product   according to a person familiar with the matter.   Well, Coinbase's Bitcoin backed lending products surpassed a billion dollars in originations just this month.   And   as its customers make down payments on homes or purchase big ticket items like cars,   the exchange plans on raising loan limits to $5,000,000,   which used to be $1,000,000   soon.  

TM.   A few weeks ago, Coinbase became the latest company in the cryptosphere.   Oh, cryptosphere.   I love it. To apply to the office of the comptroller of the currency for a national trust charter.   Unlike a traditional banking charter, a national trust charter does not allow institutions to make loans, yada yada yada yada yada. It goes on to talk about the product. You don't wanna have anything to do with this shit. And it's not because I'm I'm gunning for the fact that you need to AM   AM or KYC AML yourself. That's not what I'm getting at.   What I'm getting at is that there's too much structural   noise here.  

You don't know who's   who the hell's, you know, depositing this USDC   that is actually   going to on the make the other end of a loan that you make.   You don't know.   Right? And and that's okay.   I that part I don't mind. The part I do mind is, like, let's say that the Southern District Of New York   gets, I don't know, their panties all in a twist and decides to get up all in the business of Coinbase   and shut those loans down.   When you're in the middle, you've got a loan. You've used that loan to buy a house. Your family now lives in the house, and you used another loan to buy a car. Your family now uses the car to get the kids to school, go to work, and do all the things that most people do.   And then all of a sudden, here comes Southern District in New York, and they go to Coinbase, and they say, you gotta shut it all down. What the hell happens?  

See, this is the kind of bullshit that happened with BlockFi. Oh, it was only different,   you know, during the 2022   debacle of FTX and all that, but still,   everybody was like, oh, I'm just gonna do all this and do all that, and then all of a sudden BlockFi just, poof,  

[01:00:12] Unknown:

goes away.   What the hell happens?  

[01:00:17] David Bennett:

There there's too much   it's not that I'm again, not calling for KYC AML, but there's too much noise   on the people that are depositing their USDC.   Who are they? Where are they from?   Are are is it possible that one of these people   is doing nefarious shit? Like, I don't know,   dealing in in child sexual abuse material, and the SDNY   gets their wind of it and decides to just shut the whole thing down.   See, that that's what I mean. Again, not calling for KYC   AML,   but I am saying that under the structure   that we are all under,   that that that lending base   on the other side of the loan,   being as lowly   vetted as it is, is going to invite   destruction.  

Do not use this Coinbase   product.   It's it it's going to end   poorly,   if not   terribly.   Please,   please   reconsider if you wanna do that. Alright. So Trump   is in the news again.   Trump media   taps crypto.com   to launch prediction markets   on his very own   truth social.   Trump Media and Technology Group, the parent company behind president Donald Trump's social platform, Truth Social,   plans to roll out prediction markets directly inside the app   through a deal with crypto.com's   US registered derivatives arm the company announced on Tuesday.   Again, another what could possibly go wrong. The new feature which is called truth   predict   will let users place bets   on the outcome of real world events, including   US elections,   federal reserve rate decisions,   sports games, and commodity prices using a federally compliant exchange   operated by crypto.com's   derivatives exchange, which is registered with the   CFTC.  

This is all I need to say about this.   Orange man   has lost his mind.   He's pissing off his base of voters. He's made he's made the farmers mad. He's made the cattle ranchers mad. He's made the Bitcoiners mad by not, you know,   delivering on the promise of the SBR.   You know, we're I'm not happy about that shit at all. I have made zero motions.   I mean, for the first two months, it was all about it. Nope. Not since.   Haven't heard a word.   Not a peep.   Beau Hines left,   and I can't remember the other dude's name. He he left the administration to go work somewhere at BPI.   You know? It's it's I won't call them rats leaving a sinking ship, but they are definitely finding better pastors.  

Meanwhile, Orange Man's out there pissing people off by saying that ranchers are making too much money. He said that shit this morning.   Do you how many ranchers are gonna vote for Trump?   Or or   vote for Trump to have even more power in the midterm elections? That's the most important part.   I think, technically,   Trump can run for president again because it's two consecutive terms.   I I honestly don't think that that's going to happen. It doesn't matter.   He's pissing everybody off.   Then then he's got Nebraska honeys   to dive into cryptocurrency   and start offering shit like Melania coin and Trump coin, and and then he's got a a a Trump stable coin. And and even even me and Elizabeth Warren completely agree   this is unethical   because it is a huge conflict of interest.  

And now,   sportsbook,   OnTrue Social.   As if as if they didn't have enough   ammunition to completely   torpedo mid term elections,   orange man does it again. Congratulations,   sir. You've done doing a fine job up there.   And there's nothing that I can do about it, so I'm just gonna move on to Elon Musk who launches Grokipedia,   an encyclopedia   where   AI   gets the last word. Cointelegraph   Brian Quarmby is writing this one. Elon Musk has finally   launched his AI powered and truth focused answer to Wikipedia on Monday   called   Crockipedia   amid ongoing beefs with the incumbent platform over its editorial   practices.  

In a series of post on x on Monday following the launch, Musk stated that Grokipedia   is fully open source so anyone can use it for anything they want at zero cost. It's interesting.   And that its goal is to truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth.   Quote, we will never be perfect, but we shall nonetheless strive toward that goal, end quote.   That's Musk. One ex user already noticed a difference between the articles about George Floyd, an African American man who a Florida police officer killed during an arrest.   The user noticed that the first paragraph of the Grokipedia   article highlighted Floyd's extended criminal record, while the Wikipedia article emphasized that he was killed by a white police officer.  

The service   had been pushed back a few days as Musk halted the launch to purge out the propaganda on Gracopedia.   It reportedly crashed temporarily after launch before promptly coming back online. And at the time of writing, the site is fully functional and claims to host 885,000   plus articles.   While details are still sparse on the specific processes behind Grokipedia at first glance, its AI integrations   mark quite a different organizational structure from Wikipedia.   On Grokopy or in Grokopedia's   case,   x's grok.ai   appears to take the lead in dictating and moderating content on the platform,   while Wikipedia   relies on a blend of editorial volunteers and automated tools.  

Musk explained on Monday that users will be able to add or request changes   to content on Grokipedia   with the AI   making the final decision. Quote, Grok generated about 1,000,000 articles   using a lot of compute.   You will be able to ask Grok to add, modify, delete articles, and it will either take the action or tell you it won't and why it won't, Musk wrote on x.   Oh, that's gonna be that's gonna be fun.   See   see the seeing how Grok says, yeah, I'm not gonna do that. And here's why. I can't wait to read some of those, man. It's gonna be awesome. But Musk explained on Monday that users will be able to do that and then went on to say, quote,   or rather,   Musk had criticized   Wikipedia on multiple occasions alleging that it's biased   or it was biased towards the left side of the politics and culture. Yeah. Dude, we know that.  

That that was clear years ago, pal. But notably,   Musk's direct criticism is not mentioned in Gracapedia's   article on Wikipedia   itself.   Quote, studies analyzing article language and tone reveal   deviations from neutrality,   with right leaning political figures and topics more frequently depicted negatively compared to left leaning counterparts,   suggesting the policies do not fully mitigate   ideological   skews   arising from editor demographics and source selection,   the article on Wikipedia reads. Meanwhile,   Wikipedia's article on Grokipedia   sites concerns   from the critics that Gracopedia   has the potential to be slanted towards   far right perspectives of Elon Musk. Oh my god. Quote, critics   have highlighted entries that promote far right perspectives   or favor Musk's viewpoints.  

NBC News noted that Crockipedia   entry for Musk did not mention the hand gesture he made in January   2025, which many viewed as a Nazi salute. Oh, the Nazis   know.   Well, Wikipedia's article does.   The Wikipedia article about Grokipedia   reads. I don't know why that that last sentence   is in there, but that that is a terrible way to finish off the article. So Grokipedia   is apparently live,   and now we have   now we have media representations   of left versus right   at the pedia level,   as   as if we needed that. Now am I am I saying that that Grokipedia shouldn't have been done? I don't that's not what I'm getting at. I would have rather had it that Wikipedia hadn't just gone left.   How hard is it to remain neutral?  

Is it really that difficult   to be able to hold two viewpoints   in your mind   and examine them for truth?   Is that is that   so difficult?   It's clear to me   that Wikipedia   is just a left leaning,   leaning, you know, blue   carpet draped   piece of shit now.   It's almost impossible to get any kind of decent information out of Wikipedia.   Right? Is Grokipedia gonna be better? Probably not.   There I mean, honestly,   this is the one thing that Wikipedia said that is probably right. That Grok is probably gonna be on the far right.   So, therefore, I if I were looking at Grokipedia, I would ask the same question. Is it so hard   to try to gain a neutral stance on   a particular subject.  



[01:10:32] Unknown:

It seems like it is.   It's not for me,   and it's not for a lot of people I know.   But when I'm having personal discussions with people   or I just you know, I don't need like, there was  

[01:10:45] David Bennett:

there's been there's been times where it was literally the meme,   no one, and then there's just a blank space behind the word no one. And then all of a sudden, somebody launches into how Trump sucks.   You know, I was just thinking about how Trump sucked.   Have you been there?   Is it is it as excruciating   and exhausting to you as it is to me to go, oh my god.   You care about this?   He's a  

[01:11:13] Unknown:

fascist.   Really?   Is he?  

[01:11:17] David Bennett:

I   I mean, I'm not this isn't in defense. I'm just saying we could do the same thing with Biden. You know, I was just sitting here thinking about how much I hate Joe Biden.   Okay.   How does that help you in your daily life?   It doesn't.   See, this is what I'm getting at. What could help you in your daily life is being able to look at the subject of Joe Biden's presidency   and be neutral   about it and actually look at the facts   and make a determination   based on those facts   in the atmosphere of as neutral as you can get   what actually happened?  

Then, and only then, may truth have a chance to see the light of day and take a breath.   Both of these platforms are fucked. I'm sorry. They're just they just are.   They might be fun.   And I I honestly think Grokipedia is gonna be a lot of fun to play with. It doesn't mean that I'm gonna trust anything that it says. I don't trust anything that Wikipedia says, but Wikipedia is gonna be the boring one.   You know, if see, here's here's the brilliance   of the feedback   of you okay. Let let's just parse this out. I go to Wikipedia. I read an entry. I think it's wrong. I put, you know, I put in, like, a request. Hey. This needs to be changed.   Probably not gonna see anything at all   because, you know, they got editorial staff, they got a few tools,   but Grokipedia has got AI.  

I'm not saying that AI is better. I am saying that it's way going it has the ability to be   and will therefore be   extremely responsive.   Not in the way that you want, just the fact that it acknowledges   that you're doing something. It's like, oh, hey. I I see you wanna make an edit to Elon Musk's biography.   Go fuck yourself.   That even if it's the most negative response that you can get, the user experience is going to be one of a back and forth in real time.   That is a completely different feel than what anybody   gets out of Wikipedia.  

Wikipedia   feels passive.   Grokipedia   is going to feel   active.   Guess which one is going to feel   more at home for people as as a user.   Even left leaning people will probably gravitate to to it because there is a, you know, like a call response action. Hey. Do you hey. You know, you should really Grock, you should really, you know, mention the fact that that he gave the Nazi salute and Grock says, no. I'm not gonna do that and here's why. Well, I think you're wrong. Blah blah blah blah. It's like Grock says, oh, I think you're you're wrong. Blah blah blah blah blah blah. That's a conversation   even if it is with something fake, even if it is AI.  

You're not gonna get past the human nature of wanting to interact,   whether it's with a human,   a piece of machinery,   doesn't matter.   Everybody wants an interface to everything.   It's what informs our our our being.   You know?  

[01:14:30] Unknown:

Musk is gonna win with this.   Wikipedia's  

[01:14:33] David Bennett:

days are numbered. They've been begging for money for so long, it's not even funny.   They used to not beg for money, but they've been begging for money for, like, ten years. It's just like it's just on their website. It's like, dude, we're we're dying over here. Give us money. Grok, not gonna have that fucking problem.   So   Wikipedia is just gonna wither and die at one point. It'll take years. Yeah.   There will be defenses mounted for it. Yeah.   But unless they change their interface   to be more responsive and more like a user experience needs to be,   Yeah. You can kiss Wikipedia goodbye. And I'm leaving as well. Got nothing else to say, so I'll see you on the other side.  

This has been Bitcoin, and and I'm your host, David Bennett. I hope you enjoyed today's episode and hope to see you you again real soon. Have a great day.