FFS104 - Conza

Conza: [00:00:00] it's often like those from the Austrian school that haven't done the work to understand what Bitcoin actually is. And that's often thing as well, like, from an economic literacy perspective, that's definitely an issue.

Even if you have complete understanding economics um, you don't understand, go, do you have to do the level of work to understand Bitcoin, then you also won't get across the line

I point out the inflation bug constantly is because it draws them back to the point that, well, oh, they talk about, oh, there was consensus to change, like that, that was an actual bug. Like, if you don't have a frame of reference, Bitcoin has no purpose.

Bitcoin can be a file storage system. Bitcoin is whatever it is, like the system is what it says it is. It's like, well, then how do you know what a bug is? And like, oh, there was consensus at that time too, that it was a bug. It's like, yeah, based on what?

And I've never got an answer.

it's like a Nirvana fallacy of instead of understanding that like you can't ever get rid of spam, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be taking steps like to mitigate it

[00:01:00]

Introducing Conza

Luke: Conza welcome to the Freedom Footprint Show. Thanks for joining us.

Conza: Thank you for having me guys.

Knut: Yeah, welcome, Conza. One of my favorite, stupidity debunkers on, uh, uh, on Twitter. you are, uh, a great thinker in the Austrian school of economics, I would say, and like a really good teacher to normies who don't know what they're talking about. And also like, you like to point out that these thoughts, the, in the Mississian tradition are not like the normies.

[00:02:00] Opinions, and they're not optional. They are a very rigid, uh, branch of science. But first of all, please introduce yourselves, yourselves, yourself to our listeners, uh, who don't know who you are.

Conza: yeah, so, so Conza yeah, real life nickname, and you find that on most socials, YouTube and obviously Twitter. and, I guess background kind of a son or a product of the Rompel Revolution. that was kind of the entry point, to Austrian economics um, yeah, understanding Mises and praxeology and all that world.

probably there's a co founder of the Mises Seminar Australia, so brought out, uh, Hans Hermann Hopper um, Walter Block, Geoffrey Tucker back in 2011. To Australia in 12 and 2013, so it was a while back but it was kind of a, you know, speaking to the remnant, bringing, bringing um, those people who the same ideas, uh, down under or collect, coalescing the locally and then also bringing international, the big names, big thinkers, uh, Thanks for the [00:03:00] intro.

I'd probably say I'm a, a, a great secondhand dealer in ideas where, If I can, I've often found instead of writing myself and being, you know, producing content myself, it's often, having digested it, I kind of, my personality is a bit more towards collecting or like the condensing the best gems or the things that convinced me over time, especially like engaging online, seeing the same areas over and over, uh, where I kind of like Get sick of that and be trying to become more efficient at, uh, at that, uh, in terms of like storing really good critiques or, you know, about particular ideas or references and is kind of responding and planning trailheads for others, to follow because I used to think that, uh, the same thing that they do and I realized I was wrong.

Kind of key thing for me in terms of value is being intellectually honest. And I think if you, if you're not that, you can't grow. You're not a human in the sense of being able to improve. And, uh, uh, there's a strategic element to that as well of instead of perhaps sometimes it's [00:04:00] convincing others as Bitcoin is, it's not so much maybe the Understanding someone has a problem and what, like, they need to know what the problem is before they can accept the solution, but often presenting yourself as one and, uh, one kind of improved unit.

There's Leonard E. Reid kind of talks about it and a few others where, you know, being successful you know, understanding, and to be do that, I think you need to understand reality. Well, so you, the decisions you make, the means you use to obtain certain ends, whether they are possible or not and what is the correct approach and yeah, you can kind of dismiss those that are impossible or aren't going to achieve your results, and so you can be more efficient and effective and That's consequently how you are as an individual, uh, can bring more people to your way of ideas.

And there's a Leonard E. Reid, there's a, an awesome little clip where he's in a dark room in a lecture theater and it's got a light and you really kind of small, uh, And it's not so much what stage that light is at, but it's that growth, that [00:05:00] improving as a unit. And then it turns the light up and then it's kind of the brightness and the attraction of others to you as an idea.

And his kind of metric is how effective are you as a communicator and who's kind of coming to you for your, to verify, to critique, to help communicate and educate is a kind of a barometer of how. Successful you are. So, tying it back, definitely secondhand dealer and ideas easier, able to find things pretty efficiently.

So I don't feel I need to say it myself, recreate the wheel, but like, uh, but often there's a gaps and I think a lot of people. You know, fill that with certain things like Safe and Yourself and others. So, yeah, anyway, that's kind of my drawcard or my, bit of my background, uh, uh, just a humble player who love these ideas and, and the, the lens it gives us to how better understand reality, uh, and, and to me, you need to be able to do that to be effective in this world.

Knut: Yeah. I [00:06:00] call it truth goggles. That's, that's what, uh, this lens provides you with the lens in the truth, the lenses in the truth goggles. curator be a good description of you, like, are you a content curator?

Conza: probably not. I mean, I do dabble when I see gaps and things, but often it's like, say, for instance, like my YouTube channel, there's like hour long lectures of, on Mises Rothbard and then gems I see, and it's kind of condensing that. So I feel like saying Mises Rothbard, Hopper, you know. The originators, Konrad Graf, I'll put it there as well, and then I am standing on the shoulder of giants, really, and then kind of condensing, you know, man, economy, and state, economic science, the Austrian method, down to like mere paragraphs where it's debating, engaging, It's not about the quote.

It's kind of the excerpt or context that can a snapshot of that and the best refutation of someone, someone's other point and kind of getting pretty good striking at the [00:07:00] root of their misconception, even if they don't really understand themselves. and so, Kaleida maybe but I do, there is an intention to um, Synthesize, condense, or provide those, that stuff into other mediums as well.

So like a praxeology podcast is kind of like a backburner, long term life goal type thing. So, um, we're kind of fleshed all that out, just kind of putting in place a few um, a few other things before I kind of kick that off. But, uh, so maybe, maybe is the answer I suppose to that.

Knut: Is, is there a book in you somewhere? Like, uh, where, where you sort of, quote others mostly, but put it in a correct order?

Conza: There is, there is one that have it's been bubbling around for forever and a day. But it's, it's more. probably don't need to, probably struggle finding my voice to weave it all together. I could probably talk about it, I suppose, but it's like, I'm sure someone's going to, probably going to do it anyway, but, uh, the strategy for liberty.

So, for forever and a day, there's a ton of literature around the world. It's like 70 years of this, the liberty movement, people who are far smarter, far better, [00:08:00] far more educated, far more resources, have had cracks it. I try and improve the world and from a libertarian perspective and have succeeded in some places like Ron Paul and then others like whether the strategy strategy has just been woeful.

And I think there's a lot of people who come to the movement, maybe not from the Austrian school perspective, but like, oh, yep, taxation theft or whatever, or You know, locally, I see this here down under where there's all this knowledge of, of strategy and what's tried and failed and people just get like, read a book and they're like, okay, we're now going to get elected and how do we do that?

And then it's kind of like the, the low tax liberalism kind of, utilitarian cost benefit analysis, like policy wonk kind of style approach versus a radical principled. Like anti state, you know, Ron Paul messages like an abolitionist, if you want to make a historical comparison of like the abolitionists are all, you know, it's about ending slavery you know, and then there's a William Lloyd Garrison quote in [00:09:00] abolitionist where it's like, essentially we'll always convey it should be abolished overnight, like whether it will or not, you know, we'll always contend it should be but then there's like the practical political concerns around like transition and whatnot, but someone needs to hold that barrier high, that banner high and, you know, often some libertarians, at least locally or whatever, those who maybe Cato or you know, there's others in the U.

1. examples. I'm sure there's aren't many around the world that don't nail it. And then it's funny, you often see, you know, someone say like, you know, Millet, who gets like an ANCAP radical, abolitionist approach kind of gets elected, uh, President of Argentina. And then all these guys locally kind of, you know, you're crazy and like, you know, attacking the Puritans and stuff.

then it's really the Everything that he did essentially was like the Ron Paul, Rothbard Caucus, which, and essentially the template that Ron Paul used, whether he knows it or not, around like anti state coalition and anti war yeah, a whole bunch of stuff. [00:10:00] So, yeah, it's, uh, forget the tangent I've gone down here, Yeah, that's I guess the the approach I take.

Knut: Yeah, yeah. Some of these, uh, the people who call themselves classical liberals and stuff, and then like trying to, to form political parties to influence this or that law. It's sort of like, trying to cure cancer with a band aid, right?

Conza: Yes.

Knut: getting to the root of the problem. Yeah.

Conza: No, not at all.

Introductions to Austrian Economics

Knut: But you mentioned one of my favorite books there, uh, Economic Science and the Austrian Method by Hans Hermann Hoppe, which I urge every listener of the Freedom Footprint show to read, and everyone else too for that matter, because that, that is sort, sort of Like, it goes so deep into the methodology and why the methodology of a priori deductive reasoning and first principles is superior to empiricism by definition, and that book really, really opened my mind.

That [00:11:00] and, and Rothbard's The Ethics of Liberty, which is another eye opening book. But, but I think ESAM or Economic Science and the Austrian Method is my favorite because it's so dense and it's so powerful.

Conza: It is I've sometimes I've said, you you almost, I don't think you can call yourself an Austrian if you haven't read it. And that's, that's a hard line type thing. I don't think it's necessarily a great place to start, like, um, because so much would just be too dense to, To get fit in anywhere. But if you've read a few basics or like even intermediaries, example, like Herb Ireland's choice um, uh, so, uh, primer on you know, Austrian thinking, his recent book, uh, the Bob Murphy's choice obviously, Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt.

Um, There's David Gordon's. I'll get on my bookshelf. It's, uh, economic reasoning, lessons in economic reasoning. There's a few other kind of good, good intros. And then and then, yeah, at some point, just tackling that when you feel like you've got a pretty good grasp of it, and then it'll take you to the next level.

It's, it's, yeah, [00:12:00] couldn't write about it, rave about it, uh,

Knut: If you wanted a good introduction, there's a very underrated book called Praxeology by Knut Svanholm. Have you heard about this one? Yeah.

Conza: exactly right.

Knut: Yeah. Has Haslett's book is, is, is great as well. It's not as, uh, uh, pure as some of the other Austrian thinkers. I as Haslet is a bit more like, it's like he's like Hayek in a way, uh, in my mind like a, a bit more.

It's not this purest individualist perspective that, uh,

Conza: It doesn't really touch on the methodology or like epistemology, like the, the, that guy's clear cut. I felt the value was coming from such a, initially one of my early, like a book's reading is even that was not being as like hardcore or pure was still like a mind blowing thing, you know, in terms of like a broken window fallacy you know, the seen and the unseen, like, even just like that's all you're taking from it.

All right. You see the sound like [00:13:00] full unemployment, you know, goals. And it's like a textbook of, I guess, like he's writing for the New York, like he used to write for the New Yorker or whatever, not New Yorker, New York Times or wherever it was, where it was, uh, probably seeing a lot of the mainstream just commentary, the errors, like fallacies is over and over.

And so I think he's like specifically done that really well, but yeah, there's, you're right. There's probably better in terms of like formal introductions.

Knut: Yeah. It's more like, uh, practical examples than, than than rigid theory.

Conza: Mm. Yes.

Misconceptions About Economics

Knut: from my point of view, like the, the, the obvious, obviously the best tool for freedom that we have in the world today is Bitcoin and for, for several reasons, and, uh, there's a good case to be made for, Why that is um, so in in your mind, what, what are the most common misconceptions about economics that people have?

And with Bitcoin in particular, like some people say that, you know, the, the miners set the price and you hear all sorts [00:14:00] of, of, uh, strange, uh, misconceptions. So do you have any examples that you hear more than others?

Conza: There's, there's been like kind of a list and I think it was in, in, in Luvera's podcast, kind of went through some of them. Some come and go, right. In terms of whether how, like, understanding the value of metaphors and analogies and they're great. They help kind of like, uh, you know, meme ify or like gets help someone understand something.

The trouble is when. Some start getting, you know, taken literally, uh, or like, that's the scientific approach and this is, this is what it actually is. Like, uh, and then I start getting, arcing up a little bit. So whether that's some of those being like, arts, you know, digital property, there's a list in like the, say Bitcoin is violence.

So Bitcoin is a weapon. You know, is so I had a massive rant about that, but then now it's kind of, it's almost, I hardly see it at all. You know, and then there's going to be [00:15:00] nuance about it and you want to dive into like, well, they're trying to make like a potential second amendment argument or like a first amendment argument, blah, blah, blah.

Like, to me, the whole frame is ridiculous and not necessarily now these days anyway, worth, you smacking down because it's almost like it's kind of been forgotten because I think he's the prime pusher is kind of gone. So, yeah, there's that. There's digital energy like Bitcoin is a battery type type stuff where like it actually stores energy and it, you know, that is actually being transmitted as opposed to.

You know, store of value or, you know, from a purchasing power perspective. And it's like, it's taken from this, this idea of concept where it's not actually stored, but it's, it's an analogy of source. But then when they, someone starts taking it literally, like using powers per kilojoule or whatever, or like, there's some pathways that can go wrong with that.

And yeah, that's, that's probably another, another one.

Knut: I used that analogy in the first, in Sovereignty to Mathematics, the battery thing, and [00:16:00] I've since learned not to use it anymore because it's too flawed. I mean, it's, it's not even apt as a, as a metaphor, I think, because it's, it's more confusing than clearing things up. Uh, and I do get that everything in Bitcoin is sort of a metaphor because you're trying to take something completely new and abstract and you're trying to use language, uh, that people understand to describe it like wallet, for instance, which is more of a key chain.

And, and, uh, the, even the word blockchain is, it's confusing since it's been hijacked by all these charlatans.

Conza: Yep. Time chain kind of pivoted to where,

Knut: Yeah, which is also flawed, but better, I think, just to differentiate the real deal from the, the copycats, uh,

Conza: that's right. And it's no longer crypto. It's, it's, uh, it's Bitcoin, right? And there's a variety of, uh, yeah, different, different things. And then so kind of choosing your [00:17:00] battles as well, slightly. Uh, and it's over evolving like language. So, and partly like being, so, you know, Recently at Bitcoin Alive, speaking about Bitcoin maximalism in one lesson and the part of the intro there, it's like, well, the, the, the Marxists coined the, the, uh, capitalists uh, the, the German historical school coined the Austrian school and, you know, Vitalak essentially coined the, the, the maximalists and so it's like, you know, Is there a better label?

Potentially like monetary maxless, maybe, or, but it's for what it is, like, I think it's kind of, like, say, libertarianism, the word was also like, uh, kind of captured by us in the sense that we did that to, to, to the opposing side, perhaps to say it's more so, and Uh, whether it's like just adopting that because it is, uh, you know, taking pride in that.

But descriptors like now we're monetizing a Bitcoin Maximus where it, as, as the idea of Bitcoin being, you know, given the laws of economics, [00:18:00] like the commodities competing on the market and then tending towards the most um, uh, you know, saleable good in society, which become like, which is a commodity.

Commutes to becoming that is money. And so understanding there's Bitcoin and there's everything else. It's like, okay, where's your coin, quote unquote, going to be better than Bitcoin in terms of its network effect and also as a result of its monetary properties and how sound and, you know, revolution they are.

Okay, then, well, it's, it's going to go to one, uh, turn towards one. And if it's not going to be yours, then what's the point? And it's like, even some of the privacy bros, which I'm kind of, I'd say part of, Monero and stuff where they, it's a, it's a common thread. And part of this is for the, the talk was whether you're a pre coiner, no, like no coiner, pre coiner, yeah, shit coiner, spammer, scammer.

The common thread is economic illiteracy, essentially um, and different flavors and different, you know, fallacies people kind of fail to [00:19:00] understand. And so the part of the talk was kind of. Instead of attacking you know, going directly after some of this stuff, it was more putting the pro case forward, uh, and a real trying to, in one lesson, inoculate or enlighten anyone who is part of those groups to understand the epistemological approach, the difference in methodology that the, the, the maxis take, which is like Austrian economics pipeline Understanding that and yeah, it, uh, I like to, once that kind of, there's a very short format to condense that even more.

I think I'm, I'm planning on doing like a longer form kind of recording. So maybe yes, the content creator in that sense, when that comes out. But yeah, it's, uh, there's definitely different um, issues you kind of need to nail down with these, uh, you know, non Maxis.

The One Shot Principle

Knut: when I wrote my, my second book on Bitcoin, the, um, uh, independence reimagined I tried to boil down like the futility of [00:20:00] trying to replicate the experiment, uh, of Bitcoin. because I found it's so hard to express why this is futile and why this is stupid. But the thing I came up with was something called the one shot principle.

So, so, and, and, and it goes something like, uh, absolute digital scarcity of whatever term I used. It's, it's flawed, I know, but, uh, uh, it was a, Discovery rather than invention, it cannot be discovered again by people aware of this discovery, because the very thing discovered was resistance to replicability itself.

Oh, it was absolute mathematical scarcity in a sufficiently decentralized distributed network. That was the premise, like, but it cannot, the point was that it cannot be discovered again by people aware of it, since all you've done is discovered a way for something to not be copyable on the internet. So, what would be your take on that?

Conza: Yeah. It's It reminds me of like the summary of kind of like, so it's, uh, [00:21:00] scarcity, Conor Graf kind of talks about it, like there's, you know, scarcity has, as a word as well, like has that the challenge of people like, uh, you know, I've got an idea and like, oh, that is cause I'm the only one who has it or whatever that's scarce.

And it's like, it's, it's scarcity. Like, you know, you've been trying digital scarcity. It's, it's, it's not really that, it's more like rivalrous. So he's kind of evolved to using the word rivalrous, whether it's rival, or rivalrous or not. Like our ideas are obviously not, there's no necessary conflict, whether like you communicate that to the world.

I can have that idea. You can have the same idea now that I've, you know, passed it on per se. There's no uh, conflict, you know, directly with Appen and private property, uh, you know, in, in the, uh, real world, like physical world, yeah, then there's potential for conflict. So, what part of the summary I'd like to give, uh, at the, the kind of live talk was, uh, giving executive summary, having to start at the end because, You can kind of go from first principles and like kind of elucidate [00:22:00] it all and then down you go but um, tend to lose people so one of the executive summaries was kind of just starting at the conclusion and for what bitcoin was and it was more or less like a rivalrous digital commodity on an open source monetary network.

And that, I think, kind of, essentially another way of reframing, uh, yours, your, your kind of summary there.

Knut: Cool. Uh, okay, for those of our listeners that have no clue what we're talking about here, like, I'd like to rewind the tape a bit and like go back to Something Robert Breedlove told me in a conversation and that was like, Austrian, well, praxeology is to the subjective what, what mathematics is to the objective, which is, uh, I love that framing because that's, that's sort of Sets the two disciplines apart, like the both a priori axiomatic, uh, insights that you get about, uh, certain aspects of reality.

And, uh, the, the thing to understand for people is that these, these things are not, [00:23:00] you cannot argue with them. You cannot argue with one plus one equals two, and you cannot argue with, uh, minimum wage laws are bullshit. Really, if you have a deep dive into, uh, praxeology long enough. and I think that the book you mentioned by an author who also, uh, used to work for the U.

1. military, uh, I know that you've been debunking those Those theories, uh, often, because, like, there's a confusion here between physics and, and, uh, human action, and the, the people think they are first principles thinkers, but then they introduce physics into, it's also the Bitcoin is a battery analogy, why it's so fucking bad, because there's, uh, there's this distinction between People's subjective valuations of stuff and, and the, the empiricist sciences, such as physics, where you observe nature and you draw conclusions.

Austrian Economics vs Natural Sciences

Knut: could you give your best explanation of the, the difference between, uh, uh, the realm of Austrian economics and [00:24:00] the realm of the natural sciences? What, what, what is the key differentiator?

Conza: the, the term would be um, or methological dualism, uh, but the easiest way to summarize that is, uh, it's a quote that, a quip that Mises kind of has where, you know, you can throw, you know, a, what is it, a stick in the water, in the pond, and it floats. So you can throw, throw a rock. Into war, into the water and sinks, you chuck someone in there and they can choose to sink or swim.

Um, So like it's kind of pithily indicates that like there's choice, human choices involved and with human action. And yeah, from, from that, there's a difference of like, we're not like stones and not like atoms. Um, There's no constant uh, in human relations like in terms of magnitudes, not so much.

There is a. Uh, like we do know things that are that are certain. Um, So like the world is kind of What is it? there's certainty about [00:25:00] uncertainty. I don't want to butcher this because it's like it's, it's, it's an economic science fostering method. Like Hopper now has it and he's also got a monograph with um, particularly on this and it's, it's It's late, so I'm trying to get the wheels in the brain going, but it's not, there's, there's not always radical uncertainty, so we can't know anything about anything, like nihilism type stuff, where you can't know anything, everything's always uncertain, and the opposite extreme where you can't know, we don't know everything, there's no absolute certainty.

For everything, like whether the sunrise is not a tomorrow is like an empirical question. It might not. But whether like the, then there's a few other takes that we know from a human action perspective that actually are, we do know for certain that I will use means to obtain certain ends, like while I'm alive and then trying to attempt to refute the, the, the the AP prior of communication and argumentation or hope is argumentation ethics.

It's like you're essentially using means, you know, the [00:26:00] your voice and whatnot to, to try and argue against it. And it's like there's a possibility of or not um, you know, profit and loss. It's, yeah, it kind of goes into, uh, in particular around like, yeah, it's, it's um, irrefutable or you're, you are the status of like, what's an axiom?

It's like when you. you prove it to be true whilst you're trying, like, to um, refute it, essentially. So, like, yeah, you are acting whilst you're trying to deny that the human action axiom exists. Now there is a few, like, rationalism really just says or like the example you gave a little bit earlier around where it's, you know, irrefutable.

It's like, yeah, you can trace that praxeological reasoning back to like the human action axiom. And it's like, if they're in that process of deduction, there's anything that there is a flawed premise or something like that, then it can be pointed out. And Macy's kind of has this quote where it's like to the positivists of empiricists that.

That don't bother trying to do that and like go back and logically, you know, point out where that, that [00:27:00] error may be. They're essentially like the equivalent of, you know, it's like the 17th century philosophers who didn't pick up the telescope to, to indicate that Galileo was right and they were wrong.

So it's the, the kind of equivalent. But also, and Hopper has a take as well, where like mathematical, like, uh, so formulas you, you reference like maths and it's a, a priori where so like not, doesn't require prior, like prior to experience doesn't need involve experience. But with that, the re revisiting and like impact, like trying to adjust that formula if it's wrong, is also is like ap priori like a, a, an approach.

So yeah, it's, uh, yeah, the, the positivist, uh, imperious is the. Their approach is like it's a methodological monism. So they only see there's a scientific method and that applies, that's had great success like in the natural sciences. We're not against the scientific method in natural sciences, but they co opt that and they try and apply that methodology to the social [00:28:00] sciences or to human, human action and human nature.

And, uh, that's where the mistake comes about, hence, like, though they do their modeling and, you know, they're based on BS premises um, that are flawed and, and in particular how that translates to economics, you have a profession where ignoring the Fed funding, uh, a lot of, uh, economists but, you know, try rich models and, and uh, you know, perfect competition, uh, from a neoclassicals, uh, school and it's just, you know, all generally the premises are wrong and they're basing it off on flawed, flawed, uh, uh, approaches and you've got things like the ideas of utils, You know, the interpersonal comparisons of utility is possible.

Apparently it's not. It's impossible, but they give you a util and you run the models. And yeah, you get some kind of outcome, but it's like, oh yeah, just the minimum wage is um, you know, is, uh, is correct or is helpful in this instance. And it's like, no, and we can show that a priori, [00:29:00] prior to experience.

We don't need to run all these tests. And that is essentially what Hopper kind of gets to with, you know, the the key difference between the Austrian School and all other schools of thoughts like the Keynesians Marxists, uh, and, you know, Chicago, Chicago school guys is um, that the, The Austrian school, uh, conclusions are given rigorous, logical uh, kind of verification or, you know, from that process, the axiomatic deductive method approach as opposed to the scientific method approach.

You can, you don't need to go and te run tests to, to kind of prove it to be true.

Knut: No, and evidence is completely futile. It cannot prove nor deny these axioms. They are true regardless of any quote unquote evidence given for one position or the other. And if I remember economic science and the oxygen method correctly. Hoppe says that, uh, the, the empiricist view, like the empiricist [00:30:00] says that, nothing, uh, is a hundred percent true in the world, where, where, where we can only make, like the map is never the territory.

We, we can only make, uh, approximations, uh, of, of the truth and get closer and closer to something, but never an absolute truth. And what's so beautiful about that section in the book, but he points out that that assortment. Is an absolutist statement, like, uh, that is, like, if you say that there's no such thing as an absolute truth.

You take that for an absolute truth and therefore it's, it's, it's, uh, you know, uh, this, the argument destroys itself. Uh, it's such a beautiful way of like debunking very basic notions. And like, I remember like falling down this, tumbling down this rabbit hole and finding out more and more of these truths.

It's like, you realize that. During the 20th century, there were great scientific breakthroughs and the ones you hear about are like quantum mechanics and [00:31:00] theory of relativity and stuff like that, stuff in cosmology and stuff with quantum mechanics, but you never hear about this, like in the middle of the last century, there's like a whole new branch of science, which is like profound in every conceivable way.

And we can, we can point out. How sub optimal the way we run things right now are, really are, like, in all of politics, like, and it's, it's just so fascinating to me that this is so overlooked and suppressed, even, I don't know how much I buy, like, conspiracy theories, I try to Not, like, if, I see this in a lot of Bitcoiners that they, as soon as they realize that the state is lying to them, they cling on to whatever Alex Jones is saying immediately, and they believe in lizards and stuff, and I don't, I try not to [00:32:00] do that because I think that's just as lazy as doing whatever the state tells you.

Conza: if I want to jump in, I'd say um, like initially I can, I, yeah, went down those rabbit holes as well. But, uh, the Austrian school and like, instead of, oh, go watch this documentary and it's like dealing in the empirical world where it's like, Hey, try and convince you here's some quote unquote evidence that, that proves it, you know, to be true.

Whereas almost a futile approach where, compared to um, You're carrying around like, it's akin, praxeology is akin to applied logic, where it's value free, it's descriptive, it's is based, it's not ought, it's you know, value free, it's, what is it? It's essentially If X and Y remains unchanged, then Z will result.

That's like the formula and then like, okay, what's actually applying or not. If, uh, and to kind of like matching that up and then like, it helps as a mental tool for like being descriptive of reality and get real knowledge from, but yeah, as a, as a, an [00:33:00] approach, like, you don't need to go, Oh, these, these are, Rulers are doing A, B, and C.

It's like, no, the state is an institution of is institutionalized aggression. Monopolies are bad, uh, and inefficient and effective. It's unjust they're unjustifiable. Uh, yeah, taxation's theft, uh, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, war is murder, da, da, da. Like, it they're far more far more, like, rock like, concrete, rock solid, traced back to the human action axiom, irrefutable.

And so that I found is always far more powerful than, oh yeah, A, these people are doing these things. Now, Rothbard, you don't want to discount that stuff as well. Like, there's value to often trying to pinpoint who are the bad guys and what are they doing. But yeah, I agree with, uh, like eschewing the kind of the conspiratorial stuff, uh, especially if you're trying to convince any, anyone, any normies.

A

Knut: it's kind of hard to know whether it's the system itself that creates these [00:34:00] bad incentives and therefore bad people, or if the bad people create the bad system, like, where do you draw that line? Like, it's, it's, it's kind of hard.

Conza: imagine, or like, you know, probably, you know, ebbs and flows more or less or, you know, work in unison, like, it is hard, it's hard to draw where that line is, you're right.

[00:35:00]

Mises Regression Theorem

Knut: Okay. So, so like, let's try to bridge this to Bitcoin, uh, Mises regression theorem. Can you give us your best, uh, like, explanation of Mises regression theorem,

Conza: Yes, let's have a crack. So, Historically, like the, the, I guess the, the classical economists had issues with, like, trying to determine where the value of money comes from. And it was conceived as being like a circular kind of argument. Well, people value money because you can buy things with it or, Whatnot, right?

And then so the idea that Mises came with Mises regression theorem, like you can trace that back like from one exchange to the other where it would go back and the element of time was the thing that's important where he picked up that at a certain point in time, it was before it was a medium of [00:36:00] exchange.

Being used to, uh, facilitate trade or barter, like instead of being better than barter and solving the double coincidence of wants, there was a, essentially a non monetary use is the kind of classical interpretation. So, um, historically like gold or whatnot, but whatever the reason it had a particular Uh, you know, use case and as competing against other money, uh, commodities, it was, had the best monetary properties and it kind of rose to the fore.

And then at a certain point got used as a monetary premium. And so it was being used as a medium of exchange. Now, so it's like at a point in time, it's like Mises goes back and it's like, yep, that it, it's no longer a circular argument where people just value money because it's getting used. It was used for other purposes.

Now, originally there was a bit of, uh, contention from like, well, how does that fit with Bitcoin? And I, that was partly one of the sticking points for, for me early days where I was not anti, but [00:37:00] like, uh, it's, you know, you didn't have that. I think in the objective use value, or objective exchange value, like a purpose outside of being money.

But the thing that's a, who convinced me that I was wrong, was Konrad Graf. And it was pointing out that actually, in, If you're wanting to, if I'm not doing this justice, look up it's a Bitcoin regression timeline, little clip um, and he talked about it when I had him out at the MISA seminar, 2013, like talking about Bitcoin then essentially that it's actually the best illustrated example, the historical capturing of, you know, Uh, the Mises regression theorem in real time, where you had a period of like 2009, like from, from early days, Bitcoin, where there was no monetary price on it per se it was, you know, a non collectible digital object that, you know, maybe speculative in nature, and it wasn't being used as a medium of exchange but I think And then it progressed in 2010 and 11 uh, where then it, you know, pizza, pizza guys as a kind of, then the price kind of views and maybe more speculative, [00:38:00] but there was a price that was kind of attached to it essentially.

And then, then some actual preceding 2011, like medium exchange. Using it to buy certain things. Uh, so it kind of goes through that very clear steps and Konrad's got a, an excellent breakdown of like, uh, the actual people. So, like, uh, that were around at the time, then who, what their thoughts were, what were, like, were about it.

And it, yeah, progresses and it's um, yeah, fascinating to, uh, to, to see and, and, uh, that's essentially what, what convinced me. Yeah, I was wrong, where it's, uh, it's not actually, Mises regression theorem doesn't invalidate it, uh, it actually kind of, uh, verifies it, I mean, it's all about must, like, that's how it must have happened, so, from Mises, and yeah, I rate it.

Knut: Yeah, and I think the regression theorem itself is so misinterpreted, because like, you use the term objective use value, [00:39:00] and of course there's no such thing, right? It must have had a subjective utility to its first seller or buyer, to the first guy willing to buy it.

Conza: Yeah. So what that is, it's like purchasing power, another word for purchasing power, or Mises talks about like, say, an objective use value. So like, um, like a, uh, uh, what is it like an oven is like, and that's heat or something like, so it's like a, a non monetary kind of property thing. Um, But different from intrinsic value, like it's, you know, objective uh, what's the word, like, uh, yeah, so it's a slightly nuanced thing, but yeah, I'm, I'm not probably not doing justice for elaborating on, but um, no, that's a, a good pickup.

Knut: Yeah, because like, Objective use values sort of implies the labor theory of value somewhere, right? Because it's all subjective and even what constitutes money or what constitutes any homogenous good is also a [00:40:00] subjective, a subjective thing. So, like, where do you even draw the line for, like, this is money and this is not?

Like, that's also subjective in nature, uh, when you really try to, to like first principles the shit out of this.

Conza: Yeah, and that's, that's like a few, a few internet, uh, Twitter battles recently with like, uh, out of the, kind of a shift. I wouldn't say it's an easy way to kind of categorize them, like people who used to think what I, I used to think. And yeah, they were kind of trying to pinpoint that where and I think the difference is they're getting stuck in, stuck up on tangibility.

Being a thing. And so like, when Menga talks about like commodities as being the example, and Mies and stuff as well, it wasn't tangibility that was the actual uh, the reason for talking about commodities. It was talking about the pricing being similar. So, for like, for goods, so instead of like having, you know, uh, unique items that are big difference in price.

[00:41:00] Price range. It's like, okay, well, as a commodity, like commodities are a good example where the price is very similar and that fits obviously Bitcoin perfectly in terms of like, say, from a gold perspective of like weight per ounce and whatnot and similar. And I think that's why Like Satoshi himself, as an example, when like early days, it's like, oh, it's like a collectible or like a commodity.

And then I think a variety of our narratives that have fairly, you know, stuck where it's like mining and, you know, wallets and coins and all that. It's because it's banked on that truth a fair bit.

Bitcoin is the Best Money

Knut: so, was it, is this Hayek, like, uh, about the um, How money, uh, having another use case than, than a pure monetary use case actually makes it a worse form of money. So the thing that is making gold less useful as money is its use case in industry and as jewelry. Like what, what is that theory?

Conza: Um, sorry, where my mind [00:42:00] went there is that like I missed the point before, which was, yeah, debating with this gentleman was it was picking up on that, like, yeah, but Bitcoin was designed, like, to be money and the, the best money. And so that leap of. Like, trying to find a non monetary use. Like, even if you're thinking about the early cyberpunks, you can do it where they're the non monetary values, like, ah, like, I've got a, like, think about like a, you know, a cool share as part of a stock or like, it's, you know, I'm a cyberpunk or whatever like, they're non monetary uses, like, and so I think that's the thing where some find it hard to, to grok or understand.

It's like, even though, and it's like, well, that's subjective. It's like, well, yes, but so, but it's, it's um, Yeah, essentially still fulfills, I think, yeah, like the, the mystery regression theorem. But yeah, it turns up like something about Hayek's point about, uh, I don't think it's necessarily Hayek in particular but you know, you want to maybe ask that again?

Sorry, my mind

was, I, I'm, I [00:43:00] maybe got that wrong, but like, yeah, that, that other use cases for a monetary commodity. Uh, actually reduces its functionality as money. I think it's even in, in human action, this stuff.

yeah, yeah. And um, and so that's why it's, it's, it's, uh, It's an odd one to handle with it's often like only the particular those from the Austrian school that kind of had that angle who is still kind of caught up on haven't done the work to understand what Bitcoin actually is. And that's often thing as well, like, if from an economic literacy perspective, like in shit coins and pre coins, like no coins and all that that's definitely an issue.

Even if you have complete understanding economics you don't understand, go, do you have to do the level of work to understand Bitcoin, then you also won't get across the line. Uh, so that's,

Knut: Yeah. And if we go back to the starting point of, uh, Bitcoin in terms of Mises regression theorem, I would say that like the, the first use case is as a collectible or as something um, [00:44:00] which is a monetary use case. It's the store of value use case, right? Because, like, you, if you have a collectible, you use, sort of, you see value in it, and you sort of expect others to do at some point, too, right?

So that, I would say that is some, sorry?

Conza: but you're right. But then it's like, it's like several years though, those guys go through and like, not like just in the wilderness. Right. So, and then it does, does happen. So. Either way, like, yeah, it's how you want to categorize that, whether it's like a a non monetary because it's like, uh, you're part of a cool club or whatever, cyberpunks or whatever, or yes, it's absolutely banked on the idea that it could in, in future.

And that is fully monetary and liberty related and whatnot, all that you know, ticks the box too. So yeah, Konrad goes through like there's six or seven different types of like, you know, things you could accept and either one, any, any, like, there's a mix of all of them. Or you could focus, like I said, there's absolutely some and none of others, but whatever it was, [00:45:00] like, it has happened.

It is like, and I like to ask, like, at what point for these guys who are like, still trying to, you know, shit on Bitcoin in the sense of a mushroom stack, it was like, what, at what point would you accept you're wrong? Like, is it going to be used like, I asked as a unit of account, like if it gets to that point, will you accept you're wrong?

And Excel, like you can jump in Excel. Bitcoin's already part of like the the currency protocol, like whatever it is, like the international accounting standard are fairly certain where you can, you'd select it as a symbol. So I'm like waiting to dunk on, on old mate if he responds whether you'd like, that would be the case.

Cause then you'd have to accept. Well, you know, alright, it's not a unique account now, but like, if if that's a part of the, the trajectory that we see becoming like, you know, the Bitcoin standard, uh, competing the other terrible currencies um, whether fiat or not um, yeah, I think it's, uh, Uh, it's, yeah, a matter of time.

As long as there, I'm also like hesitant. There's talking about like, miscon, not [00:46:00] misconceptions, but like people talking about like, oh, Bitcoin is inevitable, or Everything is good for Bitcoin. Couldn't be more against that approach where I feel like it's almost an attack factor in itself. Where like the element of, of truth is like when well, Bitcoiners, you know, who, who rise up and understand and, you know, reality and can, uh, monetary.

Like economics where they can make good decisions around what, you know, should a path, should, should or should not be taken, what the consequences of such paths being taken helps. But yeah, where, like the inflation bugs, plural historically they've been too, uh, as far as I'm aware of and you need to go, well, what, at what point you know, the, the, the focus I think is like, uh, There's no is.

It's just an opinion. It's like, oh, you know, all the spammers, scammers talking about, well, I point out the inflation bug constantly is because it draws them back to the point that, well, oh, they talk about, oh, there was consensus to change, like that, that was an actual bug. Like, if you don't have a frame of reference, [00:47:00] like, well, what, there's no, Bitcoin has no purpose.

Bitcoin can be a file storage system. You know, Bitcoin is whatever it is, like the system is what it says it is. It's like, well, then how do you know what a bug is? And like, what has been exploited or not? And like, what? And like, oh, there was consensus at that time too, that it was a bug. It's like, yeah, based on what?

And I've never got an answer. Um, Like the copious amount of times I just pump this out in response to stuff and just get crickets. It's, it's, it's mind boggling because. Then it's like a reference of, well, do you think just the, you know, it's an opinion that like 21 million is all right, like a hard cap is a thing, or is it like uh, yeah, 198 billion Bitcoin, you know, is acceptable.

And it's slightly worrying when there's like a core core dev who current, current maintainer, like their response to that was like, you know, in terms of. Jumping ahead potentially here, like ordinals and stuff where it's updating the documentation as opposed to fixing the bug would be considered like a [00:48:00] valid fix and it's like, wait, what?

Uh, so it's, yeah, few, few, few things, issues there.

Knut: No, this, this is perfect.

Ordinals, Inscriptions, and Spam

Knut: This is where we wanted to go with this, because, like, uh, uh, Okay. To, to, to summarize briefly, uh, Bitcoin, uh, does not violate Mises regression theorem. It sort of proves it because you can point to an exact point in space time where Bitcoin became not just a A subjective store of value, but an objective medium of exchange between two people.

And that is Laszlo's pizza, two pizzas for, for 10, 000, 10, 000 bitcoins. That's, that's when it starts. That's when it becomes money in my mind. And, uh, and this thing was designed originally to be Damn near perfect money, like as perfect as you could get it, and ticking off all the boxes, uniformity, divisibility, transportability, you know, I've talked about it as [00:49:00] element zero, and this Jörg Hemsdorff's idea of this being a massless element on the periodic table that cannot be destroyed and is scarce, and whoever finds the, The hash of the element or the map to where the element exists actually finds the actual element.

All these amazing things about this new abstract thing that we've, we've got now. Uh, the, the thing it's trying to do, it's that it's trying to be damn near perfect money, as I said. So, uh, any other use case that you try to shoehorn onto that is, uh, Will eventually reduce its functionality as its originally intended purpose, which is damn near perfect money.

So trying to say that there's such a thing as a rare sat is so weird, because a sat in my mind is more than just data. That's the whole point. It's something that exists within you. It's a way to measure the [00:50:00] world. It's like saying that there's a rare inch or a rare centimeter. There's no such thing.

There's only unspent transaction outputs, right? And they have a certain figure attached to them, but there's no such thing as a SAT. The whole thing about it is that it's It exists in your mind, it is a part of you, because you are part of this network that agrees on this fixed set of rules that make people not cheat when thinking in economic terms, and it's just wonderful, and here, all of a sudden, you have cheap um, fiat suckers And charlatans and, and, uh, snake oil salesmen who try to sell you like a star in the environment galaxy, they try to impose this, the concept of a, a rare set, which doesn't exist to begin with because any data, arbitrary data you attach to anything in the time chain is attached to a transaction, not to a satoshi.

So, [00:51:00] so the whole concept is false to begin with. And all of these sites that can debunk, that, that can transform whatever data you put into, into a monkey JPEG or something, they can go down. They, they are not part of the security model of this fantastic thing at all. They're, they're, they're just third party bullshit thingies.

So yeah, that's my little rant about it. What's yours? I'd love to hear yours.

Conza: Well, yeah, like, and I think part of it, uh, so the creator of Ordinals like um, Casey Roddemore he had a tweet a while back and, uh, I think it was started towards the bull market and it was basically admitted that I mean, besides on his blog on Bruins, Bruins where he talks about like 99. 9%. These are like scams.

and it's like, well, yeah, this is, you know, you haven't made the case that this 0. 01 percent isn't, is also a scam for what you've created. Through, through an exploit, uh, but also he admitted that.

It wasn't part of Bitcoin, like the asset [00:52:00] itself and the, the challenge that I, I, I, I back like, okay, you're absolutely correct. It's not part of like the asset in Bitcoin itself the rivalrous digital commodity and then, okay, well then what's the point of the network, the open source monetary network, if it's not to, to secure or to send, you know, receive you know, receive and send that, that asset.

And again, crickets. Like it's, it's to me, it's like pretty simple. You know, Bitcoin, uh, you know, P2P electronic cash system. And yeah, specialization, individual labor is a thing. If you like, I asked a while back on Twitter as well. I was like, oh, if you, Do you think sprinkling confetti and sparkles on your gold coin would, like, increase its monetary properties, like, or, or destroy it?

And I think, yeah, if you're on a gold standard, people are like, what the fuck is this? Like, no, I'm not accepting that. Um, Or would, would, you know, have to, like, oh, I gotta get, get this off it now. Yeah, and there's like discussions around like fungibility and whether like it impacts [00:53:00] that type of stuff, whether, or, you know, as an, as an lens that you have to kind of buy into you know, whether you're inadvertently sending those quote unquote rare sats around and like whatever they are, they're dick butts you know, on the, on the blockchain, uh, time chain.

And it's yeah, it's, it's like, guys, if you want to, and often they talk about, you know, they try and angle it in free speech terms. You get like, I mean, shitcoin magazine going on around you know, David Bailey and stuff like, oh, like, you know, Assange, like Frigil and stuff like that.

Absolutely. That goes without question. But then, like, the trying to hijack the piggyback the spam case onto that as if, like, on the time chain having, you know, um, long term permanent info, like, our data on there, like images or whatever is like a helpful thing. It's like, guys. It's a thing called BitTorrents, like you want to store your, your, your, your data, like forever, you know, and like, okay, host yourself, but it's a good meme and so like, well, no, I don't want, I don't want to store it.

I want you to store it for me. Like, you know, cheaply. And then the part of the narrative is like, well, there's, [00:54:00] there's been other venues that have been able to do that, you know, Ethereum, you know, Solart, whatever. But because those shitcoins, you know, trending to zero, jumping, jumping ship, where they have put their, you know, JPAY, their dickbutt on, you know, wherever it is, now that chains are like that, that coin, you know, kind of a coin's irrelevant and then loses monetary prop, like the value they can dump, dump it off to someone else for.

So the value prop is now out there and sinking ships and the rats are jumping ship. To come into Bitcoin, which, you know, they get the, the part value of being like number go up uh, but also um, like the permanency element to it. And yeah, it's, it's, uh, I guess that'd be one kind of rabbit hole rant for me, but there's, there's a few different ways to think about it as well.

Like often they kind of go towards the technical stuff and it's like, I think trying to keep it, fairly simple. The analogy I originally, originally had was like chess players, like where it's like a chess club. [00:55:00] Essentially, I was running Bitcoin where they're implicitly explicitly. It's like a monet, it's an open source monetary network.

Um, You're, you're part of that. You're running that you're, you know, part of a chess club, perhaps with like a public element to it. So anyone can join um, but there's certain rules around that and, you know, consensus on what, what is, you know, that um, it's almost like with the chess players. Um, So we're all playing, Having, you know, playing games or whatever in there in, in the club and then chess player, check, checkers players kind of rocking up. It's not like they're in the corner doing their own little thing. All of a sudden they get like megaphones, you know, having fun um, having like a flash mob you know, organizing events and dumping stuff.

And what it is doing is crowding out the real chess players, like the real organic growth. And the challenges long term, like some of the Bitcoiners who I kind of categorize as like, not the scammers or spammers, but like enablers or chief enablers where it's almost like, okay, these guys, these are, they're exploiting a bug here, they're breaking the rules.

We've obviously got to update the filters or fix them [00:56:00] or, you know, whatever the mechanisms there are to, to, you know, ask them to leave or essentially get kick them out. Because they're. Checkers players in a chess club and long term, that's going to ruin the chess club. Like you're crazy if you don't think that's going to impact it.

And so what it is, though, is like those high prices or fees. It's not about the fees per se. But if we use economics and we understand economics where it's on a counterfactual level or comparative analysis, like whatever those fees are, they're higher than they otherwise would be. And that's pricing out or crowding out real chess players or real bitcoiners who would join Whether third world, whether cheaper, like where fees are make it more viable for them there.

And yeah, so it's, it's an angle of and sometimes like, you know, pushing on the, on the chief enablers a bit more where they're like, ah, they've got, these guys got checkers players are in there, got megaphones, like for the halving, I'm sure like rooms are trying to To do that again, you organize some intention and, and you know, high fees and then like make various other arguments, but it's, it's, you guys are literally crowding out the real use case for [00:57:00] Bitcoin and no one else signed up to like essentially have, uh, still dick butt um, JPEGs on, uh, their nodes and their property.

So yeah, anyway, it's a bit of another rant.

Knut: I'd love to, uh, I'd love to take us, uh, try another spin on that analogy because I love the chess analogy because Bitcoin, as, as we said before, it's, uh, just an agreement on a fixed set of rules. And so is chess. Chess is an agreement on a fixed set of rules. The last time chess was changed was in the 11th century when the Passant move.

Uh, was introduced where you could, uh, uh, en passant. So, uh, so it hasn't changed for a very long time. Even though there are now great big chess institutions like chess. com or, or the international chess whatever, who can try to change the rules, but they, they're trying to change the rules, won't. Uh, the majority of chess players will still play by the old rules that they know that there's a consensus around.

So it's very [00:58:00] analogous to Bitcoin in that sense. And I view the shitcoins, like Bitcoin Cash for instance, is a chess being played on a board with 64 times 64. Uh, squares, instead of just eight times eight, and there are very few players that play that game because it's a pointless game, and it just makes the game more expensive.

It makes it, you need way more space to play it, and people don't want to play that game. You have Chess Ethereum, which, uh, Chess Ethereum is where, uh, the rules are changed with every move. And you can do whatever, you can program the, like, nobody gives a crap about that. And ChessNero, which is the metaphor for Monero, is like normal chess except no one knows how many pieces there really are.

And every move is hidden from everyone else, so there's no real, you can't really tell what's going on. But this is, to me, the ordinals here, they are, okay, so the minor is [00:59:00] analogous to, uh, A great big chess organization or chess institution, uh, that starts a tournament, a chess tournament and all of a sudden they, they put weights on the chess boards that the players need to remove by hand in order to play the game and they insist on putting these weights on there because there's a weight salesman outside that, that, uh, off band, uh, you.

gets paid to put weights on the tables. There's something like that. It's another attack vector. These actors are so bad. You're missing With, like, the most, the best form of, uh, you know, civilizational organization tool that ever existed in the history of mankind, and you're fucking it up.

Conza: No, no, no, you're right. And it's like the, the, it's like, oh, well, you know, it's like, we'll wait out the pricing, you [01:00:00] know, like wait it out in terms of like, okay, well, often I was like, we'll give a timeline for the, like, as a chief enabler, like when, when's long, like, when's long enough that you think fees are going to, like, high fees are going to price it out.

It's already been a year. You know, what is that? And we can go revisit there for them directly. But even then it's like, it's never going to get a price out, like from, from the, These, these, you know, scammers, spammers, like those that are, you know, going to try and dunk on the, pass it on to dunk on the next fool.

Is, like if someone said like a thousand, like it was a thousand dollar transaction or like the terms of the price of the fees that are being sent, like, you would be like, oh, we'll pay. 20, like 1, 000 of value being transmitted, like 20 fee or whatever, 50, like the percentage of that, like, okay. opposite though, you're trying to compete against someone who they don't care about the value being transmitted.

They'll like spend 995 that gets as a fee. And 5 as like the remainder of the value being transmitted. That's what the [01:01:00] pricing, you're actually competing against. And it's like, that's never, it's like, not going to happen. Like, yeah, then it's a question around, we're like, okay, getting rid of the discount.

Will that help or not? Or like, you know, whatnot, but it's on the, on the face value of it. Like, I don't think there's ever going to be like pricing it out. It's like, okay, again, how long? It's already been a year you know, seemingly growing in terms of like, or adjusting to the amount of where arbitrary data can be put.

And it's essentially like, okay, often the other objection is it's, you know, the cat and mouse game um, where you do one. Uh, you whack, you know, fix one filter and like, oh, they, they try something else and you could put arbitrary data anywhere else. It's like, yes, that's essentially um, that's well understood, but it's like a Nirvana fallacy of instead of understanding that like spam, you know, you can't ever get rid of spam, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be taking steps like to mitigate it um, and a very obvious and very easy ones.

And also, On terms of like looking [01:02:00] historically what's been successful is like 2014 OpReturn Wars where there was like decent, there was a period of like counterparty and others like Satoshi Dice like for a round with Core and their approach was like, no, we're going to play this kind of mouse game and we're going to, we're going to call you.

Uh, or, you know, it's like, all right, and then essentially rug pulling the VCs and all that, who put funds into, all right, well, we're going to use dApps, get decentralized apps on Bitcoin and do all that type of non monetary specific stuff. And instead, like their reaction pushed that towards become essentially Ethereum.

Um, So it's like. Well, what could do as a social response, like again, now um, achieve the same result, but there's, it's an interesting piece around, well, yeah, I don't think the, the current call maintainers potentially are um, Is including, this is an interesting point 'cause like, so my, from an ignorance's point, I'm not sure whether the OGs like Cyberpunks [01:03:00] had, I'm sure they had that more implicit understanding of economics 'cause it to make Bitcoin where it was and to maintain that.

Now I think there's maybe it's less overt and less in your face. So you have the bit process, for instance, bit Bitcoin improvement protocols where like to, to write like the, there's many, many that are there to change it, but I don't see our, I was like BIP two was essentially. lays out what you need to kind of cover in that proposal, but there's absolutely nothing around like, well, is there trust that's reintroduced, reintroduced?

Like, how does this improve Bitcoin's monetary properties? Is this impacting the asset directly itself? Or is this like the peer to peer electronic cash system? Like the peer to peer system is the network. Is that what the improvement's about? Are there any trade offs? Like what are they? Like all these things that you would think would be fairly explicit and vital, like this needs to be answered.

As to whether the BIP should go ahead or not aren't. It's not explicit at all. It's almost up to the economic knowledge or literacy [01:04:00] of the devs. Which from what I've seen lately is, like, is not great. And there's a kind of concern, I think, from my perspective, I and others have seen where there's a bug that's being exploited and it's not being fixed.

It's like, okay, well, why? And you kind of go down some rabbit holes and it's actually. Very eye opening in terms of how, like, I think as a, an issue or thread or um, you know, not ideal and, and it's like the topic of, so we're going over so many places here, but like the topic of then like dev funding, it's interesting one is like, okay, well, there's no strings attached from some certain organizations.

It's like, well, yeah, but they really only funding you as a dev because they like what you, you plan to do and it helps them explicitly. But no strings attached or you know, is it the plebs rising up essentially as number goes up becoming more involved and the, the, the self interest instead of maybe like getting rid of nine to five, you've got such wealth that you can spend to [01:05:00] protect your asset that you're currently with.

And so is that like a thing that happens as a result? And then, yeah, whether like, you know, I'd like to hope there's like, you know, sailor and other institutions who are understand the monetary. Um, Use case um, and kind of help rise up to, to protect that against, you know, an asset that it is worth it is like, you're, you're crazy naive if you don't think there's.

It's already being attacked. And that, that measure isn't just going to be like a, The Instant Estate with like a 5 wrench. It is like some, I would be surprised from the bad actors that we've seen with like, uh, either the, the, Useful idiots or there's some with like their own state backgrounds in, in, in dark areas that if even if it's completely like there's no state funding, there's no like, this is just bad VCs and all that.

It's like, it's actually worse because it's almost they're doing the state's job for them. So yeah, it's the, it's, it's, yeah, it's the challenge that we all currently face. And I think it's addressing it directly, [01:06:00] but also indirectly is, is helping kind of expand, like, spread the knowledge of economics and understanding because that can, you know, for any person.

People, it's just ignorance or like I'm helping, I'm building. It's like, yeah, but you're not building anything good. And it's actually taking away from the value prop of, of Bitcoin. I

Knut: Yeah, uh, so the way I see this is, is, uh, it's pretty simple, either Bitcoin works or it doesn't, and time will tell if it does, it's still somewhat experimental, it seems like it's working, and there's always a case to be made for Bitcoin conservatism and being pro ossification, at least in the long run and at some point, but also, like, Bitcoin is not backed by energy.

It's backed by human action and people making choices. There's always a choice behind every, every move. And it becomes tricky when stuff like this kind of spam attack happens, because like our resolve gets tested. And just [01:07:00] as you say, like the, the way to fight it is to do the other thing that is also possible, which is filtering these things out and pushing for, you know, things like ocean mining too.

Uh, and, uh,

Conza: took up mining with Ocean specifically so I could, yeah, get the satisfaction of, of filtering spam. And geez, it, it, it, it's a, it's a fun thing that I'm having fun. That's the, that the filtering spam, it gets your kicks and like it is, you know, taking, yeah, you're right, action around supporting exactly what I think Bitcoin is.

And it's there's, there's that ocean things like bisque, you know, I kind of use and using the tools and other ways like where um, and that's partly another impact where, you know this kind of decentralized exchange there's four on chain transactions currently um, I kind of try and push them to make, there's a single on chain transaction, I think, in the works, like BIS2 has recently been released BISKEASY, and there's a long term plan to, to do that, but [01:08:00] it fees higher, like, there's a higher impact for those that are using BISK decentralized exchange to, to get non KYC sats and Bitcoin but the spam, so, like, that's another layer to it.

As well, like pricing out, like people real who are trying to engage um, and transfer um, use Bitcoin

Bisq

Knut: BISC, that's, that's an interesting subject. You can tell us a bit more about BISC. What's the TLDR on BISC?

Conza: bisk. The TLD is like, I feel like that's the exchange that Satoshi would would've used. It where there's. As kind of what goes back to 2014 I think BISC is usually, it'd be like Bitcoin Square and then kind of condensed to, to be ISQ um, BISC. Yeah, non KYC. So the summary is, I'm trying to keep it too, too long.

I did speak at DoBitcoinAlive. Um, Talk about it like last, not like, yeah, last year. For those that are interested, it wasn't so much the how, it was like why you would use it. But the thing about it is like, uh, there's a two or two multi sig like an [01:09:00] escrow. You need Bitcoin to engage, but it's I guess the real quick walkthrough of how it would work is yeah, I've got Bitcoin.

I, on the exchange, I want to say, sell Bitcoin. I want to buy Bitcoin and you're going to sell it. I'm, uh, see your, uh, transaction. You've set the parameters around um, you paid the, you put the Bitcoin. that's verified on chain. You've, uh, you've got a security deposit there. I put forward a security deposit.

You've stated how you want the funds, whether it's like pay ID, you know, fintech, cash by mail, meet in person. There's a litany of them. And then I See those terms, I accept, accept them. Basically, essentially a smart contract kind of happens where we're engaged. I can then see your details and then I go, great, I've started the process, I've paid transfer the funds as needed which is often like, say, fiat or cash by mail or whatever, you then go, great, I've [01:10:00] now got them, I've received them and then I release the Bitcoin and so from a Uh, state perspective, it's like, it's fiat to fiat.

It's like, or cash by mail or whatever. There's no um, uh, it helps. There's a decentralized exchange essentially where the real price of Bitcoin is more or less where with centralized exchanges, KYC, your customer, there's threats, there's risk in terms of status, everything. And then like, also um, your, your um, Details being leaked um, and which is not great, which is, you know, those hacks kind of happen and stuff as well.

So there's the kind of some of the T, don't read TLDR.

Knut: Yeah. And how does it differ from like HODL, HODL or Peach or other

Conza: Haven't used Peach. Um, There's things like others use like RoboSats as well. So I couldn't tell you the particulars. Um, All about that non KIOC stats though, like partly reason for mining with Ocean as well. So it's for HODL, HODL [01:11:00] uh, There's a good chart that's kind of got like the, the, the ticks and crosses from them from a perspective.

Like, I mean, it's using Tor natively. What other differentiators would there be? It's colored Bitcoin as a way to think about it. Like, there's BSQ, there's a DAO, decentralized autonomous exchange. So you can kind of engage. You know, verify, open source and, uh, yeah, they're trying to make it BISC 2 is like a more multi protocol thing.

BISC 1, there is essentially um, I think being close to perfect, but it's, uh, a UX, uh, like, you need a reason to it's not as an easy, uh, easy UX kind of approach, like, thing, you kind of need incentive to, to understand. I'm not a tech guy though, so, anyone, anyone, I think if you've got a real reason to, to dive in um, just bisq.

network is definitely um, it's, it's a good world to be in. Yeah, I think just that's essentially the exchange that Satoshi would have used More or less peer to peer electronic cash system and it's essentially this decentralized [01:12:00] exchange. That's what it is.

[01:13:00]

Regarding Ordinals (Again)

Luke: this conversation has been fantastic. And honestly, you've already hit on the main topic that I was interested in, which, which is the, the, yeah, shitcoins on Bitcoin whole, whole thing. I think you, you hit on, uh, Uh, everything I wanted to ask you about, uh, maybe just a little bit of kind of my take on the situation generally, the couple of nuances that where I agree with you, but I think there's maybe I've got a slightly different perspective on a couple of things, the fee floor situation that I see happening with that, The, the one aspect of the, the way that this stuff might get priced out, I [01:14:00] see number go up being a faster way for these types of transactions to get out of the way because it's, it's, it's really a demand problem as opposed to a supply problem as I see it, uh, because Transcribed by https: otter.

ai These scammers are only making these transactions on the blockchain because they expect that someone is going to buy them for more Bitcoin than they pay in fees. Right? So if the fiat price goes way up and Bitcoin, uh, you know, becomes harder in, in fiat terms to acquire than, well, okay, you might get a circular economy of, of, uh, Bitcoin whales that are just.

Trading monkey jay pigs between each other, that sounds fun for them, I suppose, but it's not going to be a huge pool, so that's the only place where I'm maybe a little bit optimistic is that if we get number go ups efficiently, maybe there won't be as much demand for this stuff, so [01:15:00] first I'll just get your take on that and then I've got one more aspect to that that I'd like to touch on.

Conza: Yeah, it's definitely an interesting take and I think From what I've seen, so I'd say definitely number go up has like been the last like it's been around for a year at least. We've seen kind of the bull kind of kick off bull market of sorts. And even with that, though, finance recently um, canned. NFTs and flagged with runes.

I'm pretty sure that like anyone who's uh, has got their, like their stuff on their network or whatever, like, you know, get it off because it's kind of closed down. So yeah, a lot of comments saying, well, why? Uh, like as a value prop, like if there's money to be made and Binance is going to make it, uh, like it's not from a perhaps ethical perspective or whatever, they've done that, which they, you know, or they should have and what the pivot is there.

And, and, uh, so I think there's definitely, there's been numbers probably seen that, like, where there's a number go up from, from a number go up from a, uh, you [01:16:00] know, fiat perspective in, in, in Bitcoin. And then, okay, they're one of the largest, you know, what is centralized exchanges that have kind of like taken them off.

And so whether the buy ends up being that great, or even if you know, like if they're kind of pausing, they're regrouping around rooms or like whatever it is I think they're doing like finance, like stamps or something that is another, another thing. And this is the thing, like, you can go, like, there's all different types that have like, yes, there's inscriptions or whatever.

And like it, you can get into them, but it's, I think at a high level. As yeah, like using ordinal as an umbrella term of like seeing others like talk about like, you've got to be specific and accurate with it. But it's like, yeah, I think, uh, not necessarily going into the technical ways here. Like, don't even do that.

I think like running things like knots um, as like a different client to core. Like helps immensely filter, filter all those out. You know, data carrier zero or like whether there's all different like angles to it. But, uh, yeah, like in the ocean template running that as well. So, like with mine is where.

It's not just at the main pool [01:17:00] level like policy, it's also at, you know, mining pool. Uh, mining is like essentially I'm running, running it and filtering it out um, at a block level. So, yeah, I don't know, kind of going all places here. But yeah, it's interesting in terms of like how that would price people out.

And maybe I've, Uh, I'd be intrigued. And even then, I do think you're right where they're not, and there's some, there's some, uh, there's not it is like they're making that exchange. And my way to think about it from a Libertarian perspective is like, oh, like the A, you know, your exchange A, you're, you're minting it, you're selling, you know, there's you know, uh, NFT or like JPEG, whatever.

And I'm like buying a great, uh, But yeah, it's third party C who is being sold on it that is not necessarily clued in like, or, you know, or like they're the ones who are getting rug pulled and dunked on and like sold that they can own you know, own something in like that's essentially, you know, It's non rivalrous.

Although they try and like, yeah, [01:18:00] NFT scammy by nature. They don't understand the, the, the kind of economic problem that's being solved is getting rid of scarcity. Um, And they're like almost trying to reintroduce it in the digital realm, but like, it's not, not essentially rivalrous. And it's parasitically living off Bitcoin.

Like you could, uh, and assets, like that's part of it as well. Like as a, You make your own or, you know, Audicoin or whatever, go do that, like, why haven't you, where you can control the network and do everything you want, well, because you need all the, like, the value proposition and everything of Bitcoin and that's like the, the other layer to it as well, where you, the technical arguments, where it bloats the UTXO set um, that lives on forever and, and it makes it bigger and harder to run nodes um, and which is like the decentralized aspect um, which is important to Bitcoin for like no runners and stuff.

So, yeah, there's definitely yeah, I know I've kind of strayed from your original question, but yeah, it's, uh, it's hopefully the, I guess I'd be, I want, I'd want to think that [01:19:00] that kind of pricing would price them out, but with the discount, like, I'm, I'm a little incredulous.

The Role of Miners in Spam

Luke: I make a good point there, but I think that, yeah, the thread that I agree with throughout this entire thing is use whatever means to mitigate it as possible, definitely. There's value in doing that, even if it's, if it's futile, sort of, in the short term, that there are going to be other ways to do it, and even in the long run, there are ways, miners directly mining this stuff.

I mean, if you're going to have a miner mine an entire block of crap just for, you know, Their own satisfaction basically, and hopefully someone paid them. But it seems like at least a couple of these cases that if they've been this proof of concept thing and the minors just haven't cared about the fees they're losing,

Conza: Well, they do that. So they do like there's an element as well of like where there's a passive element to it. And so when like, okay, yep, mine is getting quote unquote higher fees and like, oh, they love that. But then when they with it, they're like, essentially, if they are getting filtered or they have the, the, the argument was [01:20:00] always, well, that would then, you know, Send uh, you know, people out of band to like going directly with outside the main pool and going to miners directly.

And it's like, those guys are making those arguments. I've already done that. Like, they've already jumped the gun or essentially if your case is that. Often it's like filters don't work, but then now they've gone ahead and it's almost like implicitly said filters are like working. So they've gone directly to like Luxor mining, Marathon mining.

And part of that, like, so they've already started to single, like doing. You know, stupid stuff where it's like art on the um, uh, marathon art on the, the time chain. And from a, an organization perspective, it's like, they signal themselves being adversarial minors. Then they've actively uh, you know, encouraging a part, like attacking the network in a sense.

And so we can respond to that in the same way that marathon rolled out OFAC, like, um, you know, essentially. On behalf of the US government, I'm going to regulate what [01:21:00] transactions get put on the blockchain. And the reaction from Bitcoiners was like, yeah, you know, go fuck yourself more or less. But like the social pressure, the social argument um, case against, and then they walked it back.

And it's like, well, if, if, you know, all they really care about is money short term. And that's like the, the narrative. And the scammers and spammers for mine is like, well, these guys overtly walk back that to short term angle. And it's like, also at some point is long, like, are you going to kill the golden ghost?

Like, that's the risk of like, say, Bitcoin is, and the long term outcome. And you're, you know, taking little, you know, extra bits now, but are you shooting yourself in the foot? Are you, like, got a gun to the head of the golden goose? You're risking, like, blowing his brains out, like, you know, to get graphic here.

I think there's, there's a risk of that and we should be reacting as Bitcoin is. It's not, to these threats and overt attacks, more or less in a way that, He's me doing something directly [01:22:00] myself in terms of like mining with ocean, you know, there's, there's not supporting that at a different kind of a client making these cases like socially trying to help education, education, like for economics wise but yeah, there's, there's definitely things that can be done and we just kind of, I think got to, got to understand that and kind of wake up.

And I think a few people are awake, starting to wake up um, or definitely that's the trend that I've been seeing.

Knut: Yeah, it's like you're willing to kill the golden goose for a kinder egg, like one of those chocolate eggs with a toy in it. That's basically what they're doing. So, so the, yeah, you said something really great, Luke, uh, about the problem being on the demand side and not on the supply side. So it's sort of like the war on drugs and why that isn't working because you can't really fight the supply side.

You need to fight the demand side and you do that by educating people. So the way I see these, like, like you said, uh, NFTs are scammy in nature. Like the things, the thing people don't get that this is an open public [01:23:00] blockchain. I hate the word because it implies that there are more than one. But that means that everyone can see everything that's going on here.

That's all the point. So owning an NFT is sort of akin to owning a star in the Andromeda galaxy. You can own it on paper, maybe, but you can't do anything with it. Everyone else can see it too. Everyone else can right click it and download it. There's like, and this goes for these. Idiot tokens as well. It's just arbitrary data.

There's nothing scarce about them. Like the, the scarcity is in the satoshi and it's not in anything else. And that's what people need to wrap their heads around if they don't want to be, you know, scammed and, and uh, Yeah, have all their money removed.

The Monetary Maximalist Case for Bitcoin

Luke: So, my last question is, is, uh, concisely, like, as possible, uh, based on this conversation, uh, what would be the way you would explain why Bitcoin [01:24:00] Bitcoin is a monetary network, or sorry to rephrase this because I think I mixed this up in my head with another thing, the reason why it's good that Bitcoin exists as a monetary network.

That's it.

Conza: Why it exists. Yeah. I think that it's more hidden. So like, if you look at money historically, like the, I think the monetary properties of being more in your face. And verse now where, and the, the network is kind of more hidden, like exchange, voluntary, you can't like necessarily see it. You know, people see people exchanging, but it's like, it's, it's gone after that, where it's flipped with Bitcoin, where it's actually the network and itself, the peer to peer electronic cash system.

Is more in your face. So like the vast majority, I think of the code is actually geared towards like sending and receiving and like cryptography and you know, timestamping and, uh, you know, hashing and a variety of all that [01:25:00] to help facilitate. The asset that is what it is, where it's like hard capped and a rival, a residual commodity.

And so, like, yeah, I think it's all about essentially the peer to peer element. It's like, why is it so good? Well, it removes the ability, as per Satoshi, like the trust of third parties. It's like, and I was in that Bitcoin Maximals talk recently, it was like, the executive summary was you know, what's, what's part of the problem.

And like, you can talk about endlessly, like the status quo, you know, monopoly of, you know, the state exists and then um, you know, central banking, fiat money, like legal tender laws all that. And then but what is that? And it's like dumbed down to a non Austrian perspective. It's like trusted third parties.

And so like Bitcoin solves a problem for trusted third parties and the whole network is all about ensuring that and facilitating that and helping you send and receive like from a system perspective, like Konrad [01:26:00] Graf talks about really well is where it's, you've got like The unit perspective and as a system perspective, you've got Bitcoin like the unit where the error for a lot of Austrians and Peter Schiff in particular, if we're going to categorize it, is like, they look at the unit in isolation.

So they're like, oh, the telephone, like, what's the point of this telephone? But it's like not connected to the network. So, like, there's no point of a telephone, you can't call anyone and send it or do anything with it, right? So, the value proposition is connected to the, being able to make those calls, send that money, receive it it's decentralized, permissionless and yeah, so, like, all, all, all those things we often hear from others is, is why I think it's So valuable.

Knut: Yeah, I've heard a critique that some people say that Bitcoin is not peer to peer because it has to go via the miners and like via trusted third parties. But the whole point is that you don't trust these third parties. You verify that what they're doing is according to the rules. And there's a crucial difference.

Like that's not a, [01:27:00] it is a third party, but it's not a trusted one.

Conza: right. And, but partly you could, you could say they might be corrected for like, unless they're mining with ocean. So with tides protocols at the moment, what I've been seeing, like, indirectly is that for a lot of the mining pools, I think grass, uh, uh, Grass fed Bitcoin Mechanic kind of talks about how like there's like almost two miners and, uh, but where from, uh, verifying the, the miner or the hasher, like verifying the part of the pool and then verifying the, the funds that they should be getting or the fees, like, if the other types of pools in the market, they take out of band transactions, like, do the miners then see that or not?

Um, How do you know that miners are um, The pools aren't clipping they, they like clipping some, uh, funds, essentially like clipping coins, like from a trusted third party historically. And so with Ocean, though, it's different where essentially, like those coin, the coin, you get part of the payout, like the ties, like you're part of the coinbase transaction from them when they hit a block and there's like with Strat [01:28:00] V2, I think they're moving like already yet or moving towards, but you can verify Like I've got, you know, with the address with them that the funds then get sent to and you can like, yeah, essentially verify that there's no trust, there's not as much no trust or no trust enough, enough trust compared to all the other pools.

So it is definitely um, Yeah, like that's the way I think that that's why Jack kind of helped, I think, FundOcean or whatnot was like trying to decentralize mining or like some of those attack factors or risk factors there but then even recently saying it's like out of, like, All the, the current mining pools, there's, it's like 41 percent or something like that of all them ascending to the same custodian.

So 41 percent of current hash is like sending to one custodian essentially. So like as a centralized piece, that's also worrying. But yeah, uh, It's, uh, Submarine with Ocean.

Knut: Yeah. Yeah. Or, uh, I, I heard from that uh, conference [01:29:00] in Dubai a couple of months back that there, I don't remember the name of the pool, but there is another pool coming up that doing the same thing basically as ocean. So there are, it's getting even more decentralized. Like there are some alternatives that, that will, other transparent pools are coming.

And, uh, I think that that development is very welcome. Like that's, that's how we need to do this.

Conza: If we want to bring it full circle, like, I think it was a point that I wanted to talk about was, it was like, methodological dualism. So going back to that in this talk where we kind of, we kind of started we, we actually embody methodological dualism. So we are subjects. Where subjects slash uh, active subjects slash objects by nature, so we can't reduce it to either or.

So like, we're not just objects like you know, rocks and stones. And we're not just subjects only where like a, a mind and, and you know, detached from being an object and having a [01:30:00] body like a person. So humans, we are defined by being yep. Subjects like the self, uh, and our bodies and our objects. So yeah, we're subjects by, objects by nature.

That dualism is present. We are essentially, we embody it, literally embody it. So like the, the, the social, the empiricists are trying to essentially argue that that, that, that a methodological approach isn't valid when they literally embody it themselves.

Knut: Yeah, that's, uh, back to re and this ties into Bitcoin mining as well, like it's, it's, uh, yeah, the energy is there and it's, uh, needed to secure the network, but if we don't act in a certain way that all that energy is wasted and, uh, it was for nothing.

Wrapping Up

Luke: Hey, I think this is a fantastic place to, uh, to leave this one, uh, been a great discussion. Uh, I, I would love to do this, uh, more often, uh, again and more often, but, uh, for now, [01:31:00] I think this has been great. I touched on a lot of key points. So, uh, Conza, where would you like to direct our listeners and viewers to, to find out more about you and, uh, things you'd like to direct them towards?

Conza: Twitter. Yeah. Conza, C O N Z A is probably easy enough. Uh, where else? I mean, hit up like the Mises Institute for anything, everything. Free books, podcasts, all of that. Yeah, if you're from Australia, mises. org, M I S E S. org. au. Um, It's got like the 50 plus lectures. Yeah. Hit up Konrad Graf's Bitcoin overview and Bitcoin kind of technical and social aspects are like recorded in 2013 seminar down in Sydney.

Yeah, read anything and everything from Konrad Graf is my like appeal to and obviously not appeal to him in terms of um, it just. What's the summary? It's like, it takes out a lot of the technical wording, but like [01:32:00] simplifies it. But it's super accurate and maintain, like, I'm a big sucker for accuracy.

And partly it's the worst thing for a movement is to not be skillfully attacked, but like ineptly defended. It's like a Bastiac quote. So I've kind of taken that to heart and that's kind of, I guess, part of the essence of why I'm fairly hypercritical, like of myself, but of others when certain narratives are out there that aren't necessarily, you know, Accurate, because it's not, honestly, that's the worst thing for us as a movement not to be attacked by like those that are um, yeah, less done, so, uh, yeah, uh, really just that yeah, uh, I'm very happy to help anyone with any guidelines for things you're interested, critiquing stuff what things get sent my way, and always happy to, you know, Happy to help

Knut: Yeah. Uh, just, just a, a quick add on there. You, you mentioned Bitcoin alive a couple of times, so if you're in Australia and or if you have the ability to go to Australia, this is a fantastic conference. I, I uh, attended it last year and [01:33:00] that's where I met you. Uh, the only time I met you in real life, it was a, a delightful evening, uh, over a couple of points.

And, uh, yeah, I, I take it that Bitcoin Alive was just as amazing this year as last year, right?

Conza: missed you, but Yes. Yes. It, uh, it's, uh, yeah, it was great. It's a fantastic event. Bitcoin only yeah, it's, uh, it's a key and you probably just, I guess, yeah, form on Twitter so I can share, showcase the longer form version of that. Bitcoin max in one lesson talk I've done recently, which is trying to cover off like.

Essentially, all the things that the scammers, spammers, and pre coiners and stuff, you know, should coiners need to know. I've

Knut: yeah, by the way, any chance of us seeing you in an international conference anytime soon like one of the European ones?

Conza: been to Hans Property and Freedom Society conference, like, way back in 2014, like, potentially on board or anything around there then but [01:34:00] no with, like, Young Wine at the moment. We'll, we'll say, well, hey, that's maybe an occasion to bring them all. So, um, bring them all over. So possibly I won't write anything off.

Likely to be in the States though for, for work early Jan. And so might have a chance to, to kind of be around there. So the other side of the world. But yeah, Europe is great as well.

Knut: Excellent. And if Konrad or Hans Hermann or anyone else is listening to this, you're of course more than welcome to the show. Yeah, so go read Economic Science, the Austrian Method. Go listen to Konrad Graf. I've read Started to deep dive into that guy and as you say, amazing stuff. And, uh, don't forget to like share and subscribe and, uh, brush your damn teeth and click the bell and Konsa, this has been excellent.

Thank you very much.

Conza: no, I appreciate it. Thanks. Thanks guys.

Luke: Thank you. This has been the Freedom Footprint Show. Thanks for listening. [01:35:00]