G to the M bro what's going on? Did you go out then? I just got to go out what for a new year's eat?
drink tonight, you know, because I barely ever drink. And by the end of it, I was so tired I didn't even want to. And I just went home and quietly stared at the television for about an hour and went to bed. It felt really good. How about you? What'd you do?
I just had a quite one bro. I think what's his name?
having such a bombastic quarter for fourth quarter I thought you know what let's embrace the new year with a bit of sobriarity and it was great I feel like I'm back again all the
Morocco elements have gone out even though I'm going back on the 12th but yeah, feeling great the New Year started quiet spent with time with family and just drank water really. But by you first
or for this is not a speaker yet. But yeah, all good bro. How does it feel to be like finally being 2023? Donnie? It feels really great. Every year of my life gets better. I get better at acknowledging something. You know, like I feel like I learned so much
every year that the next year, no matter what it brings, is always more interesting than last. And this is no exception, it was not going to be any exception. I know already that this is going to be a wild year. And I'm really excited to see where it goes. You know, and honestly, I was kind of like,
You know, New Year's Eve, I was thinking to myself, should I go into it sober and mindful and clear or should I just get drunk New Year's Eve and think about like unabrideled all the things that I learned in 2022 because I feel like there's a lot of
my prefrontal cortex that is good at talking me off the ledge about things that I maybe haven't acknowledged. Or I'm pretty sure I've acknowledged all of them, but I maybe not still aware that I was kind of hoping to get drunk and just feel
all that stuff. But I don't know that that would have been beneficial. So I'm going into a clear headed and I'm more excited about this year than I've ever been about any other and I'm excited about every year and I really I get bummed out when I see the barrage of social media posts at the end of
every year talking about how terrible the last year was. I think that there's like a disease amongst current humans that is called the television and/or the news where everybody can't stop looking at it and they can't stop being, you know, bombarded by
negativity. So like every year was the worst and every next year is going to be better. That's every post I see is, "Oh, I can't wait for this year to be over. Next one's got to be better." And then at the end of that one, it's also that one sucked. And like if every year sucks, what are you doing? Why? Why are you
Why is this the narrative that we've come to be living? So I live exactly the opposite narrative and I feel really cool about how excited I am about every year and about. It's not because the last year was bad that the next one's going to be good. It's because the last one was so good that this one's going to be even better, you know?
Welcome first to the stage, how are you my brother? Happy new year to you and Donnie if I haven't said it before by the way guys.
Thank you GMGM, Hey Polaris, Hi, Derni. Well, it's good to be back, it's good to see you guys again. I think I missed the last piece is held and I think the last Discord call as well. So, but Niniya has been good. I think I spent time with family friends.
I was off work I think yesterday and today so yeah, so it's been chill. It's been great. So I'm looking forward to our DSPanzout. Yeah. I don't think I ever asked you what you do for work first. What's what do you do?
Okay, so I'm a biomedical scientist. I work at the hospital, so yeah. So I run tests like blood tests on patients on sick patients that are coming to the hospital. Yeah, so that's what I do. Asides with three, that's what I do.
It's funny we have such a diversity of job title amongst everybody and it's not just with us man it's like everybody in Web 3 is like unless you're a dev you're probably not full-time you're probably doing some other stuff too that's like
your primary gig. So we have a restaurant worker, a martial arts teacher, and/or a philosopher or whatever, and a biomedical scientist on this discord call talking about web friends. It's not what it's so wild. Welcome. Welcome here.
So I made like 18 different links for this space. I made one for this one that we're on and I made another one five minutes ago because I didn't think that this one existed. And I deleted one that I made personally because I didn't realize that you could just change the title of something. I thought I had to like delete the post, delete the retweet
go back and remake the space because I misjudged the title on the first round. Now I know there's an edit title button. It's way easier than that. But I mean these are the things we learn as we go, right? So sorry if anybody got confused about the links. That was my bad.
No worries bro, it's not an issue. I mean the fact is that we're here year in year out and the talks carry on going, you know, that's the most important thing.
Last year, as you mentioned, yes, in terms of bad things happening. There's always going to be bad things happening. There's always going to be good things happening. You just got to focus on the areas which will lead
towards some sort of wisdom from the bad things and just help us not to, you know, do them again. But all in all, it's been a very productive year for humanity because I think
We find these slowly, slowly come out from COVID businesses have started to get a bit more busier. And in terms of blockchain last year was very interesting in terms of NFT adoption.
despite all the negatives which blockchain experience like the FTX hack and the Luna crash, you know.
which caused a devastating impact on the whole economy in terms of the industry, sorry, which eventually had a devastating impact on the global economy.
to a certain extent. There's been really good stuff as well happening like Reddit for example started the NFTs and started accepting blockchain
on polygon network and then they onboarded millions of users without them realizing that
they were using blockchain to authenticate their avatars. Actually, there weren't even gold NFTs, even though there were NFTs, they were called avatars
And so that happened a lot of big giants came into play. DeFi was
really like you know started like you know flying people started understanding those terms which before were like completely alien
technology in terms of like moving forward for this year. There's a lot of prospect which we gained from last year. We are going to work on as an industry
I think this year is going to be fabulous.
in terms of the builders, what they have, what they can do.
in terms of the precipice where we've got ourselves right now.
That is really interesting. For example, the other side meta, it's one of the projects from Euglabs. They showed some stuff which you can use on their platform.
intense and I can see like those builders building like platforms in the meta versus we have kind of like these statements are kind of like you know down a bit meta versus not being used that much but I mean people are building
and you're getting HD, PS5 quality content coming out. So in terms of blockchain adoption and governments, and doing their thing,
last year, which sounds like last month, couple of months, two months ago, which is the CDBCs were announced, which is like a centralized way of
creating currency and distributing currency in such a way that governments are involved but they use blockchain industry or the blockchain tech
to facilitate those transactions or do something within the blockchains which create those transactions. It could very well be like their own intranet and
that possibly wouldn't be as secular as a blockchain. I'm not 100% how the whole framework is. Where it's centralized, that's 100%. And that brings us to a question like, for example, how can like blockchains facilitate
instead of like asking this question government blockchain adoption, how can blockchain facilitate governments if we approach it like that? That could be an interesting topic to converse on. And maybe that would be like a good point.
in terms of your TLDRs to kind of like look at from a centralized government distribution of currencies perspective using non-blockchain
secure transactions or using secure transactions. And I think that like we can take this conversation in that direction if that makes sense.
Totally. I am when I when I was talking about the year being whatever it was and the way that I was looking at it, I was not trying to say that bad things happened last year, although like if everything's happened every year and good things happen every year and that's part of like the dynamics of human life. I was saying specifically that I think everyone focuses on the bad and goes into every year
thinking that the last year was the worst year of their lives. And I think exactly the opposite. I think every year is the best year of my life. And I think every year is the best year of humanity's life, because we're always growing and learning as a species. And that was sort of the point I was trying to make. I didn't mean to make it sound like I think that bad stuff happened last year, because I, you know, I don#
I agree with what you're saying, totally that we should look into the positive things and especially with the news being so toxic all the time because it's over-sensationalized, it's over-sensationalized, which creates craves like you to be constantly having some sort of a dopamine release, dopamine
release and sometimes the media kind of like gets carried away and it has a huge impact on the population and it has a huge impact on people who are being bombarded with stuff and it can reflect on the tweets or the time
and that's exactly what you picked up on. So yeah, it makes it grow. It's so, it's so interesting to me that the more populated we get and the more technology begins to facilitate our lives in a manner that seems easier and better and faster and stronger, more efficient, it somehow separates us into more like we're secluded
amongst so many people and then everybody begins to only rely on that which is fed to them through the news for their outlook on the entire world and I think it's not even their fault. I'm not pointing fingers at anybody. This is what they were exposed to now because they live in a house, they work at a job, but all they see is on the news that like someone's attacking someone else or you know, yeah, which is true.
It's like that's not the only thing that's happening. So anyway, maybe there is, I think we talked about this a few episodes ago regarding how Web3 can help, this is not the topic for today, I'm just going to end my last rant on this. How Web3 can help reward positively the people who, I don't know,
So do the right thing, I guess. So if new stations can be given, this is the fundamental problem. If new stations can be given attention, which is currency, modern times, right, if they can be given attention not for just reporting bad stuff, reporting good stuff too, they can be incentivized to balance out their own
New is reporting without feeling like they're doing something altruistic and taking a rating set. So you know, there's maybe that's maybe that's next time. How do we incentivize good actors specifically in news by decentralizing some sort of whatever. But the topic at hand would be government usage of blockchain and blockchain. I think that the starting
point for this in my head anyway is that blockchain and decentralization are not equal. They don't occur together necessarily. Decentralization does somewhat require blockchain tech, but blockchain tech does not require decentralization. And I think that's what I read in article
about a country who was making a government blockchain and already sort of everybody who interacts in that country on a blockchain. Let's say there's a country that interacts on a blockchain and all of the NFT trading they do is not open NFT trading. It's all like government sponsored NFT trading. Does it even matter that it's on a blockchain?
that's question number one that I would like to kick it off with, is there a point to a centralized blockchain that a government might use for something other than the government maintaining control over what it had control over in Web 2 times? Ready, set, go.
I had a deja vu when you was talking about the previous topic though. I think we've had that conversation before at some point, maybe in private or something. I think we did it on this space. I think I was talking, I remember pacing through my apartment, talking
about how evolutionarily you can't blame people because evolutionarily if we didn't pay attention to bad stuff that was happening around us we would be doomed to repeat the fate of those who suffered it. So like back to the tribes days, you know the 50 to 200 person
and tribes just wandering around the woods, those who propagated were those who avoided the missteps of others. So it's programmed genetically into us to stare at bad stuff. I do not blame people for it, but I think it's something that we need to incentivize news outlets against.
Absolutely, totally agree with that. Or some way of creating some sort of positive vibes in the same way. But it's crazy though, the way human psychology works tends to go for the negative story more than the good ones. People tend to deviate
towards it and that's how they've managed to like create all these feedbacks and attention spans and they know like you know the viewership in terms of who's watching what and then over the course of time it's become so toxic that because they find that this perfect
formula of creating the perfect catchy content and if that means that sometimes you have to change words to create content and if people end up getting manipulated
that's just a collateral and because it can't be proved there you go anyways back to this you're going first okay so I am looking at it there were some positives and negatives between the past yeah but like you said media,
don't dwell on the positives. They were like, you mentioned ugar labs in the early days, it has a blockchain that also launched recently and was successful. Well, none of that will catch the areas of the government or less decentralized media places, why they focus on the negatives.
FTX, the Luna crash, so all of that and in our boils down others, individuals as Web 3, and CSAS, how well do we focus on the negatives? Fine, the negatives are there for us to learn, for us to also grow and see ways we can probably
something similar event or cause because you know how to go about it and tackle it. So that's what we're supposed to pick up from the negates is. I'm not just live-ealing the whole thing as bad and then killing people's mind and dreams about it. So yeah, I think that's a small effort.
100% bro and thanks for your input anyways
So shall we go back to that question which I asked or like can you ask me that question again because I've kind of like lost my thought now? Absolutely. The question with these, does the essential
See the thing is, you can still have a blockchain in a centralized manner. So if you can have the blockchain in a centralized manner, that is still more secure.
It just depends on how centralized it is and how you secure it. So, for example, ideally you would want it to be decentralized.
Compared to like you know your normal security measures like you know we are used for let's say your mobile banking and your internet banking the same security measures
compared to like you know a centralized blockchain would I suppose be the centralized blockchain would be a bit more secure but we have noticed that like you know the attack vectors they can change directly
So, we're like drastically depending on the situation, like for example, you know, we've seen like BTCs been attacked from different vectors every time there's been some sort of a weakness in the blockchain.
notice like through the passage of time that it's constantly innovating depending on the situation at hand. So the same thing happens with like Ethereum as well
as it goes. And then with the blockchain decentralized you have consensus, right? And if those consensus are not met correctly, then you have like a hard folk.
So we ended up having something like that with Ethereum and Ethereum Classic. We had the same type of situation with BTC and Bitcoin Cash.
And it was just like, you know, they decided to like work on Segway 10 Bitcoin Cash, I think was a non-Sagwayed approach and was a completely new blockchain and it was much more centralized compared to the legacy.
But what I'm trying to say is that this is like a constant like beast which is in the making right and it's constantly constantly changing So there is no such rules and regulations and apart from like your basics which are that
guys have had my food come over as well so if my signals drop I'm sorry about that so basics like you know the supply the demand the tokenomics the supply demand the tokenomics and
But then in terms of software, what software can do, there's quite a lot of changes. So I don't know, this is like a long question really. It's what many different aspects.
So, in first feel free to interrupt me and if you have anything you'd like to say, I, in particular, the article that I was reading was about a country that made a blockchain that is run by two server companies
that the government owns and one quote-unquote private company and it's called like the People's Republic Safety Information Blockchain something like that and it doesn't occur to me that it's like dastardly necessarily it just is a blockchain
chain that is, you know, it's comorbid with the people not being allowed to interact with outside blockchains. That makes me think that it's not necessarily like a progress is good thing that it's an attempt to look like, you're like, oh no, you guys can't play
on the real swing set but here's a swing set that we made that you guys can hang out on for now. Well we figure out how to not let you do everything else that you might want to do. That's that's what it feels like an extreme level of control to me and it doesn't feel like it's much more safe because everything's okay. Can you hear me? Yes sir.
I think I've got run boys.
Oh, you couldn't hear anything? You want to jump down? Yeah, I got you.
I think his boss, but I think his boss. I think this happens when someone requests and I request for them to come up and then one of them is pending the entire time they're up here and then it rugs them out. So, Polaris, do you want to send a request word up? Boom.
I think the thing was just dropped. I did join it. I was like super rocked. So where did you guys hear me tell? We heard you until you stopped talking I believe if I'm not mistaken. Did you stop talking all together for like
30 seconds. No, no, no, I was talking all the way. It was when you said that it was a longer question than we had anticipated or there's something like that. Yeah, because there's too many variables to it, you know, there's too many different variables to it. Like, you know, what blockchain
Are they using blockchain? Are they using like the normal mobile banking? But then, I mean, taking the conversation further, if you were to look into it from this angle now, that what if a government was to use a blockchain and the implications of all of that?
So they aren't using a blockchain and the implications are that you can't use other blockchains in this case. And that's the reason that I brought this up to begin with. It's that it seems prohibitive. It seems prohibitive of use of the rest of the system. And it's been replaced with something that doesn't have the same capabilities for its citizens.
So that they feel placated enough that they can do something just like everyone else is doing, but it's not on the same thing that everyone's doing. And all of the validators are, well, at least two thirds of the validators are owned by the government. And the other third is owned by a private company, quote unquote, which is probably a government sponsored private company if I know this.
country well enough. You know, and I'm not talking shit on any company or a country rather, people do what people do. You know what I mean? Cultural relativism, I say, if that's no norm where you are, then let it be the norm. But it's from a blockchain standpoint, from a progress of the world standpoint. Does the point of running a blockchain kind of stop being a blockchain as
we see it or for the reasons that we see it, when the company running the blockchain won't let other people, the people in the country use other blockchains and all of the validators around by the country. What is the point? Isn't that just a server room for a computer that you run? You know what I mean? That's the question I have.
That's a good question. The thing is that you know from a technological perspective, if they're running their servers,
in the same fashion as blockchain. Then it's going to be more secure.
I mean, blockchains can be used in so many different instances and different perspectives. You can have like layer 2, layer 3 solutions, which are working on the same concepts, but some of them are like personal blockchains. You can create your own blockchains.
and use it for any sort of authentication you like. So I suppose in that context it's okay because you're securing the network and you're not centralized in terms of storing the information is concerned.
But then if you're like not allowing other individuals to have blockchains, then you're
stopping some sort of monopoly of which blockchain would be better.
Now that can has its positive implications and negative implications.
Now, if you're around like 2017, there was a lot of like blockchains popping left, right and center, but most of them were like rugs and some of them were good. So if that type of
rhetoric is applied to that type of scenario then it would be constructive which just depends you know is that going to throttle innovation and stuff like that then go for it all I think it's exactly
to throttle innovation and I'll say it this way. If the network that the government has made is on the blockchain, on a blockchain that they've made and it is now more secure because it does on a blockchain, they've created something that didn't need to be secure in the first place and made it more secure.
And by that, I mean that if people were trading NFTs on Magic Eden and OpenC and using Ethereum and Solana on the open market, but globally, that is secure. Those things are secure because they are on blockchains that
And by, you know, validators that have decided to do that. Like many different people with many different motivations all being motivated with money to run validators. In this case, they've stopped their citizens from having halted their citizens from the ability to trade
globally on the open market and created their own market and then made that more secure but not more secure than something decentralized it be because it's still run by only in this case let's say the government. So if the government is using only three
for facilities to do this, is it more secure? And do they need to do that for any reason other than to maintain control and be the monopoly? In fact, I would say that they're making sure that it's a monopoly, at least in that framework. You know?
If anybody read this article, there are a whole bunch of articles on it. There's about a specific country that started to block chain and main name did a thing and it allows its citizens to play only on that blockchain. And I think that's sort of fundamentally against what we are trying to achieve as a
technological revolution. So it stuck out as something to the converse about, you know. I feel like if all of a sudden here in the US, I couldn't interact with any of my wallets and trade NFTs on anything but the United States
Happy people government chain. I'd be like I got to get out of here. This is this is not where I want to be. I don't want my my dinner to be so Monotone every day. I don't want to eat food that came in like a
astronaut packaging that's just fed to me because I can't go shop to grocery store, you know what I mean? It feels like something worth talking about because it is a very big step from a very big country in a very counterintuitive direction.
Yep, and I agree and I understand where you're coming from, bro. And
This is always going to be this discussion about trying to find the right balance. I think this is where it comes down to. Having the right balance is the key.
You know, to not throttle innovation but protect the users at the same time.
You know, we're under the banner of like, you know, we need to protect users and against like fraudulent actors. And then you're using a certain rhetoric, then, then it's different. On the other
side if you just start laying innovation then it's causing problems because I mean we've discussed this in our like discussion so many times that like you know using blockchain tech correctly can completely revolutionize the way we do things saves governments millions in you know
and governance costs and stuff. You go for it, darling. I think putting this under the guise of protecting users using blockchain technology to secure a network, it would be a, what is that called? Putting the cart before the horse? That is coming up with a problem. Sorry, S.
solution to a problem that you've created in the case of this country where it is perfectly safe and secure to operate on the Solano or Ethereum or Dell ontology blockchain, but they said you can't for no reason at all other than they don't control those things. So I think this is more about controlled insecurity.
I don't think that they're worried about people hacking it. It's good because they've made a thing that only that people have to use. No one's even choosing to use it. If you want to use something, you have to use this thing. So like the security doesn't feel like the issue here, you know?
Right, then the only thing I can think of is that
You know, it's very hard to control blockchains because they run on a network which is not centralized. And because it's not run on a network which is centralized,
That was the whole point of BTC. That was the whole point of, you know, how old the new entrance kind of like got into
the value of BTC has become the way it is. So if you look at the journey, it makes sense. I think
Moving forward, there's going to be a lot of different attempts from different organizations trying to create some sort of a, you know, their own way of doing things. But this is like the open jungle really.
And only the strong survives, you know. So if the servers, if they're three servers which are controlling, let's say, one of the, you know, a strong country is economics in those three servers.
Once they get hacked, if one of those countries gets hacked, there would be more than enough for everyone else to understand that maybe this approach is not the correct way and they need to approach it in a much more. But unless they actually do it, attempts will always be made again.
different aspects of our day-to-day movements. Try to get a deeper understanding of how a society works and obviously that knowledge can be used in different constructs.
Yes, Donnie, go for it, bro. So if if a country is running a database, a governmental database, let's let's forget about NFTs and all the fun stuff that we do using blockchain tech. Let's just go with governmental regulatory structure. Let's say they have a Walmart size facility that is a server housing
for that thing. It incorporates maybe, I don't know, 20,000 separate computers. Let's not tell. Let's say there's three Walmart's full of 20,000 computers each. There's 60,000 individual server computers running this country's governmental structure. If any of that gets hacked,
It's a bar and odds are pretty not good that it will but it can because things can be hacked right like if there's a thing you can be hacked Well, let's say also that government now just decides that instead of it being a governmental structure It's a blockchain and it divides its three different structures of 20,000 computers each into the
three separate validator groups that are all still in total 60,000 validators. Although 60,000 validators are all owned by the same company, which is the government, which means that they're not decentralized. In any other way, then you don't know which computer is going to be tasked with running this, you know, validator.
the next block. But that being said from the owner side of it, the government side of it, you are each validator. So you can be malicious and everyone else can act with you because you can control all of it because it's not decentralized from that standpoint. It's decentralized maybe as like the guy who's driving up to the facility, try to pinpoint which one of the computers
is going to make the next block. So like that's kind of secure. But then you're just protecting yourself. You're not protecting any of the interests of anything other than that. And in this case, it's a market that has been created to replace the other markets that everybody else in the world is allowed to operate on because this country doesn't want their citizens doing that.
So, I don't know if this is a survival of the fittest thing. I think this is if the people just haven't lashed out enough to fight it, and it will win because it can't be like you can make malicious box if you own all the validators, right? It's not a 51% attack. It's a 100% attack all the time.
It's 0% decentralized from that side. And that is the point I'm trying to make. That it is corruptible because there is one entity that owns all the validators. And that's on purpose because nobody can even own another validator. You can't spark one up. This is a scary concept to me.
Yes, it is. I totally agree. There are good things. But not in this, in this particular scenario, I don't think there are good aspects. I think the governments can adopt the blockchain for good reasons. Like if it were decentralized from the ownership standpoint, validators weren't all owned by the same
company which is the government on chain voting can occur that the government can't sway but in this case on chain voting can occur and the guys of democracy can prevail but since the government owns all the validators they don't have to actually take into account anything that's been done on chain they can just make something up that occurred on chain you know
See the thing is that there's only so much an organization can do to create value
especially when this innovation happening left right and center, you know, like the way NFT adoption happened to start off with, every time you talk about NFTs, you know,
People were like, why would you pay for something for a JPEG? But over the course of time, you know?
Things were different now if you look at centralized organizations like Instagram owned by Facebook they
they've got so much content on Instagram, it's unbelievable but they weren't able to monetize, help monetize the content creators.
So as a result, all the shift went to NFTs. Now, what I'm trying to say is that when stuff like that happens where you're completely controlling everything, then eventually people just stop using it, stop
You know, there's always like the the police will never choice. That's the human rights issues and it's like a you know, fam. That is exactly what I'm talking about. Yeah, it is. It's I mean, you know, see humans right it's right. It's issue. It's
just a government, yeah, I guess it is human rights, as long as human rights fall within what a government can and cannot tell you, you know what I mean? But they're forcing, if you're going to use a blockchain, you are going to use this blockchain. That's it. It's not a free market. It's not like if Instagram doesn't do it, you can go to Facebook.
If this doesn't do it, you can just shut up and go back in your house. That's the option you have. Scary stuff. But I don't even know if it deserves blockchain talk because it's really not a blockchain. See the technique. Yeah. Yeah. And also, not only that,
If it is a human rights issue or if it is like people from a specific location are forced, being forced on to use just one specific tech, then these questions can be raised in their respective judicaries and people can have
open dialogue conversations about this and that country can decide what is best for their people but yeah it is one of those ones bro it's like you know like the way a lot of people during the covid lockdown were like very they didn't like the fact that you know
certain restrictions were imposed on to them. But it was one of those ones that those restrictions were imposed. Also, there was a lot of bad actors, even from government officials who decided to break the lockdown rules and stuff like that. So that happened as well. So what I'm trying to say is that
It just depends in how freely you're allowed to express your freedom of expression until it compromises the security of your location and the people around you. And there's a fine line which each government is placed, it's a burden which each government
Has to carry and they have to make
diligent decisions to protect their people. Sometimes they're like you know overprotective someone sometimes they like you know they don't protect enough. But it's a continuous struggle really and
As countries become more efficient in using the current tech towards advancing their infrastructures, those countries will benefit
benefit in the long run economically, which would help strengthen their values as a location, geopolitical location.
So, but in, I mean, the process would be painful. It's going to be testing all of us in terms of what we believe and what tech is there and
Yeah, it's going to be interesting. By and stand where you're coming from, but like, you know, I think this is the only way to look at it because I mean things can be imposed. The whole world got into lockdown, you know. So some can say that like, you know, my human right to like come out of my house was compromised. It was compromised because
of the bigger, direct human life. So I don't know, bro, this one of those ones. Go for it. I think if we're talking about human rights protection, as far as the lockdown goes, the reason, I don't know what happened in every other country because I wasn't there, but I was watching actively here with my eyeballs.
not on the news what was happening in the United States. And what was happening here is we have an unhealthy population because there's a lot of us who were all just fed like you know high fructose corn syrup right. So there's a lot of people who had underlying health issues the ones they caught COVID-19 they got sick and they got sicker than they should have because they were unhealthy to begin with.
And when you have an appopulation who is largely unhealthy, when they get sick, they get very sick, and when they get very sick, they go to a hospital. There's only so many hospitals. So if hospitals are overrun of sick people, people who are barely sick and just need a little bit of attention could die because they didn't get the attention because every bed was full of someone who shouldn't have been there to begin with.
If you think that this disease is spread in any single way by potential human interaction that it was only logical to get humans to stop interacting for a little while, less they all die. Every one of them because most of them who were going to die anyway, we're stuck in a hospital clogging up the works. So getting less people into the hospital.
so that less people can die and more people can have fun and be protected in the way that we expect from a government was the point of the lockdown. There are many theories about 5G networks and mind control and all kinds of crazy shit. None of which was the point because I was watching external hospitals outside of hospitals be popped up intense because
because there was no room. That's a fact, and that's protecting the people, as far as I'm concerned, anyway, that's from my viewpoint. When you make a blockchain, if interacting on NFT markets is hurting people, which it is not, then you try to limit that, I guess, but it doesn't hurt people.
So I don't know what the limitation would be. The point of this is that from an ownership standpoint, I own my car. So I have a copy of the title and the title says my name on it and has the van of the car and all the details about mileage and gadi yadi yada, you know, who's owned it before and all that crap. So I have a copy of that and the government has a copy.
that we have in duplicate so that if either one of us pretends that it's not correct the other one goes none I'll look here this is as I got my copy and this is what this says and you signed it too so this is what's real clearly yours has a mark on it or you you did something wrong in blockchain technology as we see it currently we you
The copy is everywhere and it's on two copies of each block. You know, like that's what a chain is, right? There's a copy on this one and a copy on the next one. So it's everywhere in duplicate and it's reality and it can't be changed without a malicious action. So this says malicious action is almost impossible to come across and this is a 51% attack or you're just really lucky.
like astronomically lucky. In the case of government-owned blockchain, they decide, now, you don't have a copy of anything. You have something mutable. Let's say your title to your car is mutable because it's going to be on a government blockchain. It's not going to be immutable. They're not going to issue that. You own it forever. That's crazy.
a car and you think you own a car and it's mutable and the government owns every single validator the government can just decide to say you don't own the car that is one very specific single example of how this is not governments being more or less sensitive or protective of their people this is governments being more or less sensitive of protecting their own specific power
over their own people, not even globally. So it can't be seen as anything altruistic in any single sense that I can come up with. I wish I could. I want to. It just seems like an infringement of human rights and human ownership. An infringement upon the individual.
In my experience and from the knowledge I've gained over the years, in this industry
Every time you try to do something like that, it doesn't really work because
I mean, GitHub, when you're going on to the whole world is working together towards certain things. For example, AI.org is not just one person doing. It's the whole world collectively combining their power to create something.
I mean, all I can say is good luck with that, but it would be a learning experience not only. I do like hope you're right. In the example that you're using, you know, GitHub is its open source, right? Like everybody sees everything and everybody contributes to it, but that's because GitHub's open source.
But if this country made their own like RIT hub or Spit hub or something like that and only the government can contribute to it, that all falls apart. And goodness does not win, evil wins or control wins or whatever, whatever you want to color it. I hope that you're right about that. I hope it's something
pop stuff that stops this government from doing this governmental thing over its people, but it's a government. And I don't think that it can be unless like NATO decides to bomb the facilities and reinstate or take it over, or some other country becomes that country, you know, it historically does happen. But this feels
It feels like there is no check in balance for it. It feels like it is what is occurring. It's been what's been occurring. But now it's like a stronger version of what's occurring. That's maybe what's scary me about it the most. Is that this country is known for doing this thing.
Let's just say there's a country that's known for not letting its people access any IP address or website with an IP address outside of its own country. Now they have their own versions of social media platforms because they don't trust these people to interact with outside media platforms because maybe they get an idea and they start to revolve.
So this country is just falling in suit with everything else that's ever done. Which leads me to believe that this is a concept that cannot be mitigated. And luckily, on all the other countries, it doesn't really matter to me, I guess, but it is a sign that it could happen there. It can happen here.
Ideally, we need to work together. All of us, like, you know, we need to use technology for the namesake of what it's trying to bring. You know, and if you look at the conversations which we have had,
on all of our platforms, all we talk about is how the technology can bring the world together.
just happen because one day someone decided to go for a casual stroll in the park and decide to come up with this. You know, these struggles have been happening for a while.
It was more of a reaction towards the global economic condition in 2008 when the white paper of BTC was checked out.
I remember Jamie Damon, he was like, "Oh, BTC is a scam, BTC is a scam, BTC is a scam." And then he bought some shares like two years later.
So, you know, it's just crazy how like people tend to like fight against innovation and then adopt it and then create something with reference to that. And this happens on a mic
micro and macro scale all the time you'll see someone open a shop they're doing good business and then suddenly that business got a hard way shop and then suddenly five six hard way shops open in the same area and you like what the hell you know
It's a very sensitive topic in terms of what security is, each government is looking at in terms of securing themselves and what point of use they have for their
their actions. But generally speaking, the world could do, you know, working together, you know, as a collective because this is what we need if we need to leave like a better future for our next generations. And we need to like work out
ways of how to create situations which prevent these type of things to happen and facilitate each other and the governments like you know all of us should work together to create a system which would be good for all of
us, you know, that's what we should all be trying, aspiring towards, but unfortunately the world which we are living in, you know, sometimes dictates in a different way. But suppose hence why it's important to have conversations
and discuss all these point of use as an area to brainstorm on maybe different possibilities of how to approach it. And I think we should carry on this conversation because it's a long discussion and I think one hour doesn't really justify it because I was just getting warmed up here.
Yeah, honestly, maybe these need to be two hours sometimes We can plan them out that way I mean I sometimes I do actually have two hours to do this I just in this case I don't I actually do have another couple minutes though I don't have a hard out today So if you want to keep kicking it around a little we can do that if you guys got a buzz off we can do that - either way
Yeah, I just think that like, you know, there's so many different aspects like we should definitely look into like, you know, our space is where we discuss like it. Let's say the government does use a decentralized blockchain to facilitate their governance and you know, there's so many
different aspects to it from using NFTs as key cards to unlock certain secured areas, bank accounts, social services, voting.
voting ownership of items like deeds to homes and titles to cars and out there's so many millions of things defy the partaking in a global economy you know and a local one university degrees
Literally anything that's a piece of paper that says you did or are something should be in duplicate on the blockchain if it can be because why not you know? Why the heck not?
So I think these are the areas which we'll talk about next week. But in the meanwhile, hope you've had a fantastic new year. You've started off with an intense topic. Let's see how it carries on. Take care family. Toulouse checking out.
Heck yeah, keep it real everybody. Thanks for popping in Tommy. It's good to see you again. I'm still wondering if you're a real person someday. I want to hear your voice brother. I see you in all kinds of spaces sometimes too at once. You're an incredible being first great to see you and uh
Yeah, just happy new year everybody and let's let's I guess start out on this same note next week and We'll have a sub topic that we can move on to if we somehow come to the end of it and run out of things to kick the
can down the road about, which I highly doubt. That's all, that's it. That's the best of you, your lives. Thanks for popping in and we'll see you next time. Same bad time, same bad channel. Adios amigos.