Yeah, exactly.

Because I think STRC is the engine that drives the Bitcoin per share and a creation of value for the common shareholders.

And strategy has said time and time again that the common stock is important.

It's the most important, but it's sort of a trifecta of Bitcoin and Bitcoin, STRC, and MSTR.

They all kind of work in tandem with one another.

And I think there has to be adjustments based on market conditions.

So when the entire structure is stressed, then I think it is worthwhile to sell some Bitcoin because they did...

But are you also interested in Strive, MetaPlanet and other treasuries?

For the people out there, and the differently abled like myself, just trying to grasp what the hell is going on, well, what the hell is going on, and what should, what should we do?

Actually, before we move on, we should touch upon what you mentioned earlier, that your node doesn't matter if, uh, if the miners don't, uh [chuckles] don't signal for 110.

The thing is, a lot of people misunderstand what their node is for and what it does.

So some of the frustration is they feel their node is data storage, and, uh, they're being forced to store data that they don't want to on their node.

But your node is not data storage.

It is also not a vote.

Your node is a way for you as a sovereign individual to get a, an accurate view of the Bitcoin network for you to transact on the network, uh, monitor transactions, yours going out, transactions coming in, et cetera, et cetera.

What is the reality? Do you see there being a positive outcome if BIP 110 is successful?

So what do you say to that?

Well, there are definitely real people, and that's why I'm trying to engage.

But it's not really going anywhere.

I spent the last week talking to everybody and, you know, trying to explain things and talk sense into people.

But I think it does look like an angry mob.

Nobody wants to listen.

Everyone is angry.

Do you think that you've been inconsistent?

What do you think is sort of the biggest disconnect right now causing this seemingly, uh, pretty, you know, intense schism amidst the Bitcoin community? Where is the fundamental piece where people are not seeing eye to eye, in your opinion?

Well, the biggest thing is a lack of nuance.

So I posted something yesterday about that because I've been accused of flipping sides.

But I believe X is not a good platform for serious discussion.

It's more of a outlet for anger, frustration, and just blasting your opinions out, and there's no real follow-through.

It's really hard to follow through 'cause everything is buried in a thread somewhere, and nobody sees that because the algo promotes the, um, the less nuanced view, the more anger-promoting view.

So yeah, I think the issue is there's a lot of little nuance here and possibly a lack of understanding about how Bitcoin works from the 110 supporter group.

If this doesn't go the way that Luke and the other BIP-110 folks believe that it will, which they believe that it's going to be successful, if it's unsuccessful, do you think that there is a, a risk of this soft fork becoming a hard fork? Is there a risk of then, uh, a proof of work change being proposed? I, I'm not sure how much you've been following some of the, uh, discourse around that side of things, but I would love your take on it.

Anyway, back over to you.

Okay.

Let me see how to start.

So I'd first say I empathize with the plebs that, um, they're upset, they're frustrated, and they don't like that Core changed something.

I mean, everyone was running Core.

Most people were running Core, and then they switched to Nuts because they felt they were, you know, being coerced into doing something, and that coercion stems from different understandings and misunderstandings of what was being done.

Um, and I think a lot of the Core devs fanned the flames by, you know, calling people names, insulting them, making fun of them, and it kind of escalated from there.

But like, [sighs] like how does that relate to the way consensus works? Like why, why does that concern you? Because if it gets done, isn't it done through the rules of Bitcoin as it stands? Like, isn't that the sort of the beauty of the protocol, is that it works that way?

Hmm.

So there are a lot of comparisons to, um, the block size wars and, uh, activation of SegWit, but there was major consensus that SegWit was the path forward for the network to fix the malleability bug and to enable lightning.

And it was just a few people blocking it for financial gain, personal gain, basic boost.

And it was really more about the activation mechanism and activation timeline over the change itself.

Whereas 110 and everything, it does not have consensus, especially amongst technical, uh, development experts, you know, people that actually work on the software.

And even outside of that, there are a lord- lot of ordinary people using Bitcoin that don't agree with it either.

So it's a very small group of people that really want to push this forward, and they can be very aggressive and nasty.

Let's hear what Samson has to say about it.

And do you have a specific take on the matter? Would you like to remain neutral as a third party in this? Yeah, I wonder where you stand on all of that right now.

Yeah, well, there's no end to spicy things these days.

There's a lot of spiciness going around all over both sides, everywhere, up and down, left, right.

But yeah, where to start? I mean...

The thing is, I don't think 110 is a viable solution.

And I've kind of tried to ignore it a lot.

And people kind of ping me and say, well, You should state your position and say something.

Yeah, it doesn't change the base.

Yeah

... we, we are seeing that because we value privacy, we're all focused on how you can do local inference on your own devices, and the technology is definitely getting to a point.

Uh, it's being optimized.

You can run, you can run an LLM on your MacBook at a pretty decent rate of tokens per second, and that's only getting better.

And I don't feel like there's been a lot of optimization.

It's always been offloading the inefficiencies and improvements onto raw hardware and energy consumption, which is really not the way to go.

So if you think, like, you're investing in these AI companies, and the thesis is they're going to keep on expanding power consumption, energy consumption, and, uh, building data centers in space and all that to meet this demand, I don't think that's the right direction.

[chuckles]