And this is where the game theoretical understanding comes into play, is that given all of this antagonism amongst people, especially those that are trait disagreeable, and you could think about this, I guess, at an individual level,

but clearly it scales up into nation states and other organizations.

This drives people towards neutral territory, right?

It's one of the ways I've liked to describe gold is that the reason it's been

another reason it's been successful is because it's

apolitical. It's a neutral territory. To hold gold is to hold an asset that is pure equity and

0% liability. So you're not subjected to the willpower of others. That's not entirely true because

it can still be violently confiscated and whatnot. But in a market-based

transaction, it's minimized counterparty risk, let's say. Yes. Bitcoin takes that a step further

and that it's much harder to steal. It's much more resistant to coercion and violence than gold

to be, if properly custodied.

You could argue that what's that?

Custody, like a hosted wallet.

Yeah.

It's different than a wallet that you control.

Yes.

He's a sort of things like people will synonymize paper gold with physical gold.

Right.

Gold in a bank as opposed to gold in your backyard in a hole.

Everything carries different risks.

Yes, absolutely.

So, yeah, I think that there's something, and this is almost fundamental to what Bitcoin

...