Speaker 1: Well and welcome to another episode of the Mark Mass Show.
Speaker 1: We're always talking about the decentralized revolution. We're talking about
Speaker 1: the way the world changes as we look at through
Speaker 1: the lens of politics, finance, and technology. And of course
Speaker 1: it's always technology that changes the world. And you know
Speaker 1: that technology is bitcoin that's changing the world as we
Speaker 1: know it. You know, I like to bring to you
Speaker 1: some education, some breaking news, but also some interesting guests.
Speaker 1: You don't have to listen to me all the time.
Speaker 1: And that's what I have today. I am sitting down
Speaker 1: with Nico. He's the host of Simply Bitcoin. He thinks
Speaker 1: I'm a good content creator. I love his content, super creative,
Speaker 1: super insightful, and you know, it's just different. And so anyway, Nico,
Speaker 1: thanks for joining me and coming back to the channel again.
Speaker 2: Thanks for the Mark always an honor.
Speaker 1: I you know, I love talking to different people. I
Speaker 1: love different insights. You know, it's crazy so many people
Speaker 1: suffer from like a confirmation bias where they just want
Speaker 1: to hear what they think. But I like different perspectives.
Speaker 1: And you're younger, and you know you came from Argentina,
Speaker 1: was it Argentina?
Speaker 2: My aparents are originally from Venezuela.
Speaker 1: Venezuela, Venezuela. Sorry, yeah, and but I mean it just
Speaker 1: gives you having parents like that, it gives you a
Speaker 1: different upbringing and a different viewpoint. So I love it,
Speaker 1: and I love what you're doing. I want to just
Speaker 1: jump right into it. You know. I saw you posting
Speaker 1: on Twitter today about the EU Central Bank and what
Speaker 1: they had to say about bitcoin, which is pretty interesting.
Speaker 1: They said it's it's a failure. They said bitcoin is
Speaker 1: a failure. Did you see that? I did?
Speaker 2: I did you know? I coined this term a couple
Speaker 2: months ago. I started seeing a pattern, and essentially it's
Speaker 2: the iron law of central banker politician projection. They project
Speaker 2: onto us what it is they are guilty of themselves.
Speaker 2: If you take a look at the report, you know,
Speaker 2: they they they said that the you know, the emperors losing.
Speaker 2: You know, the emperor has no clothes, they said, you know,
Speaker 2: they use the word evil even and then if you
Speaker 2: take a look at the references that they used, they
Speaker 2: used a ten year old paper as one of the references, right,
Speaker 2: So what that tells me is that they're desperate, they
Speaker 2: don't know what to do, and they're used to operating
Speaker 2: in environment. We just recently had this conversation mark where
Speaker 2: they had a total monopoly on the information flows and
Speaker 2: now on Twitter, anybody can just reply to them, right,
Speaker 2: you know, you're on equal footing. And they got they
Speaker 2: got community noted, and the community note was brutal. They
Speaker 2: got ratioed. I don't know who thought that was a
Speaker 2: good idea, but that tells me we're winning. That tells
Speaker 2: me we're over the target, and that tells me they're scared.
Speaker 1: That's a little bit of a sidetrack note, but it's
Speaker 1: so important. Back to Yeah, we did have this conversation
Speaker 1: yesterday on your show and sort of how technology has
Speaker 1: gotten ahead of the government. But really I noticed it.
Speaker 1: You know, we're both on YouTube. I noticed it. At
Speaker 1: the last presidential election, they took away the down the
Speaker 1: down thumb off of YouTube and that was because Biden's
Speaker 1: videos were getting so many any doubt, like like one
Speaker 1: like in a million downs or something crazy like that,
Speaker 1: and they literally took it off. And so to the
Speaker 1: point that you just made like for the ability for
Speaker 1: now the public to weigh in on these things, I mean,
Speaker 1: it's it's pretty insane, and I think it's pretty apparent
Speaker 1: back to follow our conversation yesterday, like they can't have this,
Speaker 1: Like they can't allow that.
Speaker 2: No, they can't. And just to go back to, you know,
Speaker 2: the point that you made about Biden the last election.
Speaker 2: You know, supposedly this was the most popular elected you know,
Speaker 2: person that was ever elected, and how could it be that,
Speaker 2: you know, his like dislike ratio was the way it
Speaker 2: was right that it doesn't fit the narrative, It doesn't
Speaker 2: quite fit what it is that they're trying to tell us.
Speaker 2: And a couple of years ago, maybe it was like
Speaker 2: about a year ago or so, they tried to release
Speaker 2: the quote unquote Ministry of Truth here in the US,
Speaker 2: out of all places, completely against the First Amendment. So
Speaker 2: it kind of goes into you know what we were
Speaker 2: talking about yesterday, the theory of the sovereign individual, about
Speaker 2: how information technologies was going to disintermediate information, democratize content creation,
Speaker 2: and you know, it's creating this absolute nightmare for governments.
Speaker 2: They just don't know what to do. And not only
Speaker 2: the cognitive dissonance, but also like this short circuit because
Speaker 2: you see their totalitarian impulses trying to get in there
Speaker 2: and say, you know, we gotta get this taken down.
Speaker 2: I mean, look at the election, they got a president
Speaker 2: taken off of Twitter, right, so you're seeing the old
Speaker 2: system clash with the new system. But I think once
Speaker 2: we get over this hill, I am extremely optimistic about
Speaker 2: the future. It is gonna be a little bit bumpy
Speaker 2: for sure in the next five ten years, but after
Speaker 2: we get over that hill, I'm very optimistic.
Speaker 1: In this. They said that I didn't read the report.
Speaker 1: I haven't had time to. Maybe you have, but it
Speaker 1: says on their tweet that bitcoin has failed to become
Speaker 1: a global decentralized digital currency, instead falling victim to fraud
Speaker 1: and manipulation. So that's what they put in their in
Speaker 1: their tweet. So if we break that down and maybe
Speaker 1: they gave more context inside, but has failed, okay failed
Speaker 1: what to become a globally centralized digital currency? So one
Speaker 1: money is an evolutionary process, so it takes time. So
Speaker 1: we have a brand new as I tweeted out, a
Speaker 1: new revolutionary technological invention, and it's failed. Like what definition
Speaker 1: does that? So has it failed? I mean it is
Speaker 1: being used. Is it a decentralized digital currency? It is?
Speaker 1: Is there like a certain level, Like did they give
Speaker 1: any sort of reference to how has it failed.
Speaker 2: No, they just make a claim, and that's the beauty
Speaker 2: of the community, not the community. Note literally went line
Speaker 2: by line with all their different claims. It went number one,
Speaker 2: bitcoin is not preferable for criminals. Number two, Bitcoin is
Speaker 2: an open monetary protocol, and the centralized store of value.
Speaker 2: Number three, which answers your question, The Euro is losing
Speaker 2: its purchasing power against bitcoin constantly, and if you actually
Speaker 2: take a look at the data, if you take a
Speaker 2: look at if you take a look at percentage terms,
Speaker 2: the Euro has lost ninety two point seventy four percent
Speaker 2: of its value against bitcoin for the last five years.
Speaker 2: And it goes back to my original point of the
Speaker 2: iron law of central banker and politician projection. They project
Speaker 2: onto bitcoin what it is, they are guilty of themselves.
Speaker 2: The Euro is failing to bitcoin in real time. Now,
Speaker 2: you'd have to ask yourself. It is kind of a
Speaker 2: coincidence that they came out with this with this report,
Speaker 2: because today the ECB reported record losses for twenty twenty three,
Speaker 2: So it's kind of a coincidence that that tweet comes
Speaker 2: out about bitcoin and then this news comes out on
Speaker 2: the same day.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, I mean, and when you say it's failed,
Speaker 1: the euro failing to the bitcoin, you're saying the purchasing
Speaker 1: power of the currency has failed. And so at least
Speaker 1: we have some sort of like a parameter to what
Speaker 1: like failed means. I don't know what metric they're talking about,
Speaker 1: like has it failed to be more widely used than
Speaker 1: the Euro? But of course like regulations prevent that. But
Speaker 1: I want to lead us into a conversation and we'll
Speaker 1: see how I think you're going to be comfortable with.
Speaker 1: Michael Sailor would not be comfortable with the conversation. I
Speaker 1: tweeted it out yesterday. I put a video clip of
Speaker 1: Andrew Sorkin talking about to fund strat saying that you know,
Speaker 1: bitcoin is only being used for illicit purposes and he said, well,
Speaker 1: pirates use gold first, and then you know whatever, and
Speaker 1: I posted this, so I want to talk about that.
Speaker 1: So you said that they're saying they're throwing shade fud
Speaker 1: that bitcoin is only used for illicit purposes, illegal purposes,
Speaker 1: and you said it's not. And the fact checking is
Speaker 1: that most of that's happening in dollars. The kind of
Speaker 1: illicit transaction happening to bitcoin is like not even like
Speaker 1: a drop in the bucket compared to what's being done
Speaker 1: in dollars. So we have that, right, But let's let's
Speaker 1: dive down into this conversation a little bit, right, So
Speaker 1: you put on Twitter that anyone can create a bitcoin wallet,
Speaker 1: not everyone can open a bank account?
Speaker 2: Yes, what is that? So? I mean like the And
Speaker 2: there's another there's another tweet that I came out with
Speaker 2: not too long long, too long ago, and it's kind
Speaker 2: of very similar, right, which is this idea that this
Speaker 2: idea that that bitcoin doesn't judge based on where you
Speaker 2: happen to be born in, right, and their system does right?
Speaker 2: And another tweet that I came out with, which was
Speaker 2: I sent a wire it's obvious that bitcoin wins. And
Speaker 2: one of the attacking vehicles that anti bitcoin politicians like
Speaker 2: Elizabeth Warren are using to attack something like bitcoin, is
Speaker 2: this idea that bitcoin.
Speaker 1: Wait huh wait wait, I'm gonna stop you there because
Speaker 1: I need a cliffhanger because you're listening to the Mark
Speaker 1: Mass Show. I'm sitting down with Nico from Simply a
Speaker 1: Bitcoin and we got to take a very quick break.
Speaker 1: But if you want to find out what this attack
Speaker 1: vector is, that Elizabeth Warren is coming back with. Make
Speaker 1: sure you stick around. We're gonna take a super quick break.
Speaker 1: You don't want to miss this rest of this conversation.
Speaker 1: We're gonna lead Nico down into a path you don't
Speaker 1: hear about talked about in bitcoin. We're gonna talk about
Speaker 1: it here in a second. Don't go away, We're gonna
Speaker 1: be right back. All right, welcome back. If you just
Speaker 1: tune in, you're listening to the Mark Mass Show, I'm
Speaker 1: sitting down with Nico from Simply Bitcoin. Nico. Before the break,
Speaker 1: you were going to say, what is Elizabeth Warren using
Speaker 1: as her tool?
Speaker 2: Yeah, so, Elizabeth Warren, she used a Wall Street Journal
Speaker 2: article that took advantage of the tragedy happening in Palestine
Speaker 2: and Israel, and it made the claim that that bitcoin
Speaker 2: was being used for illsted finance, it was being used
Speaker 2: for terrorist financing. It came out after the fact, about
Speaker 2: a week or two later, that that article completely misrepresented
Speaker 2: the data. But that didn't stop the finsend to introduce
Speaker 2: a very very hostile type of regulation that would essentially
Speaker 2: make it so that any type of lightning network transaction,
Speaker 2: any type of address reused, would have to be, it
Speaker 2: would have to be surveiled, it would have to be
Speaker 2: reported to the US government, not to mention, she got
Speaker 2: four additional Senators that signed up to a bill that
Speaker 2: would essentially not my words, this is Pierre Rishard's words,
Speaker 2: that would essentially kill bitcoin mining in the United States.
Speaker 2: And now we have twenty percent of the US Senate
Speaker 2: Republicans and Democrats. She's got two Republicans to sign up
Speaker 2: for this bill that would essentially kill bitcoin mining in
Speaker 2: the US. It would kill bitcoin self custody in the US.
Speaker 2: So the point that I'm trying to make is that
Speaker 2: they're taking advantage of TRACK, they're misrepresenting the data in
Speaker 2: in order to achieve a certain political goal in the
Speaker 2: United States, which is to outlaw self custody altogether and
Speaker 2: also go after bitcoin minors. Right, They've been solely focused
Speaker 2: on doing that the last six months. I've been covering
Speaker 2: it almost every other day, And you know, it blows
Speaker 2: my mind to what length these people will go to
Speaker 2: in order to stop use from using a money that
Speaker 2: doesn't steal from you, which is absolutely absurd. But at
Speaker 2: the same time, it's exposing them for who they are, Like,
Speaker 2: how does it hurt anybody for me, as an American citizen,
Speaker 2: as a first generation American, to hold to memorize twelve words,
Speaker 2: write down twelve words, to use the money that is
Speaker 2: outside the grasp of the hands of government. How does
Speaker 2: that hurt anybody? Right? So, I think they're desperate. I
Speaker 2: think they're scared. I think they see the writing on
Speaker 2: the wall that bitcoin is help.
Speaker 1: How it hurts people. How it hurts people is that
Speaker 1: I mean, you could give money to a t terrorists.
Speaker 1: I mean, you could be funding terrorism.
Speaker 2: But that's what they say. But if you actually took it,
Speaker 2: if you actually took take a look at the data
Speaker 2: and what that was posted by Senator Cynthia Lumus, the
Speaker 2: Bitcoin senator coming out of Wyoming, ninety nine point three
Speaker 2: percent of illicit finance is actually done using the traditional
Speaker 2: financial system, and Representative Tom Emmer actually interviewed or had
Speaker 2: the head of FINSEND testify in congressional testimony that actually
Speaker 2: terrorists prefer using the traditional financial system versus bitcoin. But
Speaker 2: that didn't stop Elizabeth Warren to try to use her
Speaker 2: media allies in order to achieve a certain political end goal,
Speaker 2: which again, just like the central Bank, just like the
Speaker 2: European Central Bank tweet. It tells me that we're over
Speaker 2: the target and that we're winning.
Speaker 1: Yeah. There was a report that came out, I don't
Speaker 1: know two years ago called the Finns and Files, and
Speaker 1: it basically exposed all this I think two trillion dollars
Speaker 1: that were used for illicit transactions knowingly knowingly, So in
Speaker 1: these fence and files, it exposed all these banks HSBC,
Speaker 1: like International Banks, big banks, JP Morgan and showed how
Speaker 1: they were literally like laundering money for drug cartels and
Speaker 1: like they did all this and then they pay small
Speaker 1: fines that are small percentages of the total amount of money
Speaker 1: that they made. So it's like a slap on the wrist.
Speaker 1: And and these globally regulated licensed facilities from the Federal
Speaker 1: Reserve of the Central Banks were knowingly allowing this to happen.
Speaker 1: So it's like with bitcoin, at least there's like, hey,
Speaker 1: it's anonymous and if people use it, they use it.
Speaker 1: I can't control what they use it for, whereas here
Speaker 1: these banks were actively facilitating it, which is a big difference.
Speaker 1: And so when you think about that in those terms, Niko,
Speaker 1: like you talk about per tom Emmer saying whatever it
Speaker 1: was ninety eight percent or being used dollars in a
Speaker 1: controlled and permission system, right, I mean, so it's like
Speaker 1: a magnitude of orders and worse in my opinion. But
Speaker 1: the point that I want to get to that I
Speaker 1: want to I want to talk about for a minute,
Speaker 1: is bitcoin really for criminals? And that's why I said,
Speaker 1: this is not a conversation here talked about and I
Speaker 1: know Michael said I would never want to talk about it,
Speaker 1: but like, is it money for criminals? But like, what
Speaker 1: is a criminal?
Speaker 2: It it?
Speaker 1: That's the key piece. What what is a criminal?
Speaker 2: Bitcoin is the money of enemies?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 2: Bitcoin is the money of enemies. We have to be
Speaker 2: okay with anybody using it. I find it very difficult
Speaker 2: to be lectured by government bureaucrats that are sending billions
Speaker 2: of dollars to fund a foreign war, of which that
Speaker 2: money is not accounted for. There was a report that
Speaker 2: came out of the Pentagon that they had a it
Speaker 2: was like it was like a five hundred billion dollar
Speaker 2: accounting error. And then at the same time, you know,
Speaker 2: they're expecting us to report any transaction over six hundred dollars, right,
Speaker 2: So it's rules for thee.
Speaker 1: But the Pentagon lost. The Pentagon lost the day before
Speaker 1: nine to eleven. The day before Donald Remsfeld, who ran
Speaker 1: the Pentagon at the time, went on National TV and
Speaker 1: said they lost.
Speaker 2: Two Trillionah, that's what I'm trying to tell you.
Speaker 1: The day before the towers got hit. And then like
Speaker 1: a year ago they reported they lost another two trillion.
Speaker 1: So yeah, it's yeah, we sent a hundred billion into
Speaker 1: Ukraine with no accounting, which we now we do know
Speaker 1: that a lot of those weapons have ended up in
Speaker 1: Mexican cartels and things like that. But yet, yeah, to
Speaker 1: your point, they want to audit our six hundred dollars.
Speaker 2: It's rules for thee and not for me. Like it's
Speaker 2: as simple as that. And I think that, you know,
Speaker 2: something something like bitcoin comes along and it's a clear
Speaker 2: and present danger for them for the racket that has
Speaker 2: been happening, and I think that they're going to try
Speaker 2: to use everything in anything to try to stop this thing,
Speaker 2: try to stop the adoption of bitcoin. I don't think
Speaker 2: they're going to be successful. I think the incentives are
Speaker 2: too great and it's going to be a very very
Speaker 2: uphill battle, especially as more time goes by and more
Speaker 2: and more people adopt this technology with the black rock
Speaker 2: etf being rolled out. I mean, I saw it the
Speaker 2: other day. You had the anchor of squawk Box, Joe
Speaker 2: Like I can't I forget his last name, Joe Scarborough.
Speaker 2: I think that's his name, but essentially he was killing
Speaker 2: Gary Gensler on air, Like Gary Gensler was trying to
Speaker 2: tell him, like, you know, this bitcoin thing, it's not
Speaker 2: the real deal, you know, you gotta be careful, and
Speaker 2: he's like, what are you talking about? You know, like
Speaker 2: people are adopting this because people don't believe in the
Speaker 2: Central Bank. And Gary Gensler had no response to him,
Speaker 2: and you know how, I know he could be potentially
Speaker 2: compromised because this is someone who taught classes at Harvard
Speaker 2: or Stanford, I forget what the institution was, like MIT
Speaker 2: about bitcoins, so I know he knows, but obviously he's
Speaker 2: trying to protect his job, you know. So anyways, all
Speaker 2: this stuff going on.
Speaker 1: I went I went back and I went back and
Speaker 1: watched on YouTube. You can watch just search Gary gins
Speaker 1: or MIT on YouTube. You can watch his presentations and
Speaker 1: he breaks it all down bitcoins specific perfectly, Like I mean,
Speaker 1: he's a bitcointer, right, Like he breaks down the distributed ledger,
Speaker 1: he breaks down the the you know, the way to
Speaker 1: toast you solved the problem. He talks about the need
Speaker 1: because of what central bankers are doing. I mean, he
Speaker 1: breaks the whole thing down, so like it's a it's
Speaker 1: a blatant lie. I was gonna try to grab the
Speaker 1: video and edit it up and post it, but I
Speaker 1: didn't get around to it. But I mean, it's a
Speaker 1: blatant lie because to your point, he knows better and
Speaker 1: to your point, yeah, Joe on squawk Box, he's he's
Speaker 1: been nailing in so sort of back to this criminal element,
Speaker 1: he says, But look, you can't blame the tool, right,
Speaker 1: So like bad guys whatever you want to call him, terrorists,
Speaker 1: They drive cars, they go on social media, they eat food,
Speaker 1: they drink water, Like we can't just ban everything that
Speaker 1: they do, right, Like well if we if we ban water,
Speaker 1: they they'll die because they can't drink water. Right. It's
Speaker 1: like it's a it's a little bit broad. But I
Speaker 1: want to come back and dig into this a little
Speaker 1: bit more. But I gotta take a very quick break.
Speaker 1: If you're just tune in, you're listening to the Mark
Speaker 1: Maas Show send down with Nico from Simply Bitcoin, running
Speaker 1: through what is going on in the bitcoin role. We're
Speaker 1: back with more in a minute. Don't go away, all right,
Speaker 1: welcome back. If you're just tuning in you're listening to
Speaker 1: the Mark Mass Show and send down with Nico from
Speaker 1: Simply Bitcoin and Nico. I want to get back to
Speaker 1: the question though. So the question I asked in light
Speaker 1: of this Elizabeth Warren and all this information, is what
Speaker 1: is even a criminal? And so I'm gonna lay this
Speaker 1: out a little bit, right, So you mentioned earlier we
Speaker 1: started with one of your tweets that that anyone can
Speaker 1: create a bitcoin wallet, not everyone can open a bank account.
Speaker 1: So let's just start with that. So we know there's
Speaker 1: approximately a billion and a half or so adults in
Speaker 1: the world that can't open a bank account because they
Speaker 1: don't have permission. So if they did, that would be illegal.
Speaker 1: They would be a criminal. Yeah, right, So what's a criminal?
Speaker 1: I mean if we keep going and I want to
Speaker 1: I want to pull this. There's this quote I want
Speaker 1: to pull out, and it's under communist Russia, under the
Speaker 1: sort of in the forties and fifties, sort of at
Speaker 1: the height of the Goulag and all of that under
Speaker 1: the height of the Stalin era, we'll call it that Bria,
Speaker 1: which is one of Stalin's like main lieutenants. He had
Speaker 1: a quote that's been used a lot, and it said
Speaker 1: Bria targeted the man first, then proceeded to find or
Speaker 1: fabricate a crime. Bria's modus operande was to presume the
Speaker 1: man guilty and fill in the blanks later. So you've
Speaker 1: probably heard that, show me the man, I'll show you
Speaker 1: the crime, right And so when you think about this,
Speaker 1: show me the man, I'll show you the crime, sort
Speaker 1: of like what's happened to Donald Trump. You know, if
Speaker 1: they were just hey, he did this thing, and no
Speaker 1: one's above a wall that's prosecuted for him. But when
Speaker 1: you're getting prosecuted on from fifty different directions, I mean,
Speaker 1: it's like pretty obviously at this point. But let's just
Speaker 1: talk about this for a second. And actually, I love
Speaker 1: one of my favorite authors, F. A. Hyek. He wrote
Speaker 1: The Road to Serve Them, which everyone should read if
Speaker 1: you haven't read it, and I believe it's chapter six.
Speaker 1: He talks about the law and the law should be
Speaker 1: written down concrete and it should be simple enough that
Speaker 1: everyone can understand it, and it should be fixed so
Speaker 1: that I can plan my life based on those set
Speaker 1: of rules, and you could plan your life sort of
Speaker 1: like if we play basketball. The rules of basketball are fixed,
Speaker 1: but I'm going to approach the game different than Lebron
Speaker 1: James would, right, and so the law should be like that.
Speaker 1: But let me break this down. So I have seen
Speaker 1: reports in the past and it shows like the amount
Speaker 1: of laws that have grown over time. And so I
Speaker 1: went to go to try to find this information for
Speaker 1: this show, and you can't find it. It's so bad.
Speaker 1: So I saw there's been thirty thousand statutes. So in law,
Speaker 1: we have laws, we have regulations, we have rules, we
Speaker 1: have statutes, ordinances. All of these are basically laws, thirty
Speaker 1: thousand statutes and so no matter what, you're breaking the law,
Speaker 1: whether you know it. And I asked chat GPT how
Speaker 1: many laws, statutes, and regulations are in the United States today.
Speaker 1: Chat GBT said that to quantify that is impossible. It said,
Speaker 1: there's different levels of government law statute, regulations, their federal
Speaker 1: their state, their local governments. Each state has its own
Speaker 1: body of laws. Municipalities within those states have additional ordinances
Speaker 1: and regulations. It said, there's continuous changes. It said. The
Speaker 1: dynamic nature of laws means that the total number can
Speaker 1: fluctuate daily. It said that federal agencies issued thousands of
Speaker 1: regulations based on statutory authority. And I kept digging, I
Speaker 1: kept digging. I kept digging, and said, well, you should
Speaker 1: ask something more specific. So I asked more specific, and
Speaker 1: it's literally impossible for it to even tell me that.
Speaker 1: And I found this in nineteen eighty. In nineteen eighty,
Speaker 1: the Department of just nineteen to two Justice Department tried
Speaker 1: to determine the total number of criminal laws in a
Speaker 1: project that lasted two years. Two years they tried to
Speaker 1: figure this out and they couldn't figure it out. That
Speaker 1: was in nineteen eighty. It was scattered among fifty titles,
Speaker 1: twenty three thousand pages, just federal law. So anyway, what's
Speaker 1: a criminal? We're all criminal, like, so bitcoins for criminals.
Speaker 1: And even if you're not a criminal today, you're probably
Speaker 1: going to be a criminal tomorrow.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And look, and I love that explanation and just
Speaker 2: kind of going through it, especially the Maria and stuff.
Speaker 2: And you know, I think he was a he was
Speaker 2: assassinated in the coup and yeah, I mean it was
Speaker 2: execute you better said. But you know, it kind of
Speaker 2: goes back to I don't have it. I mean, I
Speaker 2: do have an issue with it. The problem is that
Speaker 2: they're not following their own rules and their own laws
Speaker 2: that they expect everyone else to follow, right if you're
Speaker 2: gonna lecture me, And I never forget this. I was
Speaker 2: hosting the I think it was hosting a Twitter spaces
Speaker 2: at the time, covering the DOJ press conference for Binance,
Speaker 2: and I was my jaw dropped during the press conference
Speaker 2: because they had all the heavy hitters, they had Janet Yellen,
Speaker 2: they had Merrick Garland, and they mentioned the word terrorism
Speaker 2: twenty times during that press conference about Binance. And I
Speaker 2: get what Binance did, and you know, the security stuff,
Speaker 2: and I get it. You can make an argument that
Speaker 2: that wasn't kosher. I understand, But why did they mention
Speaker 2: the word terrorism twenty times? Well, it was because you know,
Speaker 2: they're trying to pass the narrative. But here's the thing.
Speaker 2: They're trying to send another additional sixty billion dollars to Ukraine.
Speaker 2: You you could be very confident that a percentage of
Speaker 2: that is being wandered. So who are you to lecture me?
Speaker 2: About what money laundering is. Who are you to lecture
Speaker 2: me about what terrorism is is? Well, you are literally
Speaker 2: funding a war overseas. The US government has been funding
Speaker 2: a war overseas for the last you know what four
Speaker 2: decades continuously. So I don't, I don't. I've gotten to
Speaker 2: this point where I'm like, listen, I just I don't.
Speaker 2: If you lived up to your own laws, maybe I
Speaker 2: believe you, and I'll and I'll drop this last nugget.
Speaker 2: There was a US senator I believe his name is
Speaker 2: Senator Mendez, and he was accusing Nambukla of corruption, said nambukeles,
Speaker 2: corruption is corrupt. He opened, you know, a senate or
Speaker 2: a representative investigation into the guy and it was discovered
Speaker 2: two to three months later that they found literal gold
Speaker 2: bars in this guy's trump Yeah. Boris Johnson, apparently Tucker
Speaker 2: Carlson was trying to get an interview with Boris Johnson
Speaker 2: and one of his staffers, Boris Johnson says like, yeah,
Speaker 2: I'll do the interview if you pay me a million
Speaker 2: dollars worth of dollars gold bar or bitcoin. This is
Speaker 2: the same Boris Johnson that was the Prime Minister of
Speaker 2: the UK that's been hostile towards bitcoin. So it goes
Speaker 2: back to pay attention to what they do, not what
Speaker 2: they say. And also it's clearly a rule. It clearly
Speaker 2: there's rules for them, and there's rules for the rest
Speaker 2: of us, right, and it's you know, it's it's it's bs.
Speaker 2: So yeah, I agree with your original statement. There's so
Speaker 2: many laws. Everyone's a criminal, but the people that are
Speaker 2: supposed to that are in charge of enforcing these laws
Speaker 2: aren't aren't following the laws themselves, and they're expecting the
Speaker 2: rest of us, who are supposedly the people in charge
Speaker 2: because it's our government, to follow those laws.
Speaker 1: The problem that I put in this tweet when I
Speaker 1: kind of threw this out there again this is an
Speaker 1: uncomfortable thing for people in the bitcoin community, but it's like, yeah,
Speaker 1: it is money for criminals, and unfortunately, when bitcoin's outlawed,
Speaker 1: only outlaws will have bitcoin kind of thing. But specifically
Speaker 1: I was I related it back to the problem with laws.
Speaker 1: I mean, look, there's certainly things that we can all
Speaker 1: agree are heinous and shouldn't be allowed, But this goes
Speaker 1: back to sort of like making the law pretty simple
Speaker 1: and laid out so we can all understand it. But
Speaker 1: the problem is is who interprets the law. So for example,
Speaker 1: back to like now, all of a sudden across the
Speaker 1: world we have all these like hate speech laws coming
Speaker 1: out can has put in force. Ireland's gotten pretty strict
Speaker 1: with them, right, But who's to say what's hateful? Like,
Speaker 1: wh who's to say what hateful is?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 1: So the right to free speech means, look, I have
Speaker 1: the freedom to say what I want. If you don't
Speaker 1: like it, don't listen to it. But when you say,
Speaker 1: you can go Now in Ireland, right you can go
Speaker 1: to jail for hate speech. But what is hate and
Speaker 1: what what what? What hate speech is divined as today
Speaker 1: will change over time, That's the that's the problem. And
Speaker 1: I think about this is who controls the ledger? Okay, right,
Speaker 1: so we talk about bitcoin, who controls the money ledger?
Speaker 1: But we have to trust whoever's controlling the le But
Speaker 1: we now we have to trust who's controlling who's we
Speaker 1: have to trust who's determining what is hate speech and
Speaker 1: what's not. We have to turn we have to trust
Speaker 1: the person who says what is illegal and what's not.
Speaker 1: And so it continues to force us in these things
Speaker 1: and so just back to like a freedom of speech
Speaker 1: absolutist like, I may hate what you have to say,
Speaker 1: but I'll defend your right to say it. I may
Speaker 1: hate what you do, but I'm not going to take
Speaker 1: away your right to use money anyway. If you're just
Speaker 1: tune in earthing to the Mark mass Show, I'm sending
Speaker 1: down with Nico from Simply Bitcoin. We're talking about bitcoin
Speaker 1: being money for enemies and if there's some validity to
Speaker 1: do that. We back with more in a minute. You
Speaker 1: gotta take a very quick break. Don't go away. I'll
Speaker 1: be right back, all right, welcome back. If you just
Speaker 1: tune in your thing to the Mark Moss Show, send
Speaker 1: down with Nico from Simply Bitcoin. So, Nico, I kind
Speaker 1: of threw that out at the last minute, sort of
Speaker 1: who controls the ledger meaning not just the ledger of money,
Speaker 1: but the ledger of what's hate speech is or the
Speaker 1: lever of all those what's your what's your response?
Speaker 2: I mean, it's a great point because they're one and
Speaker 2: the same. Right, you know, Sotoshi Nakamoto fully understood and
Speaker 2: the founding fathers of the US understood this as well, right,
Speaker 2: which is Satoshi knew that if anyone could control the ledger,
Speaker 2: They're gonna be completely biased on what is an appropriate
Speaker 2: transaction and what is not an appropriate transaction. And the
Speaker 2: founding fathers knew this, and it's literally enshrined in the
Speaker 2: First Amendment of the Constitution. Congress should make no law
Speaker 2: respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,
Speaker 2: or abridging the freedom of speech. They fundamentally knew that
Speaker 2: if there was a human being that was determining what
Speaker 2: is hate speech and what is not hate speech, that's
Speaker 2: the same as government determining what speech is allowed and
Speaker 2: what speech is not allowed. It's not a perfect solution,
Speaker 2: but they came to this. They came to the realization is,
Speaker 2: let's let the free market of ideas determine what is
Speaker 2: a good idea and what is not a good idea.
Speaker 2: I think that if you, I think that, if you're
Speaker 2: trying to shut down someone's speech, I think you already
Speaker 2: lost in the discussion with them. You don't have any
Speaker 2: more arguments. So therefore the next best thing for you
Speaker 2: to do is just to completely, you know, take away
Speaker 2: their ability to say anything to you.
Speaker 1: If you can't win, and the if you can't win
Speaker 1: in the open market, then you have to censor correct.
Speaker 2: So but this is what's so beautiful about bitcoin. This
Speaker 2: is so what's so beautiful about freedom tools like noster
Speaker 2: is that it's eventually going to be a forcing function
Speaker 2: on governments because if they're if they can't stop you
Speaker 2: from using bitcoin, if they can't stop you from communicating freely.
Speaker 2: I really do believe in the in the theory from
Speaker 2: the sovereign individual that over time, because of those things,
Speaker 2: it will make politics irrelevant. If they if they can't
Speaker 2: make this thing go away, then central bank money is
Speaker 2: to have to compete with bitcoin. And we all know
Speaker 2: who's gonna win. The approved narrative is going to have
Speaker 2: to compete with the free narrative, right that's based on truth.
Speaker 2: We all know who's gonna win that in the free
Speaker 2: market of ideas. So yeah, I mean they, but that's
Speaker 2: not going to stop them from trying. We were talking
Speaker 2: about it yesterday, Mark, and it was a great conversation.
Speaker 2: We were talking about the separation of church and state
Speaker 2: and how the printing press basically fundamentally changed everything. I
Speaker 2: think we're at this crossroads in human history, the rise
Speaker 2: of information technologies, the disintermediation of money and information. It's
Speaker 2: kind of crossover. Information started first, money followed. But I
Speaker 2: think it's it's really kind of shifting how humans organize
Speaker 2: each other. And more importantly, it's calling into question what
Speaker 2: the relationship between the individual and the state is.
Speaker 1: What about you know, I also think about like we
Speaker 1: have laws in place against killing people, blowing people up,
Speaker 1: stealing things, like, we have laws in place for that.
Speaker 1: But when they start trying to control your flow of money,
Speaker 1: that's like a pre crime. Well, you can't have freedom
Speaker 1: of your money because if you do, you might do
Speaker 1: something that's already illegal. But we already have laws against
Speaker 1: that illegal thing of course, right, And so it sort
Speaker 1: of goes back into sort of back to this statement
Speaker 1: if we go all the way back to this Stalin statement,
Speaker 1: right where only in the United States are we innocent
Speaker 1: until proven guilty, Whereas back in the Stalin era, everybody
Speaker 1: was guilty, right, we had to find the crime for them.
Speaker 1: And so it's like it really has changed in the
Speaker 1: entire system to where it's like this pre crime era
Speaker 1: where it's like, hey, we have to stop you from
Speaker 1: doing anything that could even potentially ever maybe one day
Speaker 1: ever could lead you into do something illegal, and it's
Speaker 1: just like a man, the craziness of that. So, yeah,
Speaker 1: we'll see where it goes. I think at some point,
Speaker 1: I mean, as we talked about yesterday on your show,
Speaker 1: all this technology I believe shows that the state is
Speaker 1: no longer relevant or competent. And so when they say
Speaker 1: to you the point you made earlier, Elizabeth Warren says,
Speaker 1: you can't custody your bitcoin, and you're like, I can't
Speaker 1: know twelve words in my head, like how does that
Speaker 1: even make sense? Like that's like the stupidest thing I've
Speaker 1: ever heard, Like that's like no, like that doesn't work right,
Speaker 1: And I think it it's only just making them look
Speaker 1: more irrelevant. And yeah, I think they're trying to fight
Speaker 1: against the tide that probably will eventually. It's like, what
Speaker 1: is that saying a standing army is no match for
Speaker 1: a good idea whose time has come or something like that.
Speaker 2: Exactly. Yeah, I mean, look the the I tweeted that,
Speaker 2: I tweeted this out. I think it was a couple
Speaker 2: of months ago, But the nation state is dead. Everyone's
Speaker 2: still just playing pretent and I fundamentally believe that. And
Speaker 2: the faster that you really lies or the audience, who's realizing,
Speaker 2: who's listening? The faster you realize that, you know, you
Speaker 2: have autonomy, you have freedom, tools the likes of which
Speaker 2: has never been seen before in human history to enable
Speaker 2: or to take back your individual sovereignty from an information
Speaker 2: standpoint and from a monetary standpoint. But it's up to
Speaker 2: you to take agency, to take action in order to
Speaker 2: enable that sovereignty, in order to achieve that sovereigny, order
Speaker 2: to take back that sovereignty. So the question is are
Speaker 2: you willing to do that? Are you willing to take
Speaker 2: a bit of personal responsibility? Learn how to take bitcoin
Speaker 2: into self custody, Learn how to do your own research,
Speaker 2: Learn how to not trust on a single source, Learn
Speaker 2: to question things even if it comes from a quote
Speaker 2: unquote very approved source that I think over the last
Speaker 2: five years has shown that, you know, the so called
Speaker 2: approved sources aren't a you know, one hundred percent accurate
Speaker 2: to say the least. So, yeah, but it's it's very
Speaker 2: exciting times to be a human. It's very exciting times
Speaker 2: to be a bitcoiner. And you know, I'm about to
Speaker 2: be a father, and I am going to do whatever
Speaker 2: it takes in order for my my my future daughter
Speaker 2: to live a life of freedom and not a life
Speaker 2: of slavery, because I think the life that central bankers
Speaker 2: and politicians have envisioned for us is a life of
Speaker 2: slavery with these central bank digital currencies, and not to
Speaker 2: mention all the other crazy stuff that's coming out of
Speaker 2: the World Economic Forum, they're telling us exactly the life
Speaker 2: that they have envisioned for us. And you know, to
Speaker 2: use one of their own propaganda pieces, right, they say,
Speaker 2: you know you'll own nothing and be happy. Well, I
Speaker 2: refuse that. All own bitcoin and be happy, and you
Speaker 2: can take that or the shut where the sun doesn't shine.
Speaker 1: I love it, you know, and and you know you
Speaker 1: asked me estday sort of like that encouragement, and I
Speaker 1: think that's a big piece of it. And so it's like, well,
Speaker 1: if they want, if they want that for us, we
Speaker 1: want the opposite. So we want to encourage people to
Speaker 1: be owners, like let's stand up, let's be owners, let's
Speaker 1: like reclaim what is ours, and so like, unfortunately you
Speaker 1: know that we have these cliches. I was listening to
Speaker 1: Jordan Peterson was on tom By Lou's impact theory. Just
Speaker 1: a couple of days ago or whatever. I was listening
Speaker 1: to part of it. Man tom By Lou has gotten
Speaker 1: so smart. Shout out to him the ability for him
Speaker 1: to go deep with Jordan Peterson. But they were talking
Speaker 1: about they were kind of going deep into this and
Speaker 1: and he was saying, how cliches are dead, like you
Speaker 1: say things that you you repeat things, but you haven't
Speaker 1: thought through them. So it's not a living thought that's malleable.
Speaker 1: You just say these dead things. But here, well I'll
Speaker 1: say it a cliche, which is all it takes for
Speaker 1: evil to prosperous, good men to do nothing. And so
Speaker 1: what happens is as we've abdegated our personal responsibility and
Speaker 1: our own desires and goals and dreams for the future
Speaker 1: of the world, then evil steps in to fill that
Speaker 1: void in that vacuum. Right, America was great because we
Speaker 1: led We led the world through excellence, not by beating
Speaker 1: people over the head with sanctions, but by building the
Speaker 1: world of excellence. Men built industry, right, And so what
Speaker 1: happens is as we've pulled back, then evil will step
Speaker 1: in and fill that role any you know, every day
Speaker 1: of the week. And so in order to reverse that
Speaker 1: tight we have to go back to becoming the builders.
Speaker 1: We have to envision the world that we dream of,
Speaker 1: and then we have to actively engage in building that,
Speaker 1: and we have to be owners. And to your point, unfortunately,
Speaker 1: when you've been a slave for multiple generations, it's really
Speaker 1: hard to think of being a free man again. You know,
Speaker 1: we've seen this time and time again in the Bible
Speaker 1: when Moses led everybody out of Egypt in Exodus. In
Speaker 1: the Exodus story, they said, Oh, it's too hard out here,
Speaker 1: let us just go back to be slaves, that's what
Speaker 1: they said. But it's time to stand up and reclaim that.
Speaker 1: If you're just tuning in, you listening to the Mark
Speaker 1: More show up and sitting down with Nico from Simply
Speaker 1: Bitcoin talking about bitcoin. We'll link to nico stuff in
Speaker 1: the show notes down below. We're running out of time,
Speaker 1: so I gotta shut this down. But that's what we got.
Speaker 1: Thanks so much for listening.