David, you said off camera security is not monolithic, okay? And we know that risk by its very nature is distributed. Mark Hopkins, our managing editor, talks about reducing system complexity, reducing it down to a protocol, for example. He covers Bitcoin a lot. And Bitcoin's been called the most cleverly concocted protocol since TCP IP, how ironic. So I want to ask you your thoughts on, and in Bitcoin's decentralized. So I wanted to ask you your thoughts just on reducing complexity through a protocol, Amazon's turn, the data center into a protocol. So what are your thoughts on that, and its applicability to potentially solving the security challenge? I don't actually know that I have a coherent answer to that. I'll give you an answer, but I'm not sure it's coherent. Right, I'll be shocked if you have a coherent answer. The point is, all things that we think of as specifiable or technically constrained, very quickly end up embedded in a larger social ecosystem, which in some sense defies the simplicity of the protocol. Right, that's very good. We think we have a technical solution, and then you just get out there in the real world and you run into this, well, actually you didn't, you know. And so I don't know that you can actually, I don't know how far you can push that idea before you run into this sort of contextual reality where you know the multiple constraints out there are economic, they have to do with investment, they have to do with incentive, and even Bitcoin has run into some interesting, larger context issues. Right, I'm not an expert on Bitcoin, but you know. No, but you're right, I mean, the Chinese government is basically signaling that it's not going to support it necessarily, you know, that you see the dips, and so there are a lot of headwinds, a lot of headwinds in this world. Now you mentioned several, you know, Ecken, let's talk about the cyberspace and security and governance gap. What do you see as the big headwinds there that we have to attack? Well, a lot of the problems cannot be solved by one actor moving alone. If you have a problem that one person can solve and they have an incentive to solve it by and large, they sort of get on with it. It's done. But if you ask, well, what would it take to move us to a regime where all email is signed by default? Okay, which I think would eliminate a lot of fishing. And fishing, of course, is the vector through which a lot of very sophisticated attacks are delivered and fishing is such a stupid attack, but it works. Okay, well, okay, so signed email. Well, the first thing is we got two competing technical solutions. Okay, we've got S-MIME and we've got PGP. And as long as nobody actually thinks they're going to deploy anything, those guys will continue fighting with each other because it's fun to fight. And certainly if you're an academic, you're not paid to agree with somebody. Right. I can't get a grant from the NSF by saying, I think his work is great. I get a grant from the NSF by saying, well, I'm going to improve on his work. I have an alternative. Okay, so I once counted up how many addressing schemes. I mean, internet hasn't addressing the scheme in it. You know, IP address 32, but I once went through the literature and I counted up how many papers I could find that had been published in a conference which had an alternative naming an addressing scheme. And I think I stopped at 32. That's 32 grants. That's 32. Now, if somebody had come to us, Manhattan Projects style, I said, no, I'm going to pay you to agree. We can agree. We know it can be done. Okay. It's got to be some good activity within those 30 days. That's right. But, so, you know, the problem with trying to get signed email is first you have to take these guys who are busy fighting over S-MIME versus PGP. And so, okay, guys, it's time to have a conversation where I'm going to reward you. I'm going to incentivize you to see if we can agree. Can we harmonize? Can we come to a compromise? Then you have to get out there and solve the first mover problems. You have to modify the email software, the server software, human behavior, and multiple actors have to participate in doing that. And so I would say, well, why should I modify my email reader when I find modify my email reader, you can't read my email. So there's this horrible coordination problem. And that's why things go very slowly. It's a simple problem that belongs to one person. You can get solved. But that's why I said words like leadership and governance define very broadly. I don't mean governance. I mean, organizations that say, look, I have competence and standing. Let me suggest that there's a common direction. And why don't we go that way? Okay. And, you know, I like to remind people that if you're lost in the woods, there's sometimes more than one way out. You can go north and get out. You can go south and get out. But going in circles never works. And so we've got to pick a direction and say, let's go. You know, and there will always be people who are unhappy.