Two questions that are both questions. Okay, fine. See, deflation already. Thank you. Both of them are risks against Bitcoin. The first one is technological. Recently, NIST instead of starting promoting migration from Shadu to Shafri, said it is time to start thinking about migrating to post-consumptography. The one that is going to... Sorry, the post-consumptography that is going to weaken asymmetric cryptography in Shadu. And so we are talking about the attack of 51%, but in that case it will be in 10 or 20 years, attack of 99%. Because one guy, one bad actor, with a quantum computer, is going to be spending much less energy, much less electricity than anyone else. And having 99% of the hashing capability. So if it's 99% it's not an attack, you realize that. Yeah, he is monopoly. Well, not necessarily. He owns the Bitcoin. And so very quickly. That's the first question. Okay. Yes, so we changed the algorithm, we put proof stake, things like that. And second question is also the corporations and the governments that you started with, they are not going to be happy with Bitcoin. Oh, no. So Bitcoin will have to respond. The community will have to, any ideas about this, please. Okay, great. First question. So quantum cryptography and more specifically quantum crypt analysis will allow at some point quantum computing to exceed the abilities of current cryptographic algorithms. Listen, that's part of being in cryptography. You're looking at 20 to 30 years of usable life cycle for an algorithm before it gets exceeded by current technology, new developments in mathematics, et cetera, et cetera. I think the system within Bitcoin is such that it can be upgraded, both the signing algorithm and the hashing algorithm can be switched out for other algorithms if we think that there is a need to do that. Quantum cryptography represents a threat only if it is unleavenly distributed in commercial sectors. Right. If quantum cryptography is available only to one actor and not all the actors, most likely if quantum cryptography or quantum crypt analysis and quantum computing is available into one actor, that actor is a state actor, that actor is going to not use it for Bitcoin. What they're going to do is keep it secret and use it for the time when they're threatened by cryptographically secured, nuclear weapon or whatever. Some crazy idea like that. Certainly what we've seen with intelligence agencies that have computing advantages, they don't use it until there is a dire emergency to use it and Bitcoin isn't the dire emergency. If you use it and everybody knows you have it, then all of the algorithms get changed and you have one shot. Right. So better make it good. If quantum computing is available broadly, then all the miners upgrade to quantum computers and we do shantum kwa, quantum shah, quantum, shah, quantum. Something like that. I don't know. We're probably going to change the algorithm. If there is enough availability of quantum computing, the 99% of the mining capacity switches over. The chance that that's going to be controlled by one person is pretty slim. In fact, what you're going to end up doing is just switching everybody to running shah on quantum computers and then it's just the same as when we went from FPGA to ASIC. We're going to be looking at a different order of magnitude or several orders of magnitude and improvement. But keep in mind running a quantum computer is neither free nor easy. Right. It's going to be expensive in terms of energy and cooling costs, et cetera. The electricity that you're not spending doing shah, you're spending keeping the thing at 200 degrees below zero. So all of these things add up. We don't know what the economics will be. I try not to solve problems until problems are up. And I think Bitcoin is very much a system where we solve problems when it's necessary to solve problems. So we'll see. As for the second thing, corporations and governments are not going to be happy. Sure, they're not. I'm sure they won't be happy. I believe this is the place where at some point the people decided that the king wouldn't be happy too much with their choices. And kings were not happy anywhere. And yet the revolution happened anyway. Bitcoin is a technological revolution and it's a global system. The bottom line is that corporations and governments adapt and they adapt to new technologies and they have been adapting to new technologies for hundreds of years, sometimes thousands of years. And they're going to adapt to Bitcoin. Bitcoin is neither the worst thing that's ever happened in technology. No, the most insurmountable thing that's ever happened in technology. And there could be far worse cryptocurrencies and Bitcoin from the perspective of government. The fact that governments are not going to be happy really doesn't concern me much because Bitcoin is a system that does not require their permission, their approval or their cooperation or their endorsement or their assistance. It is a system that simply exists. And we can deny that fact, but it still exists. We can pretend it's going away, but it isn't. And we can talk all day about whether governments should or shouldn't regulate Bitcoin. But the really difficult question is whether governments can regulate Bitcoin and the answer is simple. They can't regulate Bitcoin itself. They can regulate at the edge. They can regulate the behavior of some of the users of Bitcoin if they're within their borders and under certain circumstances. But the truth is that they can't really regulate Bitcoin itself. So governments and corporations are going to have to adapt. And I think that's one of the features of Bitcoin, not one of its bugs. I think that's one of the reasons why Bitcoin is so exciting to a lot of people is because it introduces a new choice. It's not saying you can't do the old way. It's not saying you can't do hierarchical corporation and organization. You can't do restricted within one border jurisdiction payment systems. You can't do banking with a central bank. You can do all of those things. But we're going to also do this. And we'll see which one is better. And that's really the bottom line.