Bitcoin Foundation Debate #2 for Individual Seat election in 2013
Original air date: September 14, 2013

Involved participants:
Moderator (“Mod”) - Andreas Antonopoulos, from LetsTalkBitcoin.com
Ben Davenport (“Ben”) - Candidate
Trace Mayer (“Trace”) - Candidate
Joerg Platzer (“Joerg”) - Candidate
Luke Dashjr (“Luke”) - Candidate
Elizabeth T. Ploshay (“Elizabeth”) - Candidate

Other notable participants:
David Perry (time-keeper for debate)
Jared Rubens (opening and closing music for debate)
Adam B. Levine (producer)


Mod: Welcome everyone, to the second phase of the Bitcoin Foundation elections for the individual seat. This will be our first interactive debate following the individual Q&A sessions we did previously with the initial set of candidates. We're now down to five candidates: Elizabeth Ploshay, Ben Davenport, Trace Mayor, Joerg Platzer, and Luke Dashjr. We're going to be conducting an interactive debate today. All the questions I'll be asking will be in the context of the Bitcoin Foundation and its membership, as that is the role and position these candidates are running for. The questions here have not been edited, reviewed, or endorsed by the Foundation, and have not, in fact, been seen by the candidates, and were all been developed independently by myself. My name is Andreas Antonopoulos. I'll be your host for this session. We have a set of rules that all candidates have agreed to, including time limits. We have David Perry here acting as our official time-keeper for this session. Each candidate will have three minutes to answer a question, and we'll count time if there're any interruptions. I want to keep it nice and clean, as well as interactive, so I'm sure everyone will do their best to keep within the time-limits and expectations. So, let's start – and I'm going to pick the name at random and rotate throughout this. Let's start with some quick introductions, if we could keep it to less than 30 seconds for each candidate. Ben Davenport, tell us a bit about yourself.

Ben: Yeah, I'm Ben Davenport. I'm from Palo Alto, California. I'm a software developer. I currently work for Facebook. I've been involved with Bitcoin for about two years, now. Thank you.

Mod: Thank you. Trace?

Trace: Yeah, I'm Trace Mayer. Background in accounting and law. Been around Bitcoin for a long time. Lotta people probably see me in [TV news], 'cause I've had quite a few media appearances – and also an investor in BitPay, Bitcoin Magazine, and some other undisclosed investments. -One to be released publicly on Monday, so look for the news there.

Mod: Thank you. Joerg?

Joerg: Hi, I'm Joerg Platzer Berlin. I'm a founding member of the crypto-economic consulting group here in Berlin – doing projects like Bitcoinkiez, or Bitcoin charity. I'm 46 years of age, and I have been involved in the Bitcoin community for almost three years. I have a background in strategic communications, and information architecture, and also a long background in activism - and so on.

Mod: Thank you, Joerg. Luke?

Luke: This is Luke. I think my unique technological and social background make me an ideal fit for the Board. In my three years working with Bitcoin, I've done a lot of development on various Bitcoin projects, and that's my background with the technological side.

Mod: Thank you. Elizabeth?

Elizabeth: My name is Elizabeth T. Ploshay. I would be privileged to serve as your representative on the Bitcoin Foundation Board. I currently serve as manager of communications for Bitcoin Magazine. I have grassroots, lobbying, and private sector experience – and I support the preservation of Bitcoin to free the market, and free the world.

Mod: Thank you very much. Alright, with that, we've concluded the introductions, and I will go in to the first question. We're going to continue the rotation of candidates, and I will start with the next candidate in the rotation from before. -So starting with Trace Mayer. Trace, if you were asked to develop the Foundation's mission statement, how would you phrase it, briefly?

Trace: I would phrase it that we need to develop the technological that's robust, censorship-resistant, that restores our personal rights to freedom of transaction through an extremely robust Bitcoin protocol.

Mod: Excellent. Thank you so much. You do have three minutes if you want to expand on that.

Trace: Oh. I thought we were just talking about a mission statement. We don't necessarily want to [inaudible] there. We want to have extremely potent points that sets the overall vision for what we want to accomplish with the Foundation; with the protocol itself – not that we necessarily represent everyone in Bitcoin, but we are definitely one of the leading organizations there. When it does come to the protocol itself, I'd say my overall vision for it is that we need to have something that is censorship-resistant. That way, we're interacting with the world and things from a position of strength, as opposed to one of weakness where our assets or our protocol, etc, can be compromised in any way, so I'm very much in favor of building out defensive tools and using resources in that type of a way with the Foundation.

Mod: Very good. Thank you so much, Trace. Joerg, if you were asked to develop the Foundation's mission statement, how would you phrase it?

Joerg: Well, Trace, you already occupied what I would put in the very middle of the mission statement for the Foundation, and that is freedom of transaction. Believing in our move to an information society, freedom of transaction is something that we need to be able to carry out the other freedoms that we demand – from freedom of speech, to freedom of assembly, to freedom of opinion, and freedom of press. -So, I would do everything to make sure that this freedom of transaction can openly and for every individual is secured. Yes, that's what I would put in the middle of it. Everything else derives from that statement – freedom of transaction, first.

Mod: Joerg, thank you so much. Luke, if you were asked to develop the Foundation's mission statement, how would you phrase it?

Luke: I think the current mission statement is pretty good, already, but it would probably be good to put more emphasis on enabling others rather than trying to do everything directly/centrally.

Mod: Very good. Elizabeth? If you were asked to develop the Foundation's mission statement, how would you phrase it?

Elizabeth: The Bitcoin Foundation is not a corporation, but a non-profit and educational institution to provide to all members of the Bitcoin community to learn more about Bitcoin, see for themselves [inaudible] the centralized sources of control and get involved. The Bitcoin Foundation really does need to work to preserve and protect the merits of Bitcoin, to oppose in any attempts to tether identity to money transmission and transaction, to build technological that makes regulations unenforceable, to oppose laws that breach anonymity and force people to reach anymity. To support the growth of the Bitcoin community around the world, and to really serve as an info aggregate for all the wonderful educational resources we have. So I see - again, the Bitcoin Foundation serving as an educational resource center, a mobilizer, and along the lines of decentralized organization to really promote leadership and grassroots activism to continue to preserve and protect the merits of Bitcoin.

Mod: Thank you Elizabeth. Ben, if you were asked to develop the Foundation's mission statement, how would you phrase it?

Ben: I certainly also think the current mission statement is very well-written. I would agree with Trace and Joerg, that freedom of transaction is extremely important. I think I would also add, I think the most important mission of the Foundation is to protect and defend the Bitcoin protocol and its users from all potential attackers, private or governmental.

Mod: Very good. Thank you so much, Ben.

Joerg: Just a short question – is it okay to jump in here, now?

Mod: Absolutely, Joerg.

Joerg: Because I would like to point out – no, I do not think the statement of the Foundation right now is pretty well-written, or okay, or anything like that. I believe it leaves far too much space for interpretation, and I believe if one would put something like freedom of transaction in the center, then anything else could be derived from that, and a lot of questions and arguments that we have right now of the codes of the Foundation wouldn't have to be carried out. Thanks.

Mod: Thank you, Joerg. I'm aware plenty of you had plenty of additional time for this question. If anyone else want to jump in with any extra conversation...?

Elizabeth: Joerg, I definitely agree with you that we should ensure there is an opportunity for more individuals have more say in the community, so I think keeping the Foundation mission statement a little bit broader is good, because it encourages members of the community to become more active and involved in shaping the direction of the Foundation. As we can all recognize, the Bitcoin Foundation is new. It's very recent, and current, and as a member, hopefully, of the Bitcoin Foudnation Board, I want to work within the community to strengthen a grassroots mentality to get people more involved, so they can share what they want the Foundation to look like, moving forward.

Joerg: Yeah, but that's not quite what I was talking about. I was trying to say if we would put a clear statement in the middle of our efforts, then there would not be a possibility that one person interprets promoting Bitcoin or securing Bitcoin, or promoting the Bitcoin economy in a totally contradictory way than another person does. I actually am demanding some clarity in the center of this mission statement.

Elizabeth: -And I would say that clarity should be established with community consent. -So, once a new member comes into the Board, it's really important that member reaches out to the community to get a better idea, and I think it's important to have a voting system in place, so membership can make that decision on how to refine the Bitcoin Foundation mission statement.

Joerg: I totally agree with you that reaching out to the community's a very important step, and I do reach out to the community a lot. You're correct on that.

Mod: Very good. An excellent discussion there. Anybody else want to jump in?

Luke: Yeah. Freedom of transacting is definitely an important aspect of Bitcoin. I think a lot of people are using Bitcoin, or going to get into Bitcoin in the future, because their interests are not necessarily that, but other things like lower fees, and things like that. -So I don't think focusing on just one aspect of Bitcoin is necessarily the best idea.

Mod: Thank you, Luke.

Ben: I actually think the mission statement doesn't necessarily have to encompass everything, and maybe what we need to do is distill a set of core principals - to sort of put stakes into the ground, whereas the mission statement can stay more broad and encompassing.

Trace: I'd like to jump in here. This is Trace. I think it's critical for us to have a vision that's set, that's clear and articulable, so that members who are gonna be donating their money, that really funds a lot of our efforts – that they know what that money's going to be used for, and how it's going to be held to account for the use of those funds, because we've got other organizations in the Bitcoin community, like Data, etc, that are able to take different tactics, or different roles, in different aspects in Bitcoin, and interacting with different actors of the economy in general, so we really need to figure out what we want the Bitcoin Foundation itself to do so we're not overly-spreading our resources, and our time, and our attention toward things that aren't necessarily going to generate a good return on investment for members that are donating their precious funds to make sure the Bitcoin Foundation even exists and it's funded.

Luke: That's probably something that's best done in real-time, not necessarily as something's that's part of the mission statement.

Joerg: [inaudible]

Mod: Alright. I think that about wraps up everyone's time on this. I'm going to move on to the next question. This one's more open-ended, and you're going to have a lot more opportunity for discussion, so please keep an eye on your time. Should the Bitcoin Foundation have a role in Bitcoin standards or dev standards, and if yes, what role and how?

Joerg: If it was the International Global Organization catering for the whole diversity of the Bitcoin community, then yes it should, and it should have it in a way that is collecting and gathering the opinions inside the community worldwide. The Bitcoin Foundation should be very open, very transparent in finding out what the community really demands and wants in regards to software development, and support that is a great thing that people can donate money and send money via membership fees to an organization that, for example, does pay the lead developer, and the Bitcoin Foundation should play this role in totally and only in alignment with that kind of mission statement as we have been talking about.

Mod: Very good. Thank you, Joerg. Luke, should the Bitcoin Foundation have a role in Bitcoin standards or development decisions, and if yes, what role and how?

Luke: I don't think the Bitcoin Foundation itself should be taking sides or in the decision-making. The community itself it's in disagreement on the standards, it should be resolved with respectful discussion, not by the dictates of an organization, but at the same time, it should probably do some activity to enable that – to make it more practical.

Mod: Very good. Elizabeth, should the Bitcoin Foundation have a role in Bitcoin standards and decisions, and if yes, what role and how?

Elizabeth: I would say we need to definitely be very cautious about any attempts to alter the distributed, decentralized nature of Bitcoin, and the Bitcoin QT open-source project. Again, along the lines – I see a model organized decentralization. Now, when push comes to shove – we all know the Bitcoin Foundation has hired the lead developer, Gavin Dreeson – so at some point, he does weigh in with the final say, but the beauty of Bitcoin Foundation is to foster this dialogue and discussion. -So again – to provide the options to the community to continue to create further development, and to also work to safe-guard the Bitcoin software. -So it's absolutely critical that the Bitcoin Foundation doesn't usurp centralized control, but works within the community and reaches out to get more insight and information to create the strongest Bitcoin possible, and then again to maintain the p2p network and open-source software project that we have developed today.

Mod: Thank you, Elizabeth. Ben, should the Bitcoin Foundation have a role in Bitcoin standards or development decisions, and if yes, what role and how?

Ben: I largely agree with the other candidates, that it's not the role of the Bitcoin Foundation to assert top-down control on development decisions, and while I love the fact that Gavin is getting paid, I'd even love to find a way to separate that from the Bitcoin Foundation if possible, just to make it clear that the decisions are not coming from the top. Bitcoin is a system that really runs on consensus, and that's not going to change. It's the consensus of the users, the major Bitcoin businesses. You know, when there's a fork, BitPay, MtGox – all the major businesses are going to be talking to one another – deciding “all right, which fork are we going to go with?” -And users are going to make this decision for themselves, as well. -So, I think the role for the Foundation is really to provide a bridge between businesses and users of Bitcoin, and provide a platform for discussion for how the protocol should evolve.

Elizabeth: Ben, I agree with you that Bitcoin Foundation should really encourage other entities as well, to hire on developers and even provide extra funding to strengthen the development of the Bitcoin QT project.

Luke: I'd like to jump in here. I think it's important to note that there are other wallet and even full-node implementations being worked on, and Gavin - as much as I appreciate his work, and it's great – he isn't a dictator, and I don't think he wants to be a dictator over the project, so whether he's connected to Bitcoin Foundation, or if he's someone – I think Ben said – separate from the Bitcoin Foundation, I think it's important to know that Gavin's not just controlling everything going on, either.

Ben: Absolutely. I definitely didn't mean to imply that. I was just trying to say we might be able to make even clearer the separation there.

Mod: Thank you, Ben. Trace, should the Bitcoin Foundation have a role in Bitcoin standards or development decisions, and if yes, what role and how?

Trace: I think the Bitcoin Foundation should have a role in helping to figure out what features or benefits the community would like to have built into the protocol, but as far as having a direct commit access to the project, or anything like that - I think that's best-suited for the core development team, and I think the way that's currently handled is very appropriate. We've got extremely competent core developers, with Gavin, and Gregory Maxwell, and Peter Wiuly, etc., and the way that it was resolved with that hard fork that happened – we saw how quickly the community can jump into action and solve problems, and so I do like this idea of having a super-majority consensus in order to make really key changes to the protocol. However, in that marketplace of ideas, I think it's important for there to be more diversity of opinion and to actually have a little bit more accountability with how the core developers are coming about in making those decisions. For example, I was involved in helping build the press page for the Bitcoin.org website, and I wanted to add Jon Matonis to the press contacts, because he's very articulate, he's competent – he technically understands the protocol, and Satoshi himself reached out to him to champion Bitcoin back in 2009, and interestingly, Luke Jr., for whatever reason, opposed adding Jon Matonis to that Bitcoin.org press page, and was joined by Gregory Maxwell, and Jeff Garzik, and there were over 100 replies just on one of the github threads, and it became quite a contentious area of argument and debate in the Bitcoin community, and then it was just kind of stifled - and Andreas, yourself, you were kind of incensed enough to create the BitcoinPressCenter.org to kind of fill that market need, and I think we need to have open, clear, and in some cases, vehement debate about what needs to happen, because if we can't even make a decision like who should be on the press page, which is actually immaterial, and do that in the light of day with the community watching – what about more substinate issues that go to the heart of Bitcoin development, like why aren't we making those out in front of – those decisions, where everybody's able to kind of see and participate in the debate and what's going on, so that's where I think the Bitcoin Foundation can really play a role, is in helping to provide a forum for those discussions and debates to happen.

Luke: Trace, I'm not sure you're being especially fair about the press page thing. There were very good reasons for not listing Jon Mantonis at the time, and if you recall, I was even a major supporter of Andreas' Bitcoinpresscenter website.

Joerg: No, Luke – can I jump in there? I think Trace was perfectly on the right side of history in this regard. I was on the same side. I find it really interesting – it wasn't only Jon Mantonis, it was Roger Ver, who was being called too extreme and radical to be spokespeople for Bitcoin. I find it interesting that we now can work with this extremists as CEO on one hand, and as a spokesperson, finally, of Bitcoin.org on the other hand. Anyhow, I'm totally with Trace on this issue.

Trace: -And it seems we have no issue taking their money, because Roger Ver's donated well over 5,000 Bitcoins to the Bitcoin Foundation. -So we have no problem using their money and using it to pay core developers, but when they actually want to have a voice, or some other type of opinion – “oh, well we can't have that.” If we're going to be using, or asking people for money – then we better give them a voice about how that money's going to be used, and we better give them some accountability in how that money's going to be used.

Elizabeth: I- I--

Mod: Trace's out of time on this particular topic. Just a quick reminder on time for everyone. Please continue.

Elizabeth: I think we can all agree that we all need to go about this in a more organized way, but again along the lines of my platform of organized decentralization, we really need to be clear that we give people a voice in the community – but at the same time, we want to provide an open marketplace of ideas so we don't have so much outward infighting that we make fools of ourselves - and we are dealing with people around the world, so we want people to be encouraged to jump in and share ideas in the Bitcoin marketplace, whether it's for software development, or communication, or how we get out the message. -So again, I think it's kind of important to have that kind of organized perspective, but also that decentralization, and that open marketplace of ideas.

Luke: -And nobody wanted to silence Roger Ver, or Jon Mantonis at all – it was just about the particular listing on the main Bitcoin.org press page. -And the reason Roger Ver was even up for discussion wasn't because he was considered too extreme or anything like that – it was really because of a criminal record that some people had concerns about, and that was something we all eventually came to the conclusion was not a major issue.

Joerg: Some people, I believe, were three people, and I believe this is a very good example for a very non-democratic decision that kept two of the most capable spokespeople for Bitcoin out of speaking for Bitcoin for quite a while.

Luke: I don't really think it kept them out of the speaking for Bitcoin – I'm pretty sure they mentioned that they had a lot of speaking arrangements already. Trace had mentioned that we supposedly take Roger Ver's money – well, I know he's contributed to a lot of Bitcoin things, but I wanted to point out that the Bitcoin Foundation isn't something that should be bought with money.

Elizabeth: Luke, I agree with you there. It's very important that individuals choose to join the Bitcoin Foundation so they can have a better say in what's going on in the Bitcoin community, and it shouldn't be about purchasing anything – it should be about people getting actively getting involved, and just contributing when they want to.

Mod: Alright. Next question. What do you think the Bitcoin Foundation's should be in supporting non-US Bitcoin adoption. -And we're going to start this round with Joerg.

Joerg: Well, this question is really part of the big divide that is going through the Bitcoin Foundation community right now. As I pointed out in several moments, I think this is the moment where the Bitcoin Foundation community, with these elections, decides if, in the future, the Bitcoin Foundation will be perceived as a US-centric Bitcoin business club, or as the big global organization that caters for the whole diversity of the Bitcoin universe. I want to point out that when Bitcoin Foundation got started, it actually wanted to become this global organization catering for everybody. -So yes, of course, the Bitcoin Foundation, if it wants to have this global approach, urgently needs to do some catching up in internationalization, in regards to supporting other organizations, be they defined geographically, or be they defined by the interest of a certain group of the community, or anything like that.

Mod: What do you think the Bitcoin Foundation's should be in supporting non-US Bitcoin adoption, Luke?

Luke: I don't think the Bitcoin Foundation should be centered on any specific political geography, and different countries should really be treated equally. We shouldn't focus on just the US, but we shouldn't give extra attention to other countries, either. Bitcoin [inaudible], all other countries should be assisted with the same measure as any other.

Mod: Elizabeth, what do you think the Bitcoin Foundation's should be in supporting non-US Bitcoin adoption?

Elizabeth: Well I can definitely agree with Joerg and Luke that International adoption is absolutely key and vital. Bitcoin is only as strong as its global reach – so during my two years of service on the Bitcoin Foundation Board, I will work to establish a Bitcoin chapter of the Foundation in each nation around the world, and strengthen leaders abroad so they can best-meet the needs in their community – again, a model of organized decentralization. It's absolutely key the people on the ground are managing these Bitcoin-related communities, and fostering Bitcoin development, because Bitcoin development in US, or Germany, or Israel is going to look very different, because the types of businesses are also unique there as well. I want to stress we shouldn't cut off any Bitcoin activity in one country over another, but we should just promote expansion abroad, and what that will take is establishing a Bitcoin chapter in every country around the world, really making sure we get that educational resources out in different languages- that's something we need to do better – another thing, too, is expanding those various conferences as well. For myself, I'm really thrilled to be part of the Bitcoin Argentina Planning Committee, going to other conferences around the world. It's thrilling to see those grow, so need to be fostering that. -And again, it doesn't come at cutting activity from one country, but pushing for activity across the board, and really finding those countries and leaders who know about Bitcoin, and for mobilizers who want to get the job done. [inaudible]

Joerg: Elizabeth, thanks for letting me jump in. Besides the fact that I don't quite understand how you can agree with Luke and me at the same time – I wonder how would you want to achieve these goals you just stated, and which I very much part with a Board of only American directors on this Foundation board.

Elizabeth: It starts with looking at someone's nationality, but it starts looking at their goals. -So someone lives in the US, like for example – I can't help that I was born in the US, but I have these outward-centered goals of reaching out across the board, so what that takes is one person in the Bitcoin Foundation, whether a board member, or an appointed representative to travel to diff countries to start these Bitcoin Foundation chapters – also to provide people in different countries these tools they need. A lot of times, people are fearful of starting up a chapter, because they don't know what to expect – they don't know how they're going to interact with their government, so it's enabling and mobilizing leadership on the ground for various countries. -And it just happens that various Board members are from the US – not a disability, but actually it's an opportunity where we can reach out.

Joerg: So in short – International Bitcoin Foundation yes, but only US citizens on the board.

Elizabeth: It should be the person who's most qualified for the position, so it should not be – Bitcoin's so great because everyone can use it around the world, so it happens some people have a US passports, some people have passports to other countries – it matters what peoples' goals are, and so if you're willing to reach out and get the job done, and [rise?] up leaders that needs --- the board right now needs someone who's organized to take on this project, really – to do reach out internationally, not to just for just one country, but really go meet people in different countries, and also enable leadership and develop tools and resources that can be translated into different languages and used by people around the world.

Luke: I don't necessarily think it should be  US citizens on the board – it shouldn't be a condition. It just happens to be working out that way. Possibly, if the elections end up that way, it may be how it ends up for a while, but there are possibly – when the elections come up for the other Board positions, hopefully we'll get some more geographical diversity on there.

Elizabeth: -And also there's is a discussion on the thread, too, about updating our bylays, and I have no problem with that, if I have the privilege of serving on the Board, to make sure that for the next election – this is only the first election, but we have an election coming up next Summer – for the next election, ensuring we have some International seats on the board – I have no problem with that, but that's not the case right now, so anyone should have the right to run for the Bitcoin Foundation Board – and again, it's how they're going to implement their goals. It doesn't matter what passport they have.

Mod: Elizabeth, you're out of time – just a quick note, there. Alright, moving on. What do you think the Bitcoin Foundation's role should be in supporting non-US Bitcoin adoption, Ben?

Ben: Well, I mean – I think just by history, the Bitcoin Foundation has been a US-centric organization – and whether that's for good or for bad, I don't know. I think Joerg is right. We're at a turning-point where we're going to decide how much influence the Bitcoin Foundation can have everywhere. The fortunate thing is, the existence of the Bitcoin Foundation – the existence of the current Foundation doesn't stop other organizations from popping up elsewhere, and we're already starting to see that. Independent of what the Bitcoin Foundation is doing, we're seeing in Israel and elsewhere. So, I think that one of the killers of startups and small orginizations in general is a lack of focus and it's not necessarily the right thing – the one Foundation seeks to sort of cover the entire world. I think the bottom-up approach, where this organization is needed, in countries with a developing wide-spectrum of different types of regulations and governmental issues. There may be a better approach, and I think it's a very good thing that these merging International chapters work together and work with the existing Foundation. I think there's absolutely a role for the Bitcoin Foundation to play internationally, but I want to make sure the Bitcoin Foundation doesn't make the mistake of trying to do it all at the expense of doing what it can do well.

Luke: So you think it wouldn't be better to have multiple foundations around the world, all cooperating with each other?

Ben: Whether it'd be better or not, I don't know, but if the Foundation's failing to do something well, then I think things are going to pop up elsewhere. That's the nature of a decentralized kind of system – anybody can go start something up where it's needed.

Joerg: The big question is the Bitcoin Foundation, is it now going to be International kind of group organization for the organizations, or if it's going to just take care of the US. As far as I believed, already Jon Mantonis has indicated a policy shift in International orientation, and I strongly believe a International organization needs International representation on its Board, and that's from the beginning, not in two years or something like that.

Ben: Yeah, well it's difficult to go back in time, right? I mean – the existing Board --- we're only adding one board seat at this time. All the existing Board members are essentially US. You could look at the existing Foundation and say – “well, it's US and EU-focused.” I looked through the membership, I counted maybe 5 Chinese names, so it's all about your perspective here.

Luke: I just want to point out that Mark with Mt Gox is in Japan and from Germany, so it's not entirely US-centric right now.

Ben: Yes, sir – my mistake.

Joerg: No – my mistake. I thought he was American.

Trace: And it's also like Micky Malka, so he'll probably get the industry seat, and from what I understand, he's also International, not US.

Ben: He's biggest in the US, but yes – he's South American, I believe Argentinian, and also a great guy.

Mod: Alright. Let's continue this question and I'll shift it over to Trace – just short of three minutes. What do you think the Bitcoin Foundation's role should be in supporting non-US Bitcoin adoption, Trace?

Trace: I think we should look at where the money's coming from. From our members, and we should focus on areas that'll best serve their needs. Right now, 60% of our membership is not from the US, and also when you look at the return on investment, the US is not necessarily where we're going to see the highest return on investment from our funds, and from our activities. We have a lot more to accomplish in remittances, or developing markets, or in places like Argentina. I mean – I've been down to South America three times just in the last seven months just to build Bitcoin down in Uruguay, and Brazil, and Chile, and Argentina – so there's a lot we can do there. Just to hit on a few of the points Elizabeth made – I think having a US – being a US person in the financial world is becoming a huge liability. Personally, I have multiple passports. I have multiple other --- I have arranged my life where I'm not quite as biased, or tied to the US as some of our other people running people running for the board, but I was also presenting to a financial institution in Switzerland for four hours to their Board of Directors. We had three billionaires in attendance, and the issue with FACTA, and what the US is doing with financial institutions is just HUGE, and Elizabeth is either incredibly naive, or just doesn't have much experience in the modern financial world, and the interactions that are going on. There's a reason we have thousands of people every quarter renouncing their US citizenship, and it's because being a US person is increasingly a liability. It's why Eduardo Saverin renounced his US citizenship and went to Singapore. -And I've met with hedge funds in Singapore about Bitcoin. -So there's a lot we need to do to focus on the International with Bitcoin, and it's almost – I hate to say we can write the US off, but I think other organizations like Data – they can interact with the regulators and what-not here. We don't necessarily need to focus the Bitcoin Foundation resources on this market.

Joerg: I want to add something, and that was I totally agree with everything you say, Trace, and I would like to add on that the big mistake that we make by focusing on any one jurisdiction is that we are letting the possibilities slip away to have jurisdictions compete with each other over the people who developed this emerging market and the businesses that developed this emerging market. We need to come to a point where jurisdictions and governments understand that this is key source of innovation, and generating wealth for their people, and we need to get them to compete with each other in order to attract this innovation to their jurisdictions.

Ben: 100% I agree with you there, Joerg. That's a key wedge that just paints the picture to Congress – wherever you're looking, what would have been the outcome had your jurisdiction had put excessive regulation on the Internet at the birth of the Internet – where would you be, competitively, at this point?

Trace: Yeah, and I'd like to hit on that, too – Joerg's raising a great point, and that's one of the reasons I've been over to Singapore, and that's why I'm going back to Singapore in a couple months. We've drafted a memo to their central bank, and I've met with extremely high-net-worth individuals out of Hong Kong, and Singapore, and areas like that – and you'll notice, if you look at the volume on the Chinese exchanges, in some cases it's now surpassing Mt Gox. So Bitcoin can move along, and it can leave the US, and the US is buggy with industry when it comes to finance. If the US wants to keep lashing people with FACTA and other regulations that stifle financial innovation, they're going to miss out on all of this innovation that's going to happen, and we're already seeing the US do that. I've physically handled some of the subpoenas that the department of NY financial services sent out – just to mere software developers like Luke Jr, so it's a real problem.

Mod: Thank you Trace. Alright. I think we'll have an opportunity to continue this conversation because the next question is on a parallel of a closely related topic which I think is key in this discussion. The next question – we start again, the rotation with Luke. What is the Bitcoin Foundation's role vis-a-vis engagement with national and International bodies on the topics of anonymity, law, government, and regulations?

Luke: Well first of all, Bitcoin at it currently exists is not anonymous, and it's a very common misconception people have. I think it's important that governments understand that and also to stress that the current currencies they have – like cash in the US, and euros and other fiat currencies – are currently a lot more anonymous and untraceable than Bitcoin is, and hopefully that will encourage them to be a little more light on the regulations than they would be with other financial stuff. As far as the Bitcoin Foundation's role, I don't think it should necessarily be directly involved, but it should definitely be there to assist people who are trying to work with regulators in their countries to minimize the regulations necessary on Bitcoin businesses.

Mod: Elizabeth, what is the Bitcoin Foundation's role vis-a-vis engagement with national and International bodies on the topics of anonymity, law, government, and regulations?

Elizabeth: I absolutely see that the Bitcoin Foundation serves as a mobilizer for grassroots activism. We just can'tsit on our hands and allow regulators, and expect them to come to us, and that sometimes some of my candidates have said, even pay us for information. The Bitcoin Foundation serves as an information aggregate, a NP organization to mobilize and educate folks, so I think it's absolutely vital to help members of the Bitcoin Foundation community to seek more clarity on some of these issues that we're facing, in particular with regulations and law. In particular right now in the US, we don't even have clear tax law right now for Bitcoin. We need to deal with the KYC issue, and also in particular, anonymity. We also need to recognize that we need to prevent any policy-maker or regulator  not having the truth about Bitcoin – his perception matters. We know the truth in the Bitcoin community about Bitcoin – the value of it, how it's helping and assisting the small businesses around the world, but they might not know it – so there's a perception problem that we need to fix. How's that accomplished? That's accomplished by the Bitcoin Foundation mobilizing members of the community to step out, share the truth – and to have a concrete place for any policy-maker, any regulator – anyone interested can come learn more about Bitcoin, and I just think it's so important we don't discount this because we can't just expect that Bitcoin is going to continue to survive around the world if we allow regulations to be put into place. If we think, again, that policy-makers are going to come to us - we need to present them with the truth, first.

Trace: Can I jump in there, Andreas? UI've actually met with senior compliance officers at some of these financial institutions. Can you elaborate on what you mean, with the AML problem?

Elizabeth: We need to actually provide them with information – have clear asks. So again – going to them, it's  fine, we're going to go to them with information on Bitcoin, and ask for more clarity. And again, after that, if they don't respond – I'll be one of the first ones to step out and voice our opposition against it.

Trace: What do you mean? I don't think you really addressed the question. What do you mean about the AML problem? -And when you're talking about providing information? Are you talking about providing members' names who've donated to the Bitcoin Foundation from a particular Bitcoin address – because that's really the only info we have to directly address the AML problem – if it's even a problem at that, for the Bitcoin Foundation in any way.

Elizabeth: Well, specifically, my stance is to oppose any attempt to tether identity to money transmission, and to also protect privacy. -So again, it's just asking for clarity, and then letting them know we're going to keep these things private, and taking a firm stance on privacy.

Trace: I'm still not clear on this. I've read a lot of the [ACAMS?] and AML documentation, things like that. Your answer doesn't really make much sense. What do you mean, you'd oppose any of these tethering to identity, but at the same time, you want to be providing them with information. I'm still not clear on your answer.

Elizabeth: When I say providing them with info, educating them about Bitcoin, and the purpose of Bitcoin, and sharing with them the various business developments with Bitcoin – and again, giving them the full picture on Bitcoin, because unfortunately, a lot of policy-makers and regulators simply don't understand the merits of Bitcoin, they don't get the full picture – all they see is the limited perspective and jumping on it, so we need to give them the full picture of Bitcoin first, and then they won't jump to conclusions of money laundering. If they knew that Bitcoin's one of the best benefits for small businesses, they're going to be on board.

Trace: I think you might be vastly underestimating some of these regulators. I had a four-hour discussion with one of the attorneys from the Federal Reserve's [Statement?] Division  - and to be honest, he understood Bitcoin more than almost all of the people I know in the Bitcoin community, so I don't think it's fair to say that these regulators don't really understand Bitcoin. I think a lot of them do.

Ben: I also think it's a little bit naive, Elizabeth, to think we're just gonna go educate governments and then they're going to be like – “Oh, that sounds great. Now I understand how great it is, and we're not going to regulate you.” I think that's brings a little naive approach.

Elizabeth: Well the problem is, a lot of them don't have the enough information right now. So just thinking from a policy-maker's perspective, they don't know how businesses are really benefiting from Bitcoin – they don't know how widespread it is. That just comes with the idea of being more organized, and having individuals within the community meet with government officials, whether regulators or policy-makers, to share with them how Bitcoin has a personal impact on their lives, so they don't think it's just something to abstract and removed – but how Bitcoin's actually going to take economies around the world to the next level, as it's already improving businesses in the US and around the world.

Mod; That's time. We're going to continue this question – Ben, what do you think the Bitcoin Foundation's role vis-a-vis engagement with national and International bodies on the topics of anonymity, law, government, and regulation – and please keep in mind, you have used a bit of your time, already. Thanks.

Ben: You know – I think the situation is, at the moment – government's are no longer asleep on Bitcoin. They have been for some time. Governments around the world are starting to wake up. They're all aware of it. They're cautious, and they're beginning to react to it, and I think the Bitcoin Foundation has a big role to play, here, and can affect the trajectory over the next couple of years. I think, one way or another, there will be regulations, laws, tax laws, etc. coming, and I think the Bitcoin Foundation could help really determine whether those regulations are going to be good, or going to be bad. We may not win every battle in every country, but I think the competition aspect that Joerg mentioned previously is a wedge that we have in that fight. Anonymity particularly, I think there's a good and large debate over that – I agree with Luke that it's not truly anonymous – it's one of the most trackable currencies that's ever been invented, in fact. I think it's worth educating law-makers and regulators on that. I don't think we want to go try and make it more trackable or less anonymous. I think it's ultimately – the technology is going to do what it does, and what the community decides it wants it to do, and the Bitcoin Foundation is going to have to work with that, and I think its' really an educational role, at the moment, for the Bitcoin Foundation with government.

Luke: I just wanted to point out that one of the reasons to educate the government in how Bitcoin is trackable and all that – is that then they're less likely to ask to ask for it to be made more trackable, because they can see it's already perfectly tracakable as to what they probably want, anyway – and that way, they're not likely to put a bunch of regulations on that aspect of Bitcoin, necessarily.

Ben: You possibly underestimate governments there. The job of a regulator is to regulate, so... [laugh]

Luke: Of course. If it was anonymous, then they would be like “well, we have to make it not so anonymous.” But if they understand it's not anonymous anyway, they're not going to feel that it's necessary to do so much.

Ben: I think the issue's still worth discussing, because there are privacy extensions and changes that are coming, potentially, for Bitcoin. I mean, Zerocoin may or may not happen – its' a little far out there, but there are other things, like CoinJoin, which work within the current confines of the existing protocol. It'd certainly enhance, greatly, the anonymity of Bitcoin. I think it's an important issue to address.

Luke: Yeah, of course. I've also worked with Gregory Maxwell on putting together early drafts of the CoinJoin concept.

Mod: Very good. Moving on. Trace, what do you think the Bitcoin Foundation's role vis-a-vis engagement with national and International bodies on the topics of anonymity, law, government, and regulation – and please keep in mind, you have used a bit of your time, already. Thanks.

Trace: Yeah – I mean, I actually speak from experience on this point. I met – I had dinner with a guy from the IMF. We discussed Bitcoin for about 30 minutes. I've been invited to present with members of the Fed, the [Boondus Bank?], who – by the way – really liked Bitcoin – I think he bought a burger at your place, Joerg. He was very much in favor of Bitcoin. Major banks – I've presented with the IRS, with the FBI, and surprisingly, they're not as antagonistic as I thought they would be. The FBI, for example, said they didn't have much of a position on it until people start using it in a way that would violate US law, like if they're using it to run some kind of a ponzi scam like this case with Trendon Shavers in Texas. So, I think there's a way we can reasonably interact with regulators, but we don't necessarily have to seed any information, or make any promises – promises we maybe can't keep, because we're not the miners, or the core developers in a lot of ways. Yet, we can give them reasonable guidance on how to integrate this new technology – this new innovation that's currently very advantageous to the financial system, in a legitimate way. We've already got laws, we've got AML, we've got BSA, we've got world standards that a lot of the banks follow. There're ways we can integrate it, but at the same time, we don't need to go and tell them things to their engineers. I think we need to tell them how Bitcoin is. We need to present objectively, which I mean – I've changed how I present, because of Gregory Maxwell and the CoinJoin. Now, things are a little different than I initially thought they were, and that's always going to be the case with Bitcoin because we're not even out of beta, yet. Our wonderful core developers are going to continue building additional features into Bitcoin. So, I think regulators need to understand that aspect of it, also – but also be persuaded by the features, and advantages, and benefits that it has to offer to the customers that they're serving.

Mod: Trace, that was your time. Joerg, what do you think the Bitcoin Foundation's role vis-a-vis engagement with national and International bodies on the topics of anonymity, law, government, and regulation?

Joerg: Right. I hope these three minutes are going to be enough. Anonymity – we need to make those International and national bodies aware of the fact that anonymity and privacy in financial transactions is their new reality. We need to make them, and show them, that the system that is developing here, now – cryptocurrency and an economic system built on cryptotechnology, will demand them to rethink a lot of their definitions from the legacy financial system. I want to make an example – the law in Germany right now states that if you hide the source of money, you are a money launderer. Now, if I pay one of my employees in Bitcoin, I of course tell them how to secure the use of this technology, and in regards to it – of course I have to show them that I, their employer, could, if they would not mix their coins, be able to see where they spent them. Just the fact that somebody doesn't want his employer see where he spends his wages on does not make him a money launderer. All these kinds of definitions have to be thought over again, now. I believe that here in Germany, we're further in allowing or guiding official bodies into this learning process than anywhere else. We've all heard of this big news where we're really over-interpreted in the media world-wide about Bitcoin now being legal tender in Germany, and all that stuff. This is coming from – I am talking to an actual member of the German Bundestag here, Frank Scheffler, and he created all these news, and he created all these news, by merely asking the government certain questions, we are actually making the government aware of the impossibility of applying the old regulatory framework on this new financial system. We are lucky here, because we have Mr. Scheffler, and the German government is obliged to answer any question asked by any member of the German Bundestag. Now, the whole thing on the regulation effort – you have to always be aware that regulation doesn't stop it. At a certain point, government wants to regulate - that is their job – and that means they want 100% control. They are not happy with 99% control. -And I also want to point out the example of Doc Jenson of Egold who completely was compliant with everything the government demanded of him, proactively got all his licenses together, and the government still, in the end, turned around and took his business apart because they just changed the rules. I think he's, even now, wearing some funny stuff on his ankle so the government can see, via GPS, where he is walking around. I'm over my time, I believe.

Mod: Yes, Joerg, you're out of time. We now turn to our final question for this debate. After this question, we're going to do the last round closing statements. For the final question, I will turn to Elizabeth. Elizabeth, assuming you win, and have the power to act to execute your vision, what actions would you focus on for the first 90 days?

Elizabeth: Thanks so much. I would be absolutely honored to serve on the Bitcoin Foundation Board. I think one of the first thing I would do would be to get the Bitcoin Foundation more organized. -So what that would mean is updating our website, and having more links on pages, so again, establishing the Bitcoin Foundation resource center which I mentioned would be an aggregate of information. Another thing, too, would be working to identify leaders in various stations around the world so we can finally accomplish the plan I have, of having establishing a Bitcoin Foundation chapter in every nation of the world, and also really focusing on outreach, and that is absolutely critical. See – me being one of the only females involved in the Bitcoin space, I see this as a huge problem because women and men can benefit from Bitcoin around the world. Finally, and another thing – really setting in place a system where we can hear from members of the Bitcoin Foundation, especially if I were to be privileged to serve, I would really want to be able to hear from you guys, and just to get more insight. -So set up a system where there's even sort of voting for big issues that come up for the Bitcoin Foundation Board, and really do more of the outreach, but it falls into the idea of organized decentralization. We do not want the Bitcoin Foundation to usurp tons of power, but we want it to be organized so we can be effective and, again, reach out around the world.

Mod: Thank you, Elizabeth. Ben, assuming you win, and have the power to act to execute your vision, what actions would you focus on for the first 90 days?

Ben: One thing I think that's important is – a lot of money has actually gone into the Bitcoin Foundation, and I want to make sure that members get a full and fair financial accounting and transparency of what has gone in, what's been spent, and so forth. I think it's important, very quickly, that we start to figure out how to interact with these emerging international chapters, and I think this is going to be an ongoing process to figure out how this is going to work, but I think if the Bitcoin Foundation wants to have international scope and focus, it's important that it figures out at least some working relationship with these emerging international organizations.

Mod: Thank you, Ben. Trace, assuming you win, and have the power to act to execute your vision, what actions would you focus on for the first 90 days?

Trace: In the first ninety days - I agree with Ben, we need some type of financial transparency, and you know, I'm not looking for any type of salary, or even reimbursement on many expenses I incur, like even the first good chunk of money, I'd be contributing it pro bono. So I want to make sure the funds are going to be used to execute the vision of the Foundation. Then I'd look for organization and administration, just getting some standard operating procedures in place, getting things so we can getting stuff accomplished, and start churning out work on a regular basis. Like Ben, I want to focus on the international chapters and the Meetup groups. I'm already headed over to Singapore in November for a couple weeks to meet up with some of our Bitcoin people over there, but I really want to focus on something I've kind of started already. At the Bitcoin conference, I talked with Patrick about the need for a Bitcoin Legal Defense Fund or something like that, because I think it's critical that our core developers know that they've got some attorneys who've got their backs – that they've got this shield around them. -So I brought that up with Patrick, and we created the Bitcoin Legal Defense Board. Brian Klein, a former US attorney, who does white-collar criminal defense is chairing that. I'd like to really see that kind of built out, in addition with our  regulatory affairs board with Marco Santori, who I've also met with. Start getting attorneys organized in a way that we can kind of be like a ACLU or EFF, but for our Bitcoin actors. You know, I don't want to defend our Trendon Shavers, or even some of our businesses unless they make good faith efforts, because I think they can fund that themselves, but I want to defend some of our core developers and our software developers, because one of my friends received a subpoena from New York – he's a California citizen, he does business in California, he has no connections to New York, and he only writes software code, and he got one of these subpoenas, and it's very invasive, and it's very scary, and I want our software developers and people who contribute to this project – I want them to know that they've got a bunch of attorneys who're gonna step up to the plate and defend them. -And I've already started communicating and talking with some of my friends who are Bitcoin supporters – some of them accept Bitcoin in their law practices. -So I really want to rally the troop in an organized way to get that done.

Mod: Thank you, Trace. Joerg, assuming you win, and have the power to act to execute your vision, what actions would you focus on for the first 90 days?

Joerg: I would probably use the first 20 or 30 days to try to invite the whole leadership group of the Bitcoin Foundation over to Berlin to support their outward-orientedness, and to just show them what we have accomplished here on the street. I'm talking about an actual starting economic cycle. I'm talking about being able to walk down the street and have a shop here, and a shop there where you can spend your Bitcoin, and I'm talking about people being able to pay their suppliers in Bitcoin, employees asking their wages in Bitcoin. Not only that - you can actually feel the experiences here on the street. We managed to get far more by now than a hundred-million media contacts – that means, more than 100 million times, someone somewhere in the world has seen, read, heard on the radio, whatever, about what we here call our local alternative currency with global reach. The rest of the time of these 90 days, I would really love to spend on going to other places and help repeat all that we have accomplished here. Someone on the BitcoinTalk forum the other day from Paris – he had visited Berlin, and he actually posted a thread, “how can we repeat the Berlin Miracle in Paris?” -So yeah – just imagine what we have accomplished here. Imagine that in a hundred cities, or in a thousand cities. Imagine those hundred-million media contacts times a hundred or times a thousand. I think that is actually the way we can make Bitcoin become money. I do follow this philosophy that when people can buy food with it, that when people can buy beer with it, and especially when people can support their relatives overseas with it, then it turns into money. It doesn't turn into money by a regulator saying “now we accept it as money.” That is actually the mechanism of feared money – let there be value, but Bitcoin will not, and will never develop a value and turn into a real money accepted by people, by regulators telling us it is okay to use it as money. It will be money only when people experience it and start using it.

Ben: I just want to jump in and say I hope and actually expect Joerg will do that regardless of whether he's elected to the Foundation, and I think that's excellent and wonderful.

Joerg: Granted, you're all invited.

Mod: Thank you, Joerg. To close out this round – Luke, assuming you win, and have the power to act to execute your vision, what actions would you focus on for the first 90 days?

Luke: The first thing I think I would focus on would be taking steps to ensure the Bitcoin Foundation is powerless compared to the community itself. Bitcoin itself is ensured to be decentralized, ongoing. I did want to make a point regarding Elizabeth's emphasis on her perspective as a woman. My wife has also learned a lot about Bitcoin herself, and is getting more involved with it over time. She currently does proof-reading for Bitcoin Magazine, so she has a wide variety of background of things the magazine has covered or even considered covering. While I don't think we should encourage a sexist divide by giving special attention to women or men specifically, she regularly gives me valuable different perspective on things in my daily life which will hopefully resonate with other women who hopefully are open to involvement with Bitcoin.

Mod: Thank you, Luke. With that, we've completed the round of questions in this interactive debate, and to close this session, I would now like to ask each of the candidates for a brief statement, just describing their closing argument for this election. In concluding this, let's start with Ben. Ben?

Ben: Thank you, Andreas – and thank you for running the debate. I think Bitcoin is at an important inflection point right now as governments are waking up to it, and I think the Bitcoin Foundation has a very important role in shaping the next few years, and that's really what prompted me to run. I think of the five candidates, I possibly bring the best mix of development experience, technical understanding, and relationships with the Bitcoin startup community. Background in computer science – been developing software for 20 years, and successfully confounded and sold a company to Facebook. I've been passionate about Bitcoin for the last two years, and to me, it's as important as the invention of the Internet itself – and I'm so excited about it, I just want to bring freedom of transaction to the world – millions and billions of people, and I would love to serve on the Board and serve the interests of its members. Thanks

Mod: Thank you, Ben. Trace, your closing argument?

Trace: Thanks, Andreas. My closing argument – I'd just like to hit and reiterate on the point that we've got a lot of very competent and capable people in the Bitcoin community. At the conference, most of the people I ran into had graduate degrees, and it wasn't like they majored in Jennifer Anniston – they were PH D.s in cryptography, and mathematics, and physics, and law, and these more difficult disciplines. We've really got something special going on here, and we're bringing in a lot of human capital, and we can really build something special with Bitcoin, and we are building something special with Bitcoin, and we don't necessarily have to do it with Bitcoin Foundation. One of the things I think is great, is that we have a great round of candidates running for the Board of the Bitcoin Foundation, and regardless of whether any of us get on the Board or not, we're going to continue going on building Bitcoin in our own unique division of labor, and we're going to continue doing great things, and so I'm very excited about that, and very grateful to the community in general, and all the hard work we've put in building different tools, and different ideas, and having healthy debate on how we can move forward on some of these fairly contentious issues, so that's kind of my closing statement regarding that. Thanks, Andreas, for putting this all together.

Mod: Thank you, Trace. Joerg?

Joerg: Right. Hello. My absolute priority really is to bring Bitcoin to the people and not to banks, and to regulators. Banks and regulators will, in the end, have to face and accept this new reality that is being built here, and I am very emotional about this new reality. For me, with the advent of Bitcoin – or the advent of Bitcoin, is the central drumbeat of digitalizatoin that will allow us to go forward and allow us to create an information society – and this information society based on cryptotechnology will create a new society which is inevitable, which cannot be stopped – can merely be delayed, and I think we should do everything, that it does not get delayed.

Mod: Thank you, Joerg. Luke, your final closing arguments?

Luke: I think it's very important to remember Bitcoin is powered by individuals, not the Bitcoin Foundation itself, and that these individuals should be free to improve Bitcoin as they personally see fit. The Foundation should be there to assist and enable improvement, but it shouldn't assist in having authority over how everyone does it. In my opinion, I am the best-suited of the five candidates to neutrally fill this role on the Board of Directors.

Mod: Thank you, Luke. Last, but not least, and closing the session, Elizabeth?

Elizabeth: I would first like to thank fellow candidates for running positive campaigns. We are only as strong as our acceptance and promotion of the marketplace of ideas and Bitcoin's spread around the world. Thank you, Andreas, and the Bitcoin Foundation, for putting on this debate so we can push not only the Bitcoin Foundation, but the Bitcoin community as a whole to the next level. I would also like to thank each candidate who ran in the primary election – we had so many qualified candidates. -And I'd especially like to thank Nilam Doctor, Ryan Deming, and Duncan Goldie-Scot for their recent endorsements. I will serve as the leader who is willing to put in the time that it takes, and has a plan of action as to how to grow the Bitcoin community, protect the Bitcoin currency, and increase Bitcoin's utility. The clock is ticking, and we do not have much time left before Bitcoin is compromised. If you have any further questions about my platform, and why I would like to serve you, please feel free to visit my site, ElizabethTPloshay.com

Mod: Thank you, Elizabeth. -And, with that, we're coming to the end of this interactive debate for the Bitcoin Foundation election and the Individual Seat. Don't forget, that in 2 days, on September 16th, the election opens – it will be taking place on the same service as before – Election Buddy, and you will be receiving an email from the Bitcoin Foundation. Look out for that. The election will take place from September 16th to the 22nd, and that's the time when the most important phase of this starts – when we, the members of the Bitcoin Foundation, have to cast our ballots. The first round of the elections had a relatively low turnout, so I am hoping the election on September 16th will have a spectacular turnout, which would only be appropriate for this fantastic lineup of candidates we have. I'm sure most democracies would very much like to have five strong, eloquent, articulate, and capable candidates in the final lineup – if only they were so lucky. -So thank you all for participating today, and thank you to Let's Talk Bitcoin for providing the technological assistance and organizational support for this debate, as well as David Perry for acting as our official time-keeper. Thank you all, and enjoy this debate.