Bitcoin Crash: Beginning Of The End?

“It’s the 90′s ‘dot.com’ bubble all over again”.

The bitcoin crashed for the third time in recent months, leaving some to wonder if this is the beginning of the end of the once promising currency.

The latest flap comes as the result of an oversight by Mt. Gox, the largest exchange for allowing bitcoins to be traded for traditional currency. Mt. Gox froze the accounts of all its customers and ceased operations when the company discovered an unfortunate glitch.

According to a statement by Mt. Gox, “A bug in the bitcoin software makes it possible for someone to use the Bitcoin network to alter transaction details to make it seem like a sending of bitcoins to a bitcoin wallet did not occur when in fact it did occur.”

In other words, the flaw would allow someone to be sent additional bitcoin currency and open the system up to all sorts of fraudulent behavior…if the mistake had not been already exploited.

According to CNBC, the news caused the currency to drop 20% in value.

I'm waiting for it to get to 'zero' so I can buy in cheap. :sneaky:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pythoncancer

Quote:

---

“It’s the 90′s ‘dot.com’ bubble all over again”.

The bitcoin crashed for the third time in recent months, leaving some to wonder if this is the beginning of the end of the once promising currency.

The latest flap comes as the result of an oversight by Mt. Gox, the largest exchange for allowing bitcoins to be traded for traditional currency. Mt. Gox froze the accounts of all its customers and ceased operations when the company discovered an unfortunate glitch.

According to a statement by Mt. Gox, “A bug in the bitcoin software makes it possible for someone to use the Bitcoin network to alter transaction details to make it seem like a sending of bitcoins to a bitcoin wallet did not occur when in fact it did occur.”

In other words, the flaw would allow someone to be sent additional bitcoin currency and open the system up to all sorts of fraudulent behavior…if the mistake had not been already exploited.

According to CNBC, the news caused the currency to drop 20% in value

---

.

---

http://www.webpronews.com/bitcoin-cr...he-end-2014-02

Now corrected to give proper credit to the person you stole that from and also better reflect the level of your integrity/intelligence.

Anyway stupid stuff created simply to make money is at the heart of all great economies,so good on you, evildoers.:)

A bit more perspective (via /r/bitcoin): http://falkvinge.net/2014/02/11/the-...press-release/

I wouldn't call a 20% dip a 'crash' when BTC is already volatile as all get out. I'd call it 'Tuesday'j


EDIT: Slashdot's got a more concise summation: http://developers.slashdot.org/story...t-gox-problems

Can't wait for ByteCoin.

Bill Gates did a second Reddit AMA yesterday where he stated there was a good future in "digital currency". He didn't specifically mention Bitcoin or any of the others by name, but that's a pretty good endorsement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skiz

Bill Gates did a second Reddit AMA yesterday where he stated there was a good future in "digital currency". He didn't specifically mention Bitcoin or any of the others by name, but that's a pretty good endorsement.

---

It is a fascinating question, really: Who is trustworthy enough to create the currency of the future, possibly world, economy? M$? Google? The US? China? Some hermit writing code from inside an abandoned building?...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFoX

Can't wait for ByteCoin.

---

:happy:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skiz

Bill Gates did a second Reddit AMA yesterday where he stated there was a good future in "digital currency". He didn't specifically mention Bitcoin or any of the others by name, but that's a pretty good endorsement.

---

Yeah the guy how basically invented the computer as we know it,doesn't have any invested interest in promoting digital stuff.

Maybe if he owned a paper mill or foundry or something I could put more trust in his words.

I don't think he gives a flip about making more money. He has clearly moved on to other ventures, most of which make him zero money. I think he has a lot of other interests and is keyed in on loads of different things, but again, he didn't promote any of them.

For context.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megabyteme

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skiz

Bill Gates did a second Reddit AMA yesterday where he stated there was a good future in "digital currency". He didn't specifically mention Bitcoin or any of the others by name, but that's a pretty good endorsement.

---

It is a fascinating question, really: Who is trustworthy enough to create the currency of the future, possibly world, economy? M$? Google? The US? China? Some hermit writing code from inside an abandoned building?...

---

The entire point of cryptocurrencies is that they are decentralized currencies in which a single party can't control and/or manipulate the currency. It's not really about trust, I think you're thinking of something completely different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rart

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megabyteme

It is a fascinating question, really: Who is trustworthy enough to create the currency of the future, possibly world, economy? M$? Google? The US? China? Some hermit writing code from inside an abandoned building?...

---

The entire point of cryptocurrencies is that they are decentralized currencies in which a single party can't control and/or manipulate the currency. It's not really about trust, I think you're thinking of something completely different.

---

That may be the point of cryptocurrency, but the topic has shifted to a future containing a mainstream digital currency. In other words, you weren't really replying to MBM.

The reddit AMA that Skiz is referring to and MBM replied to talks of cryptocurrencies.

Who's talking about creating a new digital currency staffed by a central party? This is news to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rart

The entire point of cryptocurrencies is that they are decentralized currencies in which a single party can't control and/or manipulate the currency.

---

Knowing absolutely nothing, to which I remain internally grateful, about bitcoin I'm assuming it's commodity.Therefore it can be controlled by a small group or single party unless the stock market and the entirety of human history has taught me nothing.
Which it hasn't but for the sake of argument let's pretend it has.

Also,without regulation it's subject to being even more abused than legally traded commodities and we already know how abused they are.

What about the FSD? (FileSharingDollar)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rart

The reddit AMA that Skiz is referring to and MBM replied to talks of cryptocurrencies.

Who's talking about creating a new digital currency staffed by a central party? This is news to me.

---

Somebody/some agency will create an future digital currency that will be an online standard. I rarely venture into the realm of CIA conspiracy, but the agency is tasked with keeping the status quo. Casting doubt on up-and-comers which rock the boat of the US being the primary (at least one of the "big boys") is in their job description. Currently, the biggest bitcoin market has seen a scandal and another individual has been arrested for money laundering in connection with drug trafficking.

Not only will this new currency face challenges of speculation and doubt from the masses, but also those who piss off already existing money printers face HUGE personal risks (such as sudden loss of breath, or long-term imprisonment).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IdolEyes787

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rart

The entire point of cryptocurrencies is that they are decentralized currencies in which a single party can't control and/or manipulate the currency.

---

Knowing absolutely nothing, to which I remain internally grateful, about bitcoin I'm assuming it's commodity.Therefore it can be controlled by a small group or single party unless the stock market and the entirety of human history has taught me nothing.
Which it hasn't but for the sake of argument let's pretend it has.

Also,without regulation it's subject to being even more abused than legally traded commodities and we already know how abused they are.

---

It's a currency, not a commodity.

I'm sure if someone had enough money and time, they someone could perhaps buy enough bitcoins to have an influence on it. Then again there are 10 billion dollars worth of bitcoins out there, so you'd need a lot of money. You'd also need people willing to give you bitcoins. If someone was trying to sweep them all up people would begin to notice very quickly since all transaction are publically recorded.

And what I mean remaining decentralized is that it can't be controlled to nearly the extent of say, the US government has on the USD. Sure some organizations might be able to affect prices or whatnot with certain actions (ie MtGox going offline recently) but not nearly to the extent with which America can control the US dollar. They can print money, issue bonds, pump money into the economy, take it back out, etc. etc. No one has that sort of power over Bitcoin.

And yes without regulation it does have the potential to be abused. But that's what people like about it. No one can really control what they do with it. It has it's benefits and drawbacks for sure.

A new currency is coming... one that will eventually be the world standard and one that no man may be able to buy or sell.... err... wait a minute... didn't mean to go there..
Anyways I think Bitcoin won't last simply because the powers that be want to bring in something of their own creation... and one that they can control. The Quark currency will, I believe be the one to reckon with... here is how it matches against Bitcoin.

http://www.quarkcoins.com/bitcoin-vs-quarkcoin.html

Maybe not in our lifetime... but then again... you just need one staged event on par with ... lets say... 911... to usher in a whole new paradigm... why then, of course... for the sake of freedom everywhere... enslave us with your currency!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megabyteme

Currently, the biggest bitcoin market has seen a scandal and another individual has been arrested for money laundering in connection with drug trafficking.

---

I mean I kind of view the drug trafficking thing as inevitable. When theres a way to make money easily, there will people that want to make money easily. Drug trafficking happens with USD too, but I don't people decrying that it should be discontinued. Also if you're referring the recent Mtgox issue as the "scandal", I wouldn't really consider it a scandal. Just a popular bitcoin exchange site went down temporarily, and a lot of people panicked.

Personally I don't really like the idea of using Bitcoin right now as it is rather volatile and the value can rise and fall greatly on any given day. It's kind of like investing. It has it's merits though and when/if it becomes more stable I can definitely see it becoming much more widely accepted thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rart

The reddit AMA that Skiz is referring to and MBM replied to talks of cryptocurrencies.

Who's talking about creating a new digital currency staffed by a central party? This is news to me.

---

If you aren't sure about who was talking about it, maybe you should have quoted skiz instead of MBM.

Then again, this recommendation might be for naught since you only seem to take in the words of external sites. I'll write an article on a news site about how posts in forums create their own context. Would you read an article from The Onion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rart

It's a currency, not a commodity.

---

Look up the definition of commodity and then look up how exchange rates are determined and then get back to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

If you aren't sure about who was talking about it, maybe you should have quoted skiz instead of MBM.

Then again, this recommendation might be for naught since you only seem to take in the words of external sites. I'll write an article on a news site about how posts in forums create their own context. Would you read an article from The Onion?

---

He quoted Skiz which made me assume that he was building upon the topic Skiz brought up, so I didn't think he was "creating his own context". I don't see anything wrong with that... :unsure: He later clarified what he meant and I realized he was talking about something else.

And I don't see what's wrong with supporting my arguments with outside sources... it's the entire foundation upon which any scientific discovery of the last two centuries, (good) journalism, and heck even Wikipedia is based upon. Seems like a pretty standard practice to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IdolEyes787

Look up the definition of commodity and then look up how exchange rates are determined and then get back to me.

---

Doesn't change the fact that Bitcoin is still a currency... and there's a pretty important difference between a currency and a commodity.

Were you trying to make the point that the demand for commodities within certain countries affect exchange rates? I'm not exactly an economics guru so maybe you could elaborate more, but I'm not sure how relevant that'd be to Bitcoin since it a global currency that isn't really localized to a certain area.

Quote:

---

Commodity - Merriam-Webster Online

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/commodity‎


noun \kə-ˈmä-də-tē\. : something that is bought and sold. : something or someone that is useful or valued.

---

.investopedia.com

Quote:

---

How often do exchange rates fluctuate?

Exchange rates float freely against one another, which means they are in constant fluctuation. Currency valuations are determined by the flows of currency in and out of a country. A high demand for a particular currency usually means that the value of that currency will increase. Demand for a currency is created by tourism, international trade, mergers and acquisitions, speculation, and the perception of safety in terms of geo-political risk. If, for example, a company in Japan sells products to a company in the United States and the U.S.-based company would have to convert dollars into Japanese yen to pay for the goods, the flow of dollars into yen would indicate a demand for Japanese yen. If the total of currency flow led to a net demand for the Japanese yen, then the yen would increase in value.

Currencies are traded around the clock - 24 hours per day. Even though morning in Tokyo occurs during U.S. nighttime, trade and banking continue around the world. Therefore, as banks around the world buy and sell currencies, the value of currencies remain in fluctuation. Interest rate adjustments in different countries have the biggest effect on the value of currencies because investors typically look for safe investments with the highest yields. If an investor can earn 8.5% interest on deposits in England, but can pay 1% interest for the use of money in Japan, then the investor would pay to borrow the Japanese yen in order to buy the British pound. Such trades take place all the time and in very large numbers.

---

Currency,like housing prices is not so much reflective of actual value but rather the fact that people with a lot of money and/or power think they can gain even more money and/or power by buying it and artificially jacking the prices up.
When they think that their invest has reached a premium then they sell it and the value likely drops and the whole stupid cycle starts again.

Stop being contrary just to be contrary as that is my job here.

Right. But all these rules were theorized and developed with conventional currencies in mind. While certain rules could potentially be analogous to a certain extent with cryptocurrency, I am extremely doubtful. The fact that the currency is decentralized and not associated with any central banks/organizations, that all transactions are public and so anything like this would be sniffed out pretty quickly, and the fact that a simple transaction could take days or weeks (one of the big weaknesses of Bitcoin) makes me hesitant that any of these rules actually apply here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rart

Right. But all these rules were theorized and developed with conventional currencies in mind. While certain rules could potentially be analogous to a certain extent with cryptocurrency, I am extremely doubtful. The fact that the currency is decentralized and not associated with any central banks/organizations, that all transactions are public and so anything like this would be sniffed out pretty quickly, and the fact that a simple transaction could take days or weeks (one of the big weaknesses of Bitcoin) makes me hesitant that any of these rules actually apply here.

---

As I said I know nothing about bitcoins but I do know enough about humanity that I'm certain that if there is any way to corrupt or exploit them then someone will.

Or in other words,remember when the internet was this Utopian dream where all knowledge was going to be freely available?
No,neither does Mark Zuckerberg.

Currency used to be tied to the value of precious metal, namely gold. In more recent times, currency is tied to the credit rating of the host nation along with its GDP etc.

BitCoin isn't tied to any one nation or GDP, therefore it becomes an enigma.

Besides, bitcoin mining is serious work. Not for your average PS4 or XBOXOne.

Currencies undergo speculation, investment, and all of that other financial nonsense.

Thus it is a commodity by both definition and context.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rart

And I don't see what's wrong with supporting my arguments with outside sources...

---

The subtext blaring context was that you ignore input from anyone here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IdolEyes787

As I said I know nothing about bitcoins but I do know enough about humanity that I'm certain that if there is any way to corrupt or exploit them then someone will.

Or in other words,remember when the internet was this Utopian dream where all knowledge was going to be freely available?
No,neither does Mark Zuckerberg.

---

Fair enough. I'm sure there are and will be plenty of ways to exploit bitcoins (and you're right, where there's a will there's a way). However I think the scary thing and main reason I am skeptical of Bitcoin is from the potential manipulation from an underlying technical perspective, not the fear mongering from every small crash that is bound to occur in a currency so young that the mainstream media loves to perpetuate.

Is bitcoin really secure from a technical standpoint? Are the cryptography methods really secure so that they can't be "gamed", and are we completely sure someone won't find some way to circumvent the system and spend coins others have mined since all transactions are recorded publicly? That's what really concerns me about Bitcoin, and is something I really don't have the technical know how to answer.

Also, since you mention the idea of free knowledge: I paid 100$ for an electronic textbook that can't be viewed offline, can only print one page at a time, has a massive watermark over the entire page if you do print it, has some bizarre requirement that I can't view it without disabling pop ups on my browser, and to add insult to injury takes 20-30 seconds to load a single page that doesn't cache at all so it loads faster on subsequent loads. Want a hard copy? Be prepared to pay twice as much for a textbook that releases a new "edition" every year that is all intents and purposes identical to the last one but with identical passages moved around enough that students are forced to buy the newest edition rather then buy them used. Hows that for "free" knowledge? :unsure:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFoX

BitCoin isn't tied to any one nation or GDP, therefore it becomes an enigma.

---

Yep. And that's exactly why so many are afraid of it. It doesn't exactly follow the "rules" of conventional currency, and the established are scared. It's what allows so many media sites to create such click bait fear mongering articles out of every little up and down in the market that blow it completely out of proportion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

Currencies undergo speculation, investment, and all of that other financial nonsense.

Thus it is a commodity by both definition and context.

---

:unsure:

"A currency in the most specific use of the word refers to money in any form when in actual use or circulation, as a medium of exchange, especially circulating paper money. "

"In economics, a commodity is a marketable item produced to satisfy wants or needs."

Currency is something that can be used as a medium of exchange for commodities. They are completely distinct, albeit related, concepts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

The subtext blaring context was that you ignore input from anyone here.

---

Do you have a stick up your ass or something? :mellow: How many times do you want to make me explain this to you before you reach some sort of comprehension?

I thought MBM was building upon Skiz's point because he quoted him. It turned out he was introducing something else. I realized this upon his subsequent post, where he quoted me and clarified/expanded upon his point. I now understand what he was saying.

How the hell is this me not listening to his "input" or something? Please do tell, I genuinely want to know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rart

:unsure:

"A currency in the most specific use of the word refers to money in any form when in actual use or circulation, as a medium of exchange, especially circulating paper money. "

"In economics, a commodity is a marketable item produced to satisfy wants or needs."

Currency is something that can be used as a medium of exchange for commodities. They are completely distinct, albeit related, concepts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

The subtext blaring context was that you ignore input from anyone here.

---

Do you have a stick up your ass or something? :mellow: How many times do you want to make me explain this to you before you reach some sort of comprehension?

I thought MBM was building upon Skiz's point because he quoted him. It turned out he was introducing something else. I realized this upon his subsequent post, where he quoted me and clarified/expanded upon his point. I now understand what he was saying.

How the hell is this me not listening to his "input" or something? Please do tell, I genuinely want to know.

---

I think it's just a matter of you always being two steps behind, hence your frustration.

About your fixation on trying to make currency and commodity mutually exclusive. Do currencies have assessed values? Yes. Can you buy and sell money in the marketplace? Yes. It may sound like a paradox, but the purposeful creation of currency is a commodity in its very essence. It replaced trading things with other things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

I think it's just a matter of you always being two steps behind, hence your frustration.

---

I'm not entirely sure scratch that I have absolutely no idea what you mean. How am I always two steps behind? MBM made a post that I misinterpreted, he clarified it literally a couple of posts later, and now I understand it. That was it. I was never "always" behind, I was never frustrated with him.

It seems however that you are convinced I've done MBM a great injustice and anything I say won't convince you otherwise so I won't pursue it further.

Quote:

---

About your fixation on trying to make currency and commodity mutually exclusive. Do currencies have assessed values? Yes. Can you buy and sell money in the marketplace? Yes. It may sound like a paradox, but the purposeful creation of currency is a commodity in its very essence. It replaced trading things with other things.

---

I'm not "fixated" on it. Someone else (Idol?) brought it up and I replied. In general that's how discussions work. :mellow:

Also I absolutely never implied that currency and commodities are mutually exclusive. Quite the opposite, they're very, very, closely related. In fact, the entire existence of currency is based on the fact that there are commodities to trade, otherwise there'd be no point in having a currency.

However, you seem to be using some pseudo philosophical theory as reasoning that currency and commodity are one in the same. You can debate as much as you want how philosophically similar they are, but the fact of the matter is that no sane economist would use commodity and currency interchangeably. They are two distinct words with two distinct roles in an economy. Related? Absolutely. But still different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rart

It seems however that you are convinced I've done MBM a great injustice and anything I say won't convince you otherwise so I won't pursue it.

---

Injustice? That's crazy talk. I've threatened to molest his children. You might be taking that a bit too seriously.

Commodity and currency are not interchangeable, and that was not the premise. How are you with analogies? Every dildo is a sex toy, but not every sex toy is a dildo. A dildo can also be a weapon, door stop, etc.

Did you figure out which is the dildo and which is the sex toy in that analogy? It's you, you're the dildo.

Here's a smiley face to let you know the last statement was in jest

:)

Nobody gets me :emo:

You seemed pretty serious when you said I blaringly ignore input from anyone else :idunno:

Quote:

---

Every dildo is a sex toy, but not every sex toy is a dildo. A dildo can also be a weapon, door stop, etc.

---

I get what you're saying but I just don't think that its true. Commodities don't encompass currencies. Currencies are a medium of exchange, something issued by a certain party/group of people and doesn't really have an intrinsic value, just what people choose to represent it as for the purposes of trade (ie a USD's intrinsic value is really just how much it cost to produce the piece of paper, but it reality it's worth far more because people give it value to facilitate trade).

A commodity is an item produced in order to satisfy wants and needs, and has an intrinsic value to it. Now you might argue that people want or need money, but that's not exactly true. People want money so that they can buy what they want/need, they don't want money for the sake of having the physical currency itself.

It might seem like a small difference but I think it's an important distinction.

Also fun fact: AMD cards are now seeing price hikes in the range of 80-90% because of crytocurrencies. Whether that's a result of unreasonable hype that will soon crash or demonstrates the strength of the currency is up to you to decide...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rart

Now you might argue that people want or need money, but that's not exactly true. People want money so that they can buy what they want/need, they don't want money for the sake of having the physical currency itself.

---

Trying to make that distinction undoes your point since there are plenty of other commodities (besides money) that aren't needed by most people, but rather they are produced to exchange for goods that they do need.

You can keep trying to unlabel currencies as commodities, but each argument you present will either be countered by me or conflicted within your own statements.

The part about your unwillingness to accept input by others here was just an observation I've made based on your interactions with other members, and I only mentioned it to announce that I'm aware of the futility of trying to set you straight. I don't mind it being a futile effort, for practicing the debate form isn't wasteful regardless of outcome.

However, I should honor my observations and point you to an outside resource that discusses commodities with an inclusive discussion on currency. You're free to find something on your own as well.

http://www.investinganswers.com/fina...commodity-1035

P.S. I tried googling "money is not a commodity" to provide you some kind of edge since this is a little too one sided, and while going through the results that did not state currency=commodity, I only found a bit of incoherent fringe discussion. Try finding something that doesn't come from a Tea Party nut or conspiracy theorist if you have the time, and refer it if you think a sound assessment has been made.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

Trying to make that distinction undoes your point since there are plenty of other commodities (besides money) that aren't needed by most people, but rather they are produced to exchange for goods that they do need.

---

A commodity by definition is something that people want or need. If it isn't it isn't a commodity. There is the edge case of "commodity money", where people trade commodities they don't necessarily need (eg gold, silver, salt, cigarettes), but that's still something that has intrinsic value to someone else who may want to use it. That's why currency used to be "backed by gold". People worried their currency were useless slips of paper (no intrinsic value), so they wanted the security of having it backed by a commodity. Commodity = intrinsic value, currency = no intrinsic value.

And I'll mention it again: I'm sure you can create a deep, abstract, philosophical argument for why currency and commodities are one and the same, and I wont disagree that they are very similar. But for practical purposes of discussing economic theory and their applications to the real world, currency and commodities are used as terminology to discuss two distinct things. It would get very confusing if you read an economic paper and decided that you could swap currency for commodity wherever it was mentioned.

Quote:

---

for practicing the debate form isn't wasteful regardless of outcome

---

I agree. A lot of people seem to misinterpret my verbose arguments as irritation or anger, but I'm just doing what I view a forum's purpose is, or at least why I joined this forum discussing shit.

Quote:

---

The part about your unwillingness to accept input by others here was just an observation I've made based on your interactions with other members, and I only mentioned it to announce that I'm aware of the futility of trying to set you straight. I don't mind it being a futile effort, for practicing the debate form isn't wasteful regardless of outcome.

---

So I'm assuming you're talking about the hardware thread? It seems a little ironic that you specifically would mention it "for the futility of setting me straight" since outside of Artemis and the occasional post from Skiz you guys provided squat for input into that discussion. Feel free to post what you want, but it seems funny you'd bring it up when half your posts were dick pics.

But no, what Artemis said wasn't enough to make me put down everything and take what he says as gospel as you seemingly want me to for the sake of "accepting input from other members". I responded to all his points, and yes I did agree with some of them (water coolers certainly provide an advantage in terms of usable space), and in my mind I was certainly taking in his input. Sorry if our definitions of "taking in input from other members" are different, I don't believe it encompasses blindly agreeing with people without inciting discussion and discourse.

If you present an argument with logical claims and backed up by solid evidence, I'd be happy to admit in a second that I'm wrong and change my opinion. Same goes for the hardware thread. I joined this forum to learn, not to impose. I will happily admit I'm wrong if the evidence proves otherwise, as that would mean I learned something new that day. So far though, I don't believe you've done that.