- Bitcoin and Modern Monetary Theory
- Apple and Microsoft ushered in a wave of updates, we found the bitcoin logo
- Blockchain: Man-made Borg people?
- Viewpoint | On the safety budget of Bitcoin
- BTC reverse neckline waiting direction volatility implies that bitcoin forward prices will be even higher!
- Bitcoin White Paper 11th Anniversary! The cumulative fee scale officially exceeded $1 billion
If you don't know Jameson Lopp, he is one of the most important honorary leaders in the field of cryptocurrency and bitcoin, an incredible technologist, a very smart guy. This will be a great conversation.
Today I am honored to be sitting with Casa’s Chief Technology Officer, Jameson Lopp. I am very grateful to you for attending today.
Lopp : I am very happy to be here.
Tom : This is my honor. I know that you are one of the most respected people in the field of bitcoin, so your words will have a huge impact on the audience. I feel that my audience may be more from the perspective of beginners. So if they don't know you well, can you briefly introduce your background and how did you fall into the rabbit hole of Bitcoin?
Lopp : Ok. I started to be interested in Bitcoin around 2012. Of course, that was not the first time I heard about Bitcoin, which is the same as most of us. We heard about Bitcoin, then ignored it, and then it continued to enter our range of audiovisuals, and eventually we were attracted to it. However, when I started reading the Bitcoin white paper, reading the relevant forum content, and participating in some conversations, I realized that it was a very sophisticated computer science issue. I had been a software engineer for five or six years and I was doing online marketing software, although I was not very interested in it. Just, you know, the challenges of some technological extensions at the time made me very busy. Most people have never really thought about money except for their own needs, so when I started thinking about money, I realized the abstract concept of money, which should belong to all mankind. So, for me, money should be an open collaborative project, not something that is closed by a small group of people to make decisions . This makes sense. So I am very interested in it (bitcoin), both in terms of technology and philosophy. This allowed me to create a Bitcoin Core fork and try to apply some of my own software engineering and development skills. The fork project is a major bitcoin implementation that attempts to help other engineers better understand the actual situation inside Bitcoin they run. I think that project is quite successful. Over the years, many Bitcoin Core developers have cited the project as they debate various technical changes to the Bitcoin protocol. Well, yes, I mean, I am just an amateur, doing some amateur projects, posting on social media and talking to people about bitcoin, for three or four years, until 2015, a lot of risk Investment is pouring in (bitcoin field). After that, I felt that there might be enough opportunities in this field for me to work full time, so I became the infrastructure engineer of BitGo. They are a multi-signature company and a wallet platform. Basically they provide power to many exchanges and payment processors. And, you know, it makes me more and more aware of the web infrastructure running on the blockchain platform. I did this for about three years and then turned to another multi-signature security provider, Casa. The main difference between (Casa and BitGo) is that we (Casa) are not focused on helping to protect the business, but on helping individuals. Our main goal at Casa is to help people make it more practicable for ordinary people to have self-sovereignty. Reduce the technical threshold of the promise of “ be your own bank ”. In the field of Bitcoin, it has always been possible to make people "become their own banks", which only requires a lot of technical expertise and a lot of dedication to do truly ordinary data practices. So what we want to do is build these best practices into the software to provide a better user experience so that the average person can participate and benefit from the security level promised by Bitcoin.
Tom : I think this is very important, because as early as 2013, if people enter the field of bitcoin, but don't know any technical background about setting up the wallet and protecting their private key security in the right way, then They are a huge trouble.
Lopp : Yes, I mean we still have a long way to go. I think Bitcoin needs three things. If we really want to continue to develop, one is scalability, in order to be able to process enough data for more and more people to use the system; the second is security , people are very honest and do not want to be their own bank. They don't want to go through all the troubles, consider all the margins, well, protecting their private key is to protect their money. The last is usability. When you become part of this system, does the system really have very little security? Unfortunately, we don't have a good build of security in the software. So users are still very easy to pick up their own feet. Basically, you may suffer a lot of loss simply because you don't understand something or just make a simple careless mistake .
Tom : Yes. Yesterday I chatted with a person who said they lost about 40,000 Stellar Lumens (XLM) private keys and they were looking for ways to recover. For those trying to enter this field, it is very important to protect the private key. Because if the private key is lost, you can't call Satoshi to ask him to retrieve the private key for you.
Lopp : That's right. The advantage is that you have more freedom, but the downside is that more freedom brings you more responsibility.
Tom : That's it. Let's discuss it in more depth. You mentioned scalability, security, and usability. In terms of scalability, obviously you believe in Lightning Network instead of Bitcoin Cash, is that the case?
Lopp : Yes. This is a very interesting description of the expansion of the blockchain, and I prefer to call it vertical scaling. In computer science, when we talk about the expansion of technology systems, what we really say is that we hope that the system can process more data, handle more events and do more quickly without increasing the operating cost of the system. More things . So when we start talking about things like linear expansion or quadratic expansion, basically, either the amount of data added in the system or the number of transactions processed is consistent with the rate of increase in cost, or the cost is rising or falling faster. The best type of extension is that the cost of running the system rises more slowly than the amount of things it has to deal with . There are two very advanced ways to extend any one system. You can call it vertical scaling and horizontal scaling, or what people call scaling up and scaling out. Basically this means that either you can continue to do the same thing by using faster hardware, but you can do more because the hardware is faster (of course this hardware will become more expensive); either you can Try to find a way to transfer system workloads to other hardware , where Google is using this method. They are the first companies to invent cloud computing. They buy a lot of very cheap computers and then use software to turn them into computers. Into a large and efficient supercomputer, this is a way of horizontal expansion or horizontal expansion, that is, you spread the data to more different places (computers), the speed of data processing costs brought by this way It's slower than buying a single super computer . What we are doing with Bitcoin is to transfer as much data processing as possible to other networks, specifically the Lightning Network . We are trying to create other network layers on top of the Bitcoin network that will take advantage of the security of the Bitcoin blockchain, but will take most of the data processing work out of the actual Bitcoin blockchain, and with a more The data is processed in a private manner so that only the least participants are aware of the processing of the relevant data. This is actually very similar to the expansion of the Internet itself, where the Internet is actually a seven-layer technology stack, and the bottom layer of the Internet is Ethernet. Ethernet is a very basic pipe network. Basically, you put data on the network, and the data can be transmitted to others on the local network. This is how bitcoin runs. You put the data on the bitcoin network and the data is sent to other nodes in the network. All nodes need to process this data, verify it and relay it . Of course, this approach cannot be extended. It’s like if the Internet has been running this way, then today I can’t talk to you over the network, because everyone else who is currently on the web needs to transfer data through our computer (equivalent to a node). That way, our computer needs to process and relay all of this data. But the computer doesn't have enough computing power to do this. Then do you know how our internet solves this problem? That is, we will build other layers on the Internet , including layers such as the TCP IP layer, which route the data through the least number of participants in the network. This creates a more efficient way to send data because we can limit the hardware requirements for processing that data. This is very similar to the lightning network . When we want to send a transaction in the lightning network, we actually find the minimum number of lightning nodes needed to transfer data to each other without broadcasting the transaction to All nodes in the lightning network. I think this is a fairly reliable way to extend a distributed decentralized, unlicensed network. But of course, the lightning network also has its own interesting new features, bringing a lot of unique challenges.
Tom : Yes. I think this is related to the fact that the technology is still in development. I think this is very interesting, because from my understanding, the main argument is that at some point in time, the size (space) of the block will be filled (ie full block), or as you mentioned This will make trading on the chain more expensive. This is the place that embodies the biggest difference between the SegWit and the Lightning Network. Is that true?
Lopp : Segregation Witness is actually a technology implemented on Bitcoin that helps make Lightning Networks possible. The segregation testimony also helped to increase the capacity of the bitcoin chain, but it only doubled , and this is still not enough to expand the bitcoin network, so that the Bitcoin network processes the transaction volume per second from 7 It rose to about 15 pens. Of course there are many variables that can change this situation. Even discussing the transaction throughput of a blockchain network is a complicated matter, because in a bitcoin network, a transaction is not necessarily one-to-one, and it is possible that the transaction is sent by an entity to 1,000 other Entity (business or individual). Be aware that this is only up to the data you are viewing. And when we talk about the scalability of under-chain protocols like the Lightning Network, the privacy features of these under-chain protocols actually make us unable to know how many transactions are taking place in the network . There are a number of transactions, you can only make some informed guesses, but I want to say that those who support the current bitcoin block size and those who support larger block sizes, or support chain expansion The focus of the debate between people and support chains is on cost and storing more data on the chain . They (that is, those who support larger block sizes) tend to prioritize low-cost transactions, which are to add small transaction costs to transactions. They want to get the guarantee that when you put a transaction with the lowest transaction fee on the network, the transaction will be confirmed in the next block. But the trade-off is that in the end you will create block space with almost no upper limit, and someone must pay for the block space, because someone has to deal with all the transactions, verify, store and relay the transaction, and finally This means that if you will provide block space that is almost free (that is, you don't have to pay a transaction fee), people will use it. This is basically good for all users, but you may end up with a Tragedy of the Commons, and people will do something very stupid, like the whole movie or something like it in the blockchain. on. We have seen this in some other bitcoin forks. People just put a lot of data there. As a result, it is impractical for ordinary people to run a fully verified node on these networks. Because this involves (very high) storage requirements, bandwidth, and computing requirements, resulting in soaring operating costs. On the other hand, those who have network nodes that have been running on these networks for several years like me, we tend to prioritize the low-cost verification of the state of the entire network , basically storing, verifying, and relaying all areas. The cost of blockchain data is lower. This is a more conservative position because the trade-off is that we cannot completely determine what the transaction cost is. We only know that we have set limits on how much data can be processed in the network, and the basic assumption is that if too many people start to store a lot of data on the network, this will create a transaction fee market, and eventually these costs will fluctuate. Even sometimes it is high and scary. We have experienced a tens of dollars in the cost of a transaction in a very short period of time, which economically encourages people to use block space more wisely. Ultimately, transactions that enter the blockchain are those that are more valuable (ie, higher cost) . In response to this , it may make people send small value transactions to each other uneconomical, which makes Lightning Network and other chain agreements happen from time to time (Lightning Network is designed to pay for micro transactions). Because you can create a transaction on the blockchain, you can then send as many transactions as possible as quickly as possible in the Lightning Network, as these transactions are no longer handled by all nodes in the network. What we see in the Lightning Network is that you can make more transactions on a range of transaction fees (such as 1 Satoshi) instead of spending thousands of Satoshi on the bitcoin chain to complete these transactions. [Note: Satoshi is the smallest unit of Bitcoin, 0.000 000 01 BTC = 1 Satoshi]
Tom : My understanding is that the lightning network is a bit like a private channel. If I want to trade with you, we can open a payment channel, we will upload a certain amount of BTC to the Bitcoin network, or upload it to the payment channel, then we can trade a few times to trade. After that, until one of us wants to close the channel. At that time, these records will be checked and uploaded to the Bitcoin blockchain. Is that true?
Lopp : Yes, it's almost like this. You can think of the bitcoin blockchain as a place to store real history, like the role of judges, juries, and executioners. This way you can conduct private transactions under the chain , in fact you are only doing real and effective bitcoin transactions between the parties (the people who run these payment channels). At any time, you can post one of the transactions (such as the most recent transaction) to the Bitcoin network for settlement. At this time, more game rules will be involved to cover various margins to improve the stability. Sex, to ensure that no one has fraud in the transaction, in short, to ensure that your transaction is a fully valid bitcoin transaction. Basically, in the Lightning Network, you just choose to postpone the transaction to the entire Bitcoin network, because you know that the longer you postpone the settlement on the chain, the faster you can trade and save even more. More transaction costs .
Tom : Thank you for clarifying this for me. I have one aspect that I really don't understand, it is the Watch Tower. In essence, the watchtower should be used in the network to ensure that no one is doing bad things, right?
Lopp : Right , not right. The watchtower is not the only one that is responsible for no one doing bad things. Lightning Networks has made a lot of trade-offs, which can achieve higher transaction speeds and lower transaction costs. From a purely theoretical point of view, transactions on the lightning network are more secure than on the bitcoin chain. Trading is lower , just as you can never make such a protocol, making the protocol more secure than the basic protocol it depends on. Now, one of the trade-offs of Lightning Networks is that when you run these lightning wallets, you need to be more vigilant, because, as I said, you are doing bitcoin transactions with different parties in private, so you may In this case, the counterparty of the trading channel may attempt to post the previous old transaction on the Bitcoin blockchain. In this old transaction, the other party has more BTCs in the channel. And he doesn't have as many BTCs in the latest deals. The way to protect yourself from loss is that when you are updating the channel state, you are basically creating a new private bitcoin transaction. You are actually signing many transactions, some of which are called recovery transactions. (recovery transactions) or clawback transactions in which your counterparty attempts to get more money by posting old invalid transactions on the bitcoin chain. In fact, you can take all the funds away from them because they have been asked to sign the transaction, which will reverse the output and send the funds back to you. Of course, in order to be able to do this, you must stay online and listen to them trying to deceive you by publishing an invalid transaction. If you are offline, they may successfully announce invalid transactions . If (the deceiver publishes an invalid transaction on the chain), you will not be able to recover your funds if you do not raise an objection for a sufficient period of time. The thing that the watchtower has to do is to monitor it instead of you . What I want to say is that if you have your own computer running your lightning software, you'd better have 24-hour online monitoring. You can actually be your own watchtower. But if for some reason you are only using a mobile wallet, you may not always stay online, then you can actually delegate the responsibility of listening to any number of third-party watch towers . You can motivate them by paying a fee to the watchtower , as if you were free from deception, I am willing to pay you the same amount of money , of course, this is a small additional fee . Therefore, this is just another way to improve the robustness of the network to various malicious behaviors, but the current watchtower is still at a very early stage.
Tom : So, what do you think is the main obstacle currently facing the Lightning Network? How long do you think the lightning network will be easy to use?
Lopp : Interestingly, asking any of these types of networks for their timeline is tricky because the work involved is very fragmented . Be aware that many different teams are currently working on different aspects of the lightning network. And at Casa we also have a team of engineers working on several products related to lightning networks. However, you know, we are not lightning network protocol engineers. We rely on changes made to the network from Lightning Labs because our software is built on top of their software, so I don't really know the timeline of their work. I only care about what we can do now. And as the developers of Lightning Network bring more features, we will make our products easier to use. The software is like this, there is no magic threshold to use, so that we can suddenly get the mainstream adoption. I think we have made great progress in the past year, but there will be many challenges ahead, not only in terms of usability, but also in understanding how the mobility of the lightning network works . This is a bigger unknown. And we will try a few different ways to connect users to the lightning network, and then provide users with a variety of different security modes, see the machine to see what is attracting people to participate. If you can't give people some real value, let them take the time to understand how the system works and actually use it, then the lightning network will be classified as a technology enthusiast, these people are more It is interested in it for ideological reasons. So I think this is not just a question of the software, but also about the different use cases it can bring , which is also an important aspect of attracting people to join.
Tom : This is very interesting. Can you talk more about the liquidity problem you just mentioned?
Lopp : Ok. The way the lightning network works is that you open channels with different counterparties. These channels have a certain value (the two sides have a deposit in the channel), and each end of the channel has a certain amount of value. When you send funds (transactions) in the lightning network, what you do is actually to update the value of both ends of the channel, that is, subtract X from one end of the fund and X in the other end . The situation becomes very complicated when the transactions you send need to go through many different hops (ie, the transaction needs to go through multiple payment channels for multi-hop payments). In this case, a more complicated path problem arises. You must find a path with sufficient liquidity that you can use to pay for the completion payment. One way to solve this problem is through a method called "Atomic Multipath Routing," which actually splits payments across different channels. I think there are more macro issues that need to be addressed. Interestingly, I mentioned this in an article by CoinDesk three years ago. Maybe four years ago, I talked about the liquidity challenges that I feel need to be addressed. I believe there will be different types of liquidity attacks, you know, these problems occur when you try to transfer too much value from one part of the network (on the chain) to another part of the network (under the chain). . Because if the channel can't adjust the balance of the two sides of the transaction, if all the values are pushed from one end of the channel to the other end of the channel, then the channel is unidirectionally unusable . Therefore, if you want a payment channel to send value in both directions, you need to figure out how to adjust the balance of the two parties within the channel. Some work has been done in this regard. As far as I know, at least one open source software is actively conducting research in this area. I know that another team is also doing this because they gave a speech at the Scaling Bitcoin conference in Tokyo. Then there are other features that are being rolled out. Recently, Lightning Lab released a function to become Loop out. I think this is a way to let you rebalance in the channel through chain trading .
Tom : Fortunately, we have very smart people like you to build infrastructure for people like me who don't have that much technical content. I think the work in this area will be huge, making it easier to use for people like me. But I think this is a good transition to the second issue you mentioned before, the security issue, which is also the main focus of Casa swing, is that the case?
Lopp : Yes, security is fairly balanced across our different products. We have two products, the first of which is a multi-signature management product that tries to give people a better security than a bank level in a very user-friendly interface (like a mobile app-style interface). Robust to manage your own private key. We also have a product related to Lightning Networks, a lightning network power node plug-and-play product. Then we built some other things on this basis, but all of these products related to the lightning network are still in the experimental stage. Currently, we do not recommend that people store a lot of value in any lightning network related software, you need to be able to protect your assets in Bitcoin. We are trying to build a system that is robust enough that people don't have to do the responsible data operations until the integrity of their backup system is still working. If they encounter a disaster, it won't cause them to lose. Access to all private keys.
Tom : Can you talk more about nodes? What is a node? Why are nodes important?
Lopp : In my opinion, nodes, or more specifically, full nodes or fully authenticated nodes, are the most important for decentralized distributed networks. It not only affects the security of individuals who use this network, but also the security of the entire network. You can even come up with the idea that it has a lot to do with the so-called "governance" or "lack of governance" in these networks. Essentially, this means that we created an agreement that allows us to talk to each other, such as "Hey, I want to update this ledger, I have to move this value from one address to another." But in these different There are many things happening under rules and verification, and as end users, you can participate in different levels of authentication on these networks. You can use these blockchain networks by using a hosted web-based wallet, no need to verify, all you have to do is to manipulate IOUs in someone else's database, and believe that the other party will not do anything bad. Or screw things up. This type of network authentication is called Simple Payment Verification (SPV), where you can run software on your computer or mobile phone . The SPV looks up a specific address in the blockchain and then asks the node to prove that the transaction associated with one of the addresses actually occurs in a particular block . This is basically the proof of existence that the transaction has already occurred, but you are still very susceptible to things, such as a node being missed and not giving you any evidence. You are also vulnerable to the effect that there are dozens (if not hundreds) of rules in the agreement that may be destroyed, but the whole node may lie to you. The highest level of security and authentication in the network is the full node (or fully authenticated node) , which runs a 24/7 network that listens to all transactions and blocks in the network and all the data entering the block. Verify the entire rule set of the protocol and decide whether to accept or reject the transaction/block. When you run a full node on the network, you no longer need to trust anyone on the network. This security model is essentially that you only need to have an honest whole node to communicate with you on the network, even if all other nodes are lying to you, as long as you have an honest full node to give you real data. You can verify that it is real data, and everything else is false. As far as I know, this is one of the most powerful security levels on the Internet. If you run a fully verified node, you can verify that the funds you received are true, you are not being deceived, not a fake transaction or a double transaction, and you can also participate in the governance of the network. And when other people on the network make changes to the network protocol, you can choose not to follow the rules change unless you explicitly agree to these rules to change and change the software you run. I think this is very interesting because it subverts the traditional way of governance . Traditional management is a hierarchical top-down order in which only a small percentage has the power to make decisions . They may be dictators. Although they may be elected democratically, they may also be a company or board of directors. Founder or member, etc. All traditional governance concentrates power in the hands of a few, because it is a more effective way of doing things. But now everything is reversed, we have bottom-up governance, and no one or any group of entities on the network can force anyone else on the network to do anything . I think this is the purest anarchy, in which everyone can decide for themselves what rules they want to agree to and what kind of network governance they want. This brings up some very interesting forks and debates about governance that have existed for years. In addition, I believe that it is very important to have as many people as possible to run these nodes, as this will make it difficult for any centralization to change the network in a way that most people disagree.
Tom : This is very insightful. All you have to do is customize the node, it's more like a plug-and-play thing, very user friendly. So people have sovereignty and can protect themselves.
Lopp : Yes. So when you have a Casa node, you are running a fully verified bitcoin node, and you are still running a lightning network node that will communicate with the bitcoin node, and the bitcoin node adds you The security of Lightning Wallet and the security of everything you do in the Lightning Network.
Tom : I want to hear your opinion. What do you think is the main driving force behind the adoption of Bitcoin?
Lopp : I have been thinking about this for a long time, because I have been in the Bitcoin field for several years. I promote bitcoin to my friends and family, but only about a single-digit person who believes in me, or when they listen to me about bitcoin and accept the ideology behind it, many people think that I am crazy. Therefore, I no longer try to reach out to people in countries that are comfortable in the First World, which have very good financial infrastructure. I suspect that those who are most motivated to adopt these technologies will be those who cannot use traditional banking infrastructure , even though we have seen many failures. And in the traditional banking infrastructure, according to my experience, not many people will consider this issue again. For people like me who worry about long-term inflation or what the central bank might do, we are usually considered too paranoid, at least in the first world countries I talked to. However, you know that people in countries with hyperinflation, or those with limited access to the central bank's network, are very different . I think this is enough to motivate them to adopt this new technology. Although this may be too challenging for people in the First World, or the learning curve is too long, for those who cannot send money, I think they are more likely to understand how this technology works and really Try to use and benefit from it. So it will be very interesting, if this is the case, third world countries will adopt faster than the first world countries. However, you know, it depends on the efforts of many different people, because for whatever reason, I think that in general, the technology is still very advanced and most of the information is mainly in English, so whenever I look I am very happy when people are using translation materials to make those who do not speak English understand the technology.
Tom : Great. What do you most expect? What is the most exciting thing in this field now?
Lopp : Although we have a lot of interesting things about privacy and extensibility, what's more interesting is that they actually complement each other . For example, aggregate signatures will continue to reduce the size of transactions on the chain, but will also increase privacy by obscuring participants in the transaction. This level of scalability can even be applied to lightning channels. So all of this is complementary. I am very interested to see the privacy of the Bitcoin network improved , because I think the Bitcoin network has been behind for many years, and it will eventually affect the substitutability of the currency itself, which is one of the most important features. We still have a lot of work to do to protect privacy.
Tom : With regard to bitcoin or blockchain, what are the glimpses or misunderstandings that you particularly want to clarify?
Lopp : Oh, there are a lot. I recently attended a conference. It was a traditional financial conference. Some people asked me some questions, such as Warren Buffet and Charlie Monger. Bitcoin is a rat poison. Many criminals and liars and so on. In fact, I tend to agree with some of these statements. You know, Bitcoin is a rat poison for anyone who wants to control how money works. Bitcoin does attract a lot of scammers. Any new technology has the potential to attract criminals and scammers because they know that law enforcement has not kept up with the way technology works . We have seen a variety of cases in which law enforcement is working hard to understand how the technology works and combining different tools in their investigations. For example, the analysis of bitcoin capital flows is only part of the relevant survey. I don't think it is a conclusive thing. I mean, any sound currency that is resistant to censorship will be used to do illegal things . Cash is the best example. This may be controversial, but what I am saying is that Bitcoin is used to do illegal things, which is how we know Bitcoin works well. If there is any difference, I feel that although there are many hype about terrorists using cryptocurrencies for financing, there are some reports that this is usually not true . Terrorists prefer to use cash or gold for financing, which is better than Bitcoin. It is less easy to be tracked.
Tom : You recently said on Twitter that you have an article about Craig Wright that may be published around next week. Do you not think he is Nakamoto?
Lopp : This is a very long and complicated story. I am not sure if many people know everything. I didn't find any of Nakamoto's characteristics that I expected in Craig Wright . When I researched what he did or what he said, I wasn't even sure if he knew how to write a lot of code, or if he really had what he claimed to be from all his academic credentials. In his past history, I found a lot of doubts. I really tried to pay attention to a lot of contradictions. I think it is very solid evidence. He has done a lot of things over the years, so for me, the problem is It is not whether he is the founder of Bitcoin, Nakamoto, but whether he is a trustworthy person.
Tom : I understand. last question. Do you have any advice for those who are just starting out to invest in this field?
Lopp: Hey , Bitcoin is still like the wild west. If you invest in it, there are many things that can go wrong. I think almost everyone who has stayed in this field for a long time has lost money at some point . me either. I mean, I have a lot of things that I suddenly thought of when I screwed things up. So when people ask me if I should invest in Bitcoin, I will tell them to be cautious. I told them that if they must ask, then my answer is negative . I mean, you have to invest in self-education . There are some great educational resources on my website that you can spend a few months browsing. Only when you have confidence in this system should you invest your money.
Tom : Ok. Thanks again to Jameson for attending this interview.
Lopp : Thank you for your invitation.
Author | dyorpodcast
Compile | Jhonny