WBD228 Audio Transcription

Spending Bitcoin with Ragnar Lifthrasir

Interview date: Wednesday 27th May 2020

Note: the following is a transcription of my interview with Ragnar Lifthrasir from Guns N’ Bitcoin. I have reviewed the transcription but if you find any mistakes, please feel free to email me. You can listen to the original recording here.

In this interview, I talk to Ragnar Lifthrasir from Guns N’ Bitcoin. We discuss the Bitcoiner narratives, why spending Bitcoin is as important as hodling, libertarianism, guns and the 2nd amendment. 

“How does having an asset go up in value change the world? It doesn’t, it’s not going to replace central banks, if anything they will co opt it. What really changes things is the transactions.”

— Ragnar Lifthrasir

Interview Transcription

Peter McCormack: All right man, how are you?

Ragnar Lifthrasir: Good! How are you, Peter? Thanks for having me back on.

Peter McCormack: No worries. It was a really great show we did last time, so it's a pleasure to have you back. You know why I've asked you back on, right?

Ragnar Lifthrasir: Yeah.

Peter McCormack: You're out there swinging on Twitter, getting in some fights, so I want to know what's up. I want to know.... There's obviously stuff that's bothering you at the moment in the world of Bitcoin. You got a bit pissed-off about some stuff and I want to dig right into that and I want to see if I agree, disagree, what's going on, but I've got a feeling some of it I might agree with you on. So do you want to just dive straight in, go straight to the root of what is really getting to you right now?

Ragnar Lifthrasir: It's really two things. First, it's a lack of adversarial, critical, independent, objective thinking and for all these claims about Bitcoin. So I see Bitcoin as two worlds. It's the coders and the software and how they think critically and peer review, and it's very rigorous. Then there's the other world, which is just all these claims about Bitcoin, which doesn't seem to get any examination, any criticism, and so that's the first thing.

The second thing is what I've seen as the dilution of Bitcoin on the Cypherpunk goals. They're still there, they're very strong, but they have just become the minority position, and people often attack them unknowingly, even. So it's those two things.

Peter McCormack: Could we start with the Cypherpunk goals, then? Because in some ways, that's a fair place to start because Bitcoin was a Cypherpunk project. So what do you see at Bitcoin's Cypherpunk goals?

Ragnar Lifthrasir: Well it's the original goal of untraceable digital cash. Untraceable digital cash, that was the goal for, actually kind of decades.

Peter McCormack: Does that include the gold theory in there as well, like money is gold, gold is money?

Ragnar Lifthrasir: Yeah, it basically assumes that it's just sort of money that is fungible and anonymous and digital. The goal isn't so much, "Let's get something that goes up in value." Obviously it has to have some value, but that is sort of either a secondary thing or not the primary goal, at least, as to, "Let's build something that is an asset class." It's like no money has to have value, but that's to get to transactional stuff, especially if it's anonymous and can't be interfered with.

Peter McCormack: And look, if you look at something like the Cypherpunks, you look at their history, they were a niche group of rebels and revolutionaries, very cool looking into it as well. I've been looking into it as part of a project. But these are kind of niche people and as Bitcoin expands, a lot of people come in because they want to make gains, number goes up etc, not everyone is going to come in as a Cypherpunk. Some people are going to come in just to make money, some people are going to come in and even try to create things on Bitcoin.

So for example, I just had the Winklevoss twins on the show, really interesting guys. They do see a lot of ills in the world, but they operate, in many ways, inside the system and inside the current framework. So I don't see them as Cypherpunks, but I see them as people who understand what Cypherpunks are. It's just not them, but I see them taking Bitcoin forward. Is your problem that there aren't enough people who are Cypherpunk idealists, or is it that people who should be you think have kind of changed?

Ragnar Lifthrasir: Well you're right in that the Cypherpunks and the crypto anarchists are the minority position, and they always will be and I also understand that as more people have come into Bitcoin, like you said, they're just not going to have those ideals. So it's something I don't like, but I understand it, that doesn't bother me so much. The problem is that the Cypherpunk ideals have now been somewhat attacked and mocked, so that's not part of Bitcoin because Bitcoin has been bankerized.

Bitcoin has suffered from bankerization by the bankers and what I mean by that is Bitcoin has become just like a stock, and you're not meant to spend it. People say, "Don't spend your Bitcoin, only spend your dirty fiat" and they give you laws. Economic law says that because this money is hard money, then you're not supposed to spend it, you're supposed to save it. So they're like, "Don't spend your money." That's a clear attack and violation of the Cypherpunk goals of untraceable digital cash.

So it's fine, hodling is great, I hodl, it's worked out well for me. I think people should talk about that, but that's gone too far to become hodlmonomania and that's what really, I think, bothers me and more importantly, is what's dangerous for bitcoiners and is losing what Bitcoin can do. If it's just another stock like, I don't know, I'm not here for that.

Peter McCormack: I do actually think I agree with you and I understand why people want gold 2.0. I understand why they see Bitcoin as digital gold, I do see that as well, but I don't understand the demonization of spending it. I actually agree that it should be used, my first use case was Silk Road. My second use case was, as I've told a million times, was to get something for my mother. It was to use it to be able to buy things that I couldn't buy in the current system, so I agree with that. I just think it's both, I don't ever see why we have to do either or. I do think we can let people know. We can say, "Look, historically, people have spent Bitcoin and regretted it in the future.

So if you are going to spend it, maybe consider topping-up. It might go up in the future." But I'm with you, I don't agree with this demonization of spending, that any form of spending is anti. I think I've even seen it in the presentations like, "Anyone encouraging you to spend your Bitcoin is a scammer." I think Giacomo did that. I'm not calling out Giacomo here, I'm happy to have the conversation with him as well, but I'm kind of with you on that. But it doesn't make me think Bitcoin Cash is the answer and it doesn't make me think Roger Ver is right. Does that make sense?

Ragnar Lifthrasir: Yeah, absolutely and I think you hit the nail on the head, is it's not all or nothing, it's both. I want gold 2.0. The problem is that it's become so polarized and there's not the both. It's become either you hodl, or either you're Roger Ver who says, "Spend it on coffee, and then you want big blocks." It's like, "No Roger Ver, don't put him into what we're trying to do here." People have confused that and so they've just missed the subtlety of it.

They've missed the intelligent, overall point of it and it's just people who have gone to these camps without thinking about it at all, and they've actually changed history. The other point that you brought up, which I also agree with, is that people have spent Bitcoin and regretted it. So I could agree that some things, you don't need to spend it on, absolutely. Even Satoshi said this, he said, "The traditional system works well for most things, but there's points where it doesn't work well" and so that has two points.

So you want to spend Bitcoin like you did, Silk Road, censorship-resistant, some form of anonymity and it's not really for coffee purchases at Starbucks. I agree with that last part. But you should spend it for coffee if that person is a bitcoiner who's going to keep it in Bitcoin, who's going to pay other people in Bitcoin. If it's that Bitcoin economy, then it makes sense for maybe things that you don't require resistance as much and that's the other part that people really miss.

Peter McCormack: Do you think sometimes people, I don't know what the right term is here, are a little bit selective Satoshi? I'm going to go for selective Satoshi, in that I've heard people defend, argue and say, "Well, Satoshi thought A, B and C." Yet, if anyone refers to the whitepaper and talks about the fact that it opens up talking about Bitcoin as peer-to-peer cash, which gold can be cash in certain scenarios, you can buy things with gold and it does have its flaws as a money.

But it does talk about internet commerce, it does talk about the problems of chargebacks and it talks about problems it solves as money. It doesn't talk about it as gold 2.0, but then they write that off and then it makes me wonder. I wonder if it's because someone like Roger Ver has so held on to the white paper, it makes people who... Perhaps if the whole Roger Ver scenario hadn't happened, they would agree. But they do have this fear of sounding like a Bcasher.

Ragnar Lifthrasir: Exactly, and that's what people have attacked me for. They say, "Oh, you're Roger Ver, you're a big blocker!" And it's like, "Gosh, you guys have got to separate Roger Ver from everything else, otherwise you're letting him win." You're right, Roger Ver took a good idea, which is peer-to-peer cash, and then went too far with it and hodlmonomaniacs are doing that thing too, taking a good idea and going too far with it.

So it's hard to defend this position when you seem to be Roger Ver and you're right, people are selective about Satoshi. Satoshi also talked about Bitcoin as gold, he talked about it as a collectable and he said, "You should pick some up in case it catches on." There's a reason why he had a limited supply. But why do we have to have one camp? It's both camps. But it's so hard to have that conversation today.

Peter McCormack: Also, what is the point of developing the Lightning network if Bitcoin isn't going to be used as money?

Ragnar Lifthrasir: Well that's what's so funny about it, is you have people who will say, "Just hodl, don't spend" and then the next thing they say was, "I love Lightning network, I love BTCPay Server, I support them" and they just contradict themselves. They're not doing it on purpose, they just have that cognitive partition that I don't understand.

Peter McCormack: I also sometimes wonder if it's this kind of a couple of sides to Bitcoin narratives I also see. There is this kind of Cypherpunk, censorship, seizure-resistant money, but then there's also this kind of take down the central banks, take down the government and I guess by hodling, you have something that grows in value. If it goes from $100 billion to $1 trillion, then $1 trillion to $10 trillion, it does start to become a threat to central banking. So I wonder if it's kind of lost in that people are thinking, "Well we need to hodl because we need to increase the value of the network so we can take on the central banks," I wonder if that distracts people?

Ragnar Lifthrasir: Yeah, it distracts people and I just think it's very unrealistic, it's just not going to happen that way, like you said, because if Bitcoin grows in a value such that it threatens the nation-states, which it already kind of is, they are going to clamp down on it, which people underestimate how powerful the state is. So yes, it's important for Bitcoin to have some value and to increase over time, but if it goes to a million dollars tomorrow, we're shooting ourselves in the foot because the state is absolutely going to clamp down, number one.

Number two, that doesn't really change the world. How does having an asset go up in value change the world? It doesn't. It's not going to replace central banks and if anything, they will co-opt it. What really changes things is the transactions and if we look at Silk Road, Silk Road completely went around the war on drugs, which otherwise is so difficult. It went completely around it, not because Bitcoin went up in value, but because people were transacting in it and if you're going to take on the state, it's through those means, not having a stock that is digital.

For people to make that case, well, they don't mean to not understand that their idea is unrealistic, like, "Oh, it's good to think, 'Ah, Bitcoin is going to replace the state central banks.'" They're being sincere, but if you ask them how specifically, they can't answer that.

Peter McCormack: I've still never got to that point where I understand or believe that it's a better world. I'm not a complete an-cap, I'm not anti-government, I'm anti-bad-government and it just seems like every government is bad government. But I kind of hope for and maybe I'm being an idealist, but just a smaller, better form of governance that we could get to if we somehow could wean ourselves off big government, but I don't know how we get there. But I'm still not at the point where I believe in no government and that can get you insulted.

There was a period during this coronavirus crisis where I said, "Look, I'm a bit of a statist right now. I think some of the central planning for the government is needed." I think I've been proven wrong largely, not universally, I think there are some things, especially in the UK, the government did very well that I'm not sure would have happened without a government, for example, pulling in the army to build a number of hospitals at very short notice.

I'm not sure if that would have happened in the free market because I don't know if there would have been the incentive. Maybe it would, maybe there's a solid libertarian argument, but I'm still not completely in that kind of an-cap world. I've never asked you about that yourself. Are you a complete anti-government, or you just anti-bad-government? Where are you in that kind of world?

Ragnar Lifthrasir: I'm definitely a crypto anarchist. How I got into Bitcoin in 2011 was through the anarcho-capitalism sub-Reddit on Reddit, so I've maintained that. But in a way it doesn't matter if you're an an-cap or not an an-cap, let's just get practical and see where we are today. Why don't we just focus on, "Okay, it doesn't matter what your claims are. Let's just see where we are today, and whatever you claim about the state or not the state, can we get there?"

And where we are today is that the majority of Bitcoin, or almost all of it, is only acquired through regulated exchanges, which the governments effectively control. Number two is a large amount of Bitcoin is held on these exchanges and then on third-party custodial services. So the government basically has its thumb on Bitcoin without having to control the network at all. How the state controls Bitcoin is indirectly. They control Bitcoin through controlling bitcoiners and even through the tax system.

At least in the US, they tax Bitcoin different ways, and so if you sell Bitcoin in under a year you get a higher tax rate than over 12 months and so they're influencing Bitcoin that way. I've had several people say, "Well Ragnar, I don't spend my Bitcoin because I have to pay higher taxes" and it's like, "Wow! The state is influencing how you use Bitcoin for just a simple tax rule." So when we talk about Bitcoin being the separation of money and state, and we talk about it's separate from the state, it's going to take down the state and it's like, "What are you talking about? The state already controls Bitcoin to an extent. How are you going to overcome that?

Let's start with where we are today, and then how do we get away from that?" We're in such a bad situation. We're in, in some ways, worse off than we were years ago because there's so much more money in these exchanges and then now we have Wall Street coming in and hedge funds, and they're very compliant. They're hyper-compliant, they're overly-compliant! Look what Coinbase does, they bend over backwards and so, enough with the philosophy, let's just see where we are today, and it's not a good place.

Peter McCormack: So with your adversarial thinking cap on there, like you say, the government has their thumb over a pile of Bitcoin. The risks here are if, at some point, they chose to, they could make Bitcoin illegal and I guess, they could in some way, try and seize the Bitcoin from the exchanges in a way they seized gold in the past. Is that something that you worry about?

Ragnar Lifthrasir: I think it's an extreme position. It's very possible that they could seize Bitcoin, but look at what just came out of Russia a few days ago. They passed this extraordinary law where they are prohibiting people from buying Bitcoin with cash. If you have, you have to declare what you have. They already greatly control the exchanges, so I don't think most nation-states are ever going to outright ban Bitcoin and that's an extreme position people take, "Oh, they're not, they can't ban Bitcoin, they can't shutdown the network." No, they can't.

They can't ban every node, they can't ban ever miner, that's not what they're going to do. So let's just put that argument aside. What they are going to do is what they're doing now; KYC/AML, that's very effective, taxing things and some people say, "Well, you don't have to pay your tax." Well most people will because that's just the world we live in. So that's really how they control it, and that's all they need to do, and they're doing it.

Peter McCormack: So that Russia thing is interesting. Did I read it, it's up to seven years in jail for buying Bitcoin with cash in Russia?

Ragnar Lifthrasir: Yeah, it's something and are they going to take away all cash transactions? No, but they arrest a few people, they have these high fines, and they effectively dry up all liquidity and it works well enough. So when people say it's going to overcome the nation-state, it's not and I think Bitcoin... People have the scale completely wrong when they think about how it changes the world and the Cypherpunk world. It doesn't change it a nation-state level, it doesn't change it at a mainstream level, it changes it in a very niche, small, tiny percentage, and Silk Road is a perfect example of that.

It went around the state for a small percentage of people, and in a way, that's all that matters. For Bitcoin to have its Cypherpunk goal, it's really at a community level of like 100 people or whatever Silk Road amount was, 1,000, maybe 10,000 people, that's how it changes the world. That's the scale we need to look at, it just needs to change it for people. You need to be able to be 100 Bitcoin percent only. You need to be able to be Bitcoin anonymous for yourself and for like 20 other people, or more, not at this massive million adoption level. That's never going to happen, there's no way.

Peter McCormack: I'm with you on Silk Road, still my favorite ever Bitcoin project. I think I also I'm a big fan of people were able to donate Wikileaks when they were blacklisted by the banks, I thought that was super interesting. So I guess I think what you're trying to say is we seem to be heading down this kind of regulated KYC route for Bitcoin, but really what we should be doing is having a focus on building this kind of...

Because that's not going to go away Ragnar, but I guess what we could say is there could be this shadow secondary Bitcoin world where people are acquiring Bitcoin without going through an exchange. It may be person-to-person, who knows? But in a way, that means that they are, essentially, let's say, we're doing the pseudo-anonymous route, so you can still see the transactions, but there's no identity link to it and then encouraging people to, perhaps be using it for spending for certain niche use cases, the Silk Road being a great example.

But what are the examples? You've taken interest in, I know within guns, for example and I know printed guns is very interesting for you. So are there use cases out there for Bitcoin where it can be used as money that is making you think of this?

Ragnar Lifthrasir: Yeah, that's kind of, I think, what got me started on this kind of, I don't know, not disillusionment, but really opened my eyes to where things are. It was getting in the 3D gun printing community about a year ago because these guys have to use Bitcoin for a couple of things, like raising money. They do these bounties where they're trying to get a certain goal, the latest one is build a 9mm handgun from scratch with off-the-shelf parts and so they have a Bitcoin bounty. If you build it, you get the Bitcoin bounty.

So there's been these donations drives and bounties, and it's only in Bitcoin. You can't go to Indiegogo and these traditional platforms and raise money, they won't let you on. Even basic stuff, like you sell gun-related accessories like a holster, and PayPal won't allow anything like that. One of these top printers got kicked off of PayPal and he just makes patches and stickers and stuff like that. So just basic gun-related things that aren't scary or illegal have to use Bitcoin, and those guys are. That's what got me started is working with these guys because I'm like, "Wait a minute. These guys are really using Bitcoin, they have to."

Then additionally, they use these other censorship-resistant platforms like Keybase and encrypted chat and file sharing in their own ProtonMail and it reminded me of the early days of Bitcoin. Now, all that stuff is in Bitcoin, but it's not what you see, it's not what you hear at conferences or on Twitter. So that's what really opened my eyes to see that contrast between 3D gun printing and then just your mainstream, dominant Bitcoin conversation.

Peter McCormack: So that's kind of interesting. So you're seeing the use case in those areas and industries. Well, let me go back a step. Silk Road got around what is government regulation for something which a lot of us don't see as something that should be illegal, the consumption of drugs is usually a victimless crime and it's a personal choice. If you want to smoke a joint, take some mushrooms, take some ecstasy, whatever you want to do, that's in your own home, you should be able to do that. Especially as we have alcohol as legal, which itself is a drug that causes a lot of problems for society.

But that is getting around government regulation. You're actually talking about things which are legal, but people are being blacklisted because some company is making a moral judgment and we could certainly throw porn into that and perhaps throw sex work into that as well, although, sex work itself, depending where you are, is often illegal. But we're talking about people who have been blacklisted, despite doing something that is legal because a company is making a moral judgment.

Ragnar Lifthrasir: So not only are they blacklisting people doing benign things like gun patches and T-shirts and then sex work, which is, like you said, it's illegal, it's not as much of a problem. But now look at cancel culture. Cancel culture, you can't get on PayPal, you can't get on Stripe, you can't be on YouTube, you're completely cancelled and you have no way to support yourself. You can't do a fund raiser or anything and people should really be aware you could be cancelled, and it could be for something as dumb as saying there's only two genders.

The slightest thing can get you cancelled! How are you going to make money? Bitcoin, that's what you're going to have. But a bigger point is that we can understand the need for Bitcoin for censorship-resistance, the problem is when people start mocking the use of spending your Bitcoin. When people start attacking that idea, when people start calling you Roger Ver for that and a big blocker, how do you think we're going to be able to use censorship-resistant money if no one accepts it, if no one is using it, if no one knows how to trade peer-to-peer, if no one knows how to set up BTCPay server?

So that's what's really dangerous, it's not just, "Well is it more gold, is it more that?" It's just this idea that, "No, don't spend Bitcoin." People are shooting Bitcoin in the foot when they do that.

Peter McCormack: I've seen from a distance, these arguments happening and I haven't looked too closely at them, but the way you're explaining it to me is perfectly rational and I agree with it. I spent Bitcoin on Silk Road. Look, don't get me wrong, I look back and I wish I had saved all that Bitcoin I spent on the Silk Road. Probably in today's money it's over a million dollars, but at the time it wasn't like I was going to buy that Bitcoin and hold it anyway.

I was buying the Bitcoin for a purpose. If I hadn't, I wouldn't have bought it anyway. Now I understand Bitcoin, I'm more cautious about my spending. I do do it occasionally, but I am more cautious and I understand it. But what are the ranges of responses you're getting? I'd be interested to hear. Is there any kind of logical, firm defenses that you're seeing, any rational ones?

Ragnar Lifthrasir: Well they sound rational. So what sounds rational is saying that the value of Bitcoin goes up over time, so why spend it when you can get rich? So that's a decent economic argument, but that's only one dimensional because like you said earlier, you can just replace the Bitcoin that you spend. Now maybe there's tax implications, but big deal! The other thing they're missing is all the benefits you get from spending, so they take one thing and then ignore all the other benefits. If you want to ask, "Well what's the counter argument? How do you still make that argument?"

That's the strongest argument and what I'm seeing is that it seems like I get 95% disagreeing with me and 5% agreeing with me. So there is this core group of people who think like I do. It's a lot of the Samurai Wallet guys, anyone working on encryption in general, a lot of the BTCPay Server and Lightning guys, but they're in the minority.

Peter McCormack: 5% is quite low support? Interesting!

Ragnar Lifthrasir: Yeah and what's strange is people forget this dynamic. A lot of it is incentives, so there's an incentive to hold Bitcoin to make money, but if you look at what are the companies that make Bitcoin, it's all exchanges, services and some mining. That's the big money! That's something probably 90-95% of the companies in Bitcoin and their revenue that's generated. So they have the money to market to have influencers, to pay for conferences, to host podcasts and stuff and so the people behind those companies aren't bad actors in general, they're just providing a service that's wanted in the market and they're just stuck with the regulations they have to comply with.

So it's not like a conspiracy or bad actors, it's just those are the financial incentives. That's why you hear Lolli and Swan Bitcoin, and they put out all these things and get a free percentage by doing this thing and people unknowingly, are just repeating this because they're the dominant ones. People doing peer-to-peer transactions, they don't have a marketing budget and part of it is just the dynamics.

Peter McCormack: Well I guess I'm part of that because I'm paid by an exchange, and paid by...

Ragnar Lifthrasir: I'm assuming it's hard for you to find a sponsor/advertiser that is a non-profit project?

Peter McCormack: Well they don't have any money and if any of them approach me, I usually... If they can't afford it, I will do it discounted and I've done some stuff for free, to be honest. But the way I kind of see it is that these companies aren't going away. See, I don't fundamentally disagree with them, I think there are people who want to own Bitcoin and are happy to be in a regulated way and if ultimately, it grows Bitcoin... I think KYC is a regulation problem. I don't blame the exchanges, I think the exchanges would happily not have KYC if they could. So how do you think we change this then?

Because you're making perfectly rational arguments and I don't disagree with you. If we're going to support BTCPay Server and we're going to support Lightning, to keep those companies going they're going to need people to be spending Bitcoin. So everything you're saying I agree with, it's completely rational. I'm not sure why this is an issue and how we then therefore, change it.

Ragnar Lifthrasir: Well first I think it just starts with having a better understanding of Bitcoin, but really, it goes back to having that critical, adversarial thinking that demands evidence and rational thought. So a large part of why this is such a problem is because Bitcoin has become an asset. Bitcoin is hard money, Bitcoin is sound money, that's what it is and so if that's all you understand it to be, you aren't going to see the need for peer-to-peer transactions.

You aren't going to see the need for spending and if you look at the claims by these people saying Bitcoin is sound money, they just don't stand up. So what they say is Bitcoin is sound money, what does that mean? Well it's really volatile, so that blows that out of the water, it's not a unit of account, it's not a common unit of transaction, method of exchange, so how is this sound money when it doesn't do any of that stuff?

Peter McCormack: Well I think that's slightly different because I think sound money is the properties of money in terms of divisibility, in terms of fungibility, in terms of easy of using to transfer. You can send a few cents around the world, which makes it better than gold. I think those are properties. I think something like volatility, I don't think that's a property. I think that is something which is a short-term flaw for it being money.

But I don't think we measure volatility in terms of being a sound money, perhaps it should be. But I think volatility is more of a short-term problem until we get to long-term liquidity. But then you might say, "No, actually..." I say we, it could be anyone, but do you tend to think bitcoiners have blind sport or they will find an offense for any criticism?

Ragnar Lifthrasir: Well, both, these are these blind spots. So you could say Bitcoin is sound money because, like you said, it is divisible, it's pretty fungible and there is a fixed apply. But I'm like, "Okay well, let's look at the big picture. Is Bitcoin a good money? And when you say sound money, does that mean that you shouldn't spend it?" And the answer is clearly not. Bitcoin is not a great money and so going back to, well criticizing it, that's a big problem.

So when I criticize it, people take such offense to it, and they think I'm anti-Bitcoin. They think I'm bitter, all this kind of stuff and it's like, "No, I'm trying to make Bitcoin better!" If you look at the software engineers, what do they do? They attack everyone's proposal, they submit code and people review it and like, "This sucks, go back to the drawing board," and they reason through this. Well what happens with your code if we do this?

Peter McCormack: As they should.

Ragnar Lifthrasir: As they should, and so if these software engineers, who are the smartest guys in the room, if they're doing this, and if that's what makes Bitcoin so great, why can't we apply that same methodology and rigor to these ideas and philosophies about economics and sound money and everything else? That's the attitude we need to get and put in place and I just don't understand why we don't do that. Maybe it's because the people who aren't engineers have just a different brain, they're more... I don't know, talkers, they're not critical thinkers. I don't know what it is, but it's two different worlds.

Peter McCormack: Well there are some critical thinkers out there. I don't know, I think I am sometimes because you walk a gauntlet with it. Nic Carter is, I think, a good critical thinker, but one of the things I've noticed, if you're a critical thinker you sometimes have to throw out kind of almost like a hypothesis or a challenge and sometimes you may even prove yourself wrong. But you run the risk of being called fucking idiot rather than commended for being that adversarial thinkerI get it as well. I get it on the whole node thing because I'm always like, "It's too much of a pain in the ass. Most people aren't going to do it."

Now I think I'm 100% right about it, I think people should run a node and they should look into it and should try and do it. But it doesn't change my view that it's a pain in the ass, it's just an added complication. I think it's confusing for people when they go to Coinbase and they see more than one coin called Bitcoin. I said it, and not picking the language right, I still get memed about it two years on. I still get insulted about it two years on.

But I still know there's going to be people that are going to go to Coinbase and they're going to see more than one coin called Bitcoin and it's going to be a different price and they're going to consider the lower price because it's cheaper and they're going to think, "Oh, that one's at $200, that one's at $9,000. I need to get this one because this one might go to $9,000," and I think that's fair critical thinking. But you do run a gauntlet and it's weird. I wonder how have we got to this point where you do run this gauntlet, that if you even try and challenge it you're suddenly insulted and you're thrown to the wolves for it. I wonder how we've got there.

Ragnar Lifthrasir: I think it's two things. First, it's psychological development. In psychology, there's this theory of stages and life development. So think about a family. When you're a kid you worshiped your parents, your dad is the strongest and the best and they can do no wrong, and they give you Christmas gifts, and you just idolize them. Then you become a teenager, and then you go the opposite way. You find everything wrong with your parents, and then you rebel against them, and you go too far. Your parents are awful people, and they're oppressing you. They don't know what they're talking about, and they're old.

Then you mature in your 20s and 30s and at some point, hopefully, you kind of put those two together and say, "You know, my parents did this well, but they didn't do this well, but they tried and they're good people," and that's just the way it is. I think with Bitcoin it's the same thing. So most people who are in Bitcoin are still children. They idolize it, they see everything that's right with it and if someone attacks their dad or their mum, their Bitcoin, they get so offended and it makes them so insecure. Then you see the people who grew up, who became teenagers and saw the flaws and if they didn't advance beyond it, they went to Bcash or they went to alt coins.

They went to other things because they did see the flaws and a lot of Bcashers were right about the flaws of Bitcoin and the people making a certain narrative. But they were wrong to not say, "Okay, now I'm an adult. I see the bad, I see the good and I'm willing and I'm adult enough and strong enough to hear those arguments." I think it's just psychological development is part of it. Second is the people who aren't software engineers aren't used to just being peer-reviewed and their ideas attacked and having to provide stuff.

Peter McCormack: I think that latter point is a really key point actually, because developers are used to being peer-reviewed, they are used to having their work checked by others and I guess it is something people aren't really conditioned to. Also look, there a certain number on Twitter, because Twitter is also like this own unique place, but a certain minority of very, very loud voices and I know it exists because I know I put out some challenging things sometimes that pisses people off and they don't agree with.

Then what happens is I get DMs or emails from people saying, "Yeah, I agree with you Pete, I agree with you, a node is a pain in the ass," but they won't do it publicly because they're nervous of being shouted down and insulted by this small group of people.

Ragnar Lifthrasir: I've got the same. I'll say things, then I get DMs from people saying the same thing, "I agree with you, but I don't want to say it for different reasons" and that shows you that we have a real problem when critical thinkers and adversarial thinkers and just people who are maybe trying to understand, they ask a dumb question or are new and they don't know, "Oh the node this, and the node that." Well that's a problem when we're like that and the funny thing is people mock Roger Ver for claiming censorship.

Here's another one, Ethereum. People attack Ethereum, "Oh, they had these silly ideas, and it's so dumb and this and that", but it's like, apply that critical thinking you put on Ethereum, which is mostly correct, and apply to Bitcoin. They never will! Put on your toxic hat that you use for alt coins, put on your toxic hat for Bitcoin, and they never will. It's like you're not very strong and toxic if you can't even put it on Bitcoin, which is supposed to be impenetrable and a honey badger.

Peter McCormack: Let me ask you, because you are a bitcoiner, and I'm assuming you therefore spend Bitcoin. Do you still though, have that moment were you think, "Oh, do I really need to?" Are you still both gold and money because you're having to think about your... Do you think about that future, "Well, I might regret spending that"?

Ragnar Lifthrasir: I haven't regretted one Bitcoin I've sent. So I got into Bitcoin in 2011, and I bought my first Bitcoin purchase in, I think it was late 2012 and it was actually from Roger Ver. Roger Ver had the site called Memory Dealers and it's basically like computer parts and equipment and stuff. So I bought from him, it was a micro SD card and I think it was a USB cable and at that time Bitcoin was, I don't know, probably $100 or less I don't even know what that would be worth today, but I do not regret it because when I bought that, it was this light bulb went on, as it was so simple.

The payment was just kind of like one click. No credit card information, he didn't know who I was, it was so wonderful, and it was the first time I moved Bitcoin from my wallet to somewhere else. I went to the block explorer and I saw it, and it was just wonderful, and I don't regret that. But I also understood very early the value of Bitcoin and what it could do and so this whole time I've understood both, and I've done both. I've hodled, I've spent, I've earned it, I've bought it. I've donated it, people have given me tips, so I haven't regretted anything and I do both. But to answer your question, I do think about it. I don't just spend recklessly, but also I think just because I know what I'm doing.

Peter McCormack: I spend, but I net-gain. I ensure over each year I'm net-growing, but I do also spend. So I wonder how we apply critical thinking to this side of things because the critical thinking development is primarily, I would say, and correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't want to fuck-up in development. If you fuck-up with the code you could lose people money. I saw a really good presentation by Luke Dashjr where he's talked about this. He said, "This is people's money. You get this wrong, people can lose money.You don't want a fatal flaw in the system. You don't want an inflation bug."

So there's an absolute necessity for critical thinking, and with Bitcoin it's unique. I had a web development agency once, and we would test sites, but if a site went live and the next day the client found there was a bug, it's fine, you fix it. It didn't bring down the business. But a critical flaw in Bitcoin could be hugely damaging. I get it there.

When we talk about critical thinking and adversarial thinking here, we are still talking about subjective ideas, whether you want to have Bitcoin for spend or someone wants it to be digital gold, it's still subjective. There will always still be people who just want to spend Bitcoin and there are still people who just want to hodl Bitcoin. So I wonder how we apply that critical thinking and in what kind of framework we apply it. What are we actually looking to achieve?

Ragnar Lifthrasir: There's definitely subjectivity and just preferences and you can't really argue with people's preferences. But it's funny you say that because I ran this poll months ago, and I asked, "What's more powerful?" It was ideas or technology, and more people voted for ideas. So even though ideas you can say are subjective, there certainly are ideas and claims that people put out that can be put to the test of empiricism, rational thought and thinking through things and that's what can be tested and be put to adversarial thinking.

Very simple example is, is Bitcoin volatile? And I heard, I won't say who, but actually several people who had because said, "Bitcoin isn't volatile" and that's not subjective, that's empirical. They will say, "Well one Bitcoin equals one Bitcoin." Well zoom out to 30 years!

Peter McCormack: The dollar is volatile against Bitcoin because it's losing money. It's like, "Well no, because it's not a unit of account. If I go into the shop they're not accepting Bitcoins." I'm with you, that's bullshit.

Ragnar Lifthrasir: See people ask like, "Why adversarial thinking? Why this?" It's so people don't get wrecked. So there's this other idea that Bitcoin solves for inflation. So people think, "Oh great, I'm going to buy Bitcoin so I avoid the loss of inflation." Well it doesn't and I ran this other poll, it was really funny. I said, "If fiat loses 10% in one year due to inflation, and if Bitcoin loses 80% in one year due to market supply and demand, which is the greater loss?

Did you lose more on fiat at 10% or Bitcoin at 80%?" It was almost 50-50 and it's like, "Wait a minute. No, a 10% loss in fiat isn't nearly bad as an 80% loss in Bitcoin, so don't tell me that it solves for inflation is so bad at 5% to 10% when Bitcoin can drop 80%."

Peter McCormack: I can give you a really good example to justify that. So I remember once when I bought a Trezor from the Trezor website and it was priced in dollars, but I paid in Bitcoin. Then they had a supply issue, so they offered a refund and they refunded me in Bitcoin, but I didn't get the Bitcoin amount I sent because the price had changed. I actually got less Bitcoin and I said to them, "Hold up a second. I sent you X-Bitcoin and you're sending me less." They said, "Yes, but we priced in dollars. Our business is priced in dollars."

Very, very few people who accept Bitcoin are pricing in Bitcoin and keeping it at that kind of static rate. They're basing the variable based on the exchange rate to the dollar because we're in a dollarized would. Look, if we were in a bitcoinized world, I get it. But we're not, we're in a dollar world, and everybody looks at the value of their Bitcoin in dollar. I even think that the most ardent bitcoiner still looks at their portafolio of Bitcoin in dollar.

Ragnar Lifthrasir: Of course, they do!

Peter McCormack: And they're fucking liars if they don't!

Ragnar Lifthrasir: Exactly, and that's what gets me, is how are people getting away with this. I see things like that and they get 200 retweets and 500 likes, and I say that Bitcoin is volatile, I get like three. So it's insane! You gave a good example, here's an example from me, I have a business Guns n' Bitcoin. We earn Bitcoin, I try to pay for services and it hurts. When I see I used to have, whatever, $1,000 in Bitcoin and now I have $700, that hurts and I'm operating a business.

So these people who are saying this, I'm like, "Do you guys not earn Bitcoin? Do you not even use Bitcoin? What world are you in?" So if we applied critical thinking we wouldn't have this silly conversation we're having.

Peter McCormack: So I agree with you there. I think it would be interesting when this goes out to see the replies. I think there will be people who agree, and there will be people who disagree. I think I know which ones will disagre and I think I know by name who will disagree. I'd love to have the equal debate with them. But there is another thing I want to talk to you about while I've got you here, just because you are an anarchist.

I wanted to talk to you a little bit about the lockdown and your thinking about it and what this has been like as an experience for you as an anarchist, gun-loving, tank-driving if you could, anarchist because I've seen some of your tweets. Obviously, you don't support government lockdowns because you're a freedom lover, but what has it been like as an experience for you?

Ragnar Lifthrasir: Well that's another example of not using critical thinking. So I have a background in medicine and healthcare, and then I'm an anarchist, so I understand both worlds. So my view is start with the science and go with the science, think critically. Look at what the scientists are saying, but generally lean towards science, and that's what I've done with my medical background. I was in research, I took statistics, I used statistics, I understand the epidemiology, so for me, I wear a mask, I've worn a mask, I self-isolated myself as much as possible, I wear gloves and I'm very cautious.

But then I see the libertarian argument and there's like this anti-science strain in libertarianism where anything that is a recommendation is a use of force. So they might start off with saying, "Yeah, you should wear a mask, it makes sense" and as soon as the government says, "You should wear masks," or start mandating it, now masks are suddenly worthless and it's fascism! So again, people have to understand both sides and try to think critically and subtly. It's not all or nothing! Going back to the whole tribalism and camps and virtue signaling, people get mad over that, and they're one-dimensional thinkers.

Peter McCormack: So I think what you're saying is that you don't agree with lockdowns, you don't agree with enforced lockdowns, shutting down businesses and everybody should be free to do what they do, but also at the same time people shouldn't be idiots. It's obvious you should be wearing a mask, you should try and social-distance, you should be careful during this time because let's not pretend that it isn't a dangerous illness. So you're separating the politics from the common sense.

Ragnar Lifthrasir: Yeah, just like the science, you separate the science and the state. The other thing is that with this... So I love infectious diseases because it really brings out some flaws in libertarianism. So before it's like people understand drugs like, "Oh, it doesn't harm me, so do what you want. I want to be left alone with my drugs. I want to be left alone with my choices. I want to be left alone to prostitutes," whatever and that's fine. But infectious diseases is different because now if I do that, now it does affect you. So that's where libertarians get it wrong.

Peter McCormack: I did an interview with Scott Horton and he was actually very practical about this. He talked about the fact that, look, we do have a government, we do have a state and in an extreme scenario, we do have to consider or understand there are certain decisions have to be made and we shouldn't fight every single battle on a libertarian frontline. Again, this is where I kind of agreed with him because it is a scary situation. We didn't know what was going on, and too many people were arguing from a bias.

They were either very scared and wanted a lockdown, so they only ever presented data that suited them with regards to that or they were anti-lockdown, anti-government and therefore, they would look for any scrap of data which would support that, like constantly sharing what was happening in Sweden. I think it was very difficult for anyone to know how this was really going to play out and even in some places... Let's look at Brazil. Brazil is still quite scary right now.

Ragnar Lifthrasir: Well again, if you are a critical thinker you examine both sides, and you say, "What is the strongest argument on both sides?" When when you put those two together you usually come out with the right decisions. But what's interesting about the libertarian view is that in a purely libertarian world, let's say there was no state, libertarians will actually have a greater responsibility to enforce these things because you don't have a state now.

You have a greater responsibility to wear a mask and to encourage other people to wear a mask because the state actually enforces some good things. Like you said, the state with regulations, they actually did do some things which are good. It's too bad it's by force, but they did and if you were in this libertarian world, you would want that and you would have to influence others, but you know what?

Libertarians think, "Oh, once we're in this libertarian world there's no state," well good, except well, there's still rules, there's still things and so instead of the state enforcing it, you're going to have to enforce it.

Peter McCormack: Like a personal set of rules.

Ragnar Lifthrasir: Yeah, let's say that sort of libertarian ideas that there's say, not a state. So everyone kind of opts into their own regulations, like you want a place that maybe has higher taxes you collect from people, that has more services. Someone else says, "I don't want any taxes" another place says, "I want a community that is only for old people, or is only for families," whatever. Basically, there's a hundred communities you could opt into and there's no state. It's sort of like a homeowner's association, if you have something like that in the UK.

It's a community that's governed by rules and you opt into that community. When you move in there and you buy a house there, those are the rules you agree to. In that sort of situation, you're still going to have to figure out how do you stop the spread of disease in your community and that could involve telling people they have to wear a mask, or they're kicked out of the community.

Peter McCormack: I always thought you end up with government anyway because you end up with some kind of association, then it has to have a set of rules. What do they govern? It is just a micro version of a government and then you can see how that kind of expands? I think you always end up with governance, especially when you're trying to arrange and organize millions of people when there are certain efficiencies that will be gained by everyone by coordinating.

Ragnar Lifthrasir: A family has government, two people have government and if you get two people in a room, one has more power or makes more decisions than the other. So it's on a scale and I think when people say they're anti-statist, they just mean at a large scale. Like you said, it's more minimalist. Again, critical thinking, there's a scale to it and a spectrum.

Peter McCormack: Well that's why I've referenced it loads of times, but one of my favorite conversations about libertarianism was with Erik Voorhees when he said, "Let's not talk about the state/no state, let's just talk about reducing the state. Let's just say reduce the budget by 5% and see how we do and let's do the same again." It's almost like weaning yourself off the state and I've always liked that because I think it's practical. I find a lot of times when I get lost with libertarianism it's like, "Well I understand your ideals, but how do we ever get there?"

Ragnar Lifthrasir: Taking it back to Bitcoin for a second, we can have a reduced government in our monetary system if more people are using Bitcoin in a circular way. So imagine there's a hundred of us, your sponsors pay you in Bitcoin, and then you pay expenses in Bitcoin and then all that kind of stuff.

Then we have reduced the size of the government in the sense that we aren't participating in the states. Some people aren't going to pay their taxes, there's not going to be sales tax on stuff because it's just not set up for that, so you just reduced governance or the state by using Bitcoin in transactions. So let's be practical, that's one way in terms of Bitcoin. It goes back to that scale, small scale.

Peter McCormack: All right listen, the last thing I want to talk to you about today before we head off and go and watch the rocket, I got it wrong, by the way. The rocket, I had it on US time! It's this evening, I'm very excited about that, like a right nerd. The last thing I want to talk to you about is printed guns. What's going on in the world of printed guns? Because I haven't seen anything since I watched a video a while back. What's the name of the company, Cody Wilson? Defense Distributed.

Ragnar Lifthrasir: Defense Distributed.

Peter McCormack: So what is going on in the world of printed guns? Where are people at? Is it a growing industry? Where it is in terms of regulations? What's going on in that world?

Ragnar Lifthrasir: I can't even keep up with all the developments in 3D gun printing, that's how much it's accelerated. There's so many new designs, so many new developers that it's absolutely amazing and now they're building guns. There's this new gun called the FTC-9, which stands for 9mm. Basically you're able to build a functioning gun through a combination of printing and just buying stuff in a hardware store and now they've printed a barrel, they have a gun that's for a large calibre, 50 calibre, they have ways to make guns that anyone can.

There's so many models, and they're so good, they're very functional. You have so many people working on them, peer-reviewed, testing them and you have this great platform, Keybase, to distribute the files, you have LBRY, if you've heard of them, you should look into, to share the files. So it's never been stronger and at this point, it's almost unstoppable. I don't like to make claims like that, but it's pretty much unstoppable.

They're starting to make a couple of arrests, I think there's been one or two crimes committed with guns, a couple of murders, maybe and they arrested a guy in Canada for manufacturing them. So we're starting to see it actually used in the real world, but it's a whole new world. It's incredible.

Peter McCormack: Is it kind of like the Bitcoin world? What is the ethos behind printed guns?

Ragnar Lifthrasir: It just goes back to having your sovereignty where you say, "I have a basic right to defend myself, period." It's supposed to be enshrined in the US constitution. The right to bear arms shall not infringed, it's a basic idea, you have natural rights to defend yourself, and the government can't stop you. So that's the basic idea. The other parallel to Bitcoin is kind of distribution.

It's distributed manufacturing, just like Bitcoin is decentralized, decentralized manufacturing and when you decentralize that it gives you the power to route around the state. So it's between the natural rights and using technology to get around regulations and to improve freedom.

Peter McCormack: But is the entire process of 3D printing a gun legal now, or is it certain parts of it?

Ragnar Lifthrasir: It kind of depend on the state. Federally, it is not illegal to manufacture your own firearm, but there's two restrictions. You can't make one and then sell it, you can't make it to manufacture. You can't begin a gun manufacture, only for your personal use. Number two is you can't make a gun if you're a prohibited person, so that means if normally you couldn't buy a gun at a store, you're a violent criminal and you can't buy one, then you can't make one.

Those are the only two legal restrictions. Now there's a few states who are trying to say that, "Well, you can't even buy a block of aluminum because that's a precursor to a gun." But generally, you can pretty much make anything without those two exceptions.

Peter McCormack: Do you think a violent criminal deserves the right to own a gun?

Ragnar Lifthrasir: I think they do. I think even violent criminals get attacked themselves and so I think that's a very difficult question, but I would say, in general, yes they do.

Peter McCormack: Because I guess that's what would scare people, is violent criminals who can't get a gun, can't go to Walmart and buy a gun, or wherever it is you guy guns from, yet they're not far off being able to buy the technology just to print something at home to use. I guess the other question is though, what about ammunition? You can't print the ammunition.

Ragnar Lifthrasir: Generally you can't print the ammunition. But at least in the US, ammo isn't really regulated and it's abundant, and you can get it really easily, although they are starting to make DIY ammo.

Peter McCormack: Really?

Ragnar Lifthrasir: Yeah, there was a guy in, I think it was Hong Kong, who made this smokeless powder. There were a couple of other guys who have made bullets that you can make at home. There's still development. Yes, so they are working on completely DIY bullets, they're out there, they're just early.

Peter McCormack: Is there any kind of moral responsibility within the 3D printing gun community? I know people say, "There's no Bitcoin community," but I think there is. But within Bitcoin, it's like we should have this adversarial thinking, this critical thinking. Does it exist within the 3D printed gun community in terms of response? Is there sort of responsibilities that people have a sense of duty to protect people with this, or is it just a free-for-all?

Ragnar Lifthrasir: Well all the guys who are making them that I've seen are gun enthusiasts, so they grow up with safety like, "Don't aim it at someone, don't put your finger on the trigger, assume it's loaded." So they're all about your basic handgun safety and if you post a picture of your gun, and you have your finger on the trigger, they're going to call you an idiot because you are.

So there is that responsibility that they always are putting out there for safety. But when it comes to crime, what is there to do? If someone commits a crime, it's not my fault. But I think what your question is going at, "Well if we make this easy to make, aren't you making it easier for criminal to commit crimes?" Is that kind of what you're saying?

Peter McCormack: I guess so and the other thing is I always think of kids, but at the same time, it's the duty of the parents to protect the kids.

Ragnar Lifthrasir: Look, with guns the real threat is the state. That's the existential threat for people is the state and so when you look at it that way, and it's backed up by history, by hundreds of millions of people who have died, that's the real argument for guns. You see what's happening now with police brutality, and it's always happened.

Peter McCormack: Fuck dude, it happened this week. Have you seen that video?

Ragnar Lifthrasir: Yeah, it doesn't surprise me though. So you look at these communities, especially in the Black community, whatever that means, some of them have a conviction, so they can't buy a gun and then you wonder why the cops don't have any fear.

Peter McCormack: That thing this week was absolutely terrible. It shocks me that still it keeps happening.

Ragnar Lifthrasir: Well when I grew up I always thought that the police brutality was a thing that only happened maybe to minorities in the intercity, but only in really corrupt cities like Chicago, so I didn't really think it was a thing. Then it happened to my brother, and then to my other brother, and then to me and I realized, "Whoa, wait a minute, this isn't just a racial thing.

This is a systemic police then when they have a monopoly on violence and the court system back this up." So I understand the racial component, but it's much bigger than that, and if people don't see beyond the racial component, we can't solve it. It's a police monopoly state problem.

Peter McCormack: Is it a geography problem as well? Is it different in different states? Because I don't know why, I just don't imagine police brutality being as big an issue in Wyoming as maybe Los Angeles.

Ragnar Lifthrasir: It does vary a little bit. But even in a place like where I live, Orange County, which is coastal community, not the crime that other places have, a few years ago they beat this guy to death. He was a white guy, and he just had schizophrenia and he was just out wandering around, and he wasn't complying just because he didn't understand what they were saying, and they beat him to death, a white guy in Orange County who wasn't committing a crime. So it does vary, but the real problem is that police have a monopoly on violence, and the state backs them up.

Peter McCormack: I know you loved and supported the guys. Where was it they went up to the... We were taking a piss on the banter on Twitter with the guys who were walking around with the rocket launcher, and the militia went up to the courthouse or something.

Ragnar Lifthrasir: That's happened in a few places. So I think they did that in Michigan and a couple of states where they were open-carrying. It's happened in a couple of states, though.

Peter McCormack: It's mind-blowing for someone like myself to see something like that. It's so alien from here. I have never seen a gun in the open in the UK in my life, it's just something you wouldn't see and it's a weird one. It really challenges every part of my thinking because I've always said, "I don't want a change to the gun laws in the UK," even though I absolutely stand by your comments on rights to defend yourself and there are stabbings in London, and I can't protect myself, ut I've still never got to that point where I'm able to get my head around the idea of everyone being able to have access to guns.

At the same time, when I see footage of a group of guys with their guns, essentially, letting the governors know, "We're going to keep you in check," it blows my mind. I think it's amazing that you can actually do that, that you can actually have a militia that goes and challenges the government and says, "Hold on, we're not going to stand up for this." It's a really strange thing.

Ragnar Lifthrasir: Of course it's strange to you and to most people because it's just they didn't grow up with it. So for them, I've noticed that people who haven't grown up with it, they think of guns as like a bomb that's going to go off. It sits there, and at any minute it can go off.

But when you grow up with it, your dad shoots, your friends shoot, on the weekends you go and shoot and it's just this inanimate object and almost everyone you shoot with is semi-intelligent and responsible and they're safe, and there's never been any accident and you can do it for 30 years, and it's just like, "What is the problem here? It's like playing soccer. What's the issue? This is fun, and it's safe and we all do it, and it's normal."

But if you're not used to that, if it's not normal it does seem crazy. So I understand it. So that's why one of my strategies is to try to take people shooting. I think you said you've gone shooting a few times, and then it kind of changed. I think you saw it a little differently after that, I think you said.

Peter McCormack: I've been once. I went with Jameson Lopp nearly three years ago when I made my third show with him, he took me shooting, and it fundamentally changed my view on guns. Firstly, I think I told you this last time, I was blown away by how powerful they are. The pulling of the trigger and the power from the gun. Even though you don't see it, the sense of the bullet going to the other end of the range is something that no film ever gets across. You never get the perception of how powerful it is, so that blew my mind.

The other thing that blew my mind is that going to the gun range, for me, was very, very similar to going bowling. It was lanes and it was couples, it was groups of friends, it was people on their own, no kids, but it was essentially like going bowling and it was an afternoon activity that I think you could easily just say, "Do you want to go bowling or do you want to go shooting?" That, I thought, was very cool. If I lived in the States, I don't know if I'd have a gun. It's a really weird thing. I could see eventually maybe I would, but I think I need to live around it a bit more and it depends where I live.

Again, if I lived in somewhere like Wyoming I could see me having a gun more likely there than somewhere like LA. Whereas, in terms of defending myself, I probably need it more somewhere like LA than Wyoming. It's a very strange thing. But you owe me a trip shooting when we can get back on the planes again and I can get back out to California. You owe me a trip!

Ragnar Lifthrasir: Absolutely! I think we got close once or twice when you were here. But if you're out here, let's go to the range. When you were shooting you probably realized, "What, I have to pull the trigger for this thing?" Even though it's like, "Wow, this is so powerful, it's scary," and you should be afraid of it in a way and respect it, but you realize, "Well, this is just an inanimate object."

Peter McCormack: Yeah, it is.

Ragnar Lifthrasir: And imagine Jameson going to one of these rallies at the capital. Would you be afraid of him walking around with his gun protesting? Probably not because he's a pretty level-headed guy.

Peter McCormack: Well, that's the thing. So I see all the footage of the people with the rocket launchers and the guns, I don't imagine them using it. I don't imagine I would feel particularly unsafe. Again, I would probably feel more unsafe walking down Venice Beach at 9:00 at night or walking down Speedway parallel with Venice Beach at 9:00 at night just with a bunch of people hanging out on the street corner than I would walking down there seeing a bunch of guns open because I know it's almost like the open-carry, it's almost like a signal of being responsible about guns.

But it does challenge a lot of my thinking, but you do owe me a trip. When we can get back on planes, when I can get back out to California, we're going to go out. Anyway, listen, before we close out, tell me how Guns n' Bitcoin is going.

Ragnar Lifthrasir: We had our best two months! Actually, that's why we kind of had to pause the podcast because we've just been overwhelmed with work. Obviously, we've made these face masks, and it was our best couple of months, so there's that and then we saw a lot of people buying our scorpion cases, which holds a gun or Bitcoin wallet or just electronics. So we actually record sold, we're just about sold out of those and it's never been better. I love earning Bitcoin!

Peter McCormack: Well, listen, look, I appreciate you coming on, I agree with you, I do. I can't argue with you, and if it means I get some shit as well, I'll take it on the chin. I hodl Bitcoin, but I'm not afraid to spend it and I think we should support use cases, and if not, it doesn't make sense that we support BTCPay Server and Lightning network.

That's a weird kind of contradiction that's going on. Look, I completely support you, Ragnar, and I'm glad you're here and hopefully, we'll see each other again soon and get to go and shoot. Before we close out, tell people where they can follow you and find out more about what you're doing.

Ragnar Lifthrasir: Just gunsnbitcoin.com and then I'm on Twitter @Ragnarly. But I do want to say thanks for having me on, and just thanks in general for being someone who is open-minded and has all sorts of crazy guests like me because that's how we expand the conversation. Thanks for putting yourself out there and making some claims that I think are smart, and some less-informed because, either way, you are thinking.

You are thinking, whether people agree, you are actually thinking and I have disagreed with you on stuff, but I can see that you are thinking, even if I don't agree with it. So thanks for doing that, and I wish we had more people, even if people don't like it, keep doing it.

Peter McCormack: What is it someone said? A man who can't change his mind can't change anything. Look, I completely had a 180 with regards to guns, it started after another mass shooting in the US and it started with me putting out tweets saying, "How do you now see what the rest of the world is seeing? This is madness, blah, blah, blah." I came out, I've spoken to you, I've spoken to other people, I've learnt more, I went out to Wyoming, spent some time with Tyler Lindholm and I understand more about it now, and my view has changed.

I still don't think a guy needs to walk down the street with a rocket launcher or drive a tank, but baby steps. But I have a fundamental different view, I'm not scared of guns anymore in the way I used to be. I don't think the problem is guns, I think the problem is mental health, and some of the constructs that we have in society. I still don't want guns open in the UK just yet though.

I'm in a weird position, but I've definitely changed and that's just by being open-minded, and I think we should all do it a bit more. So, I appreciate you recognizing that. Well, listen, thanks for coming on. Stay safe, stay healthy and like I said, as soon as those planes are running again I'll be back out to California, and we will fit a trip in and we'll go and shoot some guns.

Ragnar Lifthrasir: Absolutely! Well thanks for having me on, and I'll see you at the gun range!

Peter McCormack: All right, my man, take care!